I agree that the most recent wars are seen as more significant, but you have to admit the Second World War was by far the biggest war in human history. It kills the crusades like Howard killed latham in the polls (latham doesn't deserve at capital letter). The first world war was seen as so huge and horrific at the time, I mean it was know as the Great War or the War to end Wars, and here comes along the second world war. I was fought on every continent excluding antartica. I really don't think putting Hirohito and Hitler in the game would be that bad. Find me a bigger war. Oh, and Saladin was an Arab leader, well at least more so than Alexander is a greek leader.

P.S: more than 62 million dead. And Hitler was in the top 10 greatest leaders of all time. Oh, and I'm not a Neo-Nazi and Hitler's acts were horrific, but he revived Germany.

1. Arabian leader... Arabia has a crappy sole leader that wasn't arab and didn't lead Arabia.
Oh no you don't. We're settling that matter over yonder link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=220143&page=4), nowhere else. :p

I doubt that facist Franco will make it in the game.... that would be as bad as including Mussolini as an Italian (Roman) leader!

I doubt that facist Franco will make it in the game.... that would be as bad as including Mussolini as an Italian (Roman) leader!

Well, I am extremely opposed to Franco's policies, but still if we have Mao or Stalin (or even earlier butchers) in game, I don't see why Franco couldn't be included. After all, he was nowhere in the league of Hitler.

WWII is such a popular war to cover because there is no doubt who the good guys and the bad guys are unlike WWI where neither side was in the right. I was also upset with Boudica's inclusion over other more deserving rulers. Also was Franco a good leader I never really heard to much about him aside from the Spanish civil war right before WWII. I'd like to see another Roman leader, maybe a French one, and another Japanese one for sure since I'm sick pf dealing with Tokugawa.

For Franco picture a 'who gives a ****', there are so many better spanish leaders. Oh and point on Franco I would rather Kevin Rudd. For a quick description of Kevin Rudd... If you are easily offended, or a member of the ALP do not open. I am in no way responcible for any kind of offence incured by opening this 'spoiler'.

Know by those of his home state as 'Pixie' he is a self-posesed Media-Slut/ Leader of the Australian Labor Party (aka ALP). He has also been refered to as Tintin, Mr Sheen & as a desgrace to all peoples' of Australia living or dead.

Here is Tintin and his dog
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/115144/tintin_1_.jpg

Here is the same photo with Pixie in the same situation
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/115144/r118472_376184_1_.jpg

And here is Kevin Rudd being subtle
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/115144/rudd_gillard_wideweb__470x311_0_1_.jpg

P.S: more than 62 million dead. And Hitler was in the top 10 greatest leaders of all time. Oh, and I'm not a Neo-Nazi and Hitler's acts were horrific, but he revived Germany.

He revived Germany to the extent he messed it up so bad, it was split into 2 countries when he finished his reign. That and France and Poland ended up with more land than they had before the war began. Great job there, Adolf.

Let us all ignore cairnsy44 for the moment. :D

The idea of playing a builder Japan is making me all hot and bothered.

Protective/Industrious or Protective/Philosophical would be 'Ok', although if ANYONE deserved the feared Industrious/Philosophical set it would be Meiji.

I don't think Protective/Philosophical would fit Japan, and Protective/Industrious is already in game, and it fits the Chinese much more (Japan neither produced a great number of great people nor it is famous for "world wonders"). Protective/Organized would fit the second Japanese leader much more.

Why does everyone look at how something ended, infact lets do this for everyone. Napoleon didn't keep his gains, and also allowed France to fall into ruins. You can't say someone who revived a Nation such as the 1929-30 Germany once more into a superpower can be said to be a failure. The damage done to Germany by the allies was mainly to do with the divisions of the East and West and more importantly the cold war. Germany had been split up between the four victorious nations unlike any other war before. Whilst Japan had only been taken by the West, Germany had the issue of the USSR having control of a section. The USSR refused talks in the reunification process and then we had East and West Germany. Oh, and get Stalin the **** out of the game if you think Hitler should not have been in. He killed more of his own people than the fatality list of the entire Second World War for any and all nations. He killed his own generals because he didn't want them to overthrow him, and if it wasn't for the USA the Russian winter would have done near nothing to stop the Germans, let alone fight them back. I would actually say Stalin was a joke of a leader and his only progress came from the most horrific acts mankind has every seen. At least Hitler only took on groups of people instead of everyone, and he achived probably more than Stalin did in the build up to the war. I personally can't stand the idea of the Josif the jackass being in the game over Hitler or any number of better leaders. The most impressive thing the communist pigdog did was gain power through a you scratch my back I'll stab yours meathod. It happens with the ALP too, its how we're assured to have the biggest nutjob, arseholes we can get. Just in my lifetime we've had the likes of Keating, Latham and the current joke of a man; Rudd (Beazley & Creen I didn't have that much against, Hawk I did't mind). People concider Hitler again, read up on him. Forget late 1939, for get the holocaust (yes it was horrific, but no worse than 'a day in the life of Joseph Dzhugashvili'). Remember he rebuilt Germany, united them and took on the world with Japan and the incompetant Italians.

:deadhorse:
Revived Germany. Turned it into a superpower. Ignore his mass slaughter because Napoleon or Stalin is no better. Illegal in Germany. Other points. And others. Blah blah, been there, done that.

Nice, okay no more Hitler talk.

What I keep wondering is why people just suggested a protective Japanese leader (Meiji). I mean, weren't you all complaining how every Asian leader has protective? Despite that, isn't Ol' Toku protective? No need to have that trait twice with the civ...

:wallbash: :shifty: :goodjob:

mick ;)

I was also upset with Boudica's inclusion over other more deserving rulers.

Perhaps you could propose other female leaders. I think it's an effort to give half of the potential market more options. Afterall didn't civ II gold have a female leader for each civ?

I suggest a cheese wedge to lead france in the new game.

I suggest a cheese wedge to lead france in the new game.
No the mighty cheese wedge (delicious, dairy) is being held out for the Wisconsin civ.

When I said Timur Lenk, I did say for the Mongols.
And why do you think the Chinese and Mongols don't need a 3rd leader?

I think China needs a mercantile leader. You know, to represent those funny (and usually shady!) Chinese merchants we hear and see in TV. He could be Pro/Fin, because he has to be Pro.

