NationStates Jolt Archive

This was a quiz on facebook initially, but it triggered some interesting conversations between me and some friends.


Which five historical characters would you choose for a team to take over the world with?

Sun Tzu
Rommel
Gengis Khan
Alexander the Great
Archimedes of Syracuse

Though I suspect they would not play nicely together

Hitler
Mao
Stalin
Bush
And my mother.

1. Patrick Moore
2. David Attenborough
3. Jamie Oliver
4. Paul Dannan
5. Probably another woman chef

Sun Tzu
Rommel
Gengis Khan
Alexander the Great
Archimedes of Syracuse

Though I suspect they would not play nicely together

I cannot believe I forgot Alex when I was listing them in my head. I can't figure out how to get Khan to listen to Tzu though.

I cannot believe I forgot Alex when I was listing them in my head. I can't figure out how to get Khan to listen to Tzu though.

I was torn between Archimedes and Machiavelli

Which five historical characters would you choose for a team to take over the world with?


Genghis Khan
Kublai Khan
Ogedei Khan
Ivan the terrible
Buzz Aldrin

Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Evita Peron
Gaius Juilius Ceasar
Mao Zedong

History's greatest demagogues.

Hitler
Ghengis
Myself of course
Kim Jong-il (hah)

Let me think about the last one...

Niccolò Machiavelli.
Napoléon Bonaparte.
Joseph Stalin.
Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Augustus Cæsar.


The only thing to worry about would be them trying to assassinate each other.

Hitler
Ghengis
Myself of course
Kim Jong-il (hah)

Let me think about the last one...

How about Cardinal Richelieu or Frederick the Great?

Sun Tzu
Rommel
Gengis Khan
Alexander the Great
Archimedes of Syracuse

Though I suspect they would not play nicely together

You seem to be choosing on the idea of pure military conquest. That kind of undertaking would undoubtedly involve a lot of scheming--think more Diplomacy, less Risk.

Bush

Fuck, for a team like that one would only want to pick geniuses.

Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Evita Peron
Gaius Juilius Ceasar
Mao Zedong

History's greatest demagogues.

Cæsar is not entirely dependable: He showed an inordinate amount of mercy to his political enemies, and look what happened to him because of it.

Team zombie!

Zombie Jesus
Zombie Reagan
Zombie Nixon
Zombie Churchill
Zombie Stalin

Cæsar is not entirely dependable: He showed an inordinate amount of mercy to his political enemies, and look what happened to him because of it.

Hmm, a fair point, though I think Stalin would more than sufficiently balance that out.

Here is another team I created, just for fun:

Cesare Borgia (my avatar ;)).

Frederick the Great.

Richard M. Nixon.

Cardinal Richelieu.

Oliver Cromwell.

Hmm, a fair point, though I think Stalin would more than sufficiently balance that out.

Possibly; your team would probably argue a lot, though. I picked Augustus, because he has fewer ethical inhibitions when dealing with enemies.

1. Napoleon
2. Genghis Khan
3. Julius Caesar.
4. Augustus
5. Scipio Africanus

Possibly; your team would probably argue a lot, though. I picked Augustus, because he has fewer ethical inhibitions when dealing with enemies.

Not necessarily, if you steered the conversation correctly. In any case their methods were pretty similar. I'm sure Hitler would be fine with Stalinism, as long as the Jews were enslave/killed along the way, and Mao did in fact work with Stalin for a time. Dividing the world and giving them each a slice might do the trick. The main odd one out is Eva, but I thought I'd include her to because she's the best woman I could think of, and having a strong feminist movement would probably be helpful.

Niccolò Machiavelli.
Napoléon Bonaparte.
Joseph Stalin.
Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Augustus Cæsar.


The only thing to worry about would be them trying to assassinate each other.

I must admit this seems like it would be a pretty damn effective team, though I don't think Stalin is your best choice here. Maybe Bismark instead? And why Tokugawa? I only vaguely know of what he did, but is he really that good?

Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Julius Caesar
Winston Churchill
Someone Else

Jeffrey Dahmer
Sir Don Bradman
Richard James (Aphex Twin)
Edward Evans-Pritchard
Nigella Lawson

Not necessarily, if you steered the conversation correctly. In any case their methods were pretty similar. I'm sure Hitler would be fine with Stalinism, as long as the Jews were enslave/killed along the way, and Mao did in fact work with Stalin for a time. Dividing the world and giving them each a slice might do the trick. The main odd one out is Eva, but I thought I'd include her to because she's the best woman I could think of, and having a strong feminist movement would probably be helpful.

One problem:

Stalin was Russian. As far as history goes, the way a Russian Leader, especially one like Stalin, solves a fire, is by throwing bodies onto it until it smothers. I only hope you have a LOT of supporters.

Oh, and Hitler would most likely wake up one morning against a wall, with a firing squad in front of him. Ambition is NOT to be shown around Stalin.:wink:

One problem:

Stalin was Russian. As far as history goes, the way a Russian Leader, especially one like Stalin, solves a fire, is by throwing bodies onto it until it smothers. I only hope you have a LOT of supporters.

