Civ Leaders

[Gaius Marius]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yeah, but so is Abe Lincoln...

OK, obvious off-topic troll

Just whistlin' Dixie...

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Wolfshanze
The Kaiser of Germany held a TON more power than Queen Elizabeth II.

The Kaiser still made the FINAL decision on ANYTHING of importance, while Queen Elizabeth II has no power over anything fancier than a tea party.

There is considerable differance from England of today to Imperial Germany of WWI era, and the Kaisers definately ruled and had the final say.

Sorry, but as great as Bismarck was (and indeed, he was a great man), Bismarck still did not have the final word over the Kaiser and indeed did not maintain his job precisely because the Kaiser held more power than Bismarck liked.

You can take all the classes you like, it does not change the fact that the Kaiser, unlike Queen Elizabeth II, held REAL power. The Kaiser was an idiot, and Bismarck was the smarter, but this does not change the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II was Bismarcks BOSS, and had the final say on everything!

Sorry Guys, this has nothing to do with Civ 3

You are correct in theory in some of the things that you say. The Imperial Kaiser did have more power than a modern English Monarch. The Kaiser did have the power to appoint the Chancellor and other Ministers, had to approve legislation, and had the allegiance of the military, but his word was far from being law. "If the chancellor was determined enough, and the ministry unified enough, his orders could be countermanded."(Christopher Clark, Kaiser Wilhelm II: Profiles in Power) He could do nothing without the Reichstag's approval " No legislation was possible without the Reichstag and legislation was an increasing necessity in any modern state." ( Edgar Feuchtwanger, Imperial Germany 1850-1918) Therefore, Kaiser Wilhelm II had to take legislature into consideration before he did anything.

If you are familiar with the "Koller Crises", German ministers under the leadership of Chancellor Hohenloe forced the resignation of interior minister Ernst von Koller over the objections of Wilhelm II, then blocked the consequent selections of ministers until Wilhelm chose a minister who was acceptable to the ministry. When the ministry united, they could limit Wilhelm's power. Wilhelm did want to exercise any power that he could, but he could not introduce proposals directly to parliament. The proposals had to be discussed and approved by the ministry before they could be introduced into the Reichstag for enactment. Wilhelm could not act on his own, and did not really have the power to overrule any act of the Reichstag. In other words "There was and could be no personal rule in the Germany of Wilhelm II: his personality militated against it, as did the constitutional and political realities of the Prusso- German Reich." (Geoff Eley, The View form the Throne: the Personal Rule of Kaiser Wilhelm II ). Furthermore, "The Kaiser was not concerned with what appeared to be mere administration." (Micheal Balfour,The Kaiser and His Times). His 1908 interview with the Daily Telegraph, in which he basically blamed his lied about the German position on the Boer War brought down the Bulow government and discredited the monarchy by showing its inherit weakness. "The interview showed that one of the pillars of the German political system, a strong and popular monarchy, was seriously weakened." (Feuchtwanger). After 1908, the Kaiser basically faded into the background of Germany's politics during the most critical years of the 2nd Reich, the years leading into WW I. Kaiser Wilhelm was the boss in theory and theory only. The Reichstag and the ministry was where the power was located, and the Chancellor was the main power in those realms. For the first twenty years of the second Reich, that Chancellor was Bismarck.

For nearly his entire time as Chancellor of Prussia and Germany, Bismarck's Kaiser was Wilhelm I, not Wilhelm II. Wilhelm I allowed Bismarck nearly total authority, authority which Bismarck used to the fullest extent. Wilhelm I and Bismarck had disputes over courses of action that the Reich should take " The support of Wilhelm I was never automatic, but for 26 years Bismarck won every contest he cared about." ( Fritz Stern Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichroder and the Building of the German Empire) Even though Wilhelm I was Bismarck's "boss" he could not do anything that the Chancellor did not want to do. Legislation may have required the Kaisers' signature, but it also required the Chancellor's. Bismarck was a legend in his own time " Bismarck was so overwhelming a figure, his standing with the public as the Reich founder so monumental, that almost unlimited means of manipulation were open to him." (Feuchtwanger)

