Napoleon - Page 4

Jon Shafer · May 2, 2002, 17:59

As far as Napoleon VS Joan, I must put all things behind Napoleon. Akka le Vil said it very well, so I won't be redundant.

As far as Hitler being the leader, he was fairly influential in Germany for a period of time, however I do feel that Bismarck was a better choice. He managed to unite the thousands of small German states into one country, and brought Germany to its highest position of power (unless you count the time during WWII, but that was simply a burst of power at one point, while Bismarck managed to put Germany in a solid position as the strongest power in Europe for many decades while remaining in a very stable position without being at war).

Just my 2 cents.

nato · May 2, 2002, 19:41

I agree with Trip. Bismark is a better choice than Hitler even if you do NOT consider Hitler's evil.

Bismark is a great example of what a Civ player should do, what with his clever maneuvering and diplomatic juggling act.

Hitler is more like a great example of what a Civ player should not do. Diplomatically he was more like Kaiser Wilhelm, making all the wrong moves, at least later on. Its not that he failed (after all, Napoleon ultimately failed also), its that the decisions he started making were outright stupid. Yes, I know I have the benefit of hindsight, but declaring war on the US alone makes him seem dumb to me.

Hitler would not make a bad choice though, considering his entire career; he did well early on ... but I think Bismark is better overall.

And of course you can't not consider the evil, which is why I think Stalin (who is out) and Mao should both be out.

Jon Shafer · May 2, 2002, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Bismark is a great example of what a Civ player should do, what with his clever maneuvering and diplomatic juggling act.

Hitler is more like a great example of what a Civ player should not do. Diplomatically he was more like Kaiser Wilhelm, making all the wrong moves, at least later on. Its not that he failed (after all, Napoleon ultimately failed also), its that the decisions he started making were outright stupid. Yes, I know I have the benefit of hindsight, but declaring war on the US alone makes him seem dumb to me.

Hitler would not make a bad choice though, considering his entire career; he did well early on ... but I think Bismark is better overall.

And of course you can't not consider the evil, which is why I think Stalin (who is out) and Mao should both be out.

Exactly. If there was a better choice as a leader than Napoleon, who participated in more diverse policies and had a great influence upon France, then I would prefer that leader. However, simply put, Napoleon had the longest lasting impact upon France, and really all of Europe, and neither De Gaulle nor Joan d'Arc could compete with him, even if he was a warmonger.

For Russia, I'm not really sure who would have made the best leader. I think Stalin or Lenin might have been the best choice, since after all, Russia's favored type of government is "Communism" for a reason. China... meh, I'm not too well-versed in Chinese history before the 19th century, so I really couldn't say. Chiang Kai Shek might have been another option to consider.

Akka · May 3, 2002, 03:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Exactly. If there was a better choice as a leader than Napoleon, who participated in more diverse policies and had a great influence upon France, then I would prefer that leader. However, simply put, Napoleon had the longest lasting impact upon France, and really all of Europe, and neither De Gaulle nor Joan d'Arc could compete with him, even if he was a warmonger.

Louis XIV, don't forget the famous sun-king

Jon Shafer · May 3, 2002, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Louis XIV, don't forget the famous sun-king

Bahhhh, all he did was build a big house.

Zachriel · May 3, 2002, 12:51

Zachriel is the only leader in Civ3 that should be included. The remainder shall be eliminated as unworthy.

danimal · May 3, 2002, 13:29

Joan was a Saint...of course she belongs as the leader of France. Napoleon was short little flaming boytoy who turned on the men in his army. If Napoleon was not such a big flamer, he would never have motivated his legions of homosexual troops.

The French have never been much of a civilization..they have very little redeeming value except for Joan of Arc. Firaxis...I salute you for picking Joan over the fudge man.

Jon Shafer · May 3, 2002, 14:00

What does being a Saint have anything to do with being the most influential leader of a country?

I would have picked Cardinal Richelieu as leader of France any day of the week before I'd pick Joan of Arc.

jdjdjd · May 8, 2002, 15:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Yes, that's right. Then he betrayed the Republic by setting himself up as a new king and emperor. He should have followed the example of a truly great man, George Washington, who when faced with the opportunity for total power, declined.

Two points, since both men in my mind are admirable in many ways:

Washington was great because he had such tenacity, when others went back to their plantations & farms, he stayed on the battlefield. And, after he was president, he kept order despite the fact that the Jefferson v. Hamilton rift was a brutal, mudslinging, backstabbing melee. I think by the time he finished his second term he was glad to be out of there and rid of his cabinet and all the second guessing and criticism that was dumped on him. He could have been king if he wanted it, and that is another reason he is great.

