I was thinking about how every civ should have an evil leader version(or a good one if they don't have that) Post if you have any ideas to add to my list(short as it is)

going with the obvious for the first two:
Germany: Hitler
Russia: Stalin

America: Nixon! (wouldnt a nixon leaderhead be great?)
English: Henry VIII

Turks: Abdulhamid II, the Red Sultan ; Sultan Selim I, the Grim
Babylonians : Saddam Hussein
Persians : Ayotollah Khoumeini
Russians : Ivan the Terrible
Romans : Benito Mussolini
Spanish : General Franco
English : Richard III

hmm yeah I thought Ivan the terrible would be nice, right now all we get is two "the great"s

Russians : Ivan the Terrible


For Middle Ages Europe "Ivan the Terrible" must be named "Ivan the Gentle". Hi is "Terrible" only for Russia by his time. It works for Franco and Stalin too.

If you need evil leader for Russia you better use "Nickolay II". But you must name him not "evil leader" but the "Dumb one".

America: Herbert Hoover
France: Louis XVI (dumb)
Germany: Hitler
Russia: Stalin
Mongolia: Timur the Lame
England: Mary Tudor
Aztecs: Moctezuma II
Inca: Athahualpa (dumb)
China: Empress Dowager Cixi
Rome: Nero
Persia: Darius III
Spain: Fransisco Franco
Japan: Hideki Tojo

Hmm. I wouldn't say Nixon or Hoover were terribly evil. Sure, Nixon screwed up bigtime, but he was also an advocate of environmentalism, women's rights, etc. Actually he was quite the pinko. And Hoover wasn't responsible for the Great Depression despite popular belief. Cooledge's fiscal policies put everything in place.

Actually, I'd say our most evil President would be Andrew Jackson. He made Native American subjugation national policy. He'd qualify for Expansionist and Aggressive traits. (Hell, he was the first president someone tried to assassinate. This was before the Secret Service .. and Jackson just whooped his butt.)

America: Jefferson Davis
Persia: Khomeini
Romans: Nero
Germany: Hitler
Russia: Stalin

Jeff Davis never led America, nor was there anything particularly evil about him. many other US Presidents discriminated against blacks. i believe that Washington himself believed they were inferior.

America: Bush or Reagan:satan: :evil: :evil:
India: Bal Thackeray;)

Russia: Stalin
Germany: Hitler
England: Oliver Cromwell
China: Mao, Cixi
Japan: Tojo
Rome: Nero

America: this is a tough one. I dont think Nixon could apply because he did great things during his presidency. Jackson, I think, was very aggressive, but he wasn't evil. But I guess, if every country had to have one evil leader, it would have to be him.

depending on your point of view, it could be anyone. Bush, Lincoln, whoever. or Wilson.

How about Henry Kissinger for the americans? He wasnt an official leader, but he did a lot of bad stuff behind the scenes...

Vidkun Quisling if Norway/Scandinavia ever came along.

Rome: Nero, Commodus

Surely, someone will soon create the magnificent nation of Turkmenistan, and as their crap leader, I nominate:
Saparmurat Niyazov. Traits: creative (every Turkmen must read the books he has written) and mad (+150% production-speed of "Desert ice palace" and "15 metre golden statue"). Favors: Melons.

Russia: Stalin
Germany: Hitler
Spain: Franco
Rome: Mussonlini
Japan:Tojo
China:Mao
America:hmm...Clinton(dumb);):lol:, maybe Jackson, L.B.J for losing Vietnam, or Jefferson Davis.
The only thing is Hitler, Stalin, and Mao weren't considered 'evil' by their nations at the time. Stalin and Mao were 'Great Comrades', but they ordered the killings of tens of millions of their own people. Hitler was the 'Great Furhrer of the Reich' and ordered the killing of 4-6 million Jews and was crazy as hell.(Stalin was even crazier)

India: Aurangzeb (Bal Thackeray above I assume is sort of a joke).

Meh.

Rome: Caligula (Great General = Horse)
Russia: Ivan the Terrible
Spain: Fransico Franco
France: Louis XVI or Napoleon Bonepart III

By the Evilest American President: Millard Fillmore. I have nothing at all to back this up.. but. .his name is Millard.

it's all true, but imagine a nixon leaderhead who spouted futurama quotes :p

France: Robespierre

France: Petain (well, with world war II, there is a lot of "evil" leaders)
US: MacCarthy (the one of the maccarthism)
Egypt: nasser? but he wasn't evil, and don't know an evil pharaon

Caligula! :evil:
(unorganized, aggrssive) :lol:

and don't forget Bill Clinton

Jeff Davis never led America, nor was there anything particularly evil about him. many other US Presidents discriminated against blacks. i believe that Washington himself believed they were inferior.

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments. Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of [edit: lots] of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.

Jefferson Davis was evil? You dirty facist yanks; Abe Lincoln was way more evil, waging his war of aggression on the South (although that Demon in a Wheelchair is already in the game, so we may not need a new evil leader).