Oh, and Hitler would most likely wake up one morning against a wall, with a firing squad in front of him. Ambition is NOT to be shown around Stalin.:wink:

Hitler showed very little ambition for a very long time while he was gaining power, I'm hoping that by the time Hitler and Stalin have a row, the conquest of the world will be well enough under way. Then I'd be for having Stalin wake up in front of a firing squad then Hitler. I don't want an economic collapse like the Soviets had.

And what do you think the point of choosing 5 demagogues was? To have plenty of cannon fodder.

How about Cardinal Richelieu or Frederick the Great?

Yeah I'll pick Frederick.

Hitler
Ghengis
Myself
Kim Jong-il
Frederick The Great.

This is the One Eyed Weasel All Star Line Up of World Domination. Or OEWASLUWD for short.

I must admit this seems like it would be a pretty damn effective team, though I don't think Stalin is your best choice here.

He is a pretty damned capable shithead, so he would be good to have, provided he was kept in check.

Maybe Bismark instead?

A good choice, too. Still, I think Stalin is a pretty solid member.

And why Tokugawa? I only vaguely know of what he did, but is he really that good?

Well, before him, Japan was several hundred states, each with an army of about 100,000. He used strategy and cunning to climb to the top, and then swore and oath to protect the families of various rulers. He broke that oath, and butchered all of the families, directly after promising them he would not if they surrendered their armies. He then did penance, and claimed his crime was a terrible, but necessary, one to prevent more of the wars that had been killing millions. He reorganized Japan, and set-up an extremely progressive Government, and his last words to his sons told them to remember that rulers are but the servants of their peoples.

Japan had so many states and such large armies: To unify it was a tremendous feat.

Hitler showed very little ambition for a very long time while he was gaining power, I'm hoping that by the time Hitler and Stalin have a row, the conquest of the world will be well enough under way. Then I'd be for having Stalin wake up in front of a firing squad then Hitler. I don't want an economic collapse like the Soviets had.

And what do you think the point of choosing 5 demagogues was? To have plenty of cannon fodder.

Really? My purpose would be to carry out a multi-prong attack on the world.:wink:

Hmm much easier after others have answered

Sun Tzu
Napoleon
Caesar
Machiavelli
Alexander the Great

1st Revised list:

Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Tokugawa Ieyasu
(one of the Caesars, not sure which)

Joseph Goebbels,
Otto von Bismarck,
Boris Johnson,
Princess Diana,
Winston Churchill

Stalin and Hitler were unstable and enjoyed thinning out their own ranks too much. Very stupid.

If Napoleon had the resource the Germany army had at the beginning of the war. We would all be speaking French now.

1st Revised list:

Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Tokugawa Ieyasu
(one of the Caesars, not sure which)

Vespasian if you're looking for skill at keeping your Empire together and in good shape as you conquer the World. Julius if you're looking for an excessive amount of charisma, appeal, bad judgment, and ambition.

Stalin and Hitler were unstable and enjoyed thinning out their own ranks too much. Very stupid.

If Napoleon had the resource the Germany army had at the beginning of the war. We would all be speaking French now.

I'm afraid Napoleon never had much interest in the New World.

Stalin and Hitler were unstable and enjoyed thinning out their own ranks too much. Very stupid.

If Napoleon had the resource the Germany army had at the beginning of the war. We would all be speaking French now.

Don't compare at the begining of the war, compare at the begining of their carreers. France was fairly strong, Germany was a dump.

Vespasian if you're looking for skill at keeping your Empire together and in good shape as you conquer the World. Julius if you're looking for an excessive amount of charisma, appeal, bad judgment, and ambition.

Vespasian was more of a military comander than a politician, so I'm not so tempted. I'm thinking Augustus for politics, or Julius for more demagoguery.

I'm afraid Napoleon never had much interest in the New World.

Okay so we would have been the last stand. There was pretty much no one over here for a long while. So we have to pick a common time and even the battlefield. So if we say 20 century weapons and no nukes.

Caesar has a huge learning curve. Napoleon not so much. He was master of using artillery and pretty good at using cavalry.


Caesar would be awesome in charge of the infantry. Add the tactics of Sun Tzu. Alexander the Great would be great at ambition and equally good at the infantry. That would likely make Caesar and Machivelli the statesmen in my case.

Stalin and Hitler were unstable and enjoyed thinning out their own ranks too much. Very stupid.

But from an amoral point of view, Stalin was one of the most successful rulers of all-time. He built a massive empire, turned it into a powerhouse, held onto his power, and created something that would rival the United States for over fifty years.

If Napoleon had the resource the Germany army had at the beginning of the war. We would all be speaking French now.