Napoleon didn't keep his gains, and also allowed France to fall into ruins.

The Code Napoleon was (and still is) the basis for law in continental Europe.

Napoleon destroyed the Holy Roman Empire.

Napoleon's "destruction of France" was so bad and the French people were so angry about that... he managed to re-conquer France with 3 guys and a horse, and then launch another war of aggression which resulted in Waterloo, where it took the combined might of Europe to crush him... again.

Even then the Brits poisoned him on Elba just in case.

Napoleon is *still* loved in large parts of Europe, and oddly enough is loved very much in a place you'd never expect: Israel.

Napoleon once asked if French Jews could be French first and Jews second. When that was answered in the affirmative, the Jews were granted equal rights for the first time in nearly 2 millenia.

Napoleon washed away the feudal system in Europe with the blood of peasants, brought the rule of equality and law to places that were previously tyrannies and despotates, and did it while fighting the combined might of Europe.

Just because the guy lost doesn't mean he shouldn't be revered for trying.

Hitler's stated aims were slightly different than "liberte, egalite, et fraternite".

Here’s “my wishlist”

President Abraham Lincoln of America = Imp/Phi
Queen Boudica of Celts = Agg/Cha
Conquistador Hernán Cortés of Spain = Spi/Imp
General Pericles of Greece = Ind/Imp
Caliph Abu Bakr of Arabia = Exp/Cre
Empress Jingū of Japan = Agg/Org

Saint Joan d'Arc of France = Cha/Cre
Would also be a cool addition.

Once again, Cortés never lead Spain.

My guesses for the 6 old/new leaders:

Queen Boadicea Agg/Cha
President Lincoln Cha/Phi
General Pericles Cre/Phi
President De Gaulle Cha/Cre
King Felipe II of Spain Spi/Imp
Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent of Ottomans Imp/Ind

Once again, Cortés never lead Spain.
Joan d'Arc never lead France, Saladin never lead Arabia...

Joan d'Arc was removed, Saladin controlled Mecca. And Cortés led a band of Spaniards, not the Spaniards themselves.

Maybe Phillip 2 of spain.

the shah or khomemini... with Revolutionary Guards as unique units!!!

REVOLUTION!

Phillip would be a nice addition, but I think the Spanish spirit is well represented in the unbearable Isabella.

My wish list (apart from Lincoln and Boudicca)

Barbarossa of Germany
Cao Cao of China
Pericles of Greece
Charlemagne of France

Pericles would be nice.
I'd also like Xerxes.

I wanted Regicide mode. :p

Why Xerxes? Cyrus and Darius were far better leaders! Darius is the next good choice for the Persians...and he should probably be given the Organized trait for his work reorganizing the Persians, especially in Ionia.

Here's another alternative to Pericles: Epaminondas. Now, hear me out:

If you want a leader to represent Greece who is actually Greek, the most obvious choice seems to be the leader of the Athenians at their height in the 5th century BCE: Pericles. However, in the 4th century BCE, Thebes manages to take control of the vast majority of Greece, as the head of the Boeotian League. The major leaders of Thebes at the time were Pelopidas (the head of the Sacred Band) and Epaminondas (another general, but one more politically inclined). Epaminondas came the closest, I think, to uniting Greece under the Greeks, reduced Sparta to a second-rate power, and brought most of Greece under Theban influence. He's a solid contender, I think.

I'm going to throw in my name suggestions for France and Germany: Phillip Augustus for France and Barbarossa for Germany--both pre-Rennaissance leaders that don't get a lot of love on the boards. For Japan, I'm thinking Meiji myself, a more Industrial/Modern Japanese leader who wouldn't be a complete isolationist like Tokugawa--he's the figurehead of the modern image of Japan.

Can anyone tell my why Phillip II of Spain? Was he the bankrupt one or the incompetent one? If any leader should be added, I would suggest Charles V (or Carlos I, I think, by the Spanish succession). However, he became the Holy Roman Empire and ruler of all things Hapsburg (Austria), so he might not be in the running, especially if Austria is in the game.

@Duuk: Good post on Napoleon.

Nobody read the good argument and the Civ3 entry (thanks to Monado in this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5454518&postcount=13) for that info) on why Xerxes is a bad choice, I guess. Not even the movie 300 can justify him being added after Firaxis has shown more maturity in choosing leaders.

On Pericles: I think Pericles is a better-known name for a Greek leader, and he's not just a "candy-name" (like Xerxes) either. Popularity should enter the equation when it comes to leader-choice, alongside actual accomplishments.

Joan d'Arc never lead France, Saladin never lead Arabia...

I did see this post coming ;).

Yep, i did not comment Joan since she had already been included in earlier civ (or neither Saladin). Of course, Celts/Vikings are also silly if i take (i do ;)) stance "should have lead the nation/country", etc. Dunno why, but making Cortés as Spanish leader seems even more wrong, esp. since they had actual king at the time (and so did Joan.. uncrowned, but king anyways). And IIRC Cortés got in troubles with "administration (king)" at later part of his career.

We know two

de Gaulle
Lincoln

For the rest, I'm hoping:

Robert The Bruce
Adolf Hitler
Hirohito

Dunno who could be the sixth.
We need Hirohito. C'mon.

I doubt we'll ever see Hitler because of how demonized he has become in our culture.

Don't get me wrong, there is no argument that Hitler was a terrible, terrible human, but I would submit to you that Civ 4 already has equally as bad (if not worse) leaders in it.

Stalin, for example, killed far more people than Hitler ever did and had very similiar policies to Hitler's Nazi Germany (hell, Stalin even purged a few Jews in his time) and the USSR was an Axis power at the beggining of World War 2.

Mao is another example. During his reign he was responsible for the deaths of about 50 million people, compared to World War 2 which caused about 60 million deaths.

Sure, Hitler was an aweful human, but you cannot deny that he is a historical giant and the game already contains a fair share of monsters (Isabella wasn't to nice a lady now, was she?).

I'm sure these points were made before, but it's 3 a.m. and I don't want to read through all these posts, sorry >.<

Oh, all these Hitler things.

As someone said before, Nazi in entertainment is illegal in Germany, and Germany is in the Westernized world (not some obscure, backwater country like China, no :rolleyes:).