In all honesty though, most of the posts so far seem to point either to more politically polarized American leaders or leaders who really didn't take a whole lot of action. If we have to pick an "evil" American leader it would have to be Andrew Jackson (in agreement with Uty); although the end result of his presidency pushed America significantly foward (particulary in land and Northern American dominance) he had by far the most deplorable actions of any president. I mean the Native Americans were given significant land and self rule but Jackson completely ignored earlier agreements between the Native Americans and the US, additionally he even completely ignored Supreme Court rulings on the issue - a definite type of rebellious act against the spirit of the US Constitution.

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments.

Jefferson Davis led the Confederacy, a nation separate from the Union. It only lasted five years but it was a nation in its own right.

Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

Wrong. The total population of the South was just over nine million in 1860, of which 5.5 million were white (the drawable pool for fighting men). The population of the North was around 23 million, the entirety of which were in the drawable pool. The North also had *eight times* the industrial capacity of the South.

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of millions of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.

It's only a rebellion because the South LOST, and winners write the history books. If the South had won it'd be a repeat of the American Revolution, at least in the modern-day Confederacy.

And as for millions of deaths...a grand total of 560,000 people died during the entire war. Not even close to one million, much less "millions". The South suffered far more than the North did, both in terms of human loss (especially compared to its much smaller population) and property damage (google "Sherman's March To The Sea", if you think otherwise). In any realistic appraisal, Lincoln was far more brutal than Davis ever was.

Max

Forget Lincoln, how about Sherman?

Anyway, as long as someone creates a scary leaderhead for Hitler, I'll be happy. Villains are so much more fun to play against.

Jefferson Davis led the Confederacy, a nation separate from the Union. It only lasted five years but it was a nation in its own right.

This is the debate as to whether the civs are supposed to represent a population or the nation. If the latter, you are correct. I've always viewed it the other way.

Wrong. The total population of the South was just over nine million in 1860, of which 5.5 million were white (the drawable pool for fighting men). The population of the North was around 23 million, the entirety of which were in the drawable pool. The North also had *eight times* the industrial capacity of the South.
You're comparing different eras. During the revolutionary war, the US population was about 3.5 mil. During the civil war, the Confederacy had over 8 million. I said Davis beats Washington. You said Lincoln beats Davis. I was correct.

And as for millions of deaths...a grand total of 560,000 people died during the entire war. Not even close to one million, much less "millions". The South suffered far more than the North did, both in terms of human loss (especially compared to its much smaller population) and property damage (google "Sherman's March To The Sea", if you think otherwise). In any realistic appraisal, Lincoln was far more brutal than Davis ever was.
You are correct. Thanks for making me look stupid.;)

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments. Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of millions of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.
it wasnt two dueling governments, anymore than the Continental Congress and King George III were dueling governments.
just because he controlled more than Washington does not mean anything. naturally he would, as the population had increased quite a bit in 100 yrs.

You're comparing different eras. During the revolutionary war, the US population was about 3.5 mil. During the civil war, the Confederacy had over 8 million. I said Davis beats Washington. You said Lincoln beats Davis. I was correct.

Ah, I thought you meant "Washington" as in "the seat of the Union", not "Washington" as in "the guy who kicked British ass". My mistake.

Max

Persia: Cambyses (Man who Darius replaced and Cyrus' son.)
America: George W. Bush
Germany: Hitler
Spain: Franco
France: Napoleon Bonaparte
Russia: Ivan the Terrible
England: Bloody Mary

I was thinking about how every civ should have an evil leader version(or a good one if they don't have that) Post if you have any ideas to add to my list(short as it is)

going with the obvious for the first two:
Germany: Hitler
Russia: Stalin

America: Nixon! (wouldnt a nixon leaderhead be great?)
English: Henry VIII

Despite the election scandal, Nixon was an excellent President. In fact in modern day America, most Republicans would hate him as he was definately not a right-wing leader but a true moderate. I think Bush or Cheney should be the "bad" leader for America - not because they are "evil" per-say, but more-so because they are runing this country into the ground. Alexander Haig has worked under many presidents and has a lot of insight into the good/poor presidents of this country.

The more I think about this... I think the evil American leader should have an evil character that is a double-headed. Cheney on one neck and Bush on the other... maybe an oil derrick in the background, a thermometer reading 120 degrees, and the Halliburton logo on their shirt. :borg:

Americans: Andrew Jackson, John Adams(the first one)
England: Richard Cromwell, Charles I
France: Louis XVI, Napoleon III
Germany: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler
Japan: Hideki Tojo
Rome: Nero, Caligula
Soviet Union: Ivan the Terrible, Josef Stalin
Spain: Torquemada(he wasn't a leader, bit still. He may count towards Isabella, though)

*edit*
Jefferson Davis wasn't evil, neither was Lincoln. The South broke away when they realized that they had no say left in Congress. They all strictly opposed Lincoln, all voted against him, and he still won. They broke away because their voice in government was lost to the North and the West. Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, knew the people loved him, and he did alot of very bad things to the government and it's people because he knew he could get away with it. Just look at the Trail of Tears.