See, the trouble with Bonaparte is that he was not so bent on world conquest as one would think; one of the first actions he took when he seized power in France was to send a letter asking for peace of his enemies, and he only beat the crap out of them when they turned him down. He considered war a costly inconvenience, and much preferred civic development. He started precious few of the wars he fought, and even the invasion of Russia was prompted by Russia massing an army on the border of Poland, which was under Bonaparte's protection--he told many of aids that he was not out to conquer Russia, but merely wanted to bust the Czar's army, then return to France.

Still, Bonaparte is capable, and able to so deal with enemies very well, while managing the resources of a country for their maximum potential, which is why I chose him.

I'll choose:

Bismarck
Charles V of Habsburg
The Beatles
HC Eredivisie
Lunatic Goofballs

Don't compare at the begining of the war, compare at the begining of their carreers. France was fairly strong, Germany was a dump.

When Bonaparte came to power in France, it was divided by internal chaos, and had several nations trying to invade it; he had to work like Hell.

Princess Diana,

Win. :D

Vespasian was more of a military comander than a politician, so I'm not so tempted. I'm thinking Augustus for politics, or Julius for more demagoguery.
Actually, Vespasian wasn't much of a Politician, but he knew damn well how to make a good argument. You honestly couldn't argue with his taxes, he managed to keep the Empire together without any major problems, his propaganda was top-notch, and, unlike Julius, he survived several assassination attempts against him.
Okay so we would have been the last stand. There was pretty much no one over here for a long while. So we have to pick a common time and even the battlefield. So if we say 20 century weapons and no nukes.

Caesar has a huge learning curve. Napoleon not so much. He was master of using artillery and pretty good at using cavalry.


Caesar would be awesome in charge of the infantry. Add the tactics of Sun Tzu. Alexander the Great would be great at ambition and equally good at the infantry. That would likely make Caesar and Machivelli the statesmen in my case.
As we've said before, Caesar has poor judgment. His power is with the people. Sun Tzu wasn't all that, I've read the Art of War. Alexander the Great just rolled over a helpless Empire ruled by an ineffective King, and barely managed to do that much.

Alexander the Great just rolled over a helpless Empire ruled by an ineffective King, and barely managed to do that much.

Yes, people keep forgetting that Alexander's conquests came primarily from defeating 1 country with a patheticly managed army.

I say, "pish!" to all your military tacticians. All I need is PR:

Obama
The Pope
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Dalai Lama

All controlled by my Director of Communications and Strategy, Alistair Campbell.

Bloodless takeover.

Why is everybody picking teams made entirely of generals? You really only need one.

My team would be:
Erwin Rommell
Cardinal Richelieu
Nikolai Tesla
William H. Gates III
Joss Whedon

Erwin Rommell is one of the best generals in history, and has experience with relatively modern technology. I don't need a ruler like Stalin, I need a general. Being the ruler is my job.

Cardinal Richelieu will be my Prime Minister. He is one of the most brilliant political minds in history, and is responsible for France's glory in the 17th century. In addition, he will be perfectly happy as my Prime Minister (he was fine with it in the 1600s), so I don't need to worry about backstabbing.

Nikolai Tesla is one of the most brilliant scientists in history - and unlike Einstein, is not a pacifist. He will design weapons of such power that my armies will be unstoppable. All he needs is a nearly-unlimited budget, which brings me to...

Bill Gates has two things going for him. One, he's a billionaire, so I'll have access to incredible funds. Two, he's a software genius, so I can wage cyber warfare to complement Tesla's superweapons. Oh, and he successfully ran a major corporation for years, so he'll help my economy.

Joss Whedon is a brilliant screenwriter and director. He will write my speeches, and keep the masses entertained. In addition, with him on my side, I will command the loyalty of both the Whedonites, which gives me control of a sizeable chunk of the scientific community, and the Whedon actors, which leaves me with no shortage of possible spokespeople (I'm thinking Tony Head). Finally, if I am right and he is a manifestation of the First Evil, the possibilities for infiltration and espionage are endless.

Oh, and I'll have him remake the Star Wars prequels so they're actually good.

I chose demagogues, not generals. And where would you start? You'd need an army to arm with your superweapons, and you got destroyed by a variety of nations before you could even get started.

This is an excellent lineup if you have a starting point, such as a small country.

I chose demagogues, not generals. And where would you start? You'd need an army to arm with your superweapons, and you got destroyed by a variety of nations before you could even get started.

This is an excellent lineup if you have a starting point, such as a small country.

My initial army would be the Joss Whedon fanboys. We'd use Tesla's superweapons to carve out a piece of Somalia for ourselves and wipe out the Somali pirates. Richelieu will use that political goodwill to keep the world off our back while we establish ourselves in Somalia.

General schwarzkopf
General Billière
General anaesthesia
President Silva
Paul Samuelson

there that should cause some chaos and they are all modern so they know what the fuck they are doing

When Bonaparte came to power in France, it was divided by internal chaos, and had several nations trying to invade it; he had to work like Hell.

Yeah, they had political striffe, but economically they were no weaker than most other nations. They were getting some cash in, and the rest of Europe was as busy beating each other up as invading France. Also, this was at a time where militia armies where still quite effective.

