Napoleon

[HazieDaVampire]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

"Defenders always start the wars. The guy on the offense just wants to conquor, he dosn't want a war..."
[paraphrasing] -Sethra Lavode

Those damn war law things, the whole reason why Germany has a good economy now is because…
1. England Declared war on Germany
2. England bombed the hell out of the Rehn (The place where Germany made all its tanks and bullets and weapons.

Because England Declared war on Germany and we destroyed the factory’s, we had to pay ‘insurance’ to the German company who lost factory’s and machinery in the bombing, and we didn’t have to pay for the price of the same versions of that factory stuff. We had to buy the newest models!

So that’s just a little into declaring war first for you! Next time they do anything, we aren’t going to declare war then wait for attack, we’ll just sit there with a big gun!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Russian's communist's political party's symbol is a hammer.
Guess than hammers are communists then ?

Guess so Akka le Vil, if hammers can be politically active.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Ethelred
The line you sorta quoted of course.

Sethra is the voice of the pragamatist in most cases. One of the better characters in the series. I just wish Brust could develop better stories outside of it. He is doing a good job of going on after he seemed to have hit a dead end. His two Dumas inspired books just aren't as good but the do give a nice pre-history to the Vlad Taltos stuff.

I wasn't sure. And yes, he does seem to have hit his stride again. Have you read Issola? Good stuff...
I think two of his non-taltos books are well worth reading: The sun, the moon and the stars, and Cowboy Feng's Space bar and grill. The latter feels a bit like Calahans at first, but _man_ does it rock. Hell, I picked up my battle cry from that book...

[Ethelred]

I am not sure if I have read Issola, the darn titles all run together. However I don't see it anywhere around. I may have decided to wait till it comes out in hardback. I think Dragon was the last I read. I re-read them all last after that one came out.

Got the other two but I haven't read them. I have a lot of books I haven't got around to reading.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Ethelred
I am not sure if I have read Issola, the darn titles all run together. However I don't see it anywhere around. I may have decided to wait till it comes out in hardback. I think Dragon was the last I read. I re-read them all last after that one came out.

Got the other two but I haven't read them. I have a lot of books I haven't got around to reading.

Issola came out sometime Q3 last year. I had just started working at a bookstore. *grin* 30% discount sure does rock!

[Coracle]

Originally posted by nato
. . . he found it necesary to start wars all over the place. Maybe some of the wars were not his fault, but when one guy is involved in sooo many, you have to start figuring maybe it has something to do with him! So he is responsible for a lot of wars and all the killing and misery that causes.

So I would say definitely not evil like a Hitler, but guilty of starting a lot of wars.

Napoleon was a progressive force in a reactionary world of corrupt monarchies.

As for "Hitler" references, the British were responsible for the killing of millions in the 1840's by deliberately forcing Opium on the Chinese in the infamous Opium War, and by allowing a million Irish to starve to death. Why did the Irish starve when the potato crop failed? Because English landlords controlled the grain crops in Ireland and exported for their profit grain from that country. So it was the British who were like Hitler.

As for "starting wars", all the various "Coalitions" declared war on France, and they often did so after Britain paid them off. Even in the case of Russia (1812) and Spain (1808) they were violating various trade agreements made with Napoleon. The British were behind it all, and THEY were the war-mongers.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Coracle
As for "starting wars", all the various "Coalitions" declared war on France, and they often did so after Britain paid them off. Even in the case of Russia (1812) and Spain (1808) they were violating various trade agreements made with Napoleon. The British were behind it all, and THEY were the war-mongers.

Well, it's painful for me to deny defences for one of my childhood idol, but I have to contradict you.

Though it's true that UK often paid other countries to go to war against Napoléon, it's not the case.
The Spain war was triggered by the forced abdication of the Spain's king in favor of Napoléon, while Spain has been a loyal ally for some years (many of the ships at Trafalgar were Spanish, fighting with the French).
The campaign of Russia was because Russia violated the continental blocus it has agreed with at the treaty of Tilsit. Though less obvious than in the Spain war, it's still Napoléon who decided to invade.