Russia already has an evil leader, so they would need a good one: Trotsky. He never led the counrty, but came really close when Stalin pwn3d him.
Further some evil leaders:
Germany: Hitler
Rome: the Pope/Mussolini/Nero
France: Robbespierre
Mongolia: Genghis
Netherlands: Maurits
Greece: Draco
China: Mao
Russia: Stalin
Spain: Franco
England: Henry VIII/ Margaret Thatcher
America: McCarthy
Japan: Hirohito
Korea: Kim-Yong-Il

For Middle Ages Europe "Ivan the Terrible" must be named "Ivan the Gentle". Hi is "Terrible" only for Russia by his time. It works for Franco and Stalin too.

While most leaders of that time were tyrannical, most of them didn't rape their daughters in law or murder their own children.

Why am I the first to mention Pol Pot for the Khmer?

I think Hitler is a given for germany, but for others:

Rome: Nero/Caligula/Commodus are all equally good (or bad) candidates
France: Robespierre is the best I would say... and the most interesting choice
Mongolia: as much as i love Tamerlane, I agree he would best fit the title of "evil" in this list
Greece: SOCRATES! that bastard was put to death for a reason! (haha)but really, i think that Antiochus IV (the one from the story of the Maccabees) would work well
China: Cixi would be the best... led her country to the bring of colony status (but mao works too)
England: John (the ONLY King John for a reason)
Khmer: Pol Pot
Egypt: Akhenaton!!!!! (even though i love Akhenaton, to the Egyptians he was evil)
America: McCarthy/GWBush are both equally good (though i tend towards the latter)

damn! you beat me to it by 10 minutes! i started writing that at 9 this morning but didnt finish till just now! oh well...

I'm shocked that nobody has proposed the most villainous Englishman of all time, Edward I (Longshanks)! The man is responsible for the brutal annihilation of Welsh identity and the invasion that intended to do the same to the Scots. Plus, he represents a period of English history not yet referenced in Civ.

Seriously, who needs Henry VIII or Mary I when we already have Elizabeth, who's no more than a generation removed?

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments. Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of [edit: lots] of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.
Not to defend Jefferson Davis, but a little reality needs to come to light here... 1st-off, Davis wasn't President of the Confederacy until after the states had succeeded from the Union. The ball towards war was already well-in-motion before Davis even became President.

2nd, most of the complaints and reasons for war by the Confederacy was over States Rights issues. In other words, Washington DC was too powerful, and the central federal governement was too domineering for the likes of the Southern states. Ergo, when the Confederacy was created, it deliberately had a very weak central government (ie: Davis had no real power), and the individual States had much greater power and say over the central government in Richmond then any states enjoyed in the North or in today's United States. Davis was little more then a powerless figurehead in Richmond to the Confederacy, much like saying Queen Elizabeth is the policy maker for Great Britain today... Davis had very little actual power or influence over the course of the war.

Am I the only one who's noticed that this thread is more than 2 years old?

given how constructive and insightful that comment was, yes clearly.

No problem, but I just don't understand why you keep posting here when nothing is actually happening...

A thought for America: are there any well known leaders of the original Puritan settlers? They were evil to the very man. I seriously don't think America (or indeed, any true modern democracy) has had an evil leader (except Germany, alas). Just lots of incompetent or amoral ones.

And to the person who suggested Edward I as the candidate for England, I must disagree. He certainly wasn't nice to anyone, much less the Scots and Welsh, but I feel he gets a bad reputation from Braveheart, a film that's sadly been hijacked by armchair Scottish nationalists and the like. He was no worse than his contemporaries. Oliver Cromwell, however, was certainly the cruelest man ever to have lead the English people.

No problem, but I just don't understand why you keep posting here when nothing is actually happening...

If someone's posting, that means something IS happening.

Okay, okay. Good luck, anyway! Wyz is working on the "Ages of Man" expansion for the CivGold mod which is going along the same lines, so maybe you should get him interested.

Matt, I totally agree. Cromwell is clearly the cruellest leader of our country. Ever. He changed government when he was in power, and yet when he died we changed straight back again. Gotta tell you something about his character.

If someone's posting, that means something IS happening.

this is also happening.. :cool:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=271863

[QUOTE=Rodman49;3262874]Jefferson Davis was evil? You dirty facist yanks; Abe Lincoln was way more evil, waging his war of aggression on the South (although that Demon in a Wheelchair is already in the game, so we may not need a new evil leader).



-------------------------------------------------------------------


Lets not forget that it was the south that STARTED the war by attacking Fort Sumnter. The south struck first, not the other way around. That "evil demon in a wheelchair" even promised to preserve slavery where it was, if thats what it took to save the union. It was only AFTER they broke from the union, and attacked the north, and a few years into the war, that Lincoln declared the Emanipation Proclimation, which in my opinion, was a good thing.