Why do I bother? I'll swear off Hitler from this post forward. :)

A.H stuff in here, please. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=220006&page=5)

I know that anything Nazi is illegal in Germany (hell, they have a government division dedicated to enforcing it). I forgot to point that out >.< I'm sure the Germans would be said not to be able to play BTS. The point I want to make is that Civ already contains 'bad guys' who are at Hitler's level, so the "OMFG ITS HITLER" argument doesn't really work.

Dzangiit~! Kan't abzten!

^
See post before yours.

The other "bad guys" aren't as demonized in pop culture as you-know-who.

Continue in the AH debate thread.

That's because they won.

Nonetheless.

Three one-leader civs in particular are crying out for extra depth.

- Spain. Isabella's a darling, but I'm tired of seeing that peach blobling developing like Bhutan into a Buddhist theocratic backwater permanently 'annoyed' or worse with anyone not of the one true faith. We need a second, more laid-back Spanish leader, maybe Charles V or Philip II, with a Hereditary Rule fixation but less religious mania.

- Greece. Alexander was without doubt the greatest Greek leader but we need a second one to represent the city-states, culture, creativity, philosophy and democracy and Pericles or maybe Themistocles is the obvious choice.

- Japan. Meiji, perhaps, less arsey and more willing to trade than the infuriatingly isolationist Tojo.

Why Xerxes? Cyrus and Darius were far better leaders! Darius is the next good choice for the Persians...and he should probably be given the Organized trait for his work reorganizing the Persians, especially in Ionia.

Here's another alternative to Pericles: Epaminondas. Now, hear me out:

If you want a leader to represent Greece who is actually Greek, the most obvious choice seems to be the leader of the Athenians at their height in the 5th century BCE: Pericles. However, in the 4th century BCE, Thebes manages to take control of the vast majority of Greece, as the head of the Boeotian League. The major leaders of Thebes at the time were Pelopidas (the head of the Sacred Band) and Epaminondas (another general, but one more politically inclined). Epaminondas came the closest, I think, to uniting Greece under the Greeks, reduced Sparta to a second-rate power, and brought most of Greece under Theban influence. He's a solid contender, I think.

I'm going to throw in my name suggestions for France and Germany: Phillip Augustus for France and Barbarossa for Germany--both pre-Rennaissance leaders that don't get a lot of love on the boards. For Japan, I'm thinking Meiji myself, a more Industrial/Modern Japanese leader who wouldn't be a complete isolationist like Tokugawa--he's the figurehead of the modern image of Japan.

Can anyone tell my why Phillip II of Spain? Was he the bankrupt one or the incompetent one? If any leader should be added, I would suggest Charles V (or Carlos I, I think, by the Spanish succession). However, he became the Holy Roman Empire and ruler of all things Hapsburg (Austria), so he might not be in the running, especially if Austria is in the game.

@Duuk: Good post on Napoleon.

What do you think about Agisilaos of Sparta ?

Why not cheese and wine of France, they definitly control more people in France now than any leader has for at least a Century. I'm sure the only reason the French event "fought" in WWI was to save the wine.

What do you think about Agisilaos of Sparta ?

In general, I'm not a fan of proposing a Spartan to represent all Greece. They were an eccentric bunch, and when they had the chance to unite Greece they failed. Look at what happened after the Peloponnesian War, for example. I have to admit, I don't know much specifically about Agisilaos, but Sparta's behavior after the Peloponnesian War was anything but Pan-Hellenic. They basically replaced Athenian domination with Spartan (although that was largely Lysander's fault), and then caused Corinth, Thebes, Argos, Athens (revived from the dead), and just about everybody else to unite against them and throw them off. Sparta did have a brief, generation-long period of dominance, but it really wasn't as glamorous as Pericles' time was nor was it as successful as the Thebans. So I would stick with either Pericles or Epaminondas, in short.

The Athenian Pericles has the name recognition, although I was surprised to see Themistocles' name on the board. Although he was instrumental in building up the Athenian Empire (and the foil of the pro-Spartan Cimon), I would say Pericles first due to his building program (after all, the Parthenon, Propylaea, Temple of Nike, Temple of Hephaestus and many more great buildings were all built under his auspices), and the continued growth of the Athenian Empire...not to mention he wasn't a slouch in the field. If he hadn't died in that plague, or somehow the Athenians didn't listen to that golden-tongued Alcibiades, they may have won...

Agesilaos - in short - was the king of Sparta just before and through the Corinthian War. He fought the Persians in Asia Minor (quite succesfully), but then they agitated (read: paid) some Greek cities to "rebel" against Sparta in Greece and so he and his army had to return. Overall, he probably would be worthy, but he is not known and I think Greece deserves a more shiny name.

Why were you surprised of Themistocles? He is quite well known and "popular" as well, think Salamis, think that, etc. ... . Although - as said before - Pericles probably would be a better choice...

mi

How about Hitler of Europe, North Africa & Scandanavia.

Lincoln (Americans)
Jean d'Arc / de Gaulle (French)
Pericles (Greek)
Boudica / Vercingetorix / Ambiorix (Celts)
Xerxes (Persia)

controversial, but interesting personalities (sucky leaders but famous nonetheless):

Hitler (Germany)

Kim Jong Il (Korea, well north Korea, not really accurate)
Mussolini (but there isnt really a civ for him)

They put Stalin, Mao, Genghis Kahn,... in and I bet alot of the leaders in the game killed thousands of people. It's strange that only the modern, fascist leaders are not allowed.

Why can't people get enough of the WWII stuff that's already over-saturating (I love that word) the gaming market and "historical" documentaries?

"Historical," because apparently for a lot of people "history" spans from the dawn of man in 1939 to the end of time itself in 1945.

I blame mass media.

Agesilaos - in short - was the king of Sparta just before and through the Corinthian War. He fought the Persians in Asia Minor (quite succesfully), but then they agitated (read: paid) some Greek cities to "rebel" against Sparta in Greece and so he and his army had to return. Overall, he probably would be worthy, but he is not known and I think Greece deserves a more shiny name.

Why were you surprised of Themistocles? He is quite well known and "popular" as well, think Salamis, think that, etc. ... . Although - as said before - Pericles probably would be a better choice...

mi


I looked him up--another reason why the Greeks were so willing to rebel was the fact that Sparta was treating them like s***. After the Peloponnesian War, they proclaimed that freedom was restored, and then Lysander (who wasn't even a Spartan king) went around installing Spartan-friendly governments and garrisons. The war against Persia, to my understanding, was an attempt to restore that sense of pan-Hellenism that was lost following the Persian Wars (which Pericles wrapped up quite nicely). Agisilaos was at best ineffective and unable to control his general.