Napoleon was great because he rid Europe of this notion of divine right and birth right of monarchs, which is one reason why the rest of Europe was set against him, he attacked the very structure of their power. But, the Austrians and Prussians and Russians also feared the fact that Napoleon moved into the small Italian and German States, and made them his own. Placing his own brothers on many of the throwns. He also threatened the British as he moved in Holland and Spain, so wars were started due to Napoleoon's actions, which he probably knew (the guy was a genius), and wanted so that he could then go to war. He was so great a general, probably never thought he would ever lose.

So what am I getting at....

Napoleon was not a Hitler, but he was no an innocent. He had motives that are from his ego, but they resulted in the spread of democracy and many improvements in Europe, that may not have occurred otherwise. And he helped wake France up from its chaos. Washington was great, but he was just a man, and probably didn't have the ego or stomache for politics, which may be really why he chose not to be king.

Well, that said...Napoleon over Joan and George over Abe any day.

Andrew Cory · May 8, 2002, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by jdjdjd
Well, that said...Napoleon over Joan and George over Abe any day.

Two points against George: Since Washington was a millitary man, and Lincolon wasn't, it is possible to have Washington pop up as a great leader, but it would be sill to have Lincolon.

The second one isn't against Washington so much as it is pro-Lincolon: He was one of the first presidents to really _understand_ that America was a nation, whole and complete. To him any state was not as important as all the states. Thus, in addition to his status as the great emancipator, he also was the man who held the nation together. As such he is deserving of leaderhead status.

Of course, this doesn't refect on any other person's inability to be a leaderhead, and I rather wish they had given us the option of choosing...

jdjdjd · May 8, 2002, 15:57

I agree, that was one plus to CTP, you had two to choose from for each civ a male and female...so you had Nap and Joan.

Your point on Abe is a good one, I just like Washington a whole lot, and Lincoln was killed before he had a real chance to do some great work in the way of reuniting the Union and CSA.

On that note, "April 1865", is a great book on Lincoln, his death, and the end of the Civil War.

Now, I really need to do some work.

Andrew Cory · May 8, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by jdjdjd
On that note, "April 1865", is a great book on Lincoln, his death, and the end of the Civil War.

Now, I really need to do some work.

As long as we are quoting books, try the soul of battle. It tries a bit hard with patton, but does make some ecellent points about Sherman and epimond(somthing greek I can never spell).

nato · May 8, 2002, 18:17

I also want to cast my vote for Washington over Lincoln. I love Lincoln, but Washington is the clear choice to me, if I had to pick one great leader. He founded the nation and didn't try to be king. He set lots of precedents for what a president should do. And even though individual states were dominant over the country as a whole, he led during a time of unity rather than one of bitter disunity.

So Washington for me! I did this in Civ2 also.

ASHBERY76 · May 8, 2002, 19:17

Napoleon was a great man, some of guys need to read more books on him and keep away from these biased anglo/american books.

Coracle · May 8, 2002, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by ASHBERY76
Napoleon was a great man, some of guys need to read more books on him and keep away from these biased anglo/american books.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT.

Notice also in all those British books and movies about history they always play down the virulent class warfare in that country. Hypocrites and phonies.

moomin · May 8, 2002, 19:28

Wut, my good man?

You mean to imply that all those marvelous Hornblower books I've read don't give a fair portrait of that lowlife enemy of all mankind and Her Majesty's Government?

To spread such lies! For shame!

Jon Shafer · May 8, 2002, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by ASHBERY76
Napoleon was a great man, some of guys need to read more books on him and keep away from these biased anglo/american books.

From what I could tell... most people supported the decision to use Napoleon instead of Joan anyways.

Andrew Cory · May 8, 2002, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by ASHBERY76
Napoleon was a great man, some of guys need to read more books on him and keep away from these biased anglo/american books.

To be fair, America supported Napoleon, giving him lots of money (to purchas france's claim to the Loisiana territory), etc...

In fact, I don't know that he is mentioned unfavorably in our history texts. The English at that time are, however. Keep in mind that America went to war with England about then (note to canucks: I am sorry that our history texts don't mention you in the war of 1812, I know that your books point to the war as an Canadian/American war, but I can't change what our books say right now...)

