|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 10, 2016 1:25:34 GMT
Must keep this thread alive!!!
What do you guys think about Albert I, Luigi Cadorna, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Ho Chi Minh?
Albert I: A patriot, fought with his troops against the Germans in the last corner of Belgium in WWI. I believe he was a great monarch.
Luigi Cadorna: An absolute moron, didn't listen to advice that the Austro-Hungarians were going to launch a large scale offensive in 1916 despite numerous warnings that they were, and repeatedly relied on Italian patriotism and nationalism to win battles despite the divided nature of Italy and the weakness of the Italian military. It was good that he was scrapped following Caporetto.
Chiang Kai-Shek: A U.S ally, but way too totalitarian. If he was more democratic, then I would definitely support him.
Ho Chi Minh: An anti-Imperialist who wished to gain independence for his country, which I admire. I dont like how his government treated U.S POW's, but then again, how would you expect them to treat us when we were dropping napalm on all of their land? His communist views aren't supported by me personally, but the fact that he was an independence fighter and was able to win two wars against the USA and China earns respect for him in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Der Kaiserreich on Aug 10, 2016 1:40:04 GMT
Must keep this thread alive!!! What do you guys think about Albert I, Luigi Cadorna, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Ho Chi Minh? Albert I: A patriot, fought with his troops against the Germans in the last corner of Belgium in WWI. I believe he was a great monarch. Luigi Cadorna: An absolute moron, didn't listen to advice that the Austro-Hungarians were going to launch a large scale offensive in 1916 despite numerous warnings that they were, and repeatedly relied on Italian patriotism and nationalism to win battles despite the divided nature of Italy and the weakness of the Italian military. It was good that he was scrapped following Caporetto. Chiang Kai-Shek: A U.S ally, but way too totalitarian. If he was more democratic, then I would definitely support him. Ho Chi Minh: An anti-Imperialist who wished to gain independence for his country, which I admire. I dont like how his government treated U.S POW's, but then again, how would you expect them to treat us when we were dropping napalm on all of their land? His communist views aren't supported by me personally, but the fact that he was an independence fighter and was able to win two wars against the USA and China earns respect for him in my book. Albert I's cool. I don't know about the others, and Ho Chi Minh is good. Communism isn't bad in my eyes, it's the government. And I agree with the "badly treated U.S. P.O.W.s" and "dropping napalm all over their land part". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 1:59:10 GMT
What about Napoleon Final Battle of Waterloo how his empire fell
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 10, 2016 2:18:04 GMT
Must keep this thread alive!!! What do you guys think about Albert I, Luigi Cadorna, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Ho Chi Minh? Albert I: A patriot, fought with his troops against the Germans in the last corner of Belgium in WWI. I believe he was a great monarch. Luigi Cadorna: An absolute moron, didn't listen to advice that the Austro-Hungarians were going to launch a large scale offensive in 1916 despite numerous warnings that they were, and repeatedly relied on Italian patriotism and nationalism to win battles despite the divided nature of Italy and the weakness of the Italian military. It was good that he was scrapped following Caporetto. Chiang Kai-Shek: A U.S ally, but way too totalitarian. If he was more democratic, then I would definitely support him. Ho Chi Minh: An anti-Imperialist who wished to gain independence for his country, which I admire. I dont like how his government treated U.S POW's, but then again, how would you expect them to treat us when we were dropping napalm on all of their land? His communist views aren't supported by me personally, but the fact that he was an independence fighter and was able to win two wars against the USA and China earns respect for him in my book. I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Washington on Aug 10, 2016 9:32:36 GMT
Must keep this thread alive!!! What do you guys think about Albert I, Luigi Cadorna, Chiang Kai-Shek, and Ho Chi Minh? Albert I: A patriot, fought with his troops against the Germans in the last corner of Belgium in WWI. I believe he was a great monarch. Luigi Cadorna: An absolute moron, didn't listen to advice that the Austro-Hungarians were going to launch a large scale offensive in 1916 despite numerous warnings that they were, and repeatedly relied on Italian patriotism and nationalism to win battles despite the divided nature of Italy and the weakness of the Italian military. It was good that he was scrapped following Caporetto. Chiang Kai-Shek: A U.S ally, but way too totalitarian. If he was more democratic, then I would definitely support him. Ho Chi Minh: An anti-Imperialist who wished to gain independence for his country, which I admire. I dont like how his government treated U.S POW's, but then again, how would you expect them to treat us when we were dropping napalm on all of their land? His communist views aren't supported by me personally, but the fact that he was an independence fighter and was able to win two wars against the USA and China earns respect for him in my book. I agree with you. You have been saying that a lot |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 10, 2016 9:36:29 GMT
What about Napoleon Final Battle of Waterloo how his empire fell Napoleon was feom zero to hero back to zero again to.hero.and forever to zero |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 10, 2016 12:42:35 GMT
Wich Poland was shown in the EW4 Conquests And etc is it the Grand Dutch of Warsaw?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 10, 2016 12:47:44 GMT
Wich Poland was shown in the EW4 Conquests And etc is it the Grand Dutch of Warsaw? Im not the best at Polish History, but from what I know of it, it was originally Poland-Lithuania in 1798, but it was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Prussia afterward. Poland-Lithuania is its own independent state. In 1809 (I believe its 1809), Poland shows up again, but this time it would be the Grand Duchy of Warsaw established by Napoleon. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw is similar to the Batavian Republic or the Confederation of the Rhine in that it was basically a vassal of France, but I dont believe Napoleon placed a relative on the Polish throne. The 1775 conquest with Poland in it is inaccurate, Poland never had a colony in America and there weren't even a substantial amount of Poles in the U.S until the mid 19th century when Polish immigration from Russia, Austria and Prussia really skyrocketed. |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 10, 2016 12:52:44 GMT