I was surprised by the name Themistocles because oh so often whenever I see Greece, I see Pericles. He was amazing, I'll grant that, but no debate has really been started over a new Greek leader (except for the brief mentions of Phillip II as a possible leader, but is usually rejected because nobody wants two Macedonians leading Greece). I guess I should say I'm happy somebody knows a little more about Greek history than the 300 movie and the name Pericles, and is willing to post about it.

If Germany banned Dead Rising, I'm sure they'd ban Hitler in CivIV.

Ah, Themistocles. He is too often forgotten by the modern arm-chair historians, methinks. I'm not sure we want another military leader, though, since Alexander is already Aggressive/Philosophical; it might be better to balance that with some kind of Industrious/Creative, or Creative/Philosophical combo -- which could describe Themistocles, I suppose, though Pericles is probably better suited.

I think this came up before, but I have to ask it again: what about Solon?

Ah, Themistocles. He is too often forgotten by the modern arm-chair historians, methinks. I'm not sure we want another military leader, though, since Alexander is already Aggressive/Philosophical; it might be better to balance that with some kind of Industrious/Creative, or Creative/Philosophical combo -- which could describe Themistocles, I suppose, though Pericles is probably better suited.

I think this came up before, but I have to ask it again: what about Solon?

I think it's obvious that we need a leader that had the support of both Athens and Sparta at some point: Alcibiades :mischief:

(we'll ignore his Persian dalliance)

EDIT: Solon isn't a bad choice. I think I'd prefer him to Pericles, who I feel is a tad bit over-rated in terms of his historical impact.

Alcibiades... master of the Sicilian disaster... traitor... that would be interesting, kind of like having Robert E. Lee as an American leader. :D

EDIT: Come to think of it, Lee would be better, as he was actually a good leader...

;)

well we can add sulieman as the next leader for Turkey because of the new interview on IGN

And William of Orange.

well we can add sulieman as the next leader for Turkey because of the new interview on IGN

I'm very happy Suleiman made it. For me personally I would say any three of the following are deserving for the last few spots.


Meiji of Japan
Cleopatra of Egypt
Charles V of Spain (or Philip II)
Darius of Persia
Pericles of Greece
Abu Bakr of Arabs

Best choices would probably be a Greek, Spanish and Arabian leader.

Looks like there are just three more slots left for existing civ leaders. I really hope Japan makes the cut (Meiji or Nobunaga) as well as Persia (Darius preferably, although I can see them using Xerxes due to 300 being popular).

For the third slot Charles V, Pericles or De Gaulle would be fine with me.

Abu Bakr of Arabs

Why? he reigned merely 2 years during which not much happened. Omar (3rd caliph), or Harun Reshid (of Abbasids) would be the top two among at least a dozen more important Arabian leaders.

My guesses for the 6 old/new leaders:

Queen Boadicea Agg/Cha
President Lincoln Cha/Phi
General Pericles Cre/Phi
President De Gaulle Cha/Cre
King Felipe II of Spain Spi/Imp
Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent of Ottomans Imp/Ind
Seems like my guess about Suleyman was correct.

Still keeping to my original guesses:

Pericles
De Gaulle
Felipe II

Ah, Themistocles. He is too often forgotten by the modern arm-chair historians, methinks. I'm not sure we want another military leader, though, since Alexander is already Aggressive/Philosophical; it might be better to balance that with some kind of Industrious/Creative, or Creative/Philosophical combo -- which could describe Themistocles, I suppose, though Pericles is probably better suited.

I think this came up before, but I have to ask it again: what about Solon?

The problem of THemistocles is that although he wasn't just a Warlord he is mostly noted for the clever tactics of the Athenians side in the Persian wars or Midoika . A good leader but Alexander was better.


Solon is a great choice . Successful as a reformer of a system that needed reforming , a charismatic man in a city that only the charismatic survive . His reforms were extremely successful at fighting corruption and chaos.

Pericles is also another great choice and in my opinion he surpasses Solon. His combined efforts both military and Political , in my opinion are more worthy.

They added Pericles . I am glad it would be unfair if they forgot him.

What trait combination do you expect ?

@scy12

Why do you say they added Pericles?

His traits would be Financial and Philosophical (and Elizabeth could be Creative and Financial)

I'm very happy Suleiman made it. For me personally I would say any three of the following are deserving for the last few spots.


Meiji of Japan
Cleopatra of Egypt
Charles V of Spain (or Philip II)
Darius of Persia
Pericles of Greece
Abu Bakr of Arabs

Best choices would probably be a Greek, Spanish and Arabian leader.

With Pericles of Greece in BTS, two spots remain.
I expect Menes of Egypt and Charles V of Spain, based on the concept art found a long time ago. Meiji of Japan would also be nice.

@scy12

Why do you say they added Pericles?

His traits would be Financial and Philosophical (and Elizabeth could be Creative and Financial)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=153473&d=1180131620

At this point, I am holding out for Meiji. Japan is so badly utilized by the AI now (Tokugawa really impedes them in the game with mercantilism/angry warmonger). Sad, really, because Japan was one of my favorites in Civ3.

I think Meiji or a second Japanese leader will be added. There was an article today that mentioned Tokugawa as a new leader for Japan. This is an obvious mistake, but it could be that the author just used the wrong name of the new Japanese leader.

I am just speculating. This slip up could very well mean nothing.

EDIT: Here's the link..
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=76804

My guesses for the 6 old/new leaders:

Queen Boadicea Agg/Cha
President Lincoln Cha/Phi
General Pericles Cre/Phi
President De Gaulle Cha/Cre
King Felipe II of Spain Spi/Imp
Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent of Ottomans Imp/Ind
You forgot Hammurabi.:goodjob:

I really don't think it's a good idea for any civ to have three leaders at this point. Wish they'd devoted time to a leader other than abe. Oh, well. :rolleyes:

I'm hoping that Spain gets another leader, and I think Japan would be appropriate too. Not to mention, I'd like to see another female or two for my wife when we play LAN. :D

I'm glad Greece finally got a new leader. :goodjob:

Why? he reigned merely 2 years during which not much happened. Omar (3rd caliph), or Harun Reshid (of Abbasids) would be the top two among at least a dozen more important Arabian leaders.