[Spiffor]

If the Brits were warmongers, I can only agree with them : Napoleon was a danger for the whole balance on the continent. If the Brits weren't able to ally with / manipulate others rivals of France, we would probably have a former wholly French Europe, which would have violently exploded. you'd tell me it has, twice )

[nato]

Napoleon was a progressive force in a reactionary world of corrupt monarchies.

I didn't say it like that, but I did specifically say he modernized and reformed places.

As for "Hitler" references...

Yeah, I said twice that I didn't think Napoleon was like Hitler.

As for "starting wars", all the various "Coalitions" declared war on France, and they often did so after Britain paid them off. Even in the case of Russia (1812) and Spain (1808) they were violating various trade agreements made with Napoleon. The British were behind it all, and THEY were the war-mongers.

All I can say is I still stand by what I said in my earlier posts. I do not think the British were totally innocent either, but it would be crazy to deny that Napoleon was a war monger of the first order.

I think you would be very very lonely arguing that. Like Flat Earth Society lonely.

I like Napoleon. I even used to have a copy of the painting of him at Leipzeig up! But I don't like that he started wars in which lots of people died.

I will admit that other nations, especially Britain, were vying for power too, and that they probably would have fought even without Napoleon. But I don't think there would have been so many wars, so big, so many places, if it weren't for Napoleon's boundless ambition and thirst for conquest.

[The Rook]

Wow,

I posted this just before taking a long weekend, and I didn't expect this kind of a response.

I just want to add; if you guys think Joan is hot, you need to get out more. I'm not really impressed with any of the femmes in game.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by The Rook

I just want to add; if you guys think Joan is hot, you need to get out more. I'm not really impressed with any of the femmes in game.

Joan is hot.
Bald Joan is _really_ hot...
Damn my punk-rock origions anyway...

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

Joan is hot.
Bald Joan is _really_ hot...
Damn my punk-rock origions anyway...

No offense dude, but while she may be hot by computer generated polygon standards, she can't possibly look as good as pretty much all of the attractive REAL women out there.

I seriously don't see what the point was to try and "sex-up" the game. I play to conquer worlds, not to check out women. When I want to check out women, I go through my Ralph magazines (BTW Ralph is a men's lifestyle mag in Australia and New Zealand responsible for showing some of the hottest women you're ever likely to see. OK, OK, I already mentioned this in a previous thread, but I say it again nevertheless.)

But I guess that you can't deny this fundamental fact: Sex sells.

[Akka]

While it's true that the main interest in Civ-like games is to play and not to look the female leaders, I have to admit that I was never be able to betray Lady Deidre in AC. Now, THAT is a hot chick


Ok, I need to go out a little more

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
While it's true that the main interest in Civ-like games is to play and not to look the female leaders, I have to admit that I was never be able to betray Lady Deidre in AC. Now, THAT is a hot chick


Ok, I need to go out a little more

Don't worry. That isn't as bad. I mean, Dierdre may have been hand-drawn by a graphics artist deep within the darkest recesses of the Firaxian dungeon, but she still looks more real than Joan of Arc or Cleo in Civ III.

But still, since she isn't real, she can't substitute for a real woman. I didn't want to betray her either. But that was because she was one of my more powerful allies (since I usually pick Democratic, Green, Knowlege, she, Lal and Zakharov are my "League of Factions" united against the "Axis of Factions" comprised of the Believers, Hive and Morganites. Even if the axis powers sometimes don't get along, I still like to think of it that way)

[The Rook]

I don't think it was to "sex-up" the game. It was to give equal time to females. I am not a chauvanist by any means, but I just don't agree that EVERYTHING needs to be 50/50. Political correctness to the extreme makes me want to puke. Like when they use feminine pronouns, she, her, etc in texts. It's not the use of the pronouns that bugs me. It's the fact that somebody complained about it.
Napoleon deserves to be the leader for France. He had a far greater impact on the world than Jeanne D'Arc. The only reason she is there is to be politically correct. I have no problem with Cleo, Catherine, and Elizabeth, though if Russia's preferred government type is communism, then Lennon would probably be more appropriate. I just don't see how Joan fits into the equation.


By the way, great Napoleon Mod. Any way to put him in a toga and armor for the earlier ages?