They really should have used hitler but the game would get so much hate.. So what? He was a great ruler there is no denying that but media just wouldn't allow it..
@Lusitania4Life He first led it from it's most impoverished state into it's most glorious golden age. Germanys defeat took a war on 4 fronts and all the other world powers. I'd say that's great ruling. You can despise the man, or his policies, but don't try to change history and the truth. Hitler was in his own right a great ruler ("great" meaning "effective," "prominent," "noteable," not necessarily what you would call admirable.)
@Jmw122283 I thought about this much, but came to the conclusion, that generally a leader can only be called a "great ruler", if his politics have more positive effects than negative to the country´s people. So, loosing the war and destroying the country, is "noteable" and "prominent" but really not in a good sense. Hitlers rule wasn´t effective (luckily) and it was simply not great. He did though somehow manage to incite a collectif psychosis and fully take advantage of millions of people...
@Respecheck You do realize this notion contradicts leaders that already exist in the game. Alexanders Empire collapsed after his death and had no lasting effects, if anything detrimental. Napolean had pretty much the same effect. Hitler brought Germany from it's poorest state to a world power and every field innovated under his rule. It required 4 fronts to defeat Germany at this point. There are also credible accounts to suggest Hitlers leadership issues stemmed from mental disorderlateinlife
@Jmw122283 I don't think you can dismiss the effects that the reigns of Alexander's and Napoleon's had far beyond their death just like that.
Germany wasn't the poorest state, at least not before WW1, a war that Germany had, amongst other countries, started as well. Before 1918 Germany was already one of the european strongest powers, economic and military, just lacking of colonies to exploit.
Besides: After WW 2 germany was bombed out. The state it is in now is thanks to US-Anti-Soviet-fears...
@Respecheck Similarly you can't dismiss the innovations in technologies across the board during Hitlers rule. Germany was at it's poorest state following WW1 as Hitler came to power, it was satchelled with war reparations of Billions of dollars for having begun WW1, this combined with it's infrastructure being in ruins. Before 1918 Germany was already one of the strongest world powers true, but no where near as powerful as during WW2. During WW2 Germany was the strongest world power.
@Respecheck actauly Historians say that the German empire was germanies golden age or one of them, the kaisers mainly kaiser wilhelm and chancellor bismarck did a great job runnig the country. Its just that germany came soo late that it lacked the colony trait. Plus the was a very, very strong sense of the pride of being germany because under bismarck and the kaisers germany was fanily united.
@Respecheck US-anti-Soviet-fearers? They turned that country into crap... What did they do in WW2? Join the war when it was clear Allies are going to win?
@OpenGLSecond Was it? Germany pushing deep in to Russia, England contained, Africa almost in the hands of the Axis, Japan owning the Pacific.
How was it clear the allies were going to win? The Russians didnt make a push until 1943-1944 and took Berlin a week before the US did. 1945. The US also single handedly won the Pacific, organizing small British and native forces against the Japanese along with the massive US armies/
@jonah232 Once in the world do not distort history. In some countries, people still think that the Soviet Union fought on the side of Germany and Japan.
Stalin will always be better than Bismark, the cossacks are like early tanks, Aggressive will always be better than Expansive and Bismark simply looks like a friendly old man, unlike Stalin, that looks like a paranoid mass murdering evil dictator
This video is less than useless, and the music is horrendous to boot. WTF man? At least make a tutorial that shows strategies for playing the game or something.
No, he is the best because of his Pickelhaube.
PolishedMonocle 5 months ago
everyone knows its japan and tokugawa
WinterDomeFly 7 months ago
@CaptainCrunch35 10 times 3.
I wish I was 10 again, does that count?
And there isn't a "best civilization and leader.
prelynmax 8 months ago
There isn't a "best" civilization and leader, noob.
That's the kind of crap an 11 year old would say.
prelynmax 1 year ago
Saladin is the best because No ANARCY!
ermanay11 1 year ago
@ermanay11 ashoka has no anarchy too
MrRammsteinKicksAss 1 year ago
They really should have used hitler but the game would get so much hate.. So what? He was a great ruler there is no denying that but media just wouldn't allow it..