Oh man I want harun al-rashid. Firaxis ideas for leaders are sometimes a bit strange. I don't think Salah al-din was worth the arab leader. I wished they gave the arbs three leaders like some of the other civs but thats just me. Please tell me Firaxis why you think the celts of all people deserve a second leader over the arabs??!! Thats ridiculous

Oh man I want harun al-rashid. Firaxis ideas for leaders are sometimes a bit strange. I don't think Salah al-din was worth the arab leader. I wished they gave the arbs three leaders like some of the other civs but thats just me. Please tell me Firaxis why you think the celts of all people deserve a second leader over the arabs??!! Thats ridiculous

Harun Al-Rashid was not that historically important. He is known in the West (and the East) mainly because of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, his exchange of gifts with Chalmange and a few other "stories". His reign saw the control of the Baramika wazirs (which could arguably be called the beginning of the end of the real Abbasid Caliphate - and the Arab-dominated Empire). Probably any of his sons (al-Amin, al-Mamoun and al-Mutasim) could be considered more historically important.

Saladin was a Kurd, by the way, but he was (and still remembered today) as an Arab hero - so he is a good pick.

I hope to see Abd-al-Malik ibn Marwan. His reign (of 20 years) was probably the first to be really imperial in the Islamic empire. He established the government institutions, asserted the empire as an important world power, build the Dome of Rock and did so many other important things. He is like the Augustus of the Islamic empire. I haven't heard his name discussed here so he might be a long shot:)

The Arabs definitely need one or two more leaders if there are so many other civs with multiple leaders

I'd say Hitler, and then maybe cheese and wine of France (look further back).

Seems like my guess about Suleyman was correct.

Still keeping to my original guesses:

Pericles
De Gaulle
Felipe II

And Pericles too. I'm good. :D

So think we will see De Gaulle and Felipe II now?

Harun Al-Rashid was not that historically important. He is known in the West (and the East) mainly because of The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, his exchange of gifts with Chalmange and a few other "stories". His reign saw the control of the Baramika wazirs (which could arguably be called the beginning of the end of the real Abbasid Caliphate - and the Arab-dominated Empire). Probably any of his sons (al-Amin, al-Mamoun and al-Mutasim) could be considered more historically important.

Saladin was a Kurd, by the way, but he was (and still remembered today) as an Arab hero - so he is a good pick.

I hope to see Abd-al-Malik ibn Marwan. His reign (of 20 years) was probably the first to be really imperial in the Islamic empire. He established the government institutions, asserted the empire as an important world power, build the Dome of Rock and did so many other important things. He is like the Augustus of the Islamic empire. I haven't heard his name discussed here so he might be a long shot:)

The Arabs definitely need one or two more leaders if there are so many other civs with multiple leaders

What about Abd ar-Rahman III. for the Arabs?

But still, for the last two seats on the airplane, Charles V. and Meiji are the most urgent!

mick ;)

I see you airplane crashing into some rocks

really, c'mon Hitler, and a new spanish leader. NO FRANCO!!!

...

I'm not even going to dignify that Hitler post with a response. I'm going for...Barbarossa of Germany! Just to spite you! :)

He he he... Hitler already destroyed Barbarrossa's name with his invasion of the USSR.

What are all the issues with having Franco?? He led them through the civil war and fixed their economy, and he wasn't with or against Hitler - he just avoided him.

Anyone else think that this pic on the Firaxis site could be him? actual photo on the right..

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3853/francoog0.jpg

I'm 100% certain he's in the game and that picture is him. He's a good choice for Spain.

Oh sweet jesus no. Spain has been one of the most powerful empires in the world and now it appears that Firaxis really may have put IT in the game. If Franco is in and Hitler isn't I'm think I might just give up on this political joke of a game once and for all. Native Americans... *spits in general direction of Firaxis*. I never pictured the day I would see Sitting Bull put above Hitler. If Hitler isn't in this expansion it is just a joke.

Oh no, we can't put Hitler in the game because he's evil. Stalin, Mao, Qin Shi Huangdi, Genghis Khan... [can't be bothered to type more] and now possibly Franco!!! HEY FIRAXIS, YOU JOKE!!!! PUT HITLER IN THIS GODDAMNED GAME, WHAT ARE YOU GUYS KIDDING, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE CAMBODIA AND POL POT BEFORE YOU EVEN CONCIDER HITLER, IS HE REALLY THAT MUCH OF A POLITICAL HOT BUTTON!!! HAVE WE REALLY LET THE MURDERING ****** WIN BY CRIPPILING AN ENTIRE PART OF HISTORY BECAUSE OF HIM!!! QIN SHI HUANGDI IS STILL FEARED AND HE'S IN. STALIN KILLED MORE THAN 40,000,000 PEOPLE AND HE'S IN!!! YOU TWO FACED MEMBERS OF THE ACTU, IF HE ISN'T IN THIS GAME, YOUR JUST A JOKE, A REAL JOKE!!!

That's a de Gaulle leaderhead from a different game (Railroads, or something).

On topic, the game would probably most benefit from giving a new leader to Spain, Aztecs, and Japan. I always play random personalities but for those who don't, adding a new leader to each of these civs would provide a bit more variation. Of the 3, Spain is the only one that I have a strong opinion about; Charles V.

That's a de Gaulle leaderhead from a different game (Railroads, or something).

On topic, the game would probably most benefit from giving a new leader to Spain, Aztecs, and Japan. I always play random personalities but for those who don't, adding a new leader to each of these civs would provide a bit more variation. Of the 3, Spain is the only one that I have a strong opinion about; Charles V.

really? I'm disappointed now :(

It did look like it could be him.

Screw Franco. I would much rather see people like, well... I am almost to the point of thinking australia should be in just for Menzies. But that would be stupid.

hitler rant

I'm sure Firaxis would be more than happy to include Hitler... if only you could list the net positive impact Hitler had on his country.


You know, the part where Germany ceased to exist for 50 years and was ground into the dust.

You don't want Franco but want Hitler? Hypocrite.

Franco should not be in the game because there are many more people who were more significant, esspecially around the same time. Hitler did one of the most remarkable feats in Human history. He took complete power in an economically destroyed country and continued to rebuild its economy and only 20 years after they left the war for the shear destruction it had done to their economies, he took over the most european land since the Roman Empire. He may have lost in the end but he re-shaped the face of Europe.