I really don't know where your coming from, to blame Lincoln on the civil war. He is one of, if not the best, president's we've ever had.

and don't forget Bill Clinton
I don't see how have an extramarital affair qualifies as "evil." Louis XIV had at least ten illegitimate children, and taking mistresses has been hardly out of the norm for people in power. Immoral? Yes. Evil? No. Besides, Newt Gingrich was also having an affair at the time, so they're even.

and Americans than Washington...
You sure? My understanding was that the north had more men (one reason they could afford to lose so many men in poorly planned attacks), unless you count all the blacks in the south, but the 5/9 compromise stated they only counted as 5/9 a person. :p
Anyway, some suggestions:
Khmere: Pol Pot (already been suggested, but still wanna through in my opinion)
China: Mao does quite well
Hungary: Elizabeth Báthory
Canada: John George Diefenbaker (he canceled the Arrow!)
Russia: Putin (proof! (http://xenomorph1.homestead.com/files/lawfulevil2.jpg))

Babylonians : Saddam Hussein
Persians : Ayotollah Khoumeini
Romans : Benito Mussolini



I dont mean to be offensive here but no.

Just no.

The Iraqis are Arabs not Babylonians - the ancient mesopotamian stock of peoples are extinct, same with the ancient egyptian stock, the ancient persian stock, and the ancient roman stock.

Saddam and Khoumeini are both Arabs thus they should be "bad" leaders of the Arab Empire not Babylon and Persia.

And Mussolini was Italian not Roman so again he doesnt fit as Romes "evil" leader.


For Middle Ages Europe "Ivan the Terrible" must be named "Ivan the Gentle". Hi is "Terrible" only for Russia by his time. It works for Franco and Stalin too.

If you need evil leader for Russia you better use "Nickolay II". But you must name him not "evil leader" but the "Dumb one".


Ivan the Terrible wasnt actually so bad - he wasnt any worse than a lot of monarchs of the age; though unfortunately in his later years he went completely nutters and nearly ruined Russia.


My own suggestions.

England - Edward Longshanks.
He was a brutal ruler even by the standards of the age; he murdered his sons best friend and lover.
Not very nice man.
Im sure surprised that no ones thought of him.

France - Louis the 13th?
He was the bad Louis that was replaced by the Sun King wasnt he?
Maybe Charles the 6th. He was completely bonkers.

Germany - Hitler, no competition.

Russia - Defo, Ivan the Terrible.

Rome - Caligula. Another insane ruler.
Maybe Nero cos he wasnt insane he was just a bastard.

Spain - Franco. Maybe Phillip the III?

USA - I agree with Andrew Jackson as a "evil" president.
He caused the slaughter of thousands of Natives and the brutal and aggressive expansion into the west. The beginning of Americas own colonial age and the rise of Manifest Destiny.

[QUOTE=Angelscotboi;6764806]I dont mean to be offensive here but no.

Just no.

The Iraqis are Arabs not Babylonians - the ancient mesopotamian stock of peoples are extinct, same with the ancient egyptian stock, the ancient persian stock, and the ancient roman stock.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iraqis have some Babylonian in them, and some Arab in them. Culturally, they are VERY arab. But genetically, they are not pure arab.

What you said is not true. The people are not "extinct" in a since the dinasours are. Did a metorite hit them all off the earth? Modern Italians are decents of the romans, or to say the least, they definently have some roman in them! (its possible that there has been intermarriage with other European countries)

The ancient Persians and Egyptians were invaded by the Arabs. As well as Spain, and some other places. In order of how each place was affected by Arab invasion, from least to most:

Spain
Persia(Iran)
Egypt

Spain kept its own language, and in the long run, its own religion. It wasn't affected hardly at all. The arab's intermarried with the spaniards, and thats why spaniards generally have a darker complexion than most other Europeans.

Persia lost Zoastranism after being invaded, but they kept there own language. The arab's intermarried with them as well. Despite how modern day hollywood may depict Persia, the reality is, they where a white group of people. The word Iran itself literally translates to "land of the Aryans". They were a indo-european group of people, like the spaniards. However, after being invaded, there complexion became darker. The dominant Arab traits basically "beat" the persian reccesive traits (such as blue eyes, fairer complexion etc) However, you can still find SOME modern day iranians with blue eyes and such(although its a pretty rare thing).

Egypt was affected the very most. They lost not only there religion, but also there language(now, the official language of Egypt is Arabic). Of coarse, the Arabs also intermarried with the Egyptians.

Being invaded by a certain group of people dosen't make the original go extinct. Modern Spaniards may not be "pure Spanish" anymore because of the invasion of the moors. Modern Iranians may not be "pure persian" because of the invasion of the arabs. Modern Egyptians may not be "pure egyptian" because of the invasion of the arabs. But they still have some of the "original" blood left in. It just may not show. Espically if the invading country has dominant genes, and the country that was invaded has recessive genes.



Races of people never go "extinct" unless there is some sort of Genocide. Now races can lose there "purity" if there is intermarriage with other races, but I don't think they can go extinct.

What ive said is true.

Iraq is not Babylon and Iran is not Persia. They are entirely different entities and have nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact they occupy roughly the same geographical area.
And it IS perfectly possible for a race of peoples to go extinct over the centuries through breeding them out; it works along the same principal as breeding out certain genetic traits. Its certainly remains that none of the modern Iraqi people or Egyptian people, or even Iranian peoples have much of a connection to the ancient peoples who once inhabited those regions.