When Hitler came to power, Germany was a dump, while the rest of the western world where developing modern industries. Also, everyone else was fairly peacefull after WWI, but they all hated Germany. And there was a variety of sanctions against them in the Treaty of Versailles.

My initial army would be the Joss Whedon fanboys. We'd use Tesla's superweapons to carve out a piece of Somalia for ourselves and wipe out the Somali pirates. Richelieu will use that political goodwill to keep the world off our back while we establish ourselves in Somalia.

Heh, that would be fun to see.

My initial army would be the Joss Whedon fanboys. We'd use Tesla's superweapons to carve out a piece of Somalia for ourselves and wipe out the Somali pirates. Richelieu will use that political goodwill to keep the world off our back while we establish ourselves in Somalia.

The fiendish Jew is at his work!

Yeah, they had political striffe, but economically they were no weaker than most other nations. They were getting some cash in, and the rest of Europe was as busy beating each other up as invading France. Also, this was at a time where militia armies where still quite effective.

When Hitler came to power, Germany was a dump, while the rest of the western world where developing modern industries. Also, everyone else was fairly peacefull after WWI, but they all hated Germany. And there was a variety of sanctions against them in the Treaty of Versailles.

1. Germany had developed modern industries, just like everyone else.

2. If by 'peaceful' you mean 'Several Fascist uprisings, complete with executions and exile', then yes, I agree.

3. Hitler broke the treaty, but everyone was too cowardly to call them on it.

Yeah, they had political striffe, but economically they were no weaker than most other nations. They were getting some cash in, and the rest of Europe was as busy beating each other up as invading France.

Uh, no, most of Europe was in a coalition set-out to avenge Louis XVI, and show the world that monarchs cannot be deposed of without consequence.

Also, this was at a time where militia armies where still quite effective.

Meaning?

When Hitler came to power, Germany was a dump, while the rest of the western world where developing modern industries. Also, everyone else was fairly peacefull after WWI, but they all hated Germany. And there was a variety of sanctions against them in the Treaty of Versailles.

The hatred of Revolutionary France was easily as great.

Actually, Vespasian wasn't much of a Politician, but he knew damn well how to make a good argument. You honestly couldn't argue with his taxes, he managed to keep the Empire together without any major problems, his propaganda was top-notch, and, unlike Julius, he survived several assassination attempts against him.

As we've said before, Caesar has poor judgment. His power is with the people. Sun Tzu wasn't all that, I've read the Art of War. Alexander the Great just rolled over a helpless Empire ruled by an ineffective King, and barely managed to do that much.

Alexander did want to rule the world. Caesar was kind of full of himself and just liked to kick ass. Judgment, I think he did alright? He took so many opponents down he is legendary. He took over Gaul. Took down a superior Octavius? Nobody messes with him for long. He was captured by pirates at one point and the wanted to charge a ransom for his return of 25 Talens and he demanded they ask for 50. When he finally got released he hired a team and caught the pirates and eventually had them executed.

Take Sun Tzu timing and tactics, add to that Napoleon strategy on the battlefield. Napoleon is a make it happen kind of guy. Machiavelli is a sneaky underhanded guy who better to keep an eye on your opponents, not that you will have them for long.

1. Germany had developed modern industries, just like everyone else.

2. If by 'peaceful' you mean 'Several Fascist uprisings, complete with executions and exile', then yes, I agree.

3. Hitler broke the treaty, but everyone was too cowardly to call them on it.

1. I believe otherwise, but am too lasy to check facts right now.

2. Well they weren't fighting between each other were they? But yeh, fair enough.

3. He knew how far to push such that he wouldn't get prematurely attacked, this is a large part of why he was succesful.

Alexander did want to rule the world. Caesar was kind of full of himself and just liked to kick ass.

And reform government; he virtually invented the law of bankruptcy.

Judgment, I think he did alright? He took so many opponents down he is legendary.

To my knowledge, he never had one political opponent executed, and forgave enemies multiple times.

He took over Gaul.

Very well.

Took down a superior Octavius? Nobody messes with him for long. He was captured by pirates at one point and the wanted to charge a ransom for his return of 25 Talens and he demanded they ask for 50. When he finally got released he hired a team and caught the pirates and eventually had them executed.

No, that was Julius.

Take Sun Tzu timing and tactics, add to that Napoleon strategy on the battlefield. Napoleon is a make it happen kind of guy. Machiavelli is a sneaky underhanded guy who better to keep an eye on your opponents, not that you will have them for long.

Sun Tzu is good, but from 500 B.C. You might want to try someone more modern, like Clausewitz.

Alexander did want to rule the world.
His tactics were horrible. He couldn't even if he got to India.
Caesar was kind of full of himself and just liked to kick ass. Judgment, I think he did alright? He took so many opponents down he is legendary.
Ever hear the phrase, Et tu Brute?
Took down a superior Octavius?
Octavius was his NEPHEW! Who alter became CAESAR! :tongue:
Nobody messes with him for long. He was captured by pirates at one point and the wanted to charge a ransom for his return of 25 Talens and he demanded they ask for 50. When he finally got released he hired a team and caught the pirates and eventually had them executed.