It is true that Bismarck was dismissed by Wilhelm II, but the act does not represent the power of the Kaiser. Throughout his term as Chancellor, Bismarck retained power through playing opposing sides off of each other. With the coronation of the young and headstrong Wilhelm II, Bismarck's political enemies found a way to remove Bismarck from power. Bismarck enemies and even "Bismarck own entourage suddenly found an alternative to rally to, to idolize, to ingratiate themselves with." (Stern) They used Wilhelm to remove Bismarck. If Bismarck would have had the supportive colleagues instead of jealous opportunists the ministry would have not allowed Bismarck to be removed, impeding he Kaiser as the ministry did in the Koller Crises.

Bismarck was the ruler of Germany for 26 years. The Kaiser was the head of state, but Bismarck, as the head of Government, was the wielder of power. Any political power that was wielded by the Kaiser was only wielded with consent of the majority of his ministers and the Reichstag, as is demonstrated in cases such as the Koller Crises. The weakness of the Kaiser was illustrated in the reaction of the Daily Telegraph interview. Bismarck's true boss was the prevailing social-political conditions of Industrial Germany, not the personal whims of the Kaiser. If Bismarck retained the loyalty of the other important politicians, he could not have been removed from power. The Kaiser certainly did not have the final say on anything of importance. His ministry could force him into decisions. "Down at the bottom of his heart, the Kaiser knew perfectly well that he himself was not an absolute sovereign. When Germany made up its mind to go in a given direction, he could only stay at the head of affairs by scampering to take the lead in going in that direction." (Balfour). Granted, he did have more power than Elizabeth II has now ( that was a descriptive exaggeration on my part, designed to illustrate a point), but he reigned ( not ruled) during a time when the power and the very idea of a sovereign monarch was waning. He wasn't the boss. He didn't rule. He was a figurehead. Bismarck did rule. Bismarck the most influential man in Imperial Germany. He was the leader. That is why it is justified that he is the leader of the Germans in Civ 3.

[Rasbelin]

Just claryfying some points...

It's true that the same rulers didn't appear in all the previous Civ games, but at least many of them. Apparently some of you doesn't seem know that Joan has already been seen in Civ II as the female leader of the French. Touché! Catherine the Great and Cleopatra were also in Civ II as female leaders. Don't moan! It's also true that Otto von Bismark is an unseen Civ leader. Hiawatha is also a new person, because he replaces Sitting Bull. The rest of the leaders were in Civ or/and in Civ II too.

I hope this made things a bit more clear.

[History Guy]

Well, I agree with your post. It's excellent. I think Abe Lincoln did more to damage our country than to "re-unite" it. Teddy Roosevelt was probably our best president (of course I'm a little biased, considering he's my biggest hero) and he would have done much better. Either Roosevelt or George Washington would be much better. As for ze Russkies, Ivan the Terrible wouldn't have been a good choice, he was a throughly dispicable guy. Worse than Lenin. I prefer Stalin even as bad as he was. Peter the Great might not be such a great choice either, from what I've read he was something of a kooklet.

[nationalist]

Rasbelin, I know that the females that you listed were in Civ 2. However, I think that their male counterparts (Lenin, Louis XIV, Ramsees II, etc.) are better suited to be the leader if you don't have the choice between male and female. If you can have a choice, then Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, and Joan of Arc make good choices for a female leader.

[MustPost]

If Bismark wan't a ruler was Lincoln?
Lincoln could be overruled by a 3/4ths majority.

[Dr. Nick]

The main disappointment for me was finding that the leader for the Japanese was Tokugawa Ieyasu. Ok, so he DID end the Sengoku Wars, so he DID reunify Japan. But it was still an isolationist state with a senile government.

Meiji Mutsuhito ended the shogunate, he insituted a modern Japan and taking the German example modernised Japan from "sixth world hellhole" to "Imperialising regional power" in about 50 years. And his inertia went on into what Japan became after his death in 1912 and possibly into what Japan is today.

He made a modern and defiant state out of Japan that made the history of the XIX and XX century very interesting, much more than Tokugawa did...