Franco on the other hand, may have revamped the Spanish Economy later in his rule, but before that he was nothing. And that economic revivial for spain was still smaller than anything Hitler did.

I've made this diagram I call the, Hitler is a better choice than Franco for Americans who I think may have just used the word hypocrite because they though it sounded cool:

Hitler>Franco [in terms of a choice for a New Leader in Civilization IV for the upcoming expansion pack Beyond the Sword]

Spain better have a new leader.

Hitler better be in....

And yes Spain should have a new leader, just not Franco

Who do you think will be a good Spanish leader , other than Franco , for the game?

Why does everyone think Franco, people forget the past to often in this modern world.

Now, before people say something about me wanting Hitler in, he did some things that were truly impressive. He equalled and bettered those before him. He was a right wing nut job genocidal maniac as well, but you know how it is.

Spain better have a new leader. What about Japan?

@ The Navy Seal: Arabia is more deserving, but Japan could get Meiji or maybe the mythical female emperor.

@ Menzies: Please don't make this another Hitler thread. Please.

...people forget the past to often in this modern world...

:clap:

And I didn't have to say it! Hooray!


For the last two leaders, we don't even know if they are going to double-up on leaders from the new civs. For all we know, the four currently released new leaders for the old civs are it. However, if that isn't true, I have a couple picks:

Japan could really use a non-isolationist leader who is just easy pickings. Although isolationism characterizes feudal Japan, we can represent something from the modern times (to appease all you nutjobs who apparently think human history started only a scant century ago) as well as avoid a WW2 leader (something I have been clamoring about for I don't know how long) by picking Meiji.

Arabia is another civilization that could use a second leader, but I'm not sure who. Firaxis went with Abu Bakr before, but I'm not sure he was the best pick. Maybe they will get away from their "old" choices--they have done so before (see France, Egypt, Persia...).

Poll added.

Awesome poll, I 180% agree with its findings. And by that I mean what the hell is wrong with it.

Where's Hirohito and Franco in the poll?

The poll is subjective , i didn't think they should be added . I could be wrong but i did try to select Good Leaders. Specifically regarding those two leaders , first Hirohito(1926-1945) : Other than the fact that he lost a War that lead to his country be occupied and controlled by foreign troops of other powers , it is argued among historians whether on how much real control he had over Japanese military campaigns.

There are also better choices than Franco. It will be a shame for what was one of the biggest European powers to select him other than a Leader of that time.

Ps . I think this thread suits more (and it was intended for) the BTS forum rather than Civ 4 general discussions. I asked for a poll to be added , not for it to be moved into Civ 4 general discussions. Even the poll it self asks for a selection of two Leaders , because only two Leaders have yet to be revealed for BTS.

Move this to the appropriate forum.

Adolf Hitler
Hirohito They'll be in the next expansion "Dictators"lol.

Bump so that more people will see the poll. Also i am surprised that no one voted for Trajan or Barbarossa.

Voted Charles I for Spain and Meji for Japan. Sadly those two won't do it, because we also still need another leader for Persia at least.

Bump so that more people will see the poll. Also i am surprised that no one voted for Trajan or Barbarossa.

I'm also surprised that I'm the first to vote for Barbarossa.

But I think that the options are a bit limited. While I only play with random personalities, even I know the extreme personalities that are the sole governing voices of AI Spain, Japan, and the Aztecs. These three civs should be getting new leaders (though only two will at this point).

I have noticed not many people have mentioned Charlemange much. I always thought he would been one of the CIV leaders from when I bought the vanilla CIV (before I opedned the box or found info on the net). Would have preferred France to have him and napolean rather than Louis XIV (although Louis is a deserving third French representative).

I'm also surprised that I'm the first to vote for Barbarossa.

But I think that the options are a bit limited. While I only play with random personalities, even I know the extreme personalities that are the sole governing voices of AI Spain, Japan, and the Aztecs. These three civs should be getting new leaders (though only two will at this point).

From my European viewpoint i would rather Persia , Japan , Spain ,Arabia and so on rather than the Aztecs. Do the Aztecs even have a Leader that can compare with all others i selected ?


I have noticed not many people have mentioned Charlemange much. I always thought he would been one of the CIV leaders from when I bought the vanilla CIV (before I opedned the box or found info on the net). Would have preferred France to have him and napolean rather than Louis XIV (although Louis is a deserving third French representative).

I agree.

From my European viewpoint i would rather Persia , Japan , Spain ,Arabia and so on rather than the Aztecs. Do the Aztecs even have a Leader that can compare with all others i selected ?

You'll note that reason I picked Spain, Japan, and the Aztecs is because the only leaders they have now are highly predictable. It's nothing to do with historical prominence. The game would benefit from these civs having a second leader so that there would be a bit more variety.

You'll note that reason I picked Spain, Japan, and the Aztecs is because the only leaders they have now are highly predictable. It's nothing to do with historical prominence. The game would benefit from these civs having a second leader so that there would be a bit more variety.

Maybe the improved AI in BTS will incorporate changes to these leaders so that they can perform better in their respective playing styles - this instead of adding new leaders to the civs.

That is a pathetic poll
its is greater than 160%

That is a pathetic poll
its is greater than 160%

Don't be ignorant . There are a total of 118 votes which would mean 59 people voted for two Leaders if they all voted according to the instructions but only 49 did. That means there are 10 more votes than there should be. The poll is naturally multichoice , there is nothing we can do . Considering all , this is far from a pathetic poll.

Bump so that more people will see the poll. Also i am surprised that no one voted for Trajan or Barbarossa.

I voted for Trajan :)

I vote for Meiji and Charlemange for Germany. Charlemange is some of the most important persons in human history.

I voted for Trajan :)

I'd rather see a leader from the Republic, like Sulla or Marius, because the designers have always ignored that part of Roman history. But it's hard to turn down Trajan. After all, he was "the best" Roman leader... not many people can say that. :D

I voted for Trajan :)

And so did I. You can't have too many Roman leaders in Civ, now can you? :D

I voted for Trajan and Meji. But I would really like china to have a 3rd leader. Maybe from the Han Era. Han was a powerful empire that had more territory than Rome if I'm not mistaken and was around the same time period as Rome. Han china in my opinion would of been the only empire in the world at that time that might of beaten Rome in a pitched battle.