Wich Poland was shown in the EW4 Conquests And etc is it the Grand Dutch of Warsaw? Im not the best at Polish History, but from what I know of it, it was originally Poland-Lithuania in 1798, but it was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Prussia afterward. Poland-Lithuania is its own independent state. In 1809 (I believe its 1809), Poland shows up again, but this time it would be the Grand Duchy of Warsaw established by Napoleon. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw is similar to the Batavian Republic or the Confederation of the Rhine in that it was basically a vassal of France, but I dont believe Napoleon placed a relative on the Polish throne. The 1775 conquest with Poland in it is inaccurate, Poland never had a colony in America and there weren't even a substantial amount of Poles in the U.S until the mid 19th century when Polish immigration from Russia, Austria and Prussia really skyrocketed. I know about Poland-Lithuania but I didnt think that was Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth but Thanks btw It would be weird if Poland had a Colony and They were the part of The Imperial Eagle so the British stopped the Imperial Eagle navy and Stopped imports exports and etc |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Aug 10, 2016 12:57:42 GMT
Wich Poland was shown in the EW4 Conquests And etc is it the Grand Dutch of Warsaw? Im not the best at Polish History, but from what I know of it, it was originally Poland-Lithuania in 1798, but it was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Prussia afterward. Poland-Lithuania is its own independent state. In 1809 (I believe its 1809), Poland shows up again, but this time it would be the Grand Duchy of Warsaw established by Napoleon. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw is similar to the Batavian Republic or the Confederation of the Rhine in that it was basically a vassal of France, but I dont believe Napoleon placed a relative on the Polish throne. The 1775 conquest with Poland in it is inaccurate, Poland never had a colony in America and there weren't even a substantial amount of Poles in the U.S until the mid 19th century when Polish immigration from Russia, Austria and Prussia really skyrocketed. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned for the third and last time in 1795, so they should not even exist. You are right about the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. Its Grand Duke was August I of Saxony, continuing the tradition beforehand. 1775 Poland would probably be based by Kosciusko's aid to the Continental Army, but it shouldn't be that powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 14:11:12 GMT
Wich Poland was shown in the EW4 Conquests And etc is it the Grand Dutch of Warsaw? Im not the best at Polish History, but from what I know of it, it was originally Poland-Lithuania in 1798, but it was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Prussia afterward. Poland-Lithuania is its own independent state. In 1809 (I believe its 1809), Poland shows up again, but this time it would be the Grand Duchy of Warsaw established by Napoleon. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw is similar to the Batavian Republic or the Confederation of the Rhine in that it was basically a vassal of France, but I dont believe Napoleon placed a relative on the Polish throne. The 1775 conquest with Poland in it is inaccurate, Poland never had a colony in America and there weren't even a substantial amount of Poles in the U.S until the mid 19th century when Polish immigration from Russia, Austria and Prussia really skyrocketed. They were used to refer to other eastern European country colonies and they were buffed |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 10, 2016 14:22:12 GMT
Im not the best at Polish History, but from what I know of it, it was originally Poland-Lithuania in 1798, but it was partitioned by Russia, Austria and Prussia afterward. Poland-Lithuania is its own independent state. In 1809 (I believe its 1809), Poland shows up again, but this time it would be the Grand Duchy of Warsaw established by Napoleon. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw is similar to the Batavian Republic or the Confederation of the Rhine in that it was basically a vassal of France, but I dont believe Napoleon placed a relative on the Polish throne. The 1775 conquest with Poland in it is inaccurate, Poland never had a colony in America and there weren't even a substantial amount of Poles in the U.S until the mid 19th century when Polish immigration from Russia, Austria and Prussia really skyrocketed. They were used to refer to other eastern European country colonies and they were buffed The Eastern Europeans barely had colonies, maybe a few ports or islands. The only three European powers that should be there are France, Spain and Britain. |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 10, 2016 14:27:54 GMT
They were used to refer to other eastern European country colonies and they were buffed The Eastern Europeans barely had colonies, maybe a few ports or islands. The only three European powers that should be there are France, Spain and Britain. Curland. It cannot be kurland, no? also, seriously, Ivan Kolev ?YOu are changing again? |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 10, 2016 14:30:21 GMT
The Eastern Europeans barely had colonies, maybe a few ports or islands. The only three European powers that should be there are France, Spain and Britain. Curland. It cannot be kurland, no? also, seriously, Ivan Kolev ?YOu are changing again? 1. They did have some colonies, but not to the extent that it is shown in EW4 2. Lmfao, Im changing for a little bit because Nenonen is a legend. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 14:30:30 GMT
The Eastern Europeans barely had colonies, maybe a few ports or islands. The only three European powers that should be there are France, Spain and Britain. Curland. It cannot be kurland, no? also, seriously, Ivan Kolev ?YOu are changing again? Not at Napoleons time... |
|
