Talk:Theodore Roosevelt vs Winston Churchill/@comment-34083770-20161227002005/@comment-15589301-20161227003820

You guys were the ones who really came up with the idea that the battles should have super-deep connections. They've always just put people against each other because it would be cool. As Peter put it 'if they were in a bar together, would they have a reason to argue?'. It's never really been anything more than that Why do two iconic leaders from different countries need to have something really pointless to connect them (i.e the old Caesar vs JFK thing where they would apparently argue over who was the better assassinated leader)

Of course there are connections, but rarely are they strong. Most of the time, it is people making them up anyway. I mean, Zulu vs Ceasar was leader vs leader but no one complained about that