Does firaxis know what they're doing?

[Lord Merciless]

Jeanne saved France. In the four centuries following her death, France was Europe's bully boy and bad buy. So she was kind qualified as the French leader.

[Fighter]

Joan can be explained, however not the best choice by far. The absolute best choice would have been Napoleon, by far.

Joan was also not a ruler, effectively just a general. Not to mention the fact that she was totaly sold out by the French King.

[Ribannah]

Hm. I would always pick Charlemagne as the leader of France. He did a lot of good for the country. Bonaparte was little more than a general, just like Jeanne, only with more power.

[Fighter]

Napoleon little more than a general?

Try the self crowned emperor of France weilding the power of half of europe.

[Ribannah]

The key word is "wielding".
IMHO good leaders of nations are those who also concern themselves with other aspects of the realm than conquest, the best don't need it at all.

[Lord Merciless]

I see the only argument against Napoleon is that he got busted at Waterloo. History is tough on losers.

Today, Napoleon's real impact lies in that he spread the ideal of French revolution across Europe(which ultimately backfired against the French Imperialism), and founded the legal and administrative framework of modern France.

Charlemagne should not be considered French only because he was also the founder of Germany. When his empire dissolved after his death, the western part became France, the eastern part Germany.

[DarkCloud]

French-This is also ridiculous. WTF did they have her be a leader when she never lead the country. It should DEFINITELY be Napoleon. If not him, maybe Charles de Gaulle

It's because they needed some women. They could have easily solved this problem by creating one male and one female leader

Egyptians should have Seti I or someone such as him (I can't remember exact names) He expanded egypt, etc. Cleopatra was the last queen of egypt and she was under Rome's influence... Just how much good did she do?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Hm. I would always pick Charlemagne as the leader of France. He did a lot of good for the country. Bonaparte was little more than a general, just like Jeanne, only with more power.

I disagree, Napoleon was good at EVERYTHING. He was an excellent general, an excellent diplomat, and excellent statesman. He built the Republic, he wrote the Napoleonic Code, he took a Revolutionary government that was failing and made it succeed.

For some reason, the general populace only knows about General Napoleon and never takes the time to discover there was more than just conquest.

[DarkCloud]

-Napoloeon was also a great purveyor of art, he stole hundreds of works from Italian villas, etc.

-Although, I think he left Venice alone because they surrendered without a fight

Charlemagne or Napoleon :hmm: one was the first Holy Roman Emperor... The other marched to Moscow and held the world in his hand.

I think that Napoleon wins, but only because he's more recent.

[Naresuan]

If not Gandhi, the Emperor Ashoka who promoted the Buddhist religion throughout and beyond his kingdom would be my nomination for India.

[Whoseyourbishop]

I only agree with about half of the leaders.

America - Why choose Abe???? Definitley should have been FDR.

Aztecs - Perfect choice. Not many people have ever heard of any other Aztec ruler.

Babylon - He works.

China - Ummmm. Well, he sure sucked as a ruler but they needed rulers for the modern time period so he works because people should at least recognize the name.

Egypt - Wrong choice. It should have been Ramses II without a doubt. If they chose Cleo just for the female ruler why didn't they choose Queen Hatshepsut???????

England - This choice is fine. Churchill wouldn't have been a good choice.

France - They should have quit with the female rulers while they were ahead. What were they thinking? Definitly should have been Napolean or Louis XIV.

Germany - Bismarck is a good choice because its not like he didn't do anything. A reason that they didn't choose Hitler is because they didn't want to step on any toes.

Greece - Not really any other choice (even though he wasn't really Greek).

India - Ummm. Once again a good choice for a modern leader but wouldn't have been my choice.

Iroqoius - No comment.

Japan - He works.

Persia - Not really sure he was the right choice but whatever.

Rome - Hit the nail on the head with that one. Not really any other choice.

Russia - She is fine for a female leader but probably should have been Peter the Great.

Zulu - Don't even get me started. This Civ shouldn't have even been put in to begin with. The Spanish shouldn't have gotten back burner this civ.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by redstar1
This my freind is half the problem. The US education system doesn't really focus on world history/events, moreover when they don't concern the US itself. This is fair enough but it does lead to the sort of situation where you don't know who Mao Tse Tung is, have never heard of the Zulus and as far as you were concerned all Germany have ever done is lose 2 world wars, and only cos you turned up late for both of em
. . .

The U.S. public education system is a joke, believe me.

Just look at the number of people who think so many ridiculous NON-historical aspects of Civ 3 are cool and accurate.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Coracle


The U.S. public education system is a joke, believe me.

Just look at the number of people who think so many ridiculous NON-historical aspects of Civ 3 are cool and accurate.

King of Rasslin?

[Whoseyourbishop]

I would have to agree with the people who say the US education system sucks. It does. I know that the history of your country is important and should be taught but after 5 years of US history being the only history taught in the schools I've gone to it became very VERY boring. The only way I was able to learn about world history was on my own and by taking one of the three electives that they have for that subject at my school. Pathetic.

While I have to admit that one of the reasons I don't like the Zulus is because I knew next to nothing about them (Africa is probably the most neglected continent in my school system with the exception of a little focus on Egypt). But the Zulu team itself was absolutely awful when I played as them.

[Fighter]

If you want to learn about the Zulu's, rent the movie, Zulu. Good movie, lots of gun shots, lots of screaming and fighting.

You dont learn too much, although the movie is cool.