Look at my very own country.

Alba was invaded by the Scotti from Ulster, and over a few centuries the Scotti absorbed and wiped out the native Picts.
Now centuries later there are no Picts left - we are ALL Scots. Culturally, racially, nationally we are Scottish not Pictish even though im certain what happened to the Picts was no genocide they are no longer an existing culture or race.

The same applies to Egypt, the ancient Persians, and the Babylonians.

Your point about Spain is valid yes but I should point out that it was not Arabs that invaded Iberia but by Moors/Berbers. An entirely different stock of people that only shared religion with the Arabs.
They did not actively try to suppress, absorb, or destroy the Iberian cultures; in fact they generally encouraged tolerance and allowed these races to flourish.

The Arabs were an entirely different animal who after the Crusades worked very very differently from the western Muslims and Turks. Suppression and absorbsion of subjugated non Arab non Muslim races became the order of the day and to all intents and purposes thats what happened.
The Egyptian culture pretty much only survives in the Copts; Babylonian/Pheonician etc were completely absorbed and dissapeared. Everything from the borders of Iran to the borders of Morocco is Arab now; they consider themselves a part of the Arab stock of peoples.

In Iraq they consider themselves the successor state of Babylon but not Babylon.
In Iran they consider themselves the heirs of the Persian Empire but they are not the same thing.

My point is that these modern Arab rulers of these nations that occupy the same geographical location as the Ancient Empires of Babylon and Persia should not be mistaken for and used to represent the ancient peoples of these regions.
Saddam Hussein is an Arab Iraqi not a Babylonian.
Khomeini is an Arab Iranian not a Persian.

They would make great "evil" leaders for the Arab Empire but do not fit for the Babylonian and Persian Empires.
Using Khomeini for Persia is like using Timurlane for Persia, or Babur for India just because the Empires they built occupied the same area as the Empires in question.

What ive said is true.

Iraq is not Babylon and Iran is not Persia. They are entirely different entities and have nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact they occupy roughly the same geographical area.
And it IS perfectly possible for a race of peoples to go extinct over the centuries through breeding them out; it works along the same principal as breeding out certain genetic traits. Its certainly remains that none of the modern Iraqi people or Egyptian people, or even Iranian peoples have much of a connection to the ancient peoples who once inhabited those regions.

Look at my very own country.

Alba was invaded by the Scotti from Ulster, and over a few centuries the Scotti absorbed and wiped out the native Picts.
Now centuries later there are no Picts left - we are ALL Scots. Culturally, racially, nationally we are Scottish not Pictish even though im certain what happened to the Picts was no genocide they are no longer an existing culture or race.

The same applies to Egypt, the ancient Persians, and the Babylonians.

Your point about Spain is valid yes but I should point out that it was not Arabs that invaded Iberia but by Moors/Berbers. An entirely different stock of people that only shared religion with the Arabs.
They did not actively try to suppress, absorb, or destroy the Iberian cultures; in fact they generally encouraged tolerance and allowed these races to flourish.

The Arabs were an entirely different animal who after the Crusades worked very very differently from the western Muslims and Turks. Suppression and absorbsion of subjugated non Arab non Muslim races became the order of the day and to all intents and purposes thats what happened.
The Egyptian culture pretty much only survives in the Copts; Babylonian/Pheonician etc were completely absorbed and dissapeared. Everything from the borders of Iran to the borders of Morocco is Arab now; they consider themselves a part of the Arab stock of peoples.

In Iraq they consider themselves the successor state of Babylon but not Babylon.
In Iran they consider themselves the heirs of the Persian Empire but they are not the same thing.

My point is that these modern Arab rulers of these nations that occupy the same geographical location as the Ancient Empires of Babylon and Persia should not be mistaken for and used to represent the ancient peoples of these regions.
Saddam Hussein is an Arab Iraqi not a Babylonian.
Khomeini is an Arab Iranian not a Persian.

They would make great "evil" leaders for the Arab Empire but do not fit for the Babylonian and Persian Empires.
Using Khomeini for Persia is like using Timurlane for Persia, or Babur for India just because the Empires they built occupied the same area as the Empires in question.

Culture and genetics are two completly seperate things. Culturally speaking, both Saddam and Khomeni are VERY Arab. There was no genocide of the persians, or Babylonias. They converted the native peoples to Islam, intermarried with them, and made a HUGE impact on their culture.

Like I said before, there are still some Iranians that look light complected and have those original Aryan charecteristics. But since the Arabs who intermarried with them had the dominant traits, its a pretty rare thing. Still, thoses orginial traits are there, they are just not showing up like they used to. And the roman race is extinct? You have got to be kidding me.

Genetics and culture are two totally different things.

I think this discussion is getting a little sidetracked :).

OT: Why not make a civ-mirror-universe where all the leaders have goatees and have an exact opposite character. Perhaps someone could make a mode like that.

No im afraid your quite wrong.

You are mistaking Race with Species. Species is all about genetics and only genetics - its the difference between a human and a monkey or a cow and a goat.
Differing species.