Where's Hirohito and Franco in the poll?

Why Franco? Why do some people keep suggesting Franco? He was a fascist murderer responsible for millions of deaths in his own country, and that was the end of his achievements.

I suppose they are the same people who love Hitler and want him included at any cost, even though Firaxis have made it pretty clear it isn't going to happen.

Remember the Spanish Miracle, but still. Screw Franco.

I voted for Trajan :)

If i had three votes , i would vote for him or Charlemagne. I voted for Charles V and Meji .

I'm laughing at how German Charlemagne has less votes than French Charlemagne.

Yes, the man who founded the first German Empire should be French just because that was his country of origin. I suppose Hitler isn't German either, but Austrian, and Washington isn't American, but British.

I'm laughing at how German Charlemagne has less votes than French Charlemagne.

Yes, the man who founded the first German Empire should be French just because that was his country of origin. I suppose Hitler isn't German either, but Austrian, and Washington isn't American, but British.

What makes you believe that his country of origin was France? France didn't exist at that time and even none of his suggested birthplaces are now in France.

What makes you believe that his country of origin was France? France didn't exist at that time and even none of his suggested birthplaces are now in France.

But Charlemagne wasn't German either - he was a Frank. His Empire was known as the Frankish Empire. Regarding him as either French or German is anachronistic, which is obvious from the mere fact that claims are made for him on behalf of both those groups. There was no France *or* any Germany at that time.

Awesome poll, I 180% agree with its findings. And by that I mean what the hell is wrong with it.

I agree with this guy...
What the hell is with this poll. It's around 160-180% why. Is someone just a bad programmer.

I agree with this guy...
What the hell is with this poll. It's around 160-180% why. Is someone just a bad programmer.

Stop threadjacking this thread. You can contact the Administrator to request they reprogram the forums modules and functions , such as polls , to suit your needs. For most forums this is impossible. Anyway stop hijacking this thread. Anything more you need to say you can do it via PM. :rolleyes:

Barton, THIS IS A MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL. Each option is counted against the number of TOTAL VOTES. E.g., right now there are 66 total, meaning 66 people have voted, and 39 of those people voted for Meiji. That means 59% of the people polled want Meiji in. It's not supposed to add up to 100% because it's multiple choice.

The Hitler lovers will always be with us. (SIGH)

Charlemagne and Barbarossa would be good.Especially Charlemagne was a very important king at history i wonder why he is not in the game?For not deciding his civ by civ4 staff?

I'd also like to see Charlemagne and Barbarossa in - I think there's a shortage of Middle-Ages leaders and I want a nice, generic king for my scenarios. However, on the poll I voted for Charlemagne and Hitler. I know it would be controversial, but Hitler was, undeniably, a important leader for Germany. Plus, I'd like to make a WW2 scenario without having Napoleon as Germany's leader.

Go Hitler, coming in second. Also maybe the bloody thing shoul add up to 100%, I don't care if its multiple choice, its irrational.

260.14%, genius, pure 260.14% genius. So if everyone gets two votes that makes it 200%, not 260.14%

Nice!!!

Also maybe the bloody thing shoul add up to 100%, I don't care if its multiple choice, its irrational.

260.14%, genius, pure 260.14% genius. So if everyone gets two votes that makes it 200%, not 260.14%

Everyone gets x votes where x is the number of options in the poll. People either vote for or against an option. A vote for involves ticking the box next to the option. A vote against means ticking nothing.

There are 14 poll options here. That you got 260 by adding everything together means that, on average, people are voting in favour of 2.6 options and against 11.4 options.

You are completely misreading the meaning of the percentage. 8.7% for Barbarossa means that 8.7% of the people who have taken part in the poll are in favour of his inclusion in the game. It does not mean that 8.7% would chose Barbarossa over all 13 other listed leaders. Consequently, adding together the percentages only tells you the average number of positive votes people are making and makes no sense as a percentage.

It's not irrational. It's just your lack of understanding.

No I understand that people are taking too many or too few votes in a very simple and quite frankly shoddy poll. The fact is that a percentage is a PER CENTAGE (think Hundredage [or for those too stupid to figure this one out 100age]). Yes, maybe the poll should be changed to at least point the idea out that the percentage is based around the percentage of people who voted for each leader and not an actual percentage.

Back to While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

How many is too many or too few in a multiple choice poll?

Yes, maybe the poll should be changed to at least point the idea out that the percentage is based around the percentage of people who voted for each leader and not an actual percentage.

That is an actual percentage. Just not the one that you assumed it was.

People don't read these days, nor should they. They should be culled.

As of June 11, 2007, 3:05am GMT+8, 30.26% of the voters wanted Hitler. This percentages in the poll are not about the overall standing of the choices; rather, they are simply about the number of voters who voted per choice. Each percentage must be considered separately and not as a part of the whole.

I already posted it on this topic's twin, but still, it always amuse me when people claim Franco as a great leader for Spain when we have had far more important and greater historical persons that would fit perfectly:

Spain without important historical leaders? WTF. We have had lots of kings and presidents. 500 years of history can contain many, many candidates to be new leaders (and that's only if you don't count our ancestors like the Visigoths). Many possible choices:

Philiph II: Author of the quote "in my Empire the sun never sets". Since he unified Portugal & Spain's empires that created one of the largest empires ever built. Although he took part in many wars that drained the Empire's economy, most of them were inherited from his father, not to mention that he won many of them (the Spanish Tercios arrived to the gates of Paris and stopped because it was financially impossible for Spain to substain a long occupation). Possible traits: imperialistic & spiritual. AI personality: Not exactly agressive, but once you start a war he will keep it dragging until one of the two sides collapses. Also, not very keen on different religious, although far from being a zealot like Isabella.
Favourite civic: organized religion.

Charles III: Although he is not as famous or "glorious" as Philiph II or Isabella, he was probably one of the most brilliant kings that Spain ever had. He financed many artists and scientists, sent the first medical expedition to the new world in order to inmunizate the popullation against the viruela, created the first native american's language accedemies in order to preserve the native's culture and enrich the empire's own culture, modernizated the country, helped the American revolution that gave birth to the United States and recovered Orleans and Menorca from the English empire. Possible traits: Creative & philosophical or Creative & protective.
AI personality: Quite focused onto culture building, but he will not hestiate to enter into a quick war that can expand his empire. Also, quite focused into building a good naval army.
Favourite civic: Freedom of speech.