Undoubtedly badass, but he was putting himself in danger by doing so.

Take Sun Tzu timing and tactics, add to that Napoleon strategy on the battlefield. Napoleon is a make it happen kind of guy.
Sun Tzu wasn't all that. Obvious generalities. Of course, with the Chinese view on warfare at the time, he was a genius. Napoleon was great, but he also had judgment problems with people.
Machiavelli is a sneaky underhanded guy who better to keep an eye on your opponents, not that you will have them for long
Don't know much about Machiavelli.
1. I believe otherwise, but am too lasy to check facts right now.

2. Well they weren't fighting between each other were they? But yeh, fair enough.

3. He knew how far to push such that he wouldn't get prematurely attacked, this is a large part of why he was succesful.
1. Heh.

2. They were executing plenty of one another.

3. Actually, he was quite unsuccessful.;)

And reform government; he virtually invented the law of bankruptcy.



To my knowledge, he never had one political opponent executed, and forgave enemies multiple times.



Very well.



No, that was Julius.



Sun Tzu is good, but from 500 B.C. You might want to try someone more modern, like Clausewitz.

Sorry that explains. Julius I meant. Sorry.

Don't know much about Machiavelli.
http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm

Read couple of chapters that have titles which interest you, and you will get an idea.

His tactics were horrible. He couldn't even if he got to India.

Ever hear the phrase, Et tu Brute?

Octavius was his NEPHEW! Who alter became CAESAR! :tongue:

Undoubtedly badass, but he was putting himself in danger by doing so.

Sun Tzu wasn't all that. Obvious generalities. Of course, with the Chinese view on warfare at the time, he was a genius. Napoleon was great, but he also had judgment problems with people.

Don't know much about Machiavelli.

1. Heh.

2. They were executing plenty of one another.

3. Actually, he was quite unsuccessful.;)

Duh, my fault. Pompey was who I meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

He decisively defeated Pompey, despite Pompey's numerical advantage (nearly twice the number of infantry and considerably more cavalry), at Pharsalus in an exceedingly short engagement in 48 BC.[79]

As military leaders go he is pretty good.

Duh, my fault. Pompey was who I meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

He decisively defeated Pompey, despite Pompey's numerical advantage (nearly twice the number of infantry and considerably more cavalry), at Pharsalus in an exceedingly short engagement in 48 BC.[79]

As military leaders go he is pretty good.

Sure, but he wanted to spare Pompey, and expressed regret when the fellow was killed.

Anyway, a member should have more credentials than military leadership, especially if he fought in ancient times.

I'm surprised so many are choosing purely military/political figures.

Today, you need propagandists to spread the word and figures who can win the people's trust or will entertain them.

Take my pick of Princess Diana. How can you possibly call a plot for world domination evil when the People's Princess is involved?

Yes, people keep forgetting that Alexander's conquests came primarily from defeating 1 country with a patheticly managed army.

That to me seems to be a particularly good strategy - are you suggesting that a better leader would be one who picks on a stronger opponent and loses?

I'm surprised so many are choosing purely military/political figures.

Today, you need propagandists to spread the word and figures who can win the people's trust or will entertain them.

That is what the political part is about.

Take my pick of Princess Diana. How can you possibly call a plot for world domination evil when the People's Princess is involved?

And y'know, another good idea might be a purely religious team: Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, Christ, et cetera.

I'm surprised so many are choosing purely military/political figures.

Today, you need propagandists to spread the word and figures who can win the people's trust or will entertain them.

Take my pick of Princess Diana. How can you possibly call a plot for world domination evil when the People's Princess is involved?

Julius was a great speaker, and Vespasian wasn't half bad at spreading propaganda.

Che Guevara,
Napoleon,
Hitler,
Gengis Kahn,
Stalin.

That to me seems to be a particularly good strategy - are you suggesting that a better leader would be one who picks on a stronger opponent and loses?


Just to add to your point. The only commander to capture all of the known world at the time.

Shore to shore was his for a very short period of time but never the less. He was the man and unmatched. He just made it look easy.

That to me seems to be a particularly good strategy - are you suggesting that a better leader would be one who picks on a stronger opponent and loses?

Apparently so, since he picked Hitler.

I was thinking Hannibal but I don't know who I would drop.

Che Guevara,

:confused: He was pretty idealistic....

I was thinking Hannibal but I don't know who I would drop.

Alexander and Sun Tzu. Pick up Scipio Africanus.

Sun Tzu
Rommel
Gengis Khan
Alexander the Great
Archimedes of Syracuse

Though I suspect they would not play nicely together

On reflection I think I will replace Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great with Machiavelli and, purely for his organisational ability, Albert Speer.

:confused: He was pretty idealistic....