Jon Shafer · May 8, 2002, 21:34

Bah, the War of 1812 was a big American push to York (Ottawa) which failed, then an Anglo-Canadian push towards the Great Lakes, which failed. After that there was basically nothing but British raids of the Atlantic coast occured... well, besides the battle of New Orleans, where the British lost 50 times as many casualties as the Americans.

asleepathewheel · May 8, 2002, 21:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

To be fair, America supported Napoleon, giving him lots of money (to purchas france's claim to the Loisiana territory), etc...

In fact, I don't know that he is mentioned unfavorably in our history texts. The English at that time are, however. Keep in mind that America went to war with England about then (note to canucks: I am sorry that our history texts don't mention you in the war of 1812, I know that your books point to the war as an Canadian/American war, but I can't change what our books say right now...)

I would like to add in the text books how the Kanucks burned the white house, that's how it went, wasn't it?

I dont' remember Napolean being unfavorably treated in my textbooks either. Just that he was a bit bloodthirsty, which isn't a bad thing.

Andrew Cory · May 8, 2002, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

I would like to add in the text books how the Kanucks burned the white house, that's how it went, wasn't it?

I dont' remember Napolean being unfavorably treated in my textbooks either. Just that he was a bit bloodthirsty, which isn't a bad thing.

The burning of the white house is mentioned in history texts, but as being carried out by the _brittish_.

The really scary thing was when I was flipping through a citezenship test prep book, and one of the questions was "Which war was Washington DC burned durring?" I almost cried...

asleepathewheel · May 8, 2002, 21:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

The burning of the white house is mentioned in history texts, but as being carried out by the _brittish_.

I was aware of that. I was referring to this thread where it was claimed the canadians burned it. I knew otherwise. C'mon I did, really.

Jon Shafer · May 8, 2002, 21:50

Meh, Washington was never burned. Only the inside of the White House (which was all stone, so nothing really happened anyways) and the Capitol building was burned (which was promptly put out by a rainstorm). However, York was burned to the ground.

The actual burning of the White House was carried out by a British naval task force led by Vice Admiral George Cockburn.

asleepathewheel · May 8, 2002, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Vice Admiral George Cockburn.

nice name

Jon Shafer · May 8, 2002, 21:58

He's British, what did you expect.

Akka · May 9, 2002, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

To be fair, America supported Napoleon, giving him lots of money (to purchas france's claim to the Loisiana territory), etc...

I don't consider it's "giving lots of money" if it's to PURCHASE a territory.

Andrew Cory · May 9, 2002, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

I was aware of that. I was referring to this thread where it was claimed the canadians burned it. I knew otherwise. C'mon I did, really.

Well, reading that entire thread was certainly an XPerience, and I hope that rabid athalon fans don't attack me for saying so... *grin*

The importaint thing (IMOH) is that the canadians _belive_ that they burned the whitehouse, they _belive_ that _they_ and not the british won the war. The ammusing bit to me is that just about any way you look at it, the Brittish (or Canadians, whatever) _did_ win the war. Save that America achieved all of its war aims...

Jon Shafer · May 9, 2002, 14:00

How did they win?

There were only minor skirmishes, aside from the burning of the White House and York, other than the battle of New Orleans. In that one basically the Americans whipped the British worse than Napoleon ever did.

Andrew Cory · May 9, 2002, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
How did they win?

There were only minor skirmishes, aside from the burning of the White House and York, other than the battle of New Orleans. In that one basically the Americans whipped the British worse than Napoleon ever did.

Well, durring the war, America never won a battle, fought the whole thing on its own territory, didn't come close to London, (whereas the American Capital was burned) etc...

In fact, the only reason America came out so well in the peace treaty was because England (one MP in particular, though I don't remember his name) realized that America was going to be a power one day and decided that it would be better off to have a friend over here rather than an enemy. I'd say that they were proved correct...

Jon Shafer · May 9, 2002, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
Well, durring the war, America never won a battle, fought the whole thing on its own territory, didn't come close to London, (whereas the American Capital was burned) etc...

That's one reason why I don't much like the War of 1812.. there weren't really any battles. Except for New Orleans, of course.

York, the Canadian capital was burned, as well as many skirmishes (I won't call them battles) in Canada. Other than that, the only actions that were fought were due to British landing parties along the Atlantic coast.

Quote:

In fact, the only reason America came out so well in the peace treaty was because England (one MP in particular, though I don't remember his name) realized that America was going to be a power one day and decided that it would be better off to have a friend over here rather than an enemy. I'd say that they were proved correct...

They were just tired of war... Britain had been at war since 1792, and they were anxious to have more ships and men to devote to the campaign in Spain, as well as what led up to Waterloo. I would say the war was pretty even.