Inappropriate Leaders

[Kekkonen]

Historical question: how many non-Anglo (background other than UK/Irish) presidents has the US had? Based on names, I can't think of anyone but Van Buren, but names can be deceptive (former vice-prez Mondale was Norwegian, original family name was Mundahl or something like that).

[History Guy]

I'd also like to add to the list of bad leaders for the English-- Richard II and Richard III. As for Clinton, he was certainly America's worst president, Jason. You didn't have to live under him. Grant was certainly not the greatest leader of the Civil War. As a specialist in that field, I must suggest that Stonewall Jackson was the best tactical commander in the war, and if you want good Northern leaders, there's plenty others (though I also must exclude Sherman, who was not a great field commander but an excellent campaigner, if very brutish). Grant's tactic for winning battles remained the same throughout the war. Charge in your men headfirst, lose huge numbers of them, and then sidestep the Confederates. His first battle, Belmont, Nov. 7th, 1861, was a disaster, and his troops were totally routed and he himself was nearly killed or caught. Though he fought well at Fort Donelson, he only won that battle because the fort was undermanned, he was nearly defeated by an attempt to break the siege. His army was completely surprised at Shiloh, April 6th, 1862, and was routed. It was only the timely arrival of Don Carlos Buell's army that saved him. In the successful campaign of Vicksburg, he launched three large scale assaults on the city, all of which ended in slaughter for his side. In the end, Vicksburg was starved into surrender. Nov. 1863, Chattanooga. Grant's attack on Missionary Ridge barely made it. And of course, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, and Cold Harbor were all bloodbaths for his army. He won by manuever more than by battlefield success.

[Fresno]

Although I agree Hitler is the worst leader the Germans ever had, I just want to mention another candidate: Louis II of Bavaria.

He was king of Bavaria in 1864 till 1886. His people first saw him as a talented and liberal ruler. After a while, he turned out to be an eccentric man who lived very much to himself. He disgusted politics and was an admirer of Richard Wagner.

Now the problematic part. Due to his romantic nature, he dreamed of being the ruler of a medieval kingdom. Therefore, he built numerous fairy-like castles (the most famous of them is the castle of Neuschwanstein). This hobby became so expensive it eventually ruined the Bavarian treasury. Bismarck made use of the Bavarian depths by forcing Louis to join Prussia in a war against France.

In June 1886 Louis' uncle took power as a regent. The king, who was totally crazy by now, was locked up in one of his own castles. He drowned trying to escape.

[Jason]

As a bit of a specialist in the field, I reassert that Grant was better. If we're going to bring up Shiloh, where Grant (and everyone else) was caught napping, you'd best explain how the Confederate favourites, Lee and Jackson, performed so miserably in the Seven Days Battles. Of course they WON, but that was entirely McClellan's achievement

The fact that Grant won his battles by maneuver is precisely the point. The attempted assaults on Vicksburg were an irrelevant side-note to the actual campaign for Vicksburg, one of maneuver that Grant won. (Granted, the Confederates could have handled the situation better, but as it was Grant mastered them handily.)

Fort Henry and Donelson are pretty minor stuff in terms of generalship. I seem to recall that his near failure at the later was in some respects the fault of his ambitious political subordinate. Hard to say how close the rebels were to breaking out, but Grant recovered the situation.

One can reproach Grant for not entrenching at Shiloh, just as one can reproach Tallard for not entrenching at Blenheim. Every now and again you get a fight where "The enemy wasn't supposed to be doing the attacking!" Painting it as a rescue by Buell is questionable. One has to consider Lew Wallace's blame in the battle, and it is hard to say how the battle would have been finished if Buell's arrival had been more tardy.

But how can you accuse him (accuse him? Compliment him) by calling him a manuever general and then say his strategy was to throw men into the grinder then maneuver? It's quite the opposite. At each of the little bloodbaths from Wilderness to the James, Grant was trying to find and turn the Confederate flank. All you can say is that he should have knocked off each battle sooner, which is great when you have hindsight. How many victories start out bloodily? The fact is, he just kept on flanking the Rebels until they ran out of flank to refuse, at Richmond, and there's the war gone. No other Union general seemed to have the basic sense to engage along a large front and just keep flanking.

I don't see any other civil war generals with operational level skill like Grant; it was just his ill-fortune to misjudge the end of the confederate right in what was, ultimately, a winning strategy. The crossing of the James on a giant bridge, I mean, come on. That's art. A little more speed and a little less Beauregard and that could've really been something.