That's rich. :p

He was an expert in guerilla warfare, and his ideals are similar to mine.

That's rich. :p

He was an expert in guerilla warfare, and his ideals are similar to mine.

You're a Communist?:confused:

That's rich. :p

No, it is not. He was trusting and loyal. I strongly suspect Castro done him in.

He was an expert in guerilla warfare, and his ideals are similar to mine.

Guerrilla warfare is not what one uses for world domination. And ideals are not necessarily a good reason to pick someone; if they were, I would have put Gandhi on my list.

You're a Communist?:confused:

Fuck, CM, this is NSG: We are all communists--except for you few selfish, free-market bastards. ;)

And y'know, another good idea might be a purely religious team: Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, Christ, et cetera.

Good point.

Phase 1 - Think of team for world domination
Phase 2 - ???
Phase 3 - Prophets!

Good point.

Phase 1 - Think of team for world domination
Phase 2 - ???
Phase 3 - Prophets!

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

If we could only find something for Hindus....

Fuck, CM, this NSG: We are all communists--except for you few selfish, free-market bastards. ;)
Of course, I keep forgetting that. :wink:

Abraham Lincoln. His hat kicks ass.
Napoleon. He knew how to take over places.
Anpu. Because nobody can beat Anpu. Well, maybe zombie Jesus.
Jesus. Who else can create the largest loyal fanclub in history without even trying? He literally didn't try to create a 2 billion+ member fanclub. It just sort of happened. When you're as awesome as he was, fanclubs dedicated to you just spring up out of nowhere.
Anpu...again.

Abraham Lincoln. His hat kicks ass.
Napoleon. He knew how to take over places.
Anpu. Because nobody can beat Anpu. Well, maybe zombie Jesus.
Jesus. Who else can create the largest loyal fanclub in history without even trying? He literally didn't try to create a 2 billion+ member fanclub. It just sort of happened. When you're as awesome as he was, fanclubs dedicated to you just spring up out of nowhere.
Anpu...again.

I believe you're confusing 'Anpu' with 'Odin'. Common mistake.:wink:

Of course, I keep forgetting that. :wink:

If you will but support a raise in taxes, then we will no longer consider you a psychotic, right-wing nutjob. :D

You're a Communist?:confused:
Look at my Political Compass.
No, it is not. He was trusting and loyal. I strongly suspect Castro done him in.
As am I.


Guerrilla warfare is not what one uses for world domination. And ideals are not necessarily a good reason to pick someone; if they were, I would have put Gandhi on my list.

Yeah, cos Gandhi was known for his fighting ability.:p

As am I.

This due partly to Guevara's naïveté, which is not a good qualify for a world-conquest team.

Yeah, cos Gandhi was known for his fighting ability.:p

Well, speaking from a purely political point, Gandhi accomplished more.

Che Guevara,
Napoleon,
Hitler,
Gengis Kahn,
Stalin.

Why Hitler and Stalin? What is it hard to kill unarmed, poor people? Same goes for Pol Pot.

Both stunk at warfare. About the only thing Hitler did well was choose good generals. As for legacy well.

Ditto for Stalin...

Kahn is a keeper. He has got to be on the most valuable players roster, the all star team or whatever.

Che Guevara,
Napoleon,
Hitler,
Gengis Kahn,
Stalin.

so basically the strategy is "lets get an arse kicking from team Britain"

so basically the strategy is "lets get an arse kicking from team Britain"

No, team of great leaders who won't be forgotten for a very long time.

Apparently so, since he picked Hitler.

Hey! Alexander went up against a mosquito and lost in the end. And Hitler came ridiculously close to succeeding. Either D-day failing or Barbarossa succeeding would have done it.

If you will but support a raise in taxes, than we will no longer consider you a psychotic, right-wing nutjob. :D
Hmmm... I have been thinking about getting into the Insane Asylum, and psychotic is always good to bring up during the interviews...
Look at my Political Compass.

Hardly descriptive. You seem only liberal to me.
so basically the strategy is "lets get an arse kicking from team Britain"

Of course.:D

This due partly to Guevara's naïveté, which is not a good qualify for a world-conquest team.
He's someone people would follow, he's a figure head.


Well, speaking from a purely political point, Gandhi accomplished more.

True, but what he did would have happened any way.

Hey! Alexander went up against a mosquito and lost in the end. And Hitler came ridiculously close to succeeding. Either D-day failing or Barbarossa succeeding would have done it.

Not really. If D-Day failed, it would only mean that the war would have taken MUCH longer.

If Barbarossa succeeded, Russian Partisans would have had more time to inflict even more casualties on the German army, and Stalin would have re-emerged at just the right time to rally the leaderless troops and claim credit for everyone's combined effort.

Julius Caesar
Alexander the Great
Erik the Red
Ronald Reagan
Henry Kissinger

He's someone people would follow, he's a figure head.

Pfft. You already have Uncle Nappy.

True, but what he did would have happened any way.

Not for some time; that is like denying Lincoln credit for helping to free the slaves.