To say that different "races" have differing genetic make ups is rediculous. I mean no offence saying that but its just actually so very very wrong. We as white westerners are genetically the same as Arabs or Africans or Chinese - theres no difference except for semantics on a genetic level.

The difference between races comes from culture, geography, history and nationality; not just genetics - genetics is the smallest part. You dont talk about just genetics when talking about a race; that to me just smacks of old Klu Klux Klan like racism.

"Yes We are the White Race! We are superior just because we are white! Its just genetic!"

Eugh.

The Romans were defeated and pretty much bred out of existance by the migration of various peoples into Roman territories: - the goths, the vandals, the huns, the lombards etc.
The modern Italian race comes from an amalgamation of races; they are no longer Roman therefore the Roman stock of race is extinct. Theres no one left who says "I am Roman!" and means it in the sense of a nationality/race instead of being a citizen of the city of Rome.

Anyway this is WAY WAY off topic lol.

My original point was merely that its not accurate to use leaders of modern states to portray these ancient empires and peoples that no longer exist; and you cant say they do exist because the patently dont; there is no modern nation of Babylon or Persia. What is there is something else.
Its like using Hammurabi of Babylon as a leader for Sumer simply because Babylon came to inhabit and rule the same territories as Sumer centuries later.

You wouldnt do that for Sumer and Babylon so why do it for Iraq and Babylon - it makes no sense.

No im afraid your quite wrong.

You are mistaking Race with Species. Species is all about genetics and only genetics - its the difference between a human and a monkey or a cow and a goat.
Differing species.

To say that different "races" have differing genetic make ups is rediculous. I mean no offence saying that but its just actually so very very wrong. We as white westerners are genetically the same as Arabs or Africans or Chinese - theres no difference except for semantics on a genetic level.

The difference between races comes from culture, geography, history and nationality; not just genetics - genetics is the smallest part. You dont talk about just genetics when talking about a race; that to me just smacks of old Klu Klux Klan like racism.

"Yes We are the White Race! We are superior just because we are white! Its just genetic!"

Eugh.

The Romans were defeated and pretty much bred out of existance by the migration of various peoples into Roman territories: - the goths, the vandals, the huns, the lombards etc.
The modern Italian race comes from an amalgamation of races; they are no longer Roman therefore the Roman stock of race is extinct. Theres no one left who says "I am Roman!" and means it in the sense of a nationality/race instead of being a citizen of the city of Rome.

Anyway this is WAY WAY off topic lol.

My original point was merely that its not accurate to use leaders of modern states to portray these ancient empires and peoples that no longer exist; and you cant say they do exist because the patently dont; there is no modern nation of Babylon or Persia. What is there is something else.
Its like using Hammurabi of Babylon as a leader for Sumer simply because Babylon came to inhabit and rule the same territories as Sumer centuries later.

You wouldnt do that for Sumer and Babylon so why do it for Iraq and Babylon - it makes no sense.

First of all, I never said the white race was superior to any other races. It is belife, that all races are completly equal to each other, no exceptions.

I agree with you that it wouldn't be accurate to potray armedemajad as the persians or saddam as the babylonains.

Armedemajad, along with at least 99% of the Iranian people, is not Pure Persian. He has some Arab in his blood.

Let me use a pundet square as an example. Lets say a person with brown eyes, and a person with blue eyes has a child. There are four possiblities. In this particular case, all four will be the same thing. There are four twenty-five percent chances of the child having brown eyes, with the blue reccesive trait. If a hetrozygous eyed person(someone with a dominant trait, but the reccesive trait as well, but the dominant trait is what shows, because the dominant trait always shows) has a child with a blue eyed person, half the time the baby will stay dominant, and half the time it will be recessive.

Now if this dominant/recessive way keeps continuing, what do you think will eventually happen? Most everyone will have brown eyes! I am part Iranian myself, and I know a few Iranians with blue eyes. I'm not saying the Persian race is superior or worse to the Arabic race, or any other race. I'm not just saying they're not exactley the same(although just about all Iranians today have some Arabic in them!)

Certian races can have different genetic backgrounds than others. For example, when the Europeans came to America, they gave a lot of disease that sadly killed many Native Americans. This is because the genetic makeup of the Native Americans was not prepared for those diseases. Also, if everyone has the exact same genetic makeup, then how come there is so much diversity on this planet? If everyone has identical genetic makeup, we would all be the same in heigh, weigh, skin tone, eyes, etc.

I know about biology, I've taken the coarse, I know how it is. There is a difference between phenotype and genotype. Phenotype is what you see, genotype is what there is. You do not always use it to catagorize different species. I've seen it in the same species many times.

For example, on the history channel, they've proven it through chromosomes, that a certain tribe in African, has Jewish ancestry. The tribe does not look Jewish at all, and there's really nothing Jewish about them. But its been proven through the chromosomes that the tribe has some Jewish in them.

The modern day people of Italy probably have some Roman in them, but its not pure roman anymore. Like you said yourself, there was intermarriage with the goths, vandals, etc. Still, you'll find SOME Roman blood in most Italians probably. Its just not pure roman anymore.

