Thanks Thucydides!

to be honest i have stopped trying bait invictus as its far to easy, this shouldnt have turned into a religous thread and for that i am sorry

@invictis: "You catch more flies with honey, you know."

no you dont. http://xkcd.com/357/

@LonelyCheese: "am I the only one who would include Edi Birsan in my game?"

Apparently you are, look at Edi's list, he didn't even include himself!

hey the problem i see in all of your picks is that you're going to get defeated as soon as they can ram up your non-famous behinds... but i'm going to give in and say i would rather watch them play than pick bad people and win. so:

Alexander
Ghengis Khan
Leif Eriksson
Hitler
Churchill
Julius Caesar

and i'm actually not sure if those are spelled right but i don't have time to check... If anybody doesn't believe that Jesus is at least a historical figure, i'm willing to listen, please email me at [email protected]

If the whole point is to have the best generals/ Diplomats in one game, and assuming they can all play diplomacy,

I'd have Napoleon Bonaparte, and I'd be guessing he'd win.
Marcus Aurelius,
Admiral Nelson, he could play England with only fleets.

Three more? uh . . .

Ludendorf or Hindenburg. Not sure if I've spelled them correctly.
perhaps Charlemagne
Arthur Currie.

but honestly, there are just so many.

-I have to disagree with all those who think Hitler would be a good General, he'd lose on the third turn, would stand a chance. You just can't compare a convict with heroes.

-and Gandhi, don't see him actually fighting.

and just as a matter of interest, the pilot officially credited with shooting Rommel and putting him out of the war was Canadian!

Correction,

Joffre instead of Charlemagne

Sean, Hitler did exactly what Diplomacy players do best. He kept of the ruse of friendship for as long as he could while taking what he wanted. We do that here all the time.

You cannot, in all honesty, be supporting Hitler?

There's a difference between 'supporting' Hitler and saying he'd be a good Diplomacy player.

Hitler wouldn't be a genius when it comes to a game of diplomacy but he would definitely be a competitor.

And I suppose he might be able to bring a difficult position into a good one through sheer diplomatic skills.

but this brings up the question,

Are diplomats better at Diplomacy or are Generals?

The skills of a Diplomacy player is more akin to those that have to be in positions of give and take, trade and retrade, redefine realtionships *stab,
as well as recognize the change in a position and the opportunities.
As such field generals are poor, Alliance Generals are better (such as a Napoleon or an Eisenhower). Alexander the Great would make a terrible Diplomacy player because of his inflexibility, while Ceasar would make a better one and Augustus an even better one if not the best of all the Roman Emperors.

clones of myself capable of independent thought then I could have some intelligent company for once

What are you smoking about Gandhi? The only reason he wouldn't be a good player is because he'd have better things to do with his time! He successfully played world opinion versus the English Empire by marching with his men, weaponless, to get cut down by British guards. He was a master at diplomacy on a world-scale...

so there. :)

I disagree Edi. Alexander the Great made allies out of the foes he conquered so in Diplomacy he would do the next closest thing and almost eliminate someone and then make them his ally. His allies rarely quarreled among each other so Alexander could be part of a Triple Alliance and while he almost eliminated his foe someone else was surely eliminated and being part of a Triple Alliance in a game with 6 players left is of course a great position.

My list would be....

England - Me
Italy - Dino Zoff
Germany - Boris Becker
France - Claude Monet
Russia - Roman Abramovich
Turkey - Fatih Terim
Austria - Georg Ritter von Trapp

ugh. gandhi.....