Julius Caesar
Alexander the Great
Erik the Red
Ronald Reagan
Henry Kissinger

I see four problems there.

Erik the Red was an overly-violent explorer. Not a conqueror or diplomat.

Alexander was worthless, other than the fact that he had balls of steel.

Ronald Reagan only knows how to bloat an already bloated military budget, and take on near-impossible projects, giving just enough information to make them seem plausible.

Kissinger wasn't the world's greatest diplomat, there are so many other Glided tongues out there in history...

Let's see, I'll take the following:

Trajan or Patton, one of the two.
Abraham Lincoln
Tesla, or Archimedes, or Oppenheimer, one of them.
William H. Gates III
Joss Whedon

Gates and Whedon for the same reasons Mirkana stated. One will guarantee me exemplary economic strength, the other is the absolute master of P.R. That, and the loyalty of the Whedonites will make for an excellent base of support.

One of the inventors for their scientific work. An actual Tesla Death Ray would be useful. Supported by Gates' software, it would rain destruction upon the unwary.

Lincoln, for the simple fact that he is the epitome of political savvy. His historical title should appropriately be "The Great Politico."

And then either Trajan or Patton. Both were excellent generals and military commanders that, for the exception of some few moments of weakness, rank as the best of their day. Trajan particularly, since the Romans regarded him as such an excellent emperor that they inaugurated new emperors with the wish to "be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan." Match Trajan against either Julius or Augustus, and Trajan would be the better choice.

1. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
2. Erwin Rommel
3. Paul Van Riper
4. Andrew Carnegie
5. Otto von Bismark

Not really. If D-Day failed, it would only mean that the war would have taken MUCH longer.

If Barbarossa succeeded, Russian Partisans would have had more time to inflict even more casualties on the German army, and Stalin would have re-emerged at just the right time to rally the leaderless troops and claim credit for everyone's combined effort.

England may well have backed out of the war had D-day failed, and Hitler was just out to thwack the Russians in Barbarossa, he didn't want that much of a massive swab of useless territory. He would have put a Russian facist leader in place in Moscow, then returned the army to Germany and continue on the plan he outlined in Mein Kampf.

No, team of great leaders who won't be forgotten for a very long time.

mostly because they play as the bogeymen of the victors :p

Of course.:D

well team Britain did get the closest to world domination so I guess making a team of purely British fighting spirit would do the job :p

England may well have backed out of the war had D-day failed, and Hitler was just out to thwack the Russians in Barbarossa, he didn't want that much of a massive swab of useless territory. He would have put a Russian facist leader in place in Moscow, then returned the army to Germany and continue on the plan he outlined in Mein Kampf.
You really think they would have stood for a fascist leader? Russia at that time was still fanatically Red. They would have fought the Nazis tooth and claw every inch forward... And every inch back. As long as Stalin survived (and that bastard was smart enough to escape getting killed for quite some time), Russia would still have a chance.

You really think they would have stood for a fascist leader? Russia at that time was still fanatically Red. They would have fought the Nazis tooth and claw every inch forward... And every inch back. As long as Stalin survived (and that bastard was smart enough to escape getting killed for quite some time), Russia would still have a chance.

Maybe not facist, but at least not anti Nazi. And if Moscow had burnt to the ground, I'm sure Russia would have been willing to sign a peace treaty giving Germany Eastern Europe.

Maybe not facist, but at least not anti Nazi. And if Moscow had burnt to the ground, I'm sure Russia would have been willing to sign a peace treaty giving Germany Eastern Europe.
You underestimate Stalin. And his Ego.

The fiendish Jew is at his work!

Furthermore, I'm betting half of you would be serving in my army. I'll give you a hint as to why: the uniform for my legions will include brown coats.

You underestimate Stalin. And his Ego.

Stalin would have run back to his Georgian pig farm with his tail between his legs after such a humiliating defeat. :tongue:

But seriously, he would have completely lost all credibility.

Hmm... Difficult. My first list would be:

1.) Niccolo Machiavelli
2.) Benjamin Franklin
3.) Frederick the Great
4.) Napoleon Bonaparte
5.) And I'm going to have to go with Joss Whedon for the previously mentioned reasons.

But I'm going to have to think about it some more. This is just off the top of my head.

There were some military leaders that I briefly considered-- Sun Tzu (who, despite CM's claims, was quite brilliant-- there's a reason The Art of War is still relevant today), Phillip II of Macedon (who laid the foundation that his son built upon), Zhuge Liang, Pyrrhus of Epirus (Hannibal Barca himself considered him to be either the greatest or the second greatest general of all time. His main problem was statecraft and keeping focus) and a few others.. but I think Military is covered quite well already by Frederick and Bonaparte.

Anyway... thoughts?