As for missionary ridge, by the way, most people credit it as one of Grant's victories, but I actually sort of "deduct" that from his scorecard as subordinates' work. There wasn't a lot of him involved there. so, *shrug*

I'm close enough to observe American politics. In a few decades Clinton'll be just another bland presidency with some odd footnotes. Modern politics has a way of making mountains out of molehills.

Simple reason I know I'm right; the only people that will care in a few decades are historians at universities, which of course tend to have the politics somewhere left of a cambodian rice commune. Trust me on this Always plenty of people ready to lynch poor ol' Kissinger, but Carter? Nawwww. No matter how many times he tries to reappear.

Personally I like Clinton. I despised him and was a fanatical republican for Bush Sr. and Dole, and then Clinton started getting some really, really distasteful political enemies, and I disassociated myself from American political affiliations. I just close my eyes and try not to think of James Carville. Mos moral manin Amurka. Not to be confused with Bush Jrs. Amurka.

Ahhhh.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by History Guy
OK, Molly, but let's face it, she saved Spain. Without Isabella there would be no Spain today (at least not in any recognizable form). She was the one who drove out the Islamic armies and crushed their navy at Lepanto. Philip II was a good king, but he made as many bad choices as good choices.

Ummm....only the Emirate of Granada was left at the time of the reigns of Ferdinand and Isabella, and its inhabitants had been around for a long time, they were not invaders. The point to Isabella was of course that racially and in terms of their faith, they were different, and in her zeal to make of the peninsula a unity, she ignored the potential damage to the kingdoms' future economies. She may have been prompted in her zeal by the knowledge of the Jewish ancestry of her husband (descended from Juana Enriquez,a converso) and simple anti-semitism; she instituted the Holy Inquisition under the other famous converso, Torquemada. None so bad as converts when it comes to applying a faith zealously. She was also long dead and in the grave by the time of Lepanto:

'Lepanto, naval battle between the Christians and Ottomans fought at the mouth of the Gulf of Patras, off Lepanto, Greece. The fleet of the Holy League commanded by John of Austria (d. 1578) opposed the Ottoman fleet under Uluç Ali Pasha. The allied fleet (about 200 galleys, not counting smaller ships) consisted mainly of Spanish, Venetian, and papal ships and of vessels sent by a number of Italian states. It carried approximately 30,000 fighting men and was about evenly matched with the Ottoman fleet. The battle ended with the virtual destruction of the Ottoman navy (except 40 galleys, with which Uluç Ali escaped). Approximately 15,000 Turks were slain or captured, some 10,000 Christian galley slaves were liberated, and much booty was taken. The victors, however, lost over 7,000 men. Among the allied wounded was Cervantes, who lost the use of his left arm. Lepanto was the first major Ottoman defeat by the Christian powers, and it ended the myth of Ottoman naval invincibility. It did not, however, affect Ottoman supremacy on the land, and a new Turkish fleet was speedily built by Sokollu, grand vizier of Selim II. Nevertheless, the battle was decisive in the sense that an Ottoman victory probably would have made the Ottoman Empire supreme in the Mediterranean.'

Isabella's reign: 1451-1504

Lepanto, Battle of, Oct. 7th , 1571

[Wulfram]

I still don't like England being in Civ3 but no one can compare with Henry VI, he lost both France and England. Edward I wasn't a nice guy, but he was very competent. Edward II was a complete incompetent who managed to lose even though he outnumbered the Scots and had Longbowmen which, with any competent commander, should lead to an easy victory against any army of the time, and would be a good candidate for worst King in any company but Henry VI and Charles I.

[History Guy]

Finally, Wulfram, we find something to agree on...not keeping England out of the game of course, but that Edward I was competent, his son wasn't, and that Henry VI wasn't either. May I also suggest Richard II and Richard III?

[d_dudy]

Originally posted by Oerdin


But... isn't that what the Irish are for? :-)


(Joking)

it would seem that way, for the english


[whiny english off topic troll] they're all terrorists![/whiny english off topic troll]

would what happened to those people for so many hundreds of years be considered terrorism? just a thought

[History Guy]

Come to think of it, all three Richards were pretty bad. Richard I, Coeur de Leon, Richard II and III.

[Jason]

I take it I've converted you to the One True Faith of U.S. Grant worship?

[History Guy]

No, Jason, I'm a content Lee/Jackson/Barksdale/Cooper/Hancock/Ward/Richardson/Sigel/ guy.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by History Guy
Come to think of it, all three Richards were pretty bad. Richard I, Coeur de Leon, Richard II and III.