There is no historical evidence, as far as I know, for the Babylonian race and Persian race being "bred out". Your right, its possible, don't get me wrong. But if there is no evidence to back that up, there is no apparent reason to belive it. (on the other hand, there is no evidence that it DIDN'T happen, so there you go)

I actually even agree with you on the crux of your point- that Mussolini would not be Roman, armedemajad not persian, and Saddam not babylonian.

I disagree with you about something else: That the people of modern Iran have NO persian in them whatsoever, the people of Iraq of NO Babylonian in them whatsoever, and the people of Italy have NO Roman in them whatsoever.

The original people of England where the celts. The Romans invaded, and there was some intermarrage with the romans. Does this mean all english people today are direct decents of the romans, and that celtic blood is totally kicked out? Or does it just mean that most English people probably have both? Obviously, the second one was right.

You could get a chinese person, for example, have him wear a turban, speak arabic, and convert to islam. But genetically, he's still Chinese.

Race is not neccerely based on culture, and definently not nationality. What race is the American race then?

I never said race was based on culture.

I said it wasnt wholly based on genetics like you are claming; and I didnt say that everyone was genetically EXACTLY the same like clones or carbon copies - i was saying that genetically the entire human race is the same, we are all human. And theres no getting away from that.

But thats nothing to do with the topic.

And neither is the fact that modern cultures have "some" part of an ancient race in them - these old races no longer exist.
Theres no longer a true ancient egyptian, no longer a true roman, no longer a true persian. They are Arab-Egyptians, Italians, Iranians. Races that have evolved from mixing and intermarrying making the old races extinct.

The English have no Roman stock in them or very little; the peoples that became English are the Angles that invaded and mixed with the Celts that were later invaded and mixed with the Saxons, who later were invaded and mixed with the Normans.
The English is a modern race different and seperate from the Anglo-Saxon race; the same goes for the Romans and Italians etc. Just because a modern race has its ancestry in another race does not mean that the ancient race still exists - it doesnt; its been replaced and supplanted by a new one.
Modern Iranians are the product of migration, invasion, and interbreeding of a number of different races with the original Persian stock. They are not the same race.

But I have gotten wildly off topic here. Im glad you agree with my point about those leaders. :-)

I never said race was based on culture.

I said it wasnt wholly based on genetics like you are claming; and I didnt say that everyone was genetically EXACTLY the same like clones or carbon copies - i was saying that genetically the entire human race is the same, we are all human. And theres no getting away from that.

But thats nothing to do with the topic.

And neither is the fact that modern cultures have "some" part of an ancient race in them - these old races no longer exist.
Theres no longer a true ancient egyptian, no longer a true roman, no longer a true persian. They are Arab-Egyptians, Italians, Iranians. Races that have evolved from mixing and intermarrying making the old races extinct.

The English have no Roman stock in them or very little; the peoples that became English are the Angles that invaded and mixed with the Celts that were later invaded and mixed with the Saxons, who later were invaded and mixed with the Normans.
The English is a modern race different and seperate from the Anglo-Saxon race; the same goes for the Romans and Italians etc. Just because a modern race has its ancestry in another race does not mean that the ancient race still exists - it doesnt; its been replaced and supplanted by a new one.
Modern Iranians are the product of migration, invasion, and interbreeding of a number of different races with the original Persian stock. They are not the same race.

But I have gotten wildly off topic here. Im glad you agree with my point about those leaders. :-)

This is what I'm saying: The persian race/roman race/babylonian race, is extinct, to the extent that no one is pure perisan/roman/babylonian anymore.

There has been tons of intermarriaging going on, there's no way it those races could exist anymore, to a pure extent.

THIS is the point I'm making: The people of Rome, for example have SOME roman in them, SOME goth in them, etc.

The people of Iran have SOME persian in them, SOME Arabic in them, and perhaps even something else.

I'm just saying, the original genetics aren't completly wiped out-they're still there. The difference is, you used to have a "pure" babylonian race, for example, and now that is gone.

So I even agree with you that the races no longer exist, in terms of purity. I'm just saying, the people of those places probably have at least a little bit of the original inheritance in them still.

You just said yourself "I never said race was based on culture" but then you said "modern cultures have "some" part of an ancient race in them" That comment seems to be associating race with culture.

Anyway, we apparently even agree to the crux of the point. Infact, maybe you even agree with me, that the people of these countries have some of the original blood left in them. And since, for example, Iran still speaks Persian NOT Arabic, even the "modern culture" hasn't gone COMPLETLY Arabic (although its pretty darn near that)

Xenomorph, you are an IDIOT, Putin is not evil. Check my Harad warlord update BTW.

You just said yourself "I never said race was based on culture" but then you said "modern cultures have "some" part of an ancient race in them" That comment seems to be associating race with culture.


No no your misreading me.

I said that Race was defined by genetics, culture, history, and geography not JUST Genetics, or JUST Culture.
My point is even tho modern races are descended of these ancient ones doesnt not mean they ARE these ancient ones and thus using modern leaders for theses ancient empires is just inaccurate.