Furthermore, I'm betting half of you would be serving in my army. I'll give you a hint as to why: the uniform for my legions will include brown coats.
Pfft. I didn't like Firefly.:p
Stalin would have run back to his Georgian pig farm with his tail between his legs after such a humiliating defeat. :tongue:

But seriously, he would have completely lost all credibility.
Credibility? Stalin didn't need credibility. He needed POWER, and he was willing to do whatever he needed to in order to get it. If that meant executing millions for no reason, he would. Fear of him, and a sort of hero-worship would still persist. He would be back in power days after the Germans left.

Pfft. I didn't like Firefly.:p

Heretic.

Heretic.

Heresy grows from idleness, brother.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/8/86/Marine.jpg

*whispers* It very suddenly became very quiet arround here. I think we scared them off...

*whispers* It very suddenly became very quiet arround here. I think we scared them off...

It's probably my fault... I seem to have a knack for posting in previously active threads and killing them. Perhaps I'm just stupid and/or boring. :tongue:

It's probably my fault... I seem to have a knack for posting in previously active threads and killing them. Perhaps I'm just stupid and/or boring. :tongue:

Not at all, you made some good suggestions, which I would have comented on had I not been engaged in a hypothetical discussion about Stalin.

Not at all, you made some good suggestions, which I would have comented on had I not been engaged in a hypothetical discussion about Stalin.

Oh that's just me and my self-deprecating humor. It happens to amuse me.

Either way, I have returned to trying to learn about residues in complex analysis.

If anyone knows anything about it, help would be very welcome. :(

Maybe not facist, but at least not anti Nazi. And if Moscow had burnt to the ground, I'm sure Russia would have been willing to sign a peace treaty giving Germany Eastern Europe.

When the Czar framed Bonaparte for the burning of Moscow, it encouraged the Russians. If Hitler burned Moscow, I think the same thing would happen.

I would absolutely agree with CM about Sun Tzu, hes too old to be useful, imo, and his work wasn't really that great, good for the time it was, but why should I have to teach one of my generals what a fucking plane is let alone a car...

If you're going for oldies, you have to go for ones with good statesmanship imo.

My team:

Von Manstein
Napoleon Bonaparte
Cardinal Richelieu
not sure who else

I would absolutely agree with CM about Sun Tzu, hes too old to be useful, imo, and his work wasn't really that great, good for the time it was, but why should I have to teach one of my generals what a fucking plane is let alone a car...

If you're going for oldies, you have to go for ones with good statesmanship imo.

My team:

Von Manstein
Napoleon Bonaparte
Cardinal Richelieu
not sure who else

Planning to teach Napoleon about planes?

All you people are Doin It Rong™. Sure, you can conquer the world, but good luck holding it. The way to do it is to make people want to work for you. Therefore, I present;

• Yeshua bin Yosef - this two-thousand-year-old Jew, while chiefly known for the gruesome manner of his death, was also a charismatic leader, although unfortunately hampered by delusions of grandeur.
• Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi - everybody's favourite little Indian dude, master of mobilizing millions of people and victory through nonviolent resistance. Cannot be stopped by political repression. Vulnerable to bullets.
• Barack Hussein Obama - brilliant and charismatic orator, managed to be elected President of the United States whilst being a black man named Hussein. Weaknesses not yet known, but probably also bullets.
• Martin Luther King, Junior - another charismatic orator, known as a tireless opponent of injustice. Good at mobilizing communities. His faith may be a bonus when talking to theocrats, but then heck, we already have Jesus for that, so he is a bonus theologian. Another person with a bullet allergy.
• Abraham Lincoln - because one needs at least one statesman. Why are all these people allergic to bullets?

Genghis Khan
Narses
Napoleon
Tamerlane
Baibars

Hmm I'd have to go with this line up

Alexander the Great
Sun Tzu
Cao Cao
Cyrus the Great
Cicero

Planning to teach Napoleon about planes?

Well hes not there to be a general, although I think he was best known as that, I think he had good people skills. Hes supposed to be the charismatic one I guess.

Arthur Wellesley, aka the Duke of Wellington: He would be my leading general, because not only was he a brilliant mind he was also a badass who wasn't startled by being outnumbered or facing a foe with a bloated reputation. See Seringapatam and Assaye.

Second is a tossup for Head of State between Hitler or Churchill, for inspiring the masses. Probably Hitler, because I love bombastic rhetoric.

Cato the Elder would run my 'senate', because for sheer doggedness at swaying the home front, he's the man. "Things are good! We're doing well in economics and agriculture. Things are going great and they're only getting better... Oh, btw, Carthago delenda est."

Vlad Dracul would run my Homeland Security, for putting some honest-to-god FEAR in folks.

Diplomacy would be Talleyrand. Show me someone that matched him at the negotiation table. Even in shameful defeat he managed to divide and alienate the Allied Nations at the Congress of Vienna and put France back in the midst of European politics.

And I myself would reign over them all as supreme potentate. Because I'm the man and I don't fuck around.

1. Artus Raelus

2. Shang Zhou

3. Jans van der Laan .

4. Samuel Relifsson

5. Shaheed El-Sirri

Hmm... *nods*