Now, History Guy, whilst I would wholeheartedly agree with you concerning the lack of kingly/administrative abilities of both Lionheart and Richard II, I take a slightly different approach to Richard III. I love the play by Shakespeare, and both the filmed versions by Olivier and especially the modern updating by Ian McKellen; but the thing that always gave me pause with the character of Richard, was the problem of his being the predecessor to the reign of five Tudor monarchs, who were the successors of his opponents, the Lancastrians. Look at it another way; both Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare were propagandists in their differing ways, for the Tudor cause. Shakespeare had to earn a living, so his portrayal of Henry VIII, for instance, in his play of the same name, bears little resemblance to the facts we know about the king. Also, he was writing at a time of great uncertainty, socially and politically, so bolstering the image of Elizabeth I's grandfather's claim to the throne reflected well on himself and on her, acting to legitimize the sovereignty of someone whose claims were assailed not only by Mary Queen of Scots, but also by other surviving cousins. Sir Thomas More, before his split with Henry, was not only a chancellor but also a friend, and again must have known which side his bread was buttered. The main source of information for Shakespeare's play is Sir Thomas More's account of Richard's life, so it would be rather like an imaginary Goebbel's 'Life of Stalin' as filmed by Leni Riefenstahl...not exactly an objective view.

Josephine Tey has written a fascinating non-academic Ricardian book, 'The Daughter of Time',

dannyreviews.com/h/The_Princes_in_the_Tower.html

dealing with the controversy, and check out the Richard III society at:

https://www.richardiii.net/

and also: www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2918

and: www.cgocable.net/~tbryce

for further debate. Intriguingly enough, the monastic chroniclers didn't share the harsh views of his later critics, and contemporaries do not mention any physical deformities. I suspect that the physical aspect of the later portrayal of Richard was meant to act in people's minds as a metaphor for the hidden true nature of his psyche.

[GePap]

Enough with the P.C.

Let me say it right out- being a murderous, bloodthirsty person does not make one a terrible nor even innapprotpriate leader. Look at all the 'greats' out there: How many of them were nice, easy-going guys? Charles?Peter?Frederick?Catherine?Alexander? None. they all begun programs that did much harm to many people. So why are they labelled 'great'? Because they extended the reach and power of their respective states and are thus remembered fondly by the people (but not the neighbors). Ceaser is the most appropriate leader for the Romans there is: Heck, they labelled their leaders after that with his name! The Romans were a violent, aggressive, industrious people and a leader that was all of those is the perfect fit. If you want to get a list of the worst leader for each civ, well heres a suggestion: gather a few members of that civ, or experts on it if it no longer exists, and ask them how they (members or experts) would rate thier own leaders. After this, place the bottom guy in the mod, problem solved!

[davwhitt]

The primary reason for this thread is the belief that including inappropriate leaders would enhance gameplay. Based on this reason, I think the leaders we should consider should be chosen more for their ability to make gameplay fun and interesting rather than their historical accuracy. Yes Hitler was Austrian but he is a far more interesting choice than Frederick the Great or Hindenberg. Alexander the Great wasn't even Greek - he was Macedonian - and Friaxis included him in this game and previous games. Grant may have been a worse president than Nixon but Nixon had a more memorable personality. Here are my choices (note some are not "inappropriate" but rather just different from the originals chosen by Friaxis)...

Germans: Hitler
Russians: Stalin
English: Henry VIII
French: Napoleon
Zulus: Dingiswayo ?
Aztecs: Cuauhtémoc
Japanese: Tojo
Romans: Caligula
Greeks: Theseus
Chinese: Chang Kai-Shek
Americans: Nixon
Egyptians: Ramses
Persians: Cyrus the Great
Babylonians: Nebuchadnezzar
Indians: Ashoka
Iroquois: Tachnechdorus ?

[Jason]

Sigel?

I must admit, I've not studied him in any detail, but isn't he one of the more dismissed political generals?

Jackson/Lee, *sigh*. If Lee had had the operational sense of manuever that Grant had (which you seemed to think was a bad thing) there might be a Confederacy today.

The problem is all these damned overzealous Clausewitzeans so eager to prove that outdated 18th century ideas of manuever needed overturning... That armies and not geography should dictate the direction of campaign... Obsolete military history, IMO.

Now, I know it is going in the other direction, and a little dated now, but one of the advocates of indirect manuever, Fuller I believe, wrote a book called "Grant and Lee, a study in personality and generalship" that argues some of what I did.

Liddell Hart and other "Maneuver" men likewise line up behind Grant and tend to deflate Lee's legend.

I mean really, instead of looking at the miracles Lee pulled off with luck, good soldiers and tactical sense, and consider what he could have done with a mind that extended beyond the Virginia theatre, or had a better sense of civil-military relations.

(Granted, Lee had a more difficult General to work with.)

Anyway, interesting topic, sorry to get off the thread a little.