Anyway, we apparently even agree to the crux of the point. Infact, maybe you even agree with me, that the people of these countries have some of the original blood left in them. And since, for example, Iran still speaks Persian NOT Arabic, even the "modern culture" hasn't gone COMPLETLY Arabic (although its pretty darn near that)


Exactly. Thanks.

Xenomorph, you are an IDIOT, Putin is not evil. Check my Harad warlord update BTW.
Those last two suggestions were supposed to be jokes, man. :p

Andrew Jackson for the Americans, definitely, for The Trail of Tears.

And those of you talking up Nixon need to read about the bombing of Cambodia.



Oh, and I want to see someone tell an Iranian that he's Arab not Persian. Also, there was never such a thing as "pure" Roman or "pure" Spanish or "pure" Arab. Interbreeding was always very common, and everyone was always a mutt. My people, the Jews, are supposed to be an especially "pure" race, and even for us it's nonsense. The vast majority of us look like Europeans, not Semites, for the obvious reason. All good people everywhere, and I'm sure everyone in this conversation, knows that racism (the idea that people are better or worse depending on their race) is bunk, but people don't know why. It's not because all the races just magically turned out equal, it's because there simply is no such thing as genetically ordained race.

My point is even tho modern races are descended of these ancient ones doesnt not mean they ARE these ancient ones and thus using modern leaders for theses ancient empires is just inaccurate.

We have Stalin leading the Russian Empire, and that's inaccurate. But it's in the game isn't it? Stalin lead the Soviet Union. The same applies with Churchill leading the English Empire. So I don't see why we can't use Saddam as a leader for Babylon. It's not totally inaccurate, and we have to bend some rules for a game like Civilization (many are being bent already, so to speak).

Now, what bothers me is having duplicate civs (like the HRE and the Byzantines). I know, I know they're different cultures and people, but I just don't see the point of them being there when they are being represented (partially) by other civs.

Well Stalin im not sure was he Russian?

I know he was from the Caucacus region but from which part? Georgia side or Russia side?

As for his ruling over the Russian Empire - it makes sense actually given that the Soviet Union was basically the Russian Empire dominated by a communist regime instead of a tsarist one.
Ask anyone from one of the other "Soviet Republics" like Ukraine; they all followed the lead of Stalin and Moscow - the only Communist leader that told Stalin to go faff off was Tito of Yugoslavia.

And Churchill isnt as great of a stretch as using Saddam as ruler of Babylon.
Winston Churchill was an Englishman, an English MP, and Prime Minister of Britain, of which England is a part.
Granted THAT Civ should have really been called Britain not England.

I agree with you on point about the HRE and the Byzantines...

Stalin was Georgian, but to prove he didn't play favorites he was extra brutal to Georgia.

I despise Confederacy worship, but Jeff Davis wasn't particularly evil, just (thankfully) inept. He led a region in rebellion against the mother country? So did George Washington.

Stalin was Georgian, but to prove he didn't play favorites he was extra brutal to Georgia.

I despise Confederacy worship, but Jeff Davis wasn't particularly evil, just (thankfully) inept. He led a region in rebellion against the mother country? So did George Washington.
"Every society honors its live conformists, and its dead troublemakers. " - Mignon McLaughlin, The Neurotic's Notebook, 1960

I don't think anyone is posting here anymore, but what about Warren G. Harding for an evil American leader? He was a drunken . .. .. .. .. .. .. ., a bad president, corrupt and he bet white house china in a poker game. Irresponsible is just as bad as being evil when you are in charge of a country.

I don't think anyone is posting here anymore, but what about Warren G. Harding for an evil American leader? He was a drunken . .. .. .. .. .. .. ., a bad president, corrupt and he bet white house china in a poker game. Irresponsible is just as bad as being evil when you are in charge of a country.

We've had worse.

Besides, Harding is too obscure. Civ is based on popular (shallow) understanding of history.

Throwing in my 2 Cents
For America, and maybe some other Civilizations, I don't think there are many leaders, if any, that could be considered "evil"

I think it depends on definitions, but for Rome, I would say Caligulia. That guy was insane.

Would it be possible to expand this list to include delusional, insane, etc-type leaders?

Evil is subjective. Most early U.S. presidents were slave owners. Jackson and others were enthusiastic genocidaires. This is a silly debate.

To be honest... I don't consider Iraq to be Babylon or Italy to be Rome. But I do consider Iran to be Persia. Think about it, the country only became Iran after World War II, and people are still speaking Persian.

Therefore Saddam Hussein would be an Arabic leader, Mussolini would be an Italian leader, but Khomeini and Ahmadinejad would be Persian leaders.

Winston Churchill was an Englishman, an English MP, and Prime Minister of Britain, of which England is a part.
Granted THAT Civ should have really been called Britain not England.

Yes, Churchill was British, to the tip of his toes, and it SHOULD be Britain, I agree. :p And that makes me feel I can be British also, as it is not so much about where you were born. And that makes me happy, as I have not lived 1 year outside the Dominion of Canada, yet I want to be British. :p