MrCanadiaEH 1 year ago
@MrCanadiaEH Hitler wasn't a great ruler, he lead Germany into a crushing defeat
Lusitania4Life 1 year ago
@Lusitania4Life He first led it from it's most impoverished state into it's most glorious golden age. Germanys defeat took a war on 4 fronts and all the other world powers. I'd say that's great ruling. You can despise the man, or his policies, but don't try to change history and the truth. Hitler was in his own right a great ruler ("great" meaning "effective," "prominent," "noteable," not necessarily what you would call admirable.)
Jmw122283 1 year ago
@Jmw122283 I thought about this much, but came to the conclusion, that generally a leader can only be called a "great ruler", if his politics have more positive effects than negative to the country´s people. So, loosing the war and destroying the country, is "noteable" and "prominent" but really not in a good sense. Hitlers rule wasn´t effective (luckily) and it was simply not great. He did though somehow manage to incite a collectif psychosis and fully take advantage of millions of people...
Respecheck 1 year ago
@Respecheck You do realize this notion contradicts leaders that already exist in the game. Alexanders Empire collapsed after his death and had no lasting effects, if anything detrimental. Napolean had pretty much the same effect. Hitler brought Germany from it's poorest state to a world power and every field innovated under his rule. It required 4 fronts to defeat Germany at this point. There are also credible accounts to suggest Hitlers leadership issues stemmed from mental disorderlateinlife
Jmw122283 1 year ago
@Jmw122283
WOW Hitler brought his country out of the bad ecomony before ww2
Xssam11 1 year ago
@Jmw122283 I don't think you can dismiss the effects that the reigns of Alexander's and Napoleon's had far beyond their death just like that.
Germany wasn't the poorest state, at least not before WW1, a war that Germany had, amongst other countries, started as well. Before 1918 Germany was already one of the european strongest powers, economic and military, just lacking of colonies to exploit.
Besides: After WW 2 germany was bombed out. The state it is in now is thanks to US-Anti-Soviet-fears...
Respecheck 1 year ago
@Respecheck Similarly you can't dismiss the innovations in technologies across the board during Hitlers rule. Germany was at it's poorest state following WW1 as Hitler came to power, it was satchelled with war reparations of Billions of dollars for having begun WW1, this combined with it's infrastructure being in ruins. Before 1918 Germany was already one of the strongest world powers true, but no where near as powerful as during WW2. During WW2 Germany was the strongest world power.
Jmw122283 1 year ago
@Respecheck actauly Historians say that the German empire was germanies golden age or one of them, the kaisers mainly kaiser wilhelm and chancellor bismarck did a great job runnig the country. Its just that germany came soo late that it lacked the colony trait. Plus the was a very, very strong sense of the pride of being germany because under bismarck and the kaisers germany was fanily united.
SuperTravis898 1 year ago
@Respecheck US-anti-Soviet-fearers? They turned that country into crap... What did they do in WW2? Join the war when it was clear Allies are going to win?
OpenGLSecond 1 year ago
@OpenGLSecond Was it? Germany pushing deep in to Russia, England contained, Africa almost in the hands of the Axis, Japan owning the Pacific.
How was it clear the allies were going to win? The Russians didnt make a push until 1943-1944 and took Berlin a week before the US did. 1945. The US also single handedly won the Pacific, organizing small British and native forces against the Japanese along with the massive US armies/
jonah232 6 months ago
@jonah232 u really like necroing don't ya? I got an answer to 5 months old comment oh my god
OpenGLSecond 6 months ago
@OpenGLSecond Nah just wrong statements are wrong.
jonah232 6 months ago
@jonah232 Once in the world do not distort history. In some countries, people still think that the Soviet Union fought on the side of Germany and Japan.
SuperIgor95 1 month ago
Stalin will always be better than Bismark, the cossacks are like early tanks, Aggressive will always be better than Expansive and Bismark simply looks like a friendly old man, unlike Stalin, that looks like a paranoid mass murdering evil dictator
Lusitania4Life 1 year ago
Comment removed
JavadoBeckett 2 years ago
That video was SO RETARDEDLY AWESOME!
YES!!
Even if I DIDN'T totally agree that Bismarck is the best, this video would still be so freaking radical.
JavadoBeckett 2 years ago
This video is less than useless, and the music is horrendous to boot. WTF man? At least make a tutorial that shows strategies for playing the game or something.
dopeydopeydopefish 2 years ago
you dont think bismark is the best?
roryfitzpatric 2 years ago