Charles I: The precursor of the ideal of an unified Europe via political means, he incorporated many territories to the empire via marriages and alliances, created the first pan European army in order to stop the Turk's advance towards Vienna, defeated the Aztec and Incan empires in almost a decade via conquistadores, financed the Magaellan's expedition and was one of the first European monarch to consider the indigenous people of America to be, you know, humans.
Possible traits: Creative & imperialistic or protective & imperialist.
AI personality: Will happily join alliances, and will join his allies's wars even more happily.
Favourite civic: Hereditary rule

And Franco was a pathetic footnote in our storybooks, specially when putting him side to side with these previous leaders.

Ikael: Nice post there.

If I may post on behalf of medieval France, how about Phillip Augustus? Take Charlemagne out of this poll--his civilization is not even in the game. The Franks are a group of people that do not neatly fall into a French or German category.

But how about I bring up some new names of leaders from civilizations not mentioned above.

Does anyone support a new Incan leader? Huayna Capac added a great tract of land to the Incan empire, but he was building on the base built by Pachacuti, whose name means "Earth-Shaker". He is a good candidate for the Agg/Org trait combo, and that could make for an interesting game with the terraces to grow conquered cities quicker and produce culture, with an early rush UU.

If I may post on behalf of medieval France, how about Phillip Augustus? Take Charlemagne out of this poll--his civilization is not even in the game. The Franks are a group of people that do not neatly fall into a French or German category.

Philip Augustus name , is a name that i forgotten , because after a point i stopped looking for French Leaders so i don't overcrowd the poll . Whether or Not Charlemagne connection with the Holy Roman Empire or The Franks is disputed ,there is plausible one , at least for him to be added in a game. And as he is among the best European Leaders , if not the best European Leader , i wouldn't mind seeing him with either France or Germany.

Oh Well. It appears Charlemagne is in the game through the Holy Roman Empire civilization. I may try to remove him from the poll.

I chose Hitler and De Gaulle...

Hitler, although he was a complete nutter and probably one of the most hated men of the western world, was a good leader. He was an inspirational talker and he influenced the whole of Germany. Stupid when he invaded Russia, but a good leader.

And De Gaulle, 'coz I'm all for modern leaders...

I voted Phillip II and Abu Bakr (best choices for Spain and Arabia that are one that list, and those I think deserve new leaders the most).

I chose Hitler and De Gaulle...

Hitler, although he was a complete nutter and probably one of the most hated men of the western world, was a good leader. He was an inspirational talker and he influenced the whole of Germany. Stupid when he invaded Russia, but a good leader.

And De Gaulle, 'coz I'm all for modern leaders...

Well, I have to respond...

Umm...the only good reason for the inclusion of Hitler that I see is the need for a fascist leader. We have a pair of commies, but no fascists. However, despite that, I would not include him.

And I've been doing some reading...there is a significant body of historians that believe if Hitler had instead of focusing on Stalingrad had attacked Moscow, the Soviet Union may have collapsed. He could have won...it wasn't so stupid a move to attack Russia, as it is commonly made out to be. He just should have paid more attention to his advisors.

And I'm not for de Gaulle, because I'm for more good ancient leaders over modern ones. Unfortunately, Firaxis went with de Gaulle over my suggestion for France, Phillip Augustus, so I guess I have to lick my wounds for now.

Here is the final list.

American: Lincoln - Charismatic, Philosophical
Celtic: Boudica - Aggressive, Charismatic
French: De Gaulle - Charismatic, Industrious
Greek: Pericles - Creative, Philosophical
Ottoman: Suleiman - Imperialistic, Philosophical
Persia: Darius I - Financial, Organized

With over half of the voters supporting Meji , 55 of 96 rather than the 14 that supported the inclusion of Charles de Gaule , i feel meji would be the better choice. And it appears to also be a popular one. Props on including Darius although his traits is a broken combination. I would rather Meji and Philip rather than some other choices i.e Boudica.

Here is the final list.

American: Lincoln - Charismatic, Philosophical
Celtic: Boudica - Aggressive, Charismatic
French: De Gaulle - Charismatic, Industrious
Greek: Pericles - Creative, Philosophical
Ottoman: Suleiman - Imperialistic, Philosophical
Persia: Darius I - Financial, Organized

With over half of the voters supporting Meji , 55 of 96 rather than the 14 that supported the inclusion of Charles de Gaule , i feel meji would be the better choice. And it appears to also be a popular one. Props on including Darius although his traits is a broken combination. I would rather Meji and Philip rather than some other choices i.e Boudica.

I have to agree with you on Meiji and Phillip...but oh well. I can't get everything I want anyway.

Haha I guessed De Gaulle correctly too. The only leader I got wrong was Darius - was betting on a Spanish leader instead.

Don't worry Antilogic, they'll give you your wanted leaders in the next expansion, if they don't release Civ5 next. :D

First time looking at this thread and i am Utterly disgusted seeing hitler on second place. They will never put hitler in because the very name offends some people.

Yeah, Hitler will never be in a Civ game. For good reason :)

The only way hitler would be in somehow is in a scenerio.

Yeah "Playing as Churchill, you have to beat the crap out of Hitler and the German Empire" or something WW2 related...

First time looking at this thread and i am Utterly disgusted seeing hitler on second place. They will never put hitler in because the very name offends some people.

Maybe if Hitler gets in the game it'd be a good opportunity to introduce a new wonder: The Final Solution. This would eliminate all minorities within a civilization.

Maybe however we could add several side-effects for flavor and realism. One would be that the most affected minority with no existing state would form a state from the territory of a neutral civilization (preferably the Arabs should they be in the game), which would then get angry at the new civ; but the new civ will get protected by the game's strongest power, becoming a vassal state.

Another side-effect could be that the perpetrating leader, should he lose a war, would disappear from the game, becoming a scapegoat and thus relieving his people of the burden of guilt for the sins they committed in building the wonder. Thus if the Russians under Catherine built the Final Solution and then lost a war, Peter would become the new leader and every bossy person thereafter would be called a "little Catherine". :gripe:

Or maybe we could just leave Hitler out? :scan: