List the leaders you are sick of and want to see no more :)

In order to prevent this becoming yet another thread with lists nobody reads and nobody cares, please give your rationale for every single name :) It doesn't matter if you think that Stalin was too much of an :):):):):):):) to be here or you just don't like Joao's eye color... just give us the reasons please so we could have something to discuss about :)

So, this is exact opposite of another thread where you were not allowed to pick any leader who already was in Civ. Here you must choose only from those who already made it into 1 or more of Civ versions.

:king:

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.

Cleopatra - a little more "egyptian" ruler would be better. Thutmose, even Khufu, but certainly not this greek whor... queen.

Joan D'Arc - come on! We do not need a woman who thought that god spoke with her. Besides - he was the same "leader" like gen. Petraeus or Schwarzkopf is "American leader".

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist

By that rationale we would have to eliminate George Washington as well. Surely he was more racist than Lincoln, since George actually owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson ditto.

If you eliminate potential civ leaders based on feelings of racial superiority you wouldn't have many left.

But Washington is needed - he was the first president. We have Washington and Roosevelt (two good choices IMO). There is no need to add a third leader for the same Civ. Adding a new Civ instead would be much better.

I agree on Cleopatre. All she achieved was ending (semi)independent Egypt due to too many ambitions. Must have known her place.

Joan of Arc better left unmentioned... I don't think we find anybody who wants her back :)) But who knows...

----

Sury - mm... well, from what I've read in wikipedia he didn't look very impressive to me. But I admit I don't know Khmer history. Probably he was the best of possible candidates.

Shaka together with his "civilization".

Sitting Bull... so-so. I have no strong opinion on this one, but the more I think the more I like the idea of replacing him with some other Native Americans nation. Most likely Iroquois.

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.


To be fair almost everybody was at least somewhat racist at that time, and it is possible that Lincoln's remarks about not wanting to let"negroes" vote or hold office were not actually his opinion but rather necessary to calm the public.

Agree - but what we think now when we hear "Abraham Lincoln"? "Oh, it was a president who gave slaves freedom. He was such a brilliant man!" I know that average slave in US lived in much better condition than average european worker in that time, but Lincoln as a leader is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary in Civ V.

Oh, I'd love to see Snofru as an egyptian leader instead of Cleo. Also Hatshepsut is a mistake - I think she is in game because she is famous, not because she really deserves it.

BTW - moderators could merge those two topics, because there are two exactly the same here.

Stop fuss about Lincoln being a racist, we're supposed to write wich leaders we don't want in the coming game..

Charlemange - Just hate him, don't know why he's just not my type
Gilamesh, and the Sumerian empire - Replace the Sumerian empire with Canada or Sweden
Zara Yaqob - I don't like his eye color (; No, but I don't know, I don't like him either

Shaka together with his "civilization".
Now who's the racist?

I'm fine with Abe Lincoln being in the game as long as he does the dance from the Electric Six "Gay Bar" video.

Now who's the racist?

:)
I would be, if I judged Zulu by their race. But I judge them by their (lack of) achievements. A bunch of savages who happened to be the most savage in their area.

Ethiopia? Yes, by all means. Mali? Sure. I even would not object to Ghana Empire or various Caliphates, but those probably belong to Africa- themed mods. But Zulu? Hell no. Even Huns would make much more sense. Vikings are about as far as I can go calling something a "civilization". There's Norway and Sweden and Denmark today, after all. And in their times Vikings were much more important to the world than Zulu ever dreamed of.

Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.

But if you want the carthaginians to be included, then there is nobody else with even a modicum of name recognition who could be leader.

Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.
Replace Hannibal per Churchill or Bismark and Carthaginians per English or Germans :D Better not talk of getting a real leader ( not some folk legend ) for the Celts, the Sumerians or for the Vikings ( or even for the Germans before Willem I )....

Well, for my taste I hope not to see prince Henry the ( suposed ... as far as we know he made exactly two trips by boat in his life :D ) Navigator again. His importance was really overrated :p

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War

What should America have done to end slavery, ask politely? Slavery had been the backbone of the southern economy, and would probably never end unless forced.

What should America have done to end slavery, ask politely? Slavery had been the backbone of the southern economy, and would probably never end unless forced.

Not to get too off topic, but the American Civil War wasn't just about slavery. As a matter of fact, I'd say slavery was at best a secondary issue.

Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.
Ridiculous. No other Carthagian came even close to his power and his impact on history, like other cases is history, a leader doesn't necessarily needs to actually have the highest rank in a given structure, as long as he is the one with the most practical power.

And Shaka, come one, surely we want him in the game. Who wants 18 political correct Ghandis, we need some agressive chiefs also to spice the game up.

But if you want the carthaginians to be included, then there is nobody else with even a modicum of name recognition who could be leader.
Dido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_%28singer%29). Oh, sorry, I meant this Dido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_%28Queen_of_Carthage%29).

Never heard about Mansa Musa before Civ 4. Heck, never heard about Shaka before Civ 1!

Dido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_%28singer%29). Oh, sorry, I meant this Dido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dido_%28Queen_of_Carthage%29).

Never heard about Mansa Musa before Civ 4. Heck, never heard about Shaka before Civ 1!

The problem with Dido is that she's as much a mythical leader as Ragnar. Hannibal did lead Carthage for a short time, admittedly after the second Punic War when they were no longer a power. I admit the problems of Hannibal, but IMO Dido isn't an improvement.

Off topic regarding Civil War - if you read what the southern leaders were saying BEFORE the Civil War, it was about slavery. Their opinions on causes changed after the war. Admittedly, ending slavery was more about economy that racial equality. Some of the primary abolitionists were extremely racist.

Mao & Stalin - I don't want them, since I'm an anti-commie, and I just hate all the modern leaders. However, I do understand why they're in the game, so I'll just have to grudgingly accept that.

Hatshepsut & Cleopatra - Alright, I'd really love someone else besides some half-naked seductress. I mean, there is at least 20 great male pharaohs that would do just as well!

Gandhi - I can understand why he is in, but frankly I'd just prefer he not be in, since personally even though he was important for the independence of India... he never really actually ruled it per se

Ragnar - He's semi-mythological. There are many Scandinavian kings, such as Canute, who would do so much better

I'd rather not encounter in civ5:
(semi)mythological leaders like:
Ragnar, Joanne of Arc, Hiawatha and a bunch of Civ2 leaders like Dido, Ishtar, Scheherezade and Amaterasu.

Chieftains (not leaders of civilizations) like:
Shaka, Sitting Bull and Brennus

"Wives of" like:
Theodora, Livia and Ealanor Roosevelt

Leaders that are just well known but doesn't represent the history and of a civ like:
Cleopatra (the last pharao)
Xerxes (bad leader compared to cyrus or darius)

And finally: leaders that are still alive.

I'd rather not encounter in civ5:
(semi)mythological leaders like:
Ragnar, Joanne of Arc, Hiawatha and a bunch of Civ2 leaders like Dido, Ishtar, Scheherezade and Amaterasu.

Chieftains (not leaders of civilizations) like:
Shaka, Sitting Bull and Brennus

"Wives of" like:
Theodora, Livia and Ealanor Roosevelt

Leaders that are just well known but doesn't represent the history and of a civ like:
Cleopatra (the last pharao)
Xerxes (bad leader compared to cyrus or darius)

And finally: leaders that are still alive.

Theodora was actually the Empress for a short period of time, and she's pretty famous because of how much of a crazy :):):):):) she was. But the Byzantines have so many great emperors, putting in a crazy one just because she's female is stupid.

edit: Crap, scratch that, thinking of Irene. Yeah, leave Theodora the hell out.

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.

This is utter, ridiculous revisionism. For those of yall not in the know, "revisionist" is the lowest thing a history professional can call someone, like a cross between idiot and pigf****r.

Point by point:
totally unnecessary Civil War - The Civil War was not unnecessary. Creating a separate country out of another nation's national territory is an act of war. My beloved South started it, and did so based on hysteria, lies, and the unforgiveable sin of slaveholding.

false opinion we have about him - Opinions can't be "false"; but they can be based on wrong information. For an example, review your own post.

He was a racist - No, sorry. He held, for his time, fairly progressive views on race. The bogus charge that he was a racist is based on his 1858 campaign speech where he said, to appease a crowd, that while he did not think the black man the equal of the white man in intellectual talent, he did think he was his equal in his right to earn his own bread by the sweat of his brow.

If someone said that in 1958, you could call them a racist. But in 1858 there were scientists and biologists teaching and expounding on precisely that view and backing it up with, as it turns out, anecdotal and prejudged evidence. Virtually no one was making the contrary point.

Lincoln's record on race relations and on his ability to evolve his views on racial questions are laudatory. Early on in the war he strongly endorsed the use of black troops as a demonstration of the valor and worthiness of black men for full citizenship.

He started off having mainstream views on race and, when confronted with facts, very quickly and steadily moved to views and opinions that the majority of the country wouldn't get to until the 1930s and 40s.

If you eliminate from consideration as leader every head who doesn't come up to 21st century standards of racial enlightenment, you'd probably eliminate the majority of leaderheads already in Civ games--including Winston Churchill who was considerably behind the times in his own racial thinking.

But at least we agree on Cleopatra.

"Wives of" like:
Theodora, Livia and Ealanor Roosevelt

The need to have one male and one female leader in Civ 2 led to some silly choices, including the powerful and influential Mrs Roosevelt. She was a strong leader on some issues, but was never actually the national leader. Just about the only American case of a woman leader would be the second Mrs Wilson. Such is the downside of having elected leaders.

The first woman to be leader of any US armed services was Liddy Dole. When she was Secretary of Transportation in the 1980s, that technically made her the civilian commander of the US Coast Guard. If they need to have a token female American leader, I'd suggest Ann Richards.

On Theodora, I actually think she isn't a bad choice. She was more or less equal (if not greater, as some have said...) to her husband Justinian in terms of power and capability. She was not some woman who didn't do nothing... But I'd rather have her in for her accomplishments, not because she's female. And, unfortunately, it always seems that a lot of female leaders are added because... they're... female.

Sitting Bull... so-so. I have no strong opinion on this one, but the more I think the more I like the idea of replacing him with some other Native Americans nation. Most likely Iroquois.
Isn't that a little dismissive of Native American peoples? To put them in because the game needs Native Americans, and not because of some great attribute of a specific Nation?
I think we should either have none, or more than just one nation. The current method, of using a new African/Native American nation each game as a token is a little condescending and even insulting.

Isn't that a little dismissive of Native American peoples? To put them in because the game needs Native Americans, and not because of some great attribute of a specific Nation?
I think we should either have none, or more than just one nation. The current method, of using a new African/Native American nation each game as a token is a little condescending and even insulting.

He's actually more against the generic "Native Americans" than Sitting Bull per se, I think. I've always thought "native americans" was condescending and insulting. There was so much diversity in the various "native Americans" that you can't have a generic nation. I think it would be more dismissive to leave them out altogether, but that's only an opinion.

I think the Iriquois nation certainly belong in if any native americans do. They had a quite sophisticated form of government and alliances. I'm not sure about the great attributes of others, although I'm sure someone will fill that void.

I'd rather not encounter in civ5:
(semi)mythological leaders like:
Ragnar, Joanne of Arc, Hiawatha and a bunch of Civ2 leaders like Dido, Ishtar, Scheherezade and Amaterasu.

Chieftains (not leaders of civilizations) like:
Shaka, Sitting Bull and Brennus

"Wives of" like:
Theodora, Livia and Ealanor Roosevelt

Leaders that are just well known but doesn't represent the history and of a civ like:
Cleopatra (the last pharao)
Xerxes (bad leader compared to cyrus or darius)

And finally: leaders that are still alive.

I agree, except for Theodora for the reasons people have posted earlier, and Livia. In her time, she was easily as powerful as Augustus. Though he may have been publicly leading Rome, she was pulling many of the strings behind the scenes. The succession until Claudius was entirely of her design and making.

Jeanne d'Arc was hardly even semi-mythological. She might have a hero-worship thing going on for her now, but she certainly existed. She did however never rule France, so kick her out anyway!

If you're going to have Mao and Stalin in the game, you have to cover the opposite side of the political spectrum and include Hitler, in my opinion. I never understood why Hitler's name is so much more taboo than Stalin's when Stalin killed more people--other than the fact that Stalin was an ally for a while and killed his own people (and faithful Party supporters at that!) over Hitler's nationalist/foreign scapegoats. Include Hitler or don't include the Commies.

As long as there is no John Howard of the Australian Tribe, I will be content.

If you're going to have Mao and Stalin in the game, you have to cover the opposite side of the political spectrum and include Hitler, in my opinion. I never understood why Hitler's name is so much more taboo than Stalin's when Stalin killed more people--other than the fact that Stalin was an ally for a while and killed his own people (and faithful Party supporters at that!) over Hitler's nationalist/foreign scapegoats. Include Hitler or don't include the Commies.

Hitler is different because he's basically become a byword for evil. No matter how many people Stalin killed, it was just his paranoia - he thought they'd be problems for the state. Hitler initiated actual racial cleansing, and racial cleansing makes people uncomfortable. Plus, there aren't Neo-Stalinists going around talking about how cool Stalin is and wearing large mustachios.

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.


How else was an insurrection to be handled?

I can see, possibly, if the South had left peacefully. But, the first shots were fired by them - at a Union fort. EDIT: I do not mean to take this off-topic anymore than any other people posting in regards to this subject

Back on topic:

I think Washington should be taken out, although I have mixed feelings about it. He was our first president, but he is also overly present in the civ games, in my opinion. I would like to give other significant US leaders, like Thomas Jefferson, a spot in the game as well.

I believe Elizabeth should be taken out - she's been in every single game and a lot of her power was in fact in the hands of Cecil and Walsingham. Replace her with Churchill or Lloyd-George - heck, you could even do Wellington, he was PM for a while.

Oust Washington as well - he's overrated and it would be far better to use one of the Roosevelts.

I don't want Isabella, either - relgious madwoman =/= great leader.

Shaka together with his "civilization".You can argue that the Zulu kingdom doesn't fit the classical civilisation template as presented in Civilization. Certainly it would be one of the smallest by territory ever represented in the game. However this attitude you've presented in just one sentence is one of the most disgusting and disrespectful I've ever seen. Shaka united disparate peoples and ruled as king over a quarter of a million. At Isandhlwana he led an army of over 20,000 to victory against the most modern, best equipped military power of the day, it remains the biggest defeat British forces had against a native population.

So if you think that the Zulu were uncivilised savages and Shaka just some village chief of no significance then you're a fool and a dickhead. He's probably been as influential over southern Africa as Nelson Mandela.


Anyway, as for leaders I'm sick of; from a gameplay standpoint I'm sick of that clown leading the Inca, he just comes in and declares war on me everytime. I just wanna be friends!

As long as there is no John Howard of the Australian Tribe, I will be content.
Ahahah. If they were to ever include an Australian civ it would be hard to overshadow the rule of Menzies but I'd prefer Curtin.

However this attitude you've presented in just one sentence is one of the most disgusting and disrespectful I've ever seen.

I see no reason to show any respect to this bunch of savage guys who are really known only because of slaughtering others. And each other, later, after the death of Shaka. "Civilization", my a:):)


Shaka united disparate peoples and ruled as king over a quarter of a million. At Isandhlwana he led an army of over 20,000 to victory against the most modern, best equipped military power of the day, it remains the biggest defeat British forces had against a native population.

So basically you confirm that Shaka was nothing more but a savage and became famous only because of his savageness. Yeah managed to pull one victory against British forces, I'm soo impressed. Truly a sign of a great civilization.


So if you think that the Zulu were uncivilised savages and Shaka just some village chief of no significance then you're a fool and a dickhead.

If that is your arguments I don't see any reason to discuss it anymore.

Isn't that a little dismissive of Native American peoples? To put them in because the game needs Native Americans, and not because of some great attribute of a specific Nation?
I think we should either have none, or more than just one nation. The current method, of using a new African/Native American nation each game as a token is a little condescending and even insulting.


Well, if you put it this way... there's no disrespect in judging different continents by different standards. As I wrote in some other thread, a mm nation 5 nations like Iroquois would never qualify if they lived in Europe. Now in Northen America there's not so much competition. It's simply a fact that Iroquois had no such civilization, like, Rome. With all achievements in military, politics, literature, sculpture, engineering, philosophy and so on.

As for more than one, sure, why not. What else would you suggest? Sioux? Pueblo? Navajo?


I think it would be more dismissive to leave them out altogether, but that's only an opinion.

So true. And it is also very dismissive to take different cultures, nations, even different states if we can call them so, put them all together, stick label "Native Americans" and throw into the game after Sitting Bull who was a Shaman of Hunkpapa Sioux and a leader of several battles and also a performer in Wild West Show. It's truly god damn disrespectful, no irony intended. If they came up with such silly idea of one "Native Americans" civilization, they could have taken at least Pontiac or Tecumseh.

I see no reason to show any respect to this bunch of savage guys who are really known only because of slaughtering others. And each other, later, after the death of Shaka. "Civilization", my a:):)



So basically you confirm that Shaka was nothing more but a savage and became famous only because of his savageness. Yeah managed to pull one victory against British forces, I'm soo impressed. Truly a sign of a great civilization.


If that is your arguments I don't see any reason to discuss it anymore.

Your attitude is pathetic and borderline racist.

Your attitude is pathetic and borderline racist.

Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Maybe my attitude is pathetic but it is far from racism. Unless you define racism somehow different. Like, "Racism is when some guy speaks something I dont like". So if you dont heave real arguments, I kindly ask you to stop with silly accusations.

Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.

Hannibal Barca, Sophet of Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal#Peacetime_Carthage_.28200.E2.80.93196_BC. 29). This position is similar to the Consul in the Roman Republic. Hannibal was elected as, effectively, the head of government of Carthage, even though he lost the war and did such a good job the Romans demanded his exile, from where he continued his resistance. Just goes to show his leadership skills and resilience.

Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Maybe my attitude is pathetic but it is far from racism. Unless you define racism somehow different. Like, "Racism is when some guy speaks something I dont like". So if you dont heave real arguments, I kindly ask you to stop with silly accusations.

In a lot of ways the Zulus were much more civilized than their European counterparts. The use of the word "savage" is extremely offensive. Perhaps English is not your first language so you don't understand that.

Interesting article here.

Civilized Europeans and Cannibals

A look at the 19th century European view of Africa and its people (cannibals). But who really were the cannibals or the so called "savages".

The 19th century was a time of industrial revolution in Europe, where the major powers were looking to conquer and colonize the lands of Africa, Asia and America. The conquest and colonization of these lands was mainly for the purpose of obtaining raw materials and natural resources present on these lands, that were absent in the Europe, by power. But the Europeans masked their greed of conquests by believing that they were trying to civilize these savage worlds. The civilized European culture no longer saw itself as a part of nature. They considered themselves, not just separate, but superior to others and answered to no one, looting the riches of other's land for their own greed. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, looks into the same topic of colonizing the African continent for the greed of the European needs. Throughout much of Conrad's novel, he is showcasing the two different cultures to his readers: the civilized Europe and the non-civilized "barbarians" or "cannibals" of Africa. This clash in the differences of the two cultures, portrayed in the Heart of Darkness can be compared to the similar view of Michel de Montaigne in his essay Of Cannibals.

In the Heart of Darkness, Conrad, Marlow (the principle character) and the white men all refer to the inhabitants of the African lands as "cannibals". The word "cannibal", according to the 19th century European view, described the people who are not of the 'Christendom' and have completely different and mysterious cultures and practices. In the Heart of Darkness, Conrad displays the view of the Europeans towards the native inhabitants of the Congo as not humans, in the simplest sense of the word, "savages".

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/178592_civilized-europeans-and-cannibals

Interesting article on missionaries working in Africa. Some good advice too.

The Missionaries

Waves of Christian missionaries came to Africa. Most missionaries felt that they were serving an elevated race, trying to help a downtrodden race. They came to Africa expecting to help horrible people. Most missionaries were biased and discriminatory before they left their homes. There were a few that disagreed. Bishop Toser of the University's mission questioned the idea that the differences between the European and African civilizations. He said that whether a culture is civilized or not is not dependent on their outward circumstance. The number of railroads and phonographs does not measure the superiority of a civilization, according to this Bishop.

http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/films/basil/video5.html

The use of the word "savage" is extremely offensive. Perhaps English is not your first language so you don't understand that.

That might be. If that is the case, I am sorry. But my opinion on Zulu stands, even if I expressed it in a wrong way.

Besides, the word Racists is extremely offensive too. At least I take it as extremely offensive. As well as the words "fool" and "dickhead". Since English is not my mother tongue, maybe I got those words wrong, is that possible? Probably they were nice arguments showing why my opinion on Zulu was incorrect?

Now, the opinion of missionaries truly doesn't matter to me. It's obvious that when a person has imaginary friends, so called "spirituality" matters to him way more than railroads and other real accomplishments. They always take everything backwards and more often than not they hate achievements of science and civilization unless said achievements serve the purpose of religion.

What I need is facts. Show me what Zulu achieved in philosophy, architecture, literature, politics, whatever. Just list their factual works, what would you think can qualify them. Then we can discuss. I'm truly not very much into the history of Zulu, there might be things I missed. But I need to see them, not a quote from some Bishop.

That might be. If that is the case, I am sorry. But my opinion on Zulu stands, even if I expressed it in a wrong way.

Besides, the word Racists is extremely offensive too. At least I take it as extremely offensive. As well as the words "fool" and dickhead. Since English is not my mother tongue, maybe I got those words wrong, is that possible? Probably they were nice arguments showing why my opinion on Zulu was incorrect?

I certainly understand if you wish that the Zulus not be included in CiV. That's certainly ok. Giving well measured arguments as to why they shouldn't be included is certainly not racist.

However, calling a group of people "savages" is not correct in my opinion. That's all.

The use of the word "savage" is extremely offensive. Perhaps English is not your first language so you don't understand that.
Agreed. It's a none too subtle way of implying that the Zulus had no culture and basically just ran around killing each other. It just makes you look ignorant, frankly.

Duh I said I am sorry for choosing the wrong word. There's always subtle differences between the meanings of words from different languages. The counterpart of "savage" in my language is not that offensive, and my English is not so good yet so I don't know many subtleties. Now I will know better. All right?

Though I'm really curious to see how would you call Zulu. What's the appropriate word for their civilization and culture?

I like the word savage. Savage, savage, savage.

The last thing I want to see is the removal of an actual English monarch who defined her age (Elizabeth I) and replaced with a British prime minister of the last century (Sir Winston Churchill or David Lloyd-George). I despise recentism with a passion.

I think that modern/industrial leaders like Bismark/Churchill/Stalin/Roosewelt/Gandhi/Mao/De Gaulle spoil the game.
What is the good era limite for the leader's choice? industrial era because of germany? age of discovery because of USA?

I think that modern/industrial leaders like Bismark/Churchill/Stalin/Roosewelt/Gandhi/Mao/De Gaulle spoil the game.

I actually like modern leaders.

Exclude anyone born after 1820, because then you can at least have Queen Victoria and Otto von Bismark if you really want them.

Exclude anyone born after 1820, because then you can at least have Queen Victoria and Otto von Bismark if you really want them.

What's wrong with having 20th century leaders anyway? The one reason I can think of is that, due to them being recent, our memories of them are still relatively fresh, their actions are still widely discussed and therefore they are not as... um, exotic (for want of a better word) as leaders from earlier eras, as well as being more controversial politically (no one would really object to the inclusion of Alexander or Julius Caesar even though they led bloody campaigns of conquest, but it's a different matter with Stalin, etc). Personally, though, I like the inclusion of some recent leaders; not too many - history is not just the 20th century, after all, but if we don't include them that'd be neglecting modern history. Leaders to be included in a Civ game should be considered on merit, not the historical era they lived in.

^I'd' say they are not only just not exotic, but there can be biases against them, postive and negative, that really just don't work out for me. That's why I absolutely HATE history after 1918/1919, because in my opinion, as long as they're still people alive to remember it, there'll still be bias.

But that's just my preference. :dunno:

What's wrong with having 20th century leaders anyway? .

In my opinion, it is strange to have antique leaders besides modern leaders...
and because the game starts in ancient âge (and because I often stop to play before industrial age:D), I think Qinshi huangdi is more relevant than Mao, Asoka than Gandhi, ...

Maybe having a leader for each era would be the best:goodjob:

Now who's the racist?

I'm fine with Abe Lincoln being in the game as long as he does the dance from the Electric Six "Gay Bar" video.

Hahaha, now who's the racist? :goodjob:

What's wrong with having 20th century leaders anyway? The one reason I can think of is that, due to them being recent, our memories of them are still relatively fresh, their actions are still widely discussed and therefore they are not as... um, exotic (for want of a better word) as leaders from earlier eras, as well as being more controversial politically (no one would really object to the inclusion of Alexander or Julius Caesar even though they led bloody campaigns of conquest, but it's a different matter with Stalin, etc). Personally, though, I like the inclusion of some recent leaders; not too many - history is not just the 20th century, after all, but if we don't include them that'd be neglecting modern history. Leaders to be included in a Civ game should be considered on merit, not the historical era they lived in.

Agree with you, and I also think that they shouldn't include "the presidents son's ex-girlfriend's fathers babysitter", like Douglas McArthur, who I don't want to play just cause I don't know of him. And, that the leaders in the game, was a sort of a leader for the nation they represent
Enough talk, now I'm going to play some Civilization! :D

EDIT: Sorry for the spam, thought I switched topic

I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! :-P I would very much like an option that allows the player to block certain civilizations from entering the game, either as main players or as sprouted-off vassal colonies.

But regarding the topic on hand I wouldn't mind losing Stalin. Stalin was a cruel despot who murdered far more people than Hitler did, and I thought it very strange that he's in the game but Hitler isn't.

I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! :-P I would very much like an option that allows the player to block certain civilizations from entering the game, either as main players or as sprouted-off vassal colonies.

But regarding the topic on hand I wouldn't mind losing Stalin. Stalin was a cruel despot who murdered far more people than Hitler did, and I thought it very strange that he's in the game but Hitler isn't.

Anyway, who cares witch 3D figure is in the game and which isn't? It's just a picture, which certainly won't become a human leader and kill all those people again, they're just there for the game experience, and for representing the nation they led

i'd like to see gilgamesh replaced by sargon of akkad
I think the Iriquois nation certainly belong in if any native americans do. They had a quite sophisticated form of government and alliances. I'm not sure about the great attributes of others, although I'm sure someone will fill that void.

the only problem with that is that we basically think of native americans in terms of the ones who lived in the great plains. name pretty much any stereotype other than casinos and it'll probably have more to do with a plains indian than anyone else.
^I'd' say they are not only just not exotic, but there can be biases against them, postive and negative, that really just don't work out for me. That's why I absolutely HATE history after 1918/1919, because in my opinion, as long as they're still people alive to remember it, there'll still be bias.

But that's just my preference. :dunno:

everything we know about the past was told to us by someone else. there was just as much bias back then as there is now.

everything we know about the past was told to us by someone else. there was just as much bias back then as there is now.

True, but it is a lot harder for people to view things that just happened to them without bias - our perspective, I mean. Think of it this way. If your dad got murdered, you'd obviuosly be really pissed off. But if, say, your great-great-grandfather was murdered, chances are you may look at it more objectively and see what was really going on.

World War I i think is a nice example of this. Only until very recently did I get the sense that people were beginning to consider it less a "Germany was evil, evil, evil!" war, and more the brutal, terrible, pointless war that it really was. It's only until the very strong emotions die out can it be easier to look at history objectively.

My point is that for us, when the memory of a historical event is so fresh, it is really hard to separate bias from truth - of course more older historical events are still viewed with bias, but it is much easier to look at it from all angles.

Of course, whatever - I'm okay if there's modern leaders in the game, it's just that I have a distaste for modern history at times since there still can be really really really strong emotions about it. (Not that there isn't strong emotions about history from all eras, but it's most easily apparent when it comes to modern history)

Hitler is different because he's basically become a byword for evil. No matter how many people Stalin killed, it was just his paranoia - he thought they'd be problems for the state. Hitler initiated actual racial cleansing, and racial cleansing makes people uncomfortable. Plus, there aren't Neo-Stalinists going around talking about how cool Stalin is and wearing large mustachios.

Hitler is also different because Nazi symbology is illegal in Germany, and thus games that include Hitler or Nazi swastikas are illegal in Germany. It's easier to make one version with some other leader than a separate version for Germany so that the rest of the world can have a version with Hitler (if you assume that Firaxis would otherwise include Hitler - not something I see as very likely).

And thile Neo-Stalinists aren't as well-known, there are still a good number of Stalinists in Russia (not all of whom were alive when Stalin was). But it isn't anywhere near as taboo to be Stalinist in Russia as Nazi in Germany. Not everyone likes it, but there's not universal condemnation. In some ways communism even still has mainstream appeal in Russia - and it's no surprise, really, given how much of modern Russia was built in the communist era.

Now I don't know that many of these Stalinists are wearing large mustaches, but not many of the Neo-Nazis actually look like Hitler, either.

But I don't care a whole lot which leaders are in the game. For a historical scenario, it should be historical - in a WWII Europe scenario, Hitler should be included, and so should Stalin and Churchill. But for the epic game, it's not that important to me which leaders are chosen.

I dont know, i liked most of the people...some people in my family dont like any native americans or south americans, he says there, "annoying" but i like them personally...meanwhile, my favorite leader is Isabella, but i think she should be Castilian not spain:)

shakas also realy annoying, and Ghandi i mean hes not even a poltical ruler...all he did was make india more spiritual

shakas also realy annoying, and Ghandi i mean hes not even a poltical ruler...all he did was make india more spiritual

And lead the Indian people in peaceful resistance, which brought them independence from colonial rule. There is that minor little thing.


Overall this thread is crazy, a bunch of neo liberals throwing around epiteths like "racist", and pretty much every one of them is wrong. From the causes of the civlil war to the social mores of the zulu, you guys don't seem to know squat. The civil war was about slavery, and by any reasonable measure the Zulu were savages. Course I think the Zulu should stay in because they are the best thing sub Sarahan Africa has going in terms of inclusion in the game, and I'd rather not see what is virtually an entire continent left out. A far better "civ" to go would be the Celts, it's not like Europe is under represented, and the "Celts" were no more civilized then the Zulu by any measure I can think of.

I dislike having Gandhi in the game over say Asoka or even Akbar. I understand that he'll give the game a token "peace loving builder" and that someone needs to fill that but I'd prefer the Egyptian leader play that role. I just plain don't think that Gandhi "represents" Indian history as well as Asoka (who would probably be my first choice)...

I also think that having Shaka just because he'll fill the "war war war war war" style of play is stupid when we have Genghis Khan. And what did Montezuma "acheive" exactly (or for that matter the Aztecs, who in my view are pretty much a city-state)...

Pity they got rid of religion though since that gave leaders an extra thing that makes them different. Maybe they'll go back to civ III style more based on race though...

And lead the Indian people in peaceful resistance, which brought them independence from colonial rule. There is that minor little thing.


Overall this thread is crazy, a bunch of neo liberals throwing around epiteths like "racist", and pretty much every one of them is wrong. From the causes of the civlil war to the social mores of the zulu, you guys don't seem to know squat. The civil war was about slavery, and by any reasonable measure the Zulu were savages. Course I think the Zulu should stay in because they are the best thing sub Sarahan Africa has going in terms of inclusion in the game, and I'd rather not see what is virtually an entire continent left out. A far better "civ" to go would be the Celts, it's not like Europe is under represented, and the "Celts" were no more civilized then the Zulu by any measure I can think of.

A little bit of advice. Resorting to name calling and insults isn't helping your cause. :)

Since you've waded in here guns blazing, perhaps you'd like to explain what you know about the social mores of the Zulus and how they were different from the European colonizers. That would be very interesting and quite informative I'm sure.

I didn't resort to name calling, unless you think "neo liberal" is disparaging (also the use in that context is wrong, as neo-liberal is more referential to matters of economics, and neo-liberals are by most measures "conservative", I suppose Nambi-pamby is more what I was after there, which is disparaging, however very accurate, but I digress).

I suppose you take issue with the fact I point out there are many stupid arguments being made in this thread. Well there are, anyone who believes the civil war wasn't fought over slavery is either a revisionist, reinterpreting historical facts to fit their agenda, or they are simply nieve. When you're a little kid everyone tells you the civil war is about slavery, you get older learn about the economics, and form opinions based on the economic and legal points. But if you pay attention you should realize that every single economic and legal consideration is entirely based on slavery. Realizing and analytically separating the economic and legal issues involved in the civil war from slavery isn't clever, and it's the antithesis of clever not to connect the dots and eventually realize that ever separate issue brought up to explain the civil war derives entirely from the institution of slavery.

Of course I don't think that's what you're taking issue with, Thormodr. My take on it is you're obviously disdainful of all things European (or more likely white, which is kind of funny in it's own right as there is no White race, just various ethnic groups that superficially are less pigmented then other Caucasians), probably caused by white man's guilt, or something related to this. I get it, it's common. But to ignore the fact primitive societies regularly engage in what we consider in this day and age barbaric practices; for instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka; if you can't accept these practices are pretty much common in pre-enlightenment societies in general, and are morally reprehensible to a modern mind, then that's pretty much it, it just ends the discussion. And that's fine by me. You're enamored by the idea of the noble savage, and have never bothered to think about basic issues like sewage, or the memes caused by the enlightenment, and the effects of these memes and their role on society. Again that's fine, it's not worth bothering with you personally more then this post. Keep living in your ideal, "White man screwed it all up" world, it really isn't worth bothering with more then making a single response post.

Look, yes there are leaders and civs included in the game who didn't "achieve much". The Zulu never became a major power the way the British or the Romans did. But then again, Civ isn't a game about recreating history. What if things went differently? What if Alexander of Mycenea didn't die at age 30 whatever? Perhaps he would have conquered Rome. What if the Mongols didn't fight with each other before invading Europe? What if the Byzantines had held off the Ottomans at Constantinople? What if the Persians had conquered the Greeks? What if Hitler had attacked Russia before France? Etc, etc, etc. Each civ in the game has the chance to become a power, just like in real life. You might play a game where Hammurabi gets wiped out early because he started near Darius who immortal rushed him. Just like in real life. Shaka might be very backwards and get invaded by England and beat. Just like in real life. But these things are only possibilities. That's why I don't mind having civs like the Aztecs and the Zulu in the game.

I didn't resort to name calling, unless you think "neo liberal" is disparaging (also the use in that context is wrong, as neo-liberal is more referential to matters of economics, and neo-liberals are by most measures "conservative", I suppose Nambi-pamby is more what I was after there, which is disparaging, however very accurate, but I digress).

I suppose you take issue with the fact I point out there are many stupid arguments being made in this thread. Well there are, anyone who believes the civil war wasn't fought over slavery is either a revisionist, reinterpreting historical facts to fit their agenda, or they are simply nieve. When you're a little kid everyone tells you the civil war is about slavery, you get older learn about the economics, and form opinions based on the economic and legal points. But if you pay attention you should realize that every single economic and legal consideration is entirely based on slavery. Realizing and analytically separating the economic and legal issues involved in the civil war from slavery isn't clever, and it's the antithesis of clever not to connect the dots and eventually realize that ever separate issue brought up to explain the civil war derives entirely from the institution of slavery.

Of course I don't think that's what you're taking issue with, Thormodr. My take on it is you're obviously disdainful of all things European (or more likely white, which is kind of funny in it's own right as there is no White race, just various ethnic groups that superficially are less pigmented then other Caucasians), probably caused by white man's guilt, or something related to this. I get it, it's common. But to ignore the fact primitive societies regularly engage in what we consider in this day and age barbaric practices; for instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka; if you can't accept these practices are pretty much common in pre-enlightenment societies in general, and are morally reprehensible to a modern mind, then that's pretty much it, it just ends the discussion. And that's fine by me. You're enamored by the idea of the noble savage, and have never bothered to think about basic issues like sewage, or the memes caused by the enlightenment, and the effects of these memes and their role on society. Again that's fine, it's not worth bothering with you personally more then this post. Keep living in your ideal, "White man screwed it all up" world, it really isn't worth bothering with more then making a single response post.

You are really bitter aren't you? Relax please. :)

I am white Canadian myself and trust me, I am no neo liberal. I also don't hold disdain for anyone and I certainly don't have white man's guilt. I am objective however and well versed in history having studied it in University.

I never said the Zulus were saints and personally Shaka (which means bastard in Zulu I believe) had a very unhappy life. An accurate description of him would be psychopathic.

or instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka

Of course none of these things happened in "enlightened" Europe at the time. Heaven knows there wasn't any child labour. I'm sure if you looked at 19th century Europe you wouldn't find any pedophilia going on. Pederasty ring a bell?
Europeans never practiced genocide in the new world or in Africa did they? They never passed out disease ridden blankets in the new world to decimate native populations. The South African Colonialists never practiced genocide against the Bushmen did they? That's only for savages of course.

Don't worry though. I am not say white people are the cause of all of Africa's problems. They certainly aren't totally innocent either. The issue isn't black and white. (No pun intended.)

Hitler is different because he's basically become a byword for evil. No matter how many people Stalin killed, it was just his paranoia - he thought they'd be problems for the state. Hitler initiated actual racial cleansing, and racial cleansing makes people uncomfortable. Plus, there aren't Neo-Stalinists going around talking about how cool Stalin is and wearing large mustachios.

Stalin did not kill all those people out of paranoia. There's a ton of evidence that suggests he indulged in a ton of caprices, both with saving and killing certain people. And that still doesn't exempt the 10,000,000 killed in the Ukraine.

I really doubt Stalin actually believed that there were Jewish Nazi spies in his Party.

Stalin did not kill all those people out of paranoia. There's a ton of evidence that suggests he indulged in a ton of caprices, both with saving and killing certain people. And that still doesn't exempt the 10,000,000 killed in the Ukraine.

I really doubt Stalin actually believed that there were Jewish Nazi spies in his Party.

He kill anyone who he thought might stand in his way.

As long as there is no John Howard of the Australian Tribe, I will be content.

OMG! Amen to that. :)

Harold Holt of the Atlanteans, on the other hand...

Harold Holt of the Atlanteans, on the other hand...

:lol:

I wouldn't mind Chifley or Deakin of the Australians, actually.

Shaka united disparate peoples and ruled as king over a quarter of a million. At Isandhlwana he led an army of over 20,000 to victory against the most modern, best equipped military power of the day, it remains the biggest defeat British forces had against a native population.

Except for the fact that Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka) was assassinated on 22 September 1828 and the Battle of Isandlwana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana) took place on 22 January 1879 -- a full 50 years later! :lol:

Fifty, even.

My maths makes that 51 years :)

I thought it was annoying when I got Germany and the Holy Roman Empire in the same game. It's the same country, dammit! :-P I would very much like an option that allows the player to block certain civilizations from entering the game, either as main players or as sprouted-off vassal colonies.

But regarding the topic on hand I wouldn't mind losing Stalin. Stalin was a cruel despot who murdered far more people than Hitler did, and I thought it very strange that he's in the game but Hitler isn't.

You gotta have Stalin in the game. The man was the undisputed dictator of the USSR and transformed it from a weakened agricultural state into a very powerful, modern industrial one, that pretty much single-handedly defeated Hitler's armies and then went onto expand the "Russian" empire into central Europe and rival the USA in power for the next 30 years. Admittedly, that was achieving at appalling cost in human lives and misery.

I think, though, that he should not be identified as "Stalin of the Russians", but "Stalin of the USSR".

My maths makes that 51 years :)

Then your math is wrong, because January minus September is only 4 months, so it rounds down to 50. ;)

Of course I don't think that's what you're taking issue with, Thormodr. My take on it is you're obviously disdainful of all things European (or more likely white, which is kind of funny in it's own right as there is no White race, just various ethnic groups that superficially are less pigmented then other Caucasians), probably caused by white man's guilt, or something related to this. I get it, it's common. But to ignore the fact primitive societies regularly engage in what we consider in this day and age barbaric practices; for instance the Zulu's exterminating neighboring tribes in outright genocide, or pedophilia, or using child soldiers, under Shaka; if you can't accept these practices are pretty much common in pre-enlightenment societies in general, and are morally reprehensible to a modern mind, then that's pretty much it, it just ends the discussion. And that's fine by me. You're enamored by the idea of the noble savage, and have never bothered to think about basic issues like sewage, or the memes caused by the enlightenment, and the effects of these memes and their role on society. Again that's fine, it's not worth bothering with you personally more then this post. Keep living in your ideal, "White man screwed it all up" world, it really isn't worth bothering with more then making a single response post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

:lol:

I wouldn't mind Chifley or Deakin of the Australians, actually.

What about Queen Elizabeth II of the Australians? That would set the cat amongst the pigeons. :)

Except for the fact that Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka) was assassinated on 22 September 1828 and the Battle of Isandlwana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana) took place on 22 January 1879 -- a full 50 years later! :lol:

Of course Shaka was the founder of the Zulu Empire and laid down the foundations for Zulu military organization and strategy.

What about Queen Elizabeth II of the Australians? That would set the cat amongst the pigeons. :)
Makes about as much sense as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili of the Russians. :crazyeye:

Unattractive female leaders.

Look, yes there are leaders and civs included in the game who didn't "achieve much". The Zulu never became a major power the way the British or the Romans did. But then again, Civ isn't a game about recreating history. What if things went differently? What if Alexander of Mycenea didn't die at age 30 whatever? Perhaps he would have conquered Rome. What if the Mongols didn't fight with each other before invading Europe? What if the Byzantines had held off the Ottomans at Constantinople? What if the Persians had conquered the Greeks? What if Hitler had attacked Russia before France? Etc, etc, etc. Each civ in the game has the chance to become a power, just like in real life. You might play a game where Hammurabi gets wiped out early because he started near Darius who immortal rushed him. Just like in real life. Shaka might be very backwards and get invaded by England and beat. Just like in real life. But these things are only possibilities. That's why I don't mind having civs like the Aztecs and the Zulu in the game.

This must be the best post in this thread. There are more issues that should be considered other than "historical greatness" of the civilizations in question. I consider, for instance, representing different cultures of the world important. Mostly for the diversity of the game, but also for the fact that everyone gets to have some civilization they can in some way relate to.

Just to add, a leader doesn't have to be elected or otherwise officially selected by their people. It is a person that leads or guides, using influence or power. It is a person a people look to in order to give orders (or even advice). It is someone who points out a course for the nation to take. In this manner, both Gandhi and Hannibal were obviously leaders. And of course, in our alternate history in Civilization, they could be the official rulers of their civilization. I think it is a lot more important that the leader is an influential person (for that civilization) who'll provide them with a face outward than that he was a head of state.

(I still would like to have Asoka over Gandhi, though)

Makes about as much sense as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili of the Russians. :crazyeye:

Did Elizabeth II ever killed 20 million Australians?

Unattractive female leaders.

Let's hope we get this Wu Zetian

http://albanian.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2009/06/19/wuzetian090619.jpg

and not this Wu Zetian

http://www.pocanticohills.org/womenenc/WuZetian.jpg

Of course Shaka was the founder of the Zulu Empire and laid down the foundations for Zulu military organization and strategy.

I know: The Wikipedia article I linked to says so. But that's not what the OP claimed! :p

Unattractive female leaders.

+1! :goodjob:

And of course, in our alternate history in Civilization, they could be the official rulers of their civilization.
It doesn't enter the realm of alternate history unless you're playing on an Earth map.
Did Elizabeth II ever killed 20 million Australians?
Where do you think Sharwood went? :evil:

Let's hope we get this Wu Zetian

(Cinderella version)

and not this Wu Zetian

(period piece version)

I seriously hope the opposite. Let's put in some more attractive men for a change! :)

Abraham Lincoln from Electric Six's Gay Bar would work. ;)

"Why, hi there, honest Abe. How about some one-on-one diplomacy?" :p

Did Elizabeth II ever killed 20 million Australians?

She didn't have too. In 1999 we voted not to become a republic. :D

She didn't have too. In 1999 we voted not to become a republic. :D

Unfortunately.

It doesn't enter the realm of alternate history unless you're playing on an Earth map.

I can't see how that does anything but to support my point...

I can't see how that does anything but to support my point...
Since when was I talking about your point?

sigh at this thread. Some of you guys take this stuff way too personally. And don't seem to understand the point of Civ games. The point of civ games that the developers like to say is it is alternate history. Thusly, whether a civilization such as the Shakas never really developed into anything is not relevant. The point is what if they were able to materialize and form a long lasting and cultural civilization?

I suppose this is what happens when you include specific leaders. People will have prejudices. This game isn't about what these leaders did in real life, they are just figureheads. It allows for more immersive gameplay when you can see a face to talk to during diplomacy.

So by my argument, every leader is fine by me. I have no qualms with any of them. Diversity is a good thing. Who the hell wants a bunch of european civs with China thrown in for good measure? Maybe Japan and India, but the rest of the world hasn't done squat. Many were little more than loosely joined tribes or in some cases little more than barbarian hordes. As I said, I don't want to see the same faces every damn game.

So I welcome the Zulu. Although they do attack me far too often, but last game they never attacked, and they were right next to me.

I just wanted to make one more argument for modern leaders. Most aren't worth mentioning. They came in did their job, and then left. But there were a few that really revolutionized the system. FDR is one case of this. While you may disagree with his policies (I do), you can't deny how much change he has done to the economic system of the U.S. Then there is Hitler. He lasted about the same time as FDR, but his changes weren't long lasting. As his govermental system was disbanded after 45. But you could argue without them, those changes would have never occurred. But for practicality reasons (game needed mods for german play etc) he shouldn't be in the game.

KEEP SHAKA! He established a amazing governing system. The Zulus weren't just some tribe, they were a great civilization.

WU!!! Grrrrrrrr! Quin Shi Huang was better! I can think of a thousand Chinese leaders who would be better. Pleas Firaxis, choose leaders because of their achievements, not because of their gender.

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

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

He kill anyone who he thought might stand in his way.

Of course, but he also killed many that he knew would never pose a threat to his rule. That's what I am saying.

Although we should probably end this argument, it can too slowly degenerate into defending Stalin's being in the game or excluded unconditionally, which is not my point.

I understand the political consequences of including Hitler, I was engaging in this thread more on the basis of semantics than practicality.

sigh at this thread. Some of you guys take this stuff way too personally. And don't seem to understand the point of Civ games. The point of civ games that the developers like to say is it is alternate history. Thusly, whether a civilization such as the Shakas never really developed into anything is not relevant. The point is what if they were able to materialize and form a long lasting and cultural civilization?

I suppose this is what happens when you include specific leaders. People will have prejudices. This game isn't about what these leaders did in real life, they are just figureheads. It allows for more immersive gameplay when you can see a face to talk to during diplomacy.

So by my argument, every leader is fine by me. I have no qualms with any of them. Diversity is a good thing. Who the hell wants a bunch of european civs with China thrown in for good measure? Maybe Japan and India, but the rest of the world hasn't done squat. Many were little more than loosely joined tribes or in some cases little more than barbarian hordes. As I said, I don't want to see the same faces every damn game.

So I welcome the Zulu. Although they do attack me far too often, but last game they never attacked, and they were right next to me.

I just wanted to make one more argument for modern leaders. Most aren't worth mentioning. They came in did their job, and then left. But there were a few that really revolutionized the system. FDR is one case of this. While you may disagree with his policies (I do), you can't deny how much change he has done to the economic system of the U.S. Then there is Hitler. He lasted about the same time as FDR, but his changes weren't long lasting. As his govermental system was disbanded after 45. But you could argue without them, those changes would have never occurred. But for practicality reasons (game needed mods for german play etc) he shouldn't be in the game.

nah Hitler is ommitted for political correctness. Morality is a strange thing. What did Hitler do wrong? He wanted to execute a group of people he didn't like - the jews, and sought to increase Germany's power through violence - we started wars. Well...what about Julius Ceasar? He wiped out the Gauls and turned Rome into a military dictatorship from a republic. Gengis Khan, just as bad as Hitler. Stalin, ditto. The only difference is if Hitler were in the game that might cause Civ to get some bad press coverage - and it would, and it wouldn't be able to sell legally in Germany.

Caesar defeated the Gauls; he didn't have them all lined up and crucified all the way to Rome. Claiming that an ancient general's acts of conquest make him comparable to Hitler's atrocities is laughable.

Either way Bismark did more for Germany than Hitler could ever dream of. So the argument is probably moot.

The only place Hitler belongs is in a ww2 specific scenario.

I don't get why Hitler is even considered...HE LOST end of discussion. If he "won" I'd understand, but heres the thing...HE LOST. Same goes for Cleopatra and Montezuma and (I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head, except maybe Boudecia, but she of all of those guys had the worst odds...)

He could be included in an expansion about people who "lost" (Xerxes comes to mind too). I don't know why you'd want to play an expansion pack "loosers of civilisation" but that's the only way I see it happenning (although, I'm sure that there's someone who "lost" worse then Hitler in German history...)

well this thread is quite ugly. Thanks to anyone that corrected Aquila SPQR on his views of the American Civil War.. IMO completely wrong. If you think the ACW wasn't about slavery, honestly you don't know squat about it. Saying a civil war is unnecessary is just nonsensical, and then to somehow point the blame on Lincoln, well you just don't know anything about it. The CSA had already ceded and formed its own government months before Lincoln even took office.


"Why, hi there, honest Abe. How about some one-on-one diplomacy?" :p
Really??? :blush:

no thanks. And no thanks to Shaka, Mao, Stalin, Charlemagne, Darius, and a few others that just aren't that appealing to play as to me. Charlemagne could be ok I guess, just don't use the Burger King guy as the model this time around.

Lesse... hmm. No Churchill because he was ridiculously bigoted against Indians, and no Gandhi because a) He was a "power behind the throne" ruler like Cheney, and because he flat-out refused to believe anyone else couldn't get a united Indian nation free from the British. Nehru'd be better, IMO. ARE there any non-corrupt competent Roman rulers? And at the risk of being obvious, no Hitler!

Lesse... hmm. No Churchill because he was ridiculously bigoted against Indians, and no Gandhi because a) He was a "power behind the throne" ruler like Cheney, and because he flat-out refused to believe anyone else couldn't get a united Indian nation free from the British. Nehru'd be better, IMO. ARE there any non-corrupt competent Roman rulers? And at the risk of being obvious, no Hitler!

Dude, every single leader ever has skeletons in their closet. Who do you want, Mother Teresa? (who has skeletons in her closet, as well... so my point is reinforced)

Gandhi! Every time he is in the game I make it my objective to conquer him first

NO MORE ELIZABETH. I admit she was a great leader but I'm just plain sick of seeing her. If she is in the game, fine; but if the developers get a silly idea like having only one leader per civ; PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT ELIZABETH I TUDOR. Personally, I'd like to see Alfred the Great, Edward I/III, or Dick the Lionheart. GOD SAVE THE KING :king:

Joan of Arc is silly. Make it Louis XIV; and Napoleon was fun to see too.

Saladin for the Arabs is dumb. The man was a Kurd and there are plenty of Arab leaders to choose from. I'm very happy that other guy was confirmed as the leader.

I'm kind of sick of Isabella too for the Russians. Yaroslav the Wise and Vladimir the Great were way cooler.

He was a "power behind the throne" ruler like Cheney

Hardly. He clashed constantly with Congress, and he was largely excluded from the political processes leading up to independence and the decision to partition India (which he opposed).

Look, yes there are leaders and civs included in the game who didn't "achieve much". The Zulu never became a major power the way the British or the Romans did. But then again, Civ isn't a game about recreating history. What if things went differently?

This is true, but by that rationale we could include anybody and anything. Because what if Eskimos had conquered both Americas?

There sure might be other reasons to include Zulu apart from greatness. Now that I think of it, nostalgia would be one of them too :) I'm so used to Zulu being in every Civ game I'd probably even miss them in Civ 5 should they not get included :)

i won't want singapore as a city state in this game.. 'cause i don't think i'll sleep very well knowing there're people here planning to nuke it just to piss off u.s. of america or something.

I can't believe the fighting over Abraham Lincoln and slavery. He is considered one of the top three most famous presidents alongside both FDR, and George Washington. If you don't want him added then you can have your own opinion. I almost guarantee most people would disagree with you. Specific people not being added is a moot point right now. We have no idea what actual things can happen in the game. If your civilization can have a civil war with itself, then perhaps Abraham Lincoln might be a perfect solution to it.

Cleopatra, who wasn't a real leader.
Gandhi, same reason.

Mythical leaders like Jingu for Japan.

Lesser known leaders replacing more notable leaders (Hatshepsut instead of Ramses, for example.)

Any leader that ruled after the 70s (The last leader I'll accept is Nixon.)

Cleopatra wasn't a real ruler? You're going to throw out Queen Victoria, Otto von Bismark and all other constitutional rulers and politicians then?

Since when was I talking about your point?

Since the moment you quoted my post and responded to it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension
My reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Creating a caricature of an opponent's position in a debate is called a "straw man" argument, as per the Wikipedia article I linked. Not writing off the Zulu people as a bunch of uncivilised animals does not imply hating European culture and "the white man," except perhaps in some paranoid far right fantasy world. Argue with things people have actually said, please.

I'll say no more because I don't want to get drawn into personal arguments on the internet.

Gameplay wise Gandhi is pretty awful, he never builds much of an army and is very easy to conquer. If he was neighbouring someone like Shaka or Gilly, then that match would become pretty difficult for the human player.

Historically though Gandhi was important for India, so as long as India is in, Gandhi has to be one of the leader. It would be better if he could build a reasonable army.

I don't want ANY of the real life historical leaders. The leader/civ should have its special powers and characteristics for sure, but the game should just generate a random name that sounds appropriate for the civ in question. And give the player the option to change/customize the name.

Just my humble opinion.

Imagine the thread that would start if your two American leaders were:
a) Hillary Clinton
b) Sarah Palin

That would never happen. It's a pointless idea.

Brennus and Boudicca leap to mine, although that really comes from my general desire to see an overhaul of the entire way in which the Celtic civ is represented. The former is a semi-legendary warlord from a long-extinct branch of the culture, the latter a petty monarch and short-lived rebel from an ultimately junior branch. An Irish or Scottish monarch of greater standing- Brian Boru, perhaps, or Robert Bruce, would be greatly preferable. Of course, this would require the redefinition of "Celt" in the game to mean something more than "Ancient Gaul/Briton" (a set of cultures which do not leap to mind as a necessary inclusion), but one can always hope.

Historically though Gandhi was important for India, so as long as India is in, Gandhi has to be one of the leader. It would be better if he could build a reasonable army.
I disagree; while Gandhi was doubtlessly important, and a leader of great significance, he was never a great ruler or statesman, as most leaders in the game are; his recurring presence in the game, I'm sorry to say, has always struck me as reflecting the ignorance of the Westerner in regards to Indian history. If nothing else, the implication that the history of an entire civilisation is best represented by referencing it's relationship with Europe is slightly insulting.

And, of course, many of the obligatory female leaders from Civ2, but that rather goes without saying. They were always a little bit desperate.

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.
That would disqualify most rulers of our history, you know, and the whole British Empire while we are at it (they pretty much believed that Darwinism _proved_ that Brits are the peak of human evolution and thus have the right to rule over the lesser people, such as Africans who were less than wildmen in their eyes).

they pretty much believed that Darwinism _proved_ that Brits are the peak of human evolution and thus have the right to rule over the lesser people, such as Africans who were less than wildmen in their eyes

M... never heard of it. Any sources please? At the times UK ruled the world... to say that Darwin was not widely accepted would be an understatement.

What, you mean we're not the obvious master race? :)

That would disqualify most rulers of our history, you know, and the whole British Empire while we are at it (they pretty much believed that Darwinism _proved_ that Brits are the peak of human evolution and thus have the right to rule over the lesser people, such as Africans who were less than wildmen in their eyes).
While the idea that Europeans were more highly evolved was present in that period, you may be misguided in your attribution of such beliefs of Darwinism; much as it is forgotten today, evolution was an established idea before Darwin's time (indeed, his grandfather was a proponent of such, in the form of much more linear models (which often left a comfortable amount of room for "intelligent design" of some sort). Darwinism was noted at the time as radically challenging these models- the very models which ordained the European as the natural and inevitable pinnacle of life- by suggesting an essentially randomly, amoral pattern to evolution and, importantly, suggesting that adaptation to an environment dictated the success of a species or "race" of humans. Darwinism suggested that the African and European were both adapted to their own immediate natural environments, not that either was functionally, let alone morally superior to the other. Darwin himself opposed this school of thought- already well established at the time, and not necessarily drawing on the principal of biological evolution- and deeply resented the appropriation of his purely mechanical explanation to serve political ends.

When you get down to it, the British ruling class believed that they were entitled to rule over "savages" simply because they were able to, through violence and coercion, much as they ruled over their poorer countrymen. Whatever pretensions they dressed their brutality in, it was never anything more.

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.

Cleopatra - a little more "egyptian" ruler would be better. Thutmose, even Khufu, but certainly not this greek whor... queen.

Joan D'Arc - come on! We do not need a woman who thought that god spoke with her. Besides - he was the same "leader" like gen. Petraeus or Schwarzkopf is "American leader".

u gotta b kidding lets not have leaders cuz there racist towards blacks?? man if u knew how many leaders were racist lol i dont want to remove and leaders adding more would b nice

While the idea that Europeans were more highly evolved was present in that period, you may be misguided in your attribution of such beliefs of Darwinism
I'm not attributing such beliefs on Darwinism, but the people who held such beliefs during that period in time used Darwin's theories as further proof that they were right in subjugating other races. But you are right in arguing that the imperialistic ideals pre-existed Darwin's theories.

M... never heard of it. Any sources please? At the times UK ruled the world... to say that Darwin was not widely accepted would be an understatement.
Pretty much textbook stuff. Search for British Imperialism and Darwinism and you should find several sources. Such as:
http://www.bookrags.com/research/social-darwinism-emerges-and-is-use-scit-0512/

Some leaders I don't want and ones I do:

I have never understood what Cleopatra did for egypt. She's an interesting love story, but closer to Lady Chatterly than Queen Elizabeth. Much rather have Hatshepsut who ruled the empire or best of all Ramses II.

Don't bring back FDR. Rather have Jefferson or Washington. Feel they did a lot more for the country.

Never again use Joan of Arc. Napoleon should always always always rule France and he should be a wicked awesome general.

Gandhi is not one I would pick either, because he didn't ever build an empire, he was an outstanding citizen. He's like Martin Luther King Jr., an inspirational spiritual figure, but not in my opinion an Empire builder. I'd rather have Asoka. But I do get that Gandhi is iconic.

I don't get preferring Wu Zhou to Qin Shi Huang. The articles indicate taht Wu is in and Shi Huang is out, but that's just silly to me. Wu's accomplishment was impressive, but Shi Huang took the warring states and made China. I honestly wonder if we're just going for more female leaders here.

Last, I don't want Ghenghis, but only because I think Kublai Khan is a better choice. I'm fine with either, but prefer Kublai who turned the nomads into a political empire.

Some leaders I don't want and ones I do:

I have never understood what Cleopatra did for egypt. She's an interesting love story, but closer to Lady Chatterly than Queen Elizabeth. Much rather have Hatshepsut who ruled the empire or best of all Ramses II.

Don't bring back FDR. Rather have Jefferson or Washington. Feel they did a lot more for the country.

Never again use Joan of Arc. Napoleon should always always always rule France and he should be a wicked awesome general.

Gandhi is not one I would pick either, because he didn't ever build an empire, he was an outstanding citizen. He's like Martin Luther King Jr., an inspirational spiritual figure, but not in my opinion an Empire builder. I'd rather have Asoka. But I do get that Gandhi is iconic.

I don't get preferring Wu Zhou to Qin Shi Huang. The articles indicate taht Wu is in and Shi Huang is out, but that's just silly to me. Wu's accomplishment was impressive, but Shi Huang took the warring states and made China. I honestly wonder if we're just going for more female leaders here.

Last, I don't want Ghenghis, but only because I think Kublai Khan is a better choice. I'm fine with either, but prefer Kublai who turned the nomads into a political empire.

I generally agree with all that except for Genghis.

Both Genghis' and Kublai's achievements were downright remarkable, but Genghis would be better in my opinion. He was the one who united the Mongols, he was the one who started the Empire and built up all the important institutions (like law codes, communication systems, military organization, and so forth) that would prove the basis for the Mongol Empire... In a sense, he was like (a very bloody) George Washington to all of Mongolia. Kublai Khan was a great leader and an important person in history too, but the Mongolians basically 'worship' (for lack of better wording) Genghis Khan as their nation's father.

Also Kublai, although not too shabby militarily, wasn't as military-focused as Genghis Khan... and in Civilization, the Mongols generally keep a militaristic atmosphere about them...

So that's why I think Genghis would be a better choice for the Mongols.

I generally agree with all that except for Genghis.

Both Genghis' and Kublai's achievements were downright remarkable, but Genghis would be better in my opinion. He was the one who united the Mongols, he was the one who started the Empire and built up all the important institutions (like law codes, communication systems, military organization, and so forth) that would prove the basis for the Mongol Empire... In a sense, he was like (a very bloody) George Washington to all of Mongolia. Kublai Khan was a great leader and an important person in history too, but the Mongolians basically 'worship' (for lack of better wording) Genghis Khan as their nation's father.

Also Kublai, although not too shabby militarily, wasn't as military-focused as Genghis Khan... and in Civilization, the Mongols generally keep a militaristic atmosphere about them...

So that's why I think Genghis would be a better choice for the Mongols.

you make very good points. I'm sold.

Okay, have to admit one thing -- Can't stand the thought of Julius making it in over Augustus. Well, obviously I can because I'm going to buy the game, but still ... shoot.

George was pretty damn bloody himself. Early in the war he repeatedly lost battles and skirmishes with greenhorn militia, but they always managed to escape. The British literally should have won the war by the end of August, 1776, but Washington was too slippery. I forgot the guys name, but with the help of a Frenchman he basically whipped up a bunch of farmers and blacksmiths to take on the most powerful military in the world, and we all know the outcome. He overcame threats to his leadership both from the governor of Pennsylvania and from other competing generals like Horatio Gates. He organized a surprise attack on Christmas day on the Hessian's to swing the tide of war. Then there is Valley Forge and crossing the Delaware, it goes on and on, Washington was literally one of the greatest leaders to ever walk the earth.

If you've ever watched the American Revolution on the history channel, you know what I'm talking about, bone chilling stuff. He was a badass.

George was pretty damn bloody himself. Early in the war he repeatedly lost battles and skirmishes with greenhorn militia, but they always managed to escape. The British literally should have won the war by the end of August, 1776, but Washington was too slippery. I forgot the guys name, but with the help of a Frenchman he basically whipped up a bunch of farmers and blacksmiths to take on the most powerful military in the world, and we all know the outcome. He overcame threats to his leadership both from the governor of Pennsylvania and from other competing generals like Horatio Gates. He organized a surprise attack on Christmas day on the Hessian's to swing the tide of war. Then there is Valley Forge and crossing the Delaware, it goes on and on, Washington was literally one of the greatest leaders to ever walk the earth.

If you've ever watched the American Revolution on the history channel, you know what I'm talking about, bone chilling stuff. He was a badass.

Well, actually I'm not too surprised by that... I've learned to respect the guy over the years.

But he can't still beat the Khan. Because when you mess with the Khan... Well, you probably know what happens.

ah just forget that.

I would like Shaka and the Zulu out, and also Mao and Cleopatra. Replace Cleo with one of the Ramsesses.

I heard somewhere that Mao has already been replaced (assuming one leader per civ). It always puzzled me why they used Joan of Arc in CivIII. I want Shaka and the Zulu out too.

I disagree; while Gandhi was doubtlessly important, and a leader of great significance, he was never a great ruler or statesman, as most leaders in the game are; his recurring presence in the game, I'm sorry to say, has always struck me as reflecting the ignorance of the Westerner in regards to Indian history. If nothing else, the implication that the history of an entire civilisation is best represented by referencing it's relationship with Europe is slightly insulting.


While I agree Gandhi was never a ruler, he was a leader. It was he, who managed to legitimise Nehru. Besides Gandhi, nobody else had authority over all of present day India, even Asoka didn't rule over south India.

While I appreciate why Americans love Washington and think he is a great leader, he's is after all just the leader of some English creoles whose state would one day be a great power. I.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible. Even Lincoln's America is quite unimportant. FDR's America is important though, being a soon-to-be superpower. I'd like FDR as US leader, or perhaps even Eisenhower.

Also Kublai, although not too shabby militarily, wasn't as military-focused as Genghis Khan... and in Civilization, the Mongols generally keep a militaristic atmosphere about them...

That's why I'd really like to have them both :) But if we absolutely must choose only one, yes, it's Temujin without doubts...


I.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible.

Well, in my opinion that makes him even more worthy. He waged war against UK, the top world's power at the time - and he won. I believe we should judge leaders by their own achievements, not by status of their country at their times. Just my opinion :)


I heard somewhere that Mao has already been replaced

Right. We will have Empress Wu Zetian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Zetian) instead. As I strongly believe the main reason why China is in Civ at all is really not it's achievements as a comunist country but all the rich history before that, I strongly support removing Mao. China must be represented by some ol' Emperor... or Empress if they feel like having more women in the game :/

While I appreciate why Americans love Washington and think he is a great leader, he's is after all just the leader of some English creoles whose state would one day be a great power. I.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible. Even Lincoln's America is quite unimportant. FDR's America is important though, being a soon-to-be superpower. I'd like FDR as US leader, or perhaps even Eisenhower.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy this argument. What leaders allowed the US to become a great nation? Washington helped unite the nation, and his democratic ideals are still highly influential today. He formed the first government--if he agreed to a lifelong term as some hoped in his day things would be very different in America.

Lincoln's America is incredibly important for uniting the nation. FDR might have been ruling over the North United States if it wasn't for him.

I just want to comment on some people lamenting that Firaxis is selecting certain leaders, such as Wu Zetian, "only because they are women". You may not believe it, but Firaxis doing this is a good thing. Starting with Civ: Revolution, Firaxis has been trying to make the Civ series more accessible to a broader audience. If Firaxis wants Civ to appeal to more casual gamers, instead of only to Civ fanatics, then they need to have more women as playable characters in the game, simply for the fact that this demographic contains a significant number of women.

And believe me, my experience is definitely that women generally prefer to play as women, whether it's in video games, board games, role-playing games or otherwise. (The same, in my experience, also goes for other "minorities".) In addition, most women don't appreciate it if the only playable female characters are babes with big boobs and scant clothes. They (rightly) would like to see the same variety in appearance in female characters as we currently have in male characters.

So yes, please, put in more women and include fat women, ugly women and old women, just like we have fat men, ugly men and old men in the game. Without them, Civ will have simply a much harder time to expand its fan-base.

[/RANT] I'll get off my soapbox now. :)

fat women, ugly women and old women

Victoria covers all of this

I don't like Cleopatra for the same reasons above. She makes it in usually because of the need for more female leaders. Hatshepsut should replace here and Ramesses II would be a good second leader.

I also feel that a Civ leader does not necessarily have to be a ruler. A leader could be a great general or revolutionary as well. Anyone who is considered a national hero could be a leader. Most of them would of course be presidents, kings and emperors. But why not a great general like Hannibal?

It doesn't really matter to me, although I wouldn't pick Cleopatra for Egypt.

I'm not attributing such beliefs on Darwinism, but the people who held such beliefs during that period in time used Darwin's theories as further proof that they were right in subjugating other races. But you are right in arguing that the imperialistic ideals pre-existed Darwin's theories.


Pretty much textbook stuff. Search for British Imperialism and Darwinism and you should find several sources. Such as:
http://www.bookrags.com/research/social-darwinism-emerges-and-is-use-scit-0512/

Your arguements are completely untrue. British Imperialism was never linked to Social-Darwinism. The British Empire in the Americas and Indias was formed for economic reasons that sequring overseas resources gave Britian political and economic independance from Europe. 17th, 18th and 19th century justifuications of the empire were nothing to do with Britain having a superior race, instread it was believe that Britain had supior instuitutions and a constitution, and that it was believed that Britian had a long history of individual liberty and moderatism, which other contries lacked. And that Britain encouraged inovation in ways that others didn't. There were no arguements about racial superioty or social-darwinism until the early 20th century when 'superior race' ideas began to spread in Europe. However, these far-right ideas were a rebellion against the established views of the ruling classes by radicals.

Also claiming that the works of men like Thomas Malthas has anything to do with race is just wrong. Malthus was the first demographer and his study was entirly based on the idea that populations were always kept in check by the ability of the land to produce food. Malthus worry was that the rapid urbanisation of the 17th and 18th century would create food shortages. This was nothing to do with racial improvement.

I don't like Cleopatra for the same reasons above. She makes it in usually because of the need for more female leaders. Hatshepsut should replace here and Ramesses II would be a good second leader.


Agree. Cleo is silly. Ptolemy would be equally silly. But if they want a great leader who's female, just use Hatshepsut again. I actually like her, she's one of a few leaders that can be competitive without being a jerk.

Victoria and Catherine I understand. Wu Zhou did enough I get why you get put her in, even if she's not my first choice. Hatshepsut I WOULD understand. These are female leaders that are great and have intrinsic merit for their accomplishments beyond being women.

But Cleopatra just did not do anything, really. It's sort of like Boudica. Boudica was raped by the Romans and led a rebellion that took a year to crush. Big whoop. Cleopatra managed to seduce Caesar into helping her and Antony into giving Egypt preferential vassal status. Sorry, but I'm just not that impressed.

But Cleopatra just did not do anything, really. It's sort of like Boudica. Boudica was raped by the Romans and led a rebellion that took a year to crush. Big whoop.

Okay, but Boudica is really the most famous leader for the Celts. If the Celts are in the game (which they may not be) she is pretty much a shoe-in.

Okay, but Boudica is really the most famous leader for the Celts. If the Celts are in the game (which they may not be) she is pretty much a shoe-in.

Vercingetorix would like a word with you.

Some people are forgetting to look at the big picture.

The Shaka's, Boudica's, Celopatra's, Hannibal's of the world are in the game because of their mythological status. In the western world, they are written for the great feats. Shaka had "Warriors" vs "Redcoats" and won a battle. Then lost the war. But to win the battle as sparked a massive popularity of the Zulu culture. Celts are so popular from Boudica's time that people all over the world are knowning of her legend. Celopatra is taught in Elementary school text books along with King Tut. Hannibal won a battle against the Roman army back when that just didn't happen. It would be like US currently losing a battle against Cuba.

Its these legends that make them part of the game.

People who would not be in the game would be like adding current(as in present day) leaders, or past leaders who are not too far removed from power IE: Obama or Reagan.

Some people are forgetting to look at the big picture.

The Shaka's, Boudica's, Celopatra's, Hannibal's of the world are in the game because of their mythological status. In the western world, they are written for the great feats. Shaka had "Warriors" vs "Redcoats" and won a battle. Then lost the war. But to win the battle as sparked a massive popularity of the Zulu culture. Celts are so popular from Boudica's time that people all over the world are knowning of her legend. Celopatra is taught in Elementary school text books along with King Tut. Hannibal won a battle against the Roman army back when that just didn't happen. It would be like US currently losing a battle against Cuba.

Its these legends that make them part of the game.

People who would not be in the game would be like adding current(as in present day) leaders, or past leaders who are not too far removed from power IE: Obama or Reagan.

Actually, Hannibal lead Carthage during the Punic Wars, when Rome was usurping Carthage in terms of Mediterranean power - Hannibal beating Rome was the expected conclusion. However, they counter-invaded North Africa so he was forced to return home, where he lost. Hannibal's only as famous as he is because LATER it would become impossible to stand up to Rome - when he did it, it was just another war, not a war against goddamn Rome. His defeat was the birth of Roman military supremacy, so your phrasing is inaccurate. He won a battle against the Roman army when nobody had any real expectations of the Roman army - they defeated him, and people were like "wow, that Rome is lookin' pretty crazy, rite?"

A better analogy for the Punic Wars than US-Cuba would be US-England - the passing of power from one behemoth to another. Sure, the English won a few battles in the beginning, but the US ended up winning the war, and afterwards became a superpower (though the time frame is different than the post-Punic wars - the US really only came into its own in the twentieth century). When you put Hannibal in the position of revolutionary war England, he doesn't look as impressive - but that's because revolutionary war England didn't march a horde of damn elephants over the alps. I mean, damn.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy this argument. What leaders allowed the US to become a great nation? Washington helped unite the nation, and his democratic ideals are still highly influential today. He formed the first government--if he agreed to a lifelong term as some hoped in his day things would be very different in America.

Lincoln's America is incredibly important for uniting the nation. FDR might have been ruling over the North United States if it wasn't for him.

Listen, Washington was just a highly replaceable commander of some creole rebels. If Washington's mother had died in childhood, everything would have been more or less the same. The rebels would have rebelled, they would have appointed an experienced commander as chief, they would have won, and the ideology common to Englishmen in America and Britain would have been used to "form" the "new nation". That's boring, I know, but it's the way of it. Fact is, neither Washington's America nor even Lincoln's mattered to the world. FDR's America and Eisenhower's did.

If you're gonna go down the chaos theory route, you might as well make Columbus' great-grandfather leader! ;)


Well, in my opinion that makes him even more worthy. He waged war against UK, the top world's power at the time - and he won. I believe we should judge leaders by their own achievements, not by status of their country at their times. Just my opinion :)


What's the difference? If you're the head of a nation 16 years after a baby-boom, should you get the credit for the increased power of your nation?

I despise recentism with a passion.

Amen, brother. :)

Okay, but Boudica is really the most famous leader for the Celts. If the Celts are in the game (which they may not be) she is pretty much a shoe-in.
Perhaps, but only if you both subscribe to Firaxis' inexplicable belief that "Celt" refers exclusive to the pre-Roman Celtic peoples, thereby writing off an additional two thousand-odd years of Celtic history and a plethora of eminently wealthy candidates.

Listen, Washington was just a highly replaceable commander of some creole rebels. If Washington's mother had died in childhood, everything would have been more or less the same. The rebels would have rebelled, they would have appointed an experienced commander as chief, they would have won, and the ideology common to Englishmen in America and Britain would have been used to "form" the "new nation". That's boring, I know, but it's the way of it. Fact is, neither Washington's America nor even Lincoln's mattered to the world. FDR's America and Eisenhower's did.

If you're gonna go down the chaos theory route, you might as well make Columbus' great-grandfather leader! ;)



What's the difference? If you're the head of a nation 16 years after a baby-boom, should you get the credit for the increased power of your nation?

you must be out of you god damned mind. With that kind of thinking The Mongols would have been the same without Genghis, the Chinese would have been the same without Qin Shi Huang. Maybe you should learn something about Washington before making a bunch of claims and ramblings about something you don't know anything about. The fact is the British should have won that war within one month. They were the most powerful Empire in the world at that time, don't forget that. Washington took a bunch of peasant farmers and whipped them into a force that could stand up to any army on earth in a matter of many months. There were other generals that tried to replace Washington. There were times where Horatio Gates along with the governor of Pennsylvania campaigned to get Washington removed. Shortly before this happened, Washington won a surprise attack vs Hessian mercenaries on Christmas day after marching through a blizzard overnight to turn the tide of the war. Thats just one of hundreds of things I could mention. He was one of the 3 greatest military leaders ever, doing more with less, really than anybody ever. You need to get your facts straight.

Though in my opinion Americans give Washington way too much credit - way too much, it's understandable since he is a semi-mythologized founding father figure. He wasn't the best general ever, or even close, but he must have done something right. He was pretty lucky many times (I've heard how bullets always missed him), but he can't be a complete dumbass, otherwise he would have been out of the picture pretty quickly.

Even though I'd rather have someone like Teddy Rossevelt, I think it's okay to have Washington as a leader, since he is so symbolic and iconic for America. If I am correct, in the world market, he is probably the most easily recognized historical president (i.e. not one from the last few decades).

you must be out of you god damned mind. With that kind of thinking The Mongols would have been the same without Genghis, the Chinese would have been the same without Qin Shi Huang. Maybe you should learn something about Washington before making a bunch of claims and ramblings about something you don't know anything about. The fact is the British should have won that war within one month. They were the most powerful Empire in the world at that time, don't forget that. Washington took a bunch of peasant farmers and whipped them into a force that could stand up to any army on earth in a matter of many months. There were other generals that tried to replace Washington. There were times where Horatio Gates along with the governor of Pennsylvania campaigned to get Washington removed. Shortly before this happened, Washington won a surprise attack vs Hessian mercenaries on Christmas day after marching through a blizzard overnight to turn the tide of the war. Thats just one of hundreds of things I could mention. He was one of the 3 greatest military leaders ever, doing more with less, really than anybody ever. You need to get your facts straight.

Basically, because I look at things historically and haven't been brain-washed with a nationalist cult of personality at high school, I'm ignorant? Awesome! :D

Seriously, personality had little to do with it, and generally has little to do with such things. There is not as much scope for the "role of genius" as the common man is brought up to believe. The English creoles would have been victorious anyway, just as all the Spanish creoles were a few years later. GW was one of dozens of experienced commanders; he was just the one who knew the right people and got to the top, and you worship him because he got to the top at the right time ... in time to claim the victories that would get him included in a nationalist origin narrative like the one you've just recited to me. ;)

Though in my opinion Americans give Washington way too much credit - way too much, it's understandable since he is a semi-mythologized founding father figure. He wasn't the best general ever, or even close, but he must have done something right. He was pretty lucky many times (I've heard how bullets always missed him), but he can't be a complete dumbass, otherwise he would have been out of the picture pretty quickly.

Even though I'd rather have someone like Teddy Rossevelt, I think it's okay to have Washington as a leader, since he is so symbolic and iconic for America. If I am correct, in the world market, he is probably the most easily recognized historical president (i.e. not one from the last few decades).

Washington was one of the most successful commanders of his day, and a decent leader. That though doesn't make him a great candidate for a Civ4 leader. The US under Washington is not a great power. It was something like what Argentina is now. The US under FDR and his successors is a superpower. It stands to reason a leader should come from the latter time rather than the former (individual merits of leaders aside) ... though is just my view.

Still holding out for ahistorical leaders. For sure, Firaxis can use all of the time they have sunk into full motion renders of the official leaders for AI players, but the human should be able to pick their own name and abilities -- sort of like the "custom race" option in MOO2.

Pipe dream, I know. But a fella can dream, can't he?

The Jappinsse dude, oh how is his name spelled Tokugua, or something. He's to much of an isolist, and won't make friends with the human, and HE APPEARS IN EVERY ONE OF MY GAMES (well, most anyway).

Everyone who knew Washington agreed he was a remarkable man, even those who took the field against him in the Revolutionary and French and Indian Wars. He was able to provide a common, accepted leader for a nation that was bitterly divided in many self-interested colonies. He refused to be called your excellency and stepped down from office after two terms. He fought and won against the British Army, and overwhelming feat of military strategy. He laid the foundation of what would become the United States. He was not replaceable, he was remarkable. Every contemporary source of the times agrees.

Him or Jefferson should be the U.S. leader. FDR was not a bad leader, Teddy was good, I like some others as well but Washington's legacy is and will always be greater.

Okay. Let's get some things straight before I go on a US history rant:
a) The person who I was taught US history (at least, the portion relevant to Washington) by didn't brainwash me with a nationalist cult; in fact, his loyalty was questioned when he started teaching Kent State in the 1970s.
b) The sources that I most use are objective history books published by distinguished historians.

Washington was ESSENTIAL to winning the war. Why? Well, first of all, he was a brilliant military tactician. In the battles of Princeton and Trenton, he outsmarted the British's superior force and beat them soundly. Furthermore, he kept the colonies together, as others have said. Secondly, Horatio Gates, who would have taken over the US army if Washington left, was a horrible General. At Saratoga, he would have lost, save for the fact the Benedict Arnold disobeyed his orders and led the colonial forces to victory. At Camden, Gates was defeated catastrophically by the British forces and didn't stop riding away for 160 miles. Washington was essential to the victory of the United States. And without him, a country that has been a major power for over 100 years would never have come to pass.

Also, the use of creole isn't correct to refer the colonists. Here is a correct definition by the Oxford English Dictionary.
1 a person of mixed European and black descent, esp. in the Caribbean.
• a descendant of Spanish or other European settlers in the Caribbean or Central or South America.
• a white descendant of French settlers in Louisiana and other parts of the southern U.S.
2 a mother tongue formed from the contact of two languages through an earlier pidgin stage : a Portuguese-based Creole.

Eventually British Empire granted independence to all its' major colonies, if I am not mistaken. And USA is located in too sweet location geopolitically to not gain superpower status at some time.

Independence War was basically redundant — spilling of blood for easiness of money earning. There is nothing special neither in war itself, nor in Washington deeds. Sure, he was good tactician and great wartime leader, but was he a good president? I don't believe so.

I like Gilgamesh. Sumeria is very important historically. What would civilization be without Sumeria? Perhaps it's that it was more or less the cradle of civilization that turns you off, and given that Babylon is the better known advanced form of Sumeria?

About women leaders: historically women have been . . . discredited throughout history? As the bumber sticker goes something like "women who behave rarely make history". It's true that Cleopatra is kind of corny, right? My girlfriend was very interested in playing as Cleopatra. I'm just saying sometimes we like to identify with our gender. And so what if Cleopatra was promiscuous? ;)

Honestly, I can't think of any leaders that should be discontinued. They all made history. I'd like to see more leaders. Cao Cao, Muhammad (perhaps not due to PC), Longshanks etc.

Some people are forgetting to look at the big picture.

The Shaka's, Boudica's, Celopatra's, Hannibal's of the world are in the game because of their mythological status. In the western world, they are written for the great feats. Shaka had "Warriors" vs "Redcoats" and won a battle. Then lost the war. But to win the battle as sparked a massive popularity of the Zulu culture. Celts are so popular from Boudica's time that people all over the world are knowning of her legend. Celopatra is taught in Elementary school text books along with King Tut. Hannibal won a battle against the Roman army back when that just didn't happen. It would be like US currently losing a battle against Cuba.



Right. What did Montezuma do besides exist when the Spanish arrived? His "revenge"? He absolutely belongs in Civ.

Monty belongs in civ for a total lack of other leaders for the Aztec. Right?

Monty belongs in civ for a total lack of other leaders for the Aztec. Right?

The funny part?
The Monty in Civ4 was actually a fairly peaceful leader (by Aztec standards.) Firaxis just kinda... got the Montys switched. Or they just didn't care.

I like Gilgamesh. Sumeria is very important historically. What would civilization be without Sumeria? Perhaps it's that it was more or less the cradle of civilization that turns you off, and given that Babylon is the better known advanced form of Sumeria?
Gilgamesh is hardly ideal, though; he's simply the only Sumerian king with any name-recognition, pretty much because he didn't exist. Sargon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad)would be a better choice; while technically not Sumerian himself, he was part of, and ruled over, that civilisation. After all, they already have a Macedonian leader for Greece and a German leader for England, so it's not unprecedented.

Gilgamesh is hardly ideal, though; he's simply the only Sumerian king with any name-recognition, pretty much because he didn't exist. Sargon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad)would be a better choice; while technically not Sumerian himself, he was part of, and ruled over, that civilisation. After all, they already have a Macedonian leader for Greece and a German leader for England, so it's not unprecedented.

Don't forget Catherine the Great for Russia.

Eventually British Empire granted independence to all its' major colonies, if I am not mistaken. And USA is located in too sweet location geopolitically to not gain superpower status at some time.

Independence War was basically redundant — spilling of blood for easiness of money earning. There is nothing special neither in war itself, nor in Washington deeds. Sure, he was good tactician and great wartime leader, but was he a good president? I don't believe so.

Okay. Yes, Britain did eventually grant independence. However, under British rule, the United States probably wouldn't have expanded as fast as it did, and may have still remained the original thirteen colonies. Besides which, they wouldn't have gained independence until post-WWII if they never rebelled like the rest of Britain's colonies. Finally, they would have rebelled anyway, with or without Washington, but without Washington they would not have won. Their fate would have been more like the tragic fate of Ireland without Washington. Basically, the US probably wouldn't have won nearly as much land in North America without the War of Independence, especially given that the British were holding back colonial settlers pre-1776.

Also, saying any War of Independence is redundant is offensive. Why? Because the war is fought for independence. It isn't fought for monetary reasons, its fought for political freedom. And finally, Washington may not have done too much as President (although this was hardly unusual at the time), he did set the tradition of having only two terms and also showed that a system like the USA's could work, declining absolute power in favor of preservation of the republic.

Gilgamesh is hardly ideal, though; he's simply the only Sumerian king with any name-recognition, pretty much because he didn't exist. Sargon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad)would be a better choice; while technically not Sumerian himself, he was part of, and ruled over, that civilisation. After all, they already have a Macedonian leader for Greece and a German leader for England, so it's not unprecedented.

Actually if I remember correctly Gilgamesh did exist, and the stories about him only began circulating a few centuries after his death. Of course in real life he wasn't some super-powerful semi-immortal vbeing... But I do agree that Sargon would be a better choice for the Sumerians, especially since he is considered to be one of the first "empire-builders".

Ghandi is the only one who truly annoys me
He wasn't a ruler, so why is he a ruler here?

Ghandi is the only one who truly annoys me
He wasn't a ruler, so why is he a ruler here?

Because when most people think India, they think Gandhi.
It's still silly, though.

Nehru should be India's leader and Taizong should be China's leader. It doesn't make sense to have Gandhi and Wu instead.
Soon you'll have someone suggesting Millard Fillmore replace FDR and Ben Franklin replace Washington (his traits would be Charismatic/Horny. The latter of which boosts his diplomacy rating with female leaders. "Well hello there, Queen Victoria." ...in fact, dammit now I'm gonna suggest Ben Franklin. Just imagine him always demanding your wine and incense.)

Note, I'm not even going to say Gandhi didn't have a huge impact on India. I'm just saying he didn't rule India.
I'm also not going to say Wu isn't a leader, she's just a minor leader compared to one of her husbands, who was arguably THE GREATEST CHINESE LEADER EVER. Seriously. Read up on Taizong if you're unfamiliar with the man. You'll see why getting Wu instead is like paying for Ron Howard and instead getting his brother, Clint.

Unfortunately, it seems that being a ruler of a country is not necessarily a prerequisite for being a leader in Civilization. Remember Joan of Arc in Civ3, who was put in at (so it seems) the expense of more worthy leaders like Napoleon and Louis XIV (heck, if you want a medieval french leader, use Philip Augustus!)? Or how about Hannibal, who was more so a general than an actual leader (though he gets lots of plus points just because of fame)? Or how about Boadicea, who just led a short-lived but famous rebellion and nothing much else?

Not that I agree with these choices. Gandhi in my opinion is the most ridiculous of these. But this stuff happen, anyways.

Unfortunately, it seems that being a ruler of a country is not necessarily a prerequisite for being a leader in Civilization. Remember Joan of Arc in Civ3, who was put in at (so it seems) the expense of more worthy leaders like Napoleon and Louis XIV (heck, if you want a medieval french leader, use Philip Augustus!)? Or how about Hannibal, who was more so a general than an actual leader (though he gets lots of plus points just because of fame)? Or how about Boadicea, who just led a short-lived but famous rebellion and nothing much else?

Not that I agree with these choices. Gandhi in my opinion is the most ridiculous of these. But this stuff happen, anyways.

All of those are equally dumb, except Hannibal.
Hannibal... eh. One could argue that he was more than just a general. He did hold political power for awhile (I seem to remember him being so awful with economics that he voluntarily "exiled" himself.)*

However, with the Celts... you do have to go with a general type person. But even then, go for Vercingetorix. You can't get a better Celt leader than him.
He's the man most "Vaguely Scottish person defeats Evil Englishmen-Romans" stories end up ripping off (I've joked with my friends that Braveheart's William Wallace seems closer to Cingey than Wallace. In reality, it's still pretty distant from either of the two.)

I'll accept non-leaders in the following cases:
1. There aren't any other well known leaders, such as the case of Sumeria (though I agree that Sargon can kinda be considered a Sumerian leader.)
2. We don't have enough info on other leaders or we have an overabundance of info on the "leader" in question compared to others.
3. There's only a tiny bit of info available on the real leaders, and so an amalgamation must be made (Montezuma, who is basically just "Aztec: The Man." Same goes for Sitting Bull, who is basically Generic Native America rather than Sitting Bull the person. ...though in all honesty, that's just laziness on Firaxis's part, as there are -plenty- of NA leaders that'd work, so only Monty is acceptable to me of these two.)

*Note: I know that Rome itself also wanted him gone, but I've always read it as the people of Carthage also wanting him out of the picture because they felt that he was holding them back from reclaiming prosperity.

Leader does not equal Ruler. What's important in the context of the game is that the individual was influential and powerful with many followers. So people such as Ghandi, Hannibal, Boudica, Joan of Arc are excellent candidates for leaders in the game. There may be better ones, but that doesn't mean these examples are not worthy.

Also, it is important to include a variety of leader types. We don't want all the leaders to be warlords, or dictators. We want some leaders to be benevolent and diplomatic. That may be why leaders like Ghandi make it into the game.

I don't really have a problem with any of the leaders in Civ 4. Although I wonder why they felt it was okay to include Stalin and not Hitler. They both caused the needless deaths of millions of people. In fact many of the leaders in the game were directly responsible for countless needless deaths. What makes Ghengis Khan any different from Hitler? Or Alexander? Or any of the European nations which sanctioned the slaughter of Native Americans?

It just doesn't seem logical.

Leader does not equal Ruler. What's important in the context of the game is that the individual was influential and powerful with many followers. So people such as Ghandi, Hannibal, Boudica, Joan of Arc are excellent candidates for leaders in the game. There may be better ones, but that doesn't mean these examples are not worthy.

Also, it is important to include a variety of leader types. We don't want all the leaders to be warlords, or dictators. We want some leaders to be benevolent and diplomatic. That may be why leaders like Ghandi make it into the game.

I don't really have a problem with any of the leaders in Civ 4. Although I wonder why they felt it was okay to include Stalin and not Hitler. They both caused the needless deaths of millions of people. In fact many of the leaders in the game were directly responsible for countless needless deaths. What makes Ghengis Khan any different from Hitler? Or Alexander? Or any of the European nations which sanctioned the slaughter of Native Americans?

It just doesn't seem logical.

...I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense.
The latter point does. I'm okay with tyrants being thrown in. Just as long as these tyrants were actually the leaders of their nation/tribe.
Gandhi was a spiritual guru to his people and as such works best as a Great Prophet. We're not making Muhammed leader of the Arabic Empire, for example, no matter how influential he was to the Arabs. Great Prophet? That's perfect. There's a big difference between leading in the way nearly all of the other Civ leaders lead, and leading in the way of Gandhi (Great Prophet), Joan of Arc (Great General), etc.

Actually just a small note - the 'difference' between Hitler and other 'tyrants' like Genghis Khan and Alexander is that Hitler lost. That's really it. Genghis Khan? He brilliantly and ingeniously built up the largest continuous land empire in history. Alexander? He conquered and conquered and was remembered as a great legend not only in the Mediterreanean, but later in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and even as far as Indonesia. Stalin? Well, he killed even more than Hitler, but he was the 'good guy' in World War II, and by his death Russia was a superpower competing with the US. Mao? Well, I really hate the guy, but unlike Hitler he did survive and he still garners some respect in China nowadays.

Point is, Hitler may or may not have been a great leader - that's not the important thing. The important thing is that he lost. Not only did he lose per se, but he also has a very, very, very negative image attached to him, one without any redeeming qualities. Genghis Khan, at least people consider him a brilliant leader even if he was ruthless. Cleopatra, yeah, she 'lost' and killed herself, but there is so much of an exotic legend surrounding her. Joan of Arc, she 'lost' and was executed, yeah, but she's a national hero of France.

Not that I think Cleopatra and Joan of Arc should be in, but these are the reasons why I see it that mass murderers like Stalin can be in while Hitler can't.

The only reason why Hitler isn't a leader in this game is because of controversy
If a Civilization 1000 is made in 2000 years, Hitler will be like Alexander the Great or any other guy, because his evil presence isn't felt anymore and he's just another historic figure

Actually just a small note - the 'difference' between Hitler and other 'tyrants' like Genghis Khan and Alexander is that Hitler lost. That's really it. Genghis Khan? He brilliantly and ingeniously built up the largest continuous land empire in history. Alexander? He conquered and conquered and was remembered as a great legend not only in the Mediterreanean, but later in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and even as far as Indonesia. Stalin? Well, he killed even more than Hitler, but he was the 'good guy' in World War II, and by his death Russia was a superpower competing with the US. Mao? Well, I really hate the guy, but unlike Hitler he did survive and he still garners some respect in China nowadays.

Point is, Hitler may or may not have been a great leader - that's not the important thing. The important thing is that he lost. Not only did he lose per se, but he also has a very, very, very negative image attached to him, one without any redeeming qualities. Genghis Khan, at least people consider him a brilliant leader even if he was ruthless. Cleopatra, yeah, she 'lost' and killed herself, but there is so much of an exotic legend surrounding her. Joan of Arc, she 'lost' and was executed, yeah, but she's a national hero of France.

Not that I think Cleopatra and Joan of Arc should be in, but these are the reasons why I see it that mass murderers like Stalin can be in while Hitler can't.

It helps that Hitler did more to harm his empire than aide. The man wanted Germany -destroyed- because the fact that Russia was winning meant that Germany had failed and didn't deserve to continue existing.
The other leaders did some evil crap, but for the most part they didn't drag their nation into the ground (during their reign. It's arguable that Stalin probably left the USSR in a "it's a downward slope from here fellas" state. Then again, without him, Germany possibly could have done the exact same thing so... damned if you do, damned if you don't.)

It's for that reason I doubt we'll ever get Nero or Commodus as a leader (especially the latter.)
Julius Caesar just barely makes it by because he's so easily recognizable. He's not in it for his actions, he's in it because he -is- Rome. When the average person thinks Rome, they think him. What other leader has that?
Egypt has "Tut" and Ramses, that's the closest I can think. ...and I'll only accept a "King Tut" of Egypt if the leaderhead is based on Steve Martin.
I guess Greece... -kinda- has Alexander, though he's got Leonidas close behind (especially now because THIS. IS. POPCULTURE FUELED!)

I doubt Hitler was excluded simply because he lost. There are many other reasons. The only thing that bothered me is why was Mao and Stalin in, and not Hitler? For those three it should be all or none, because any of the three is crossing the same line in my view.

The only thing that bothered me is why was Mao and Stalin in, and not Hitler? For those three it should be all or none, because any of the three is crossing the same line in my view.

Stalin made the Russia a worlds superpower. Hitler lead Germany to a disaster. Pretty different things if you ask me. And as a Lithuanian I truly dont feel any love for Stalin, believe me :) But facts are facts: Stalin deserved to get in civ despite the terrible things he did. Hitler did not. He was just an idiot at the right time in the right place.

I doubt Hitler was excluded simply because he lost. There are many other reasons. The only thing that bothered me is why was Mao and Stalin in, and not Hitler? For those three it should be all or none, because any of the three is crossing the same line in my view.

Yeah. I mean you can't really top Mao in terms of slaughter. Hell, he -gloated- about it. He pointed out it was silly to compare him to Qin Shi Huang because he'd already buried tenfold more scholars than Huang did.
We do see him in a lighter light, however. I guess because he didn't lose, and is still sort of a figurehead-from-beyond in PRC.
Hitler? Dead. Naziism? Limited to rednecks and skinheads.
Stalin? Eh... the USSR -did- die, but not for decades later. Eventually we'll probably see Stalin the way we see Hitler. I mean, we're already seeing him in a more realistic light compared to the view of him years back.

CornPlanter - my reference to "crossing that line" was about genocide, not running their empires into the ground. It was an all or nothing scenario anyway, it could have went the other way if Hitler didn't lose his mind and get drugged up constantly the last years of his life.

Okay. Let's get some things straight before I go on a US history rant:
a) The person who I was taught US history (at least, the portion relevant to Washington) by didn't brainwash me with a nationalist cult; in fact, his loyalty was questioned when he started teaching Kent State in the 1970s.
b) The sources that I most use are objective history books published by distinguished historians.

Washington was ESSENTIAL to winning the war. Why? Well, first of all, he was a brilliant military tactician. In the battles of Princeton and Trenton, he outsmarted the British's superior force and beat them soundly. Furthermore, he kept the colonies together, as others have said. Secondly, Horatio Gates, who would have taken over the US army if Washington left, was a horrible General. At Saratoga, he would have lost, save for the fact the Benedict Arnold disobeyed his orders and led the colonial forces to victory. At Camden, Gates was defeated catastrophically by the British forces and didn't stop riding away for 160 miles. Washington was essential to the victory of the United States. And without him, a country that has been a major power for over 100 years would never have come to pass.


Just another nationalist personality-driven narrative. Not history! ;) Washington was just the guy in charge. Dozens of others could have done his job as well.



Also, the use of creole isn't correct to refer the colonists. Here is a correct definition by the Oxford English Dictionary.
1 a person of mixed European and black descent, esp. in the Caribbean.
• a descendant of Spanish or other European settlers in the Caribbean or Central or South America.
• a white descendant of French settlers in Louisiana and other parts of the southern U.S.
2 a mother tongue formed from the contact of two languages through an earlier pidgin stage : a Portuguese-based Creole.

Creole is also a term for Europeans not born in Europe, which is its original meaning. Recent historians, such as Alan Taylor in his American Colonies, have revived the usage.

calgacus - your obviously misinformed about US History. I've taken several college level courses on the subject and pretty much every point you have made is dead wrong. You put FDR up on a pedestal and try to belittle all of Washington's achievements. Its obvious your just arguing for the sake of it, and honestly I'm quite sick of reading your idiotic post. Your a moron if you think you know more about US history than people from the US that have studied it in college. That would be like me trying to tell you all about Albanian history which I know nothing about because its completely unimportant. Go read up on the subject and come back and kindly take your foot out of your mouth.

You are welcome to show where another poster is, in your opinion, wrong. You are not allowed to do it by attacking them personally.

Stalin made the Russia a worlds superpower. Hitler lead Germany to a disaster. Pretty different things if you ask me. And as a Lithuanian I truly dont feel any love for Stalin, believe me :) But facts are facts: Stalin deserved to get in civ despite the terrible things he did. Hitler did not. He was just an idiot at the right time in the right place.

Still, Hitler made Germany a fearsome superpower that dominated the European continent and that required the entire world to unite against him to have Germany defeated. I think he deserves to be in.

calgacus - your obviously misinformed about US History. I've taken several college level courses on the subject and pretty much every point you have made is dead wrong. You put FDR up on a pedestal and try to belittle all of Washington's achievements. Its obvious your just arguing for the sake of it, and honestly I'm quite sick of reading your idiotic post. Your a moron if you think you know more about US history than people from the US that have studied it in college. That would be like me trying to tell you all about Albanian history which I know nothing about because its completely unimportant. Go read up on the subject and come back and kindly take your foot out of your mouth.

You are welcome to show where another poster is, in your opinion, wrong. You are not allowed to do it by attacking them personally.

In Shiggs' defense, calgacus seems to be trolling. At least I'm hoping that's trolling.

if you got rid of Lincoln IF you did, you should add Teddy Roosevelt

if you got rid of Lincoln IF you did, you should add Teddy Roosevelt

Teddy's too awesome to be a Civ leader, though.
He can't be held as just a leaderhead. He'd leap out and beat all of the animals on your continent to death.
We're talking about the guy that got shot in the chest while giving a speech, then decided "Eh, it's in the bone I think. Never mind it." then continues giving his speech, bleeding the entire time.

Yeah, guess Teddy really is too awesome to be a civ leader. :(

However, with the Celts... you do have to go with a general type person. But even then, go for Vercingetorix. You can't get a better Celt leader than him.
Why not great nation-builders like Robert Bruce or Brian Boru? The Celts, I have said, survived long after the Roman period.

Why not great nation-builders like Robert Bruce or Brian Boru? The Celts, I have said, survived long after the Roman period.

I tend to consider that to be a seperate two civs, honestly. Those are more Scotland and Ireland to me than Celts.
It's all a matter of time. Can you honestly compare Boudica and Vercingetorix to Bruce and Boru?

Maybe another leader for Japan... I know Tokugawa its ok, but maybe one that represents a more "actual" Japan

I tend to consider that to be a seperate two civs, honestly. Those are more Scotland and Ireland to me than Celts.
It's all a matter of time. Can you honestly compare Boudica and Vercingetorix to Bruce and Boru?
Well, they were both Gaels, who are considered a Celtic people. They may not have considered themselves as such, but neither did the ancient Gauls or Britons, at least not in the sense that we now use the term. Certainly, many modern inhabitants of the "Celtic Nations" consider themselves to be Celts, much as a Czech, say, may consider himself to be Slavic.

...I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense.
The latter point does. I'm okay with tyrants being thrown in. Just as long as these tyrants were actually the leaders of their nation/tribe.
Gandhi was a spiritual guru to his people and as such works best as a Great Prophet. We're not making Muhammed leader of the Arabic Empire, for example, no matter how influential he was to the Arabs. Great Prophet? That's perfect. There's a big difference between leading in the way nearly all of the other Civ leaders lead, and leading in the way of Gandhi (Great Prophet), Joan of Arc (Great General), etc.

Yes, Gandhi was a spiritual guru. But he was also more. He was an influential LEADER for his people. LEADER is the key word. Leaders can come in many forms. Not all are kings and generals. I agree he would fit into the Great Prophet category as well, but there were many great prophets who were not great leaders. Gandhi was both. Therefore, it does make sense.

Also, comparing Gandhi to Mohammed is not fair because Gandhi, though he was a spiritual leader, he was also a political leader because he lead his nation to independence. Gandhi should be in the game, and he will be.

The only reason why Hitler isn't a leader in this game is because of controversy
If a Civilization 1000 is made in 2000 years, Hitler will be like Alexander the Great or any other guy, because his evil presence isn't felt anymore and he's just another historic figure

Agreed. So basically he should be in the game, but he's not because some people might be upset if he was.

Stalin made the Russia a worlds superpower. Hitler lead Germany to a disaster. Pretty different things if you ask me. And as a Lithuanian I truly dont feel any love for Stalin, believe me :) But facts are facts: Stalin deserved to get in civ despite the terrible things he did. Hitler did not. He was just an idiot at the right time in the right place.

Hitler also made Germany a world superpower. They were in dire straits after WW1. Hitler took a devastated nation and made them powerful enough to conquer most of Europe. Also, when last I checked, Germany is still a major world power. I hardly call that disaster. It's not like Germany disappeared with Hitler. Germany is a strong nation today, because Hitler got them there.

Hitler's role is highly debatable. Certainly, he did not appear to be a particular gifted administrator, statesman or military commander- "ruler", if you will- and his attempts to involve himself on national policy in anything more than a superficial manner had a habit of ranging from ineffective to disastrous. While he was an charismatic leader, his competence as a "ruler" is far from assured; to attribute all the success of Nazi Germany to on individual is to ignore the political, military and economic powers which supported and sustained his rule.

Also, to suggest that Germany's current well-being is a result of Hitler's actions is simply ridiculous. World War 2 left Germany- an industrialised, modern nation long before Hitler got his grubby little paws on it- broken, partitioned and irrelevant as an autonomous political entity, a poor comparison even to the depths of the depression.

I agree, after WWII Germany was broken, and became an industrialized nation far after when it should have become industrialized because of Hitler (who I think should be in the game, but won't because he is associated with evil).

Hitler's role is highly debatable. Certainly, he did not appear to be a particular gifted administrator, statesman or military commander- "ruler", if you will- and his attempts to involve himself on national policy in anything more than a superficial manner had a habit of ranging from ineffective to disastrous. While he was an charismatic leader, his competence as a "ruler" is far from assured; to attribute all the success of Nazi Germany to on individual is to ignore the political, military and economic powers which supported and sustained his rule.

Also, to suggest that Germany's current well-being is a result of Hitler's actions is simply ridiculous. World War 2 left Germany- an industrialised, modern nation long before Hitler got his grubby little paws on it- broken, partitioned and irrelevant as an autonomous political entity, a poor comparison even to the depths of the depression.

If it wasn't for the infrastructure that was built up during Hitler's rule, Germany wouldn't have recovered so quickly. West Germany rebounded very quickly after the war. Yes, they were occupied, but they still managed to form a new government and get their economy back on track.

If it wasn't for the infrastructure that was built up during Hitler's rule, Germany wouldn't have recovered so quickly. West Germany rebounded very quickly after the war. Yes, they were occupied, but they still managed to form a new government and get their economy back on track.
And because the Allies poured massive aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) into the country to fast-track it's recovery. Perhaps they utilised some of the infrastructure left by the Nazis- itself adapted from older Republican infrastructure, which was in turn received from the Empire- but that in itself was worth very little when weighed against the damage that Hitler's madness inflicted upon the country. Certainly, Germany in 1933 was in no less of a position to improve itself than Germany in 1945.

The simple reason that Hitler should not be in the game, beyond any political associations, or because of the atrocities he was responsible for, is because he was a delusional, incompetent demagogue, and would be a very poor, even insulting representation of the German nation. That he weighs so heavily on the conscience of the Western world is no reason to pretend that he was much more than that, nor to pretend that he ranks alongside nation-builders like Cyrus or statesmen like Bismarck.

And because the Allies poured massive aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan) into the country to fast-track it's recovery. Perhaps they utilised some of the infrastructure left by the Nazis- itself adapted from older Republican infrastructure, which was in turn received from the Empire- but that in itself was worth very little when weighed against the damage that Hitler's madness inflicted upon the country. Certainly, Germany in 1933 was in no less of a position to improve itself than Germany in 1945.

The simple reason that Hitler should not be in the game, beyond any political associations, or because of the atrocities he was responsible for, is because he was a delusional, incompetent demagogue, and would be a very poor, even insulting representation of the German nation. That he weighs so heavily on the conscience of the Western world is no reason to pretend that he was much more than that, nor to pretend that he ranks alongside nation-builders like Cyrus or statesmen like Bismarck.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Hitler was equal to Bismarck or Cyrus. I'm just saying he was a very powerful and influential leader for Germany and during his reign that nation gained significant power and dominated all of Europe. It took the entire developed world to bring him down. You can't argue with that.

Also, many of history's conquerors and rulers were downright madmen. Just because Hitler was a lunatic, doesn't detract from what Germany accomplished during his rule.

Hitler's reign is 12 years and they started and ended WORSE after him. Thus he should NEVER be in the game. Celo, Shaka also have their nations worst off than before. But they atleast have legends worth talking about. What good did Hilter ever do that is worthy of putting him in over Bismark?

Well, they were both Gaels, who are considered a Celtic people. They may not have considered themselves as such, but neither did the ancient Gauls or Britons, at least not in the sense that we now use the term. Certainly, many modern inhabitants of the "Celtic Nations" consider themselves to be Celts, much as a Czech, say, may consider himself to be Slavic.

Actually Robert the Bruce was a Normano-Scottish Lowlander, not a Gael. Great Leader for a Scottish nation, just not a specifically Celtic one. William Wallace was also. If you want Gaelic Scottish leaders you have to either go into the highlands and islands or before the Norman conquest of England.

A
Hitler also made Germany a world superpower. They were in dire straits after WW1. Hitler took a devastated nation and made them powerful enough to conquer most of Europe. Also, when last I checked, Germany is still a major world power. I hardly call that disaster. It's not like Germany disappeared with Hitler. Germany is a strong nation today, because Hitler got them there.

Can't believe this turned into another Hitler thread. This debate will never end.

Anyway, your sense of history is absolutely terrible. You act like Hitler's policies have led to Germany being a world power now. That's not the case at all. If you remember, Germany was split between the West and East up until a couple decades ago and the fall of the Soviet Union. They were occupied by two of Hitler's enemies for over four decades after Hitler's demise. Hitler left Germany much worse off than when he rose to power, and they were in a bad situation then. So don't act like Hitler turned Germany into a world power and they've remained once since then. Great leaders don't leave their capital cities divided by a giant wall with their enemies controlling both sides of the wall! Sure, Hitler made Germany a power for a time, but Germany lost the war and were much worse off for quite a while after that. Bismarck actually turned Germany into a respectable and powerful national state that other European nations had to recognize.

What good did Hilter ever do?

Umm, conquer or ally nearly all of continental Europe?

that is worthy of putting him in over Bismark

oh. Well, true that :p
Bismarck > Hitler for the purpose of ciV! :)

Leaders we definitely don't want in ciV:

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama.

Leaders we definitely don't want in ciV:

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama.

I want George Bush just because it would be fun to beat him.

What good did Hilter ever do that is worthy of putting him in over Bismark?

Umm, conquer or ally nearly all of continental Europe?

He said "good".

"good" in the moral sense has nothing to do with picking the leaders, and it should not, morality is far too fluid to use as a criteria. Of course Hitler will never be a leader in a commercially available game produced by a firm with any sense; it would be foolish to include him in civ5. The backlash from such a decision would be resoundingly negative, even with the free publicity it may give the game; Hitler has achieved a mythological level of evil unrivaled by any historical figure, and very possibly any fictitious character out there. The existence of other "evil" leaders like Mao and Stalin and the actual historical effect and actions of Hitler are irrelevant when one considers the financial implications of his inclusion.

"good" in the moral sense has nothing to do with picking the leaders, and it should not, morality is far too fluid to use as a criteria.

Yes, I agree. I meant Hitler was a terrible ruler, and his rule didn't directly benefit anyone in the end.

The Monty in Civ4 was actually a fairly peaceful leader (by Aztec standards.)

Except that he conquered quite a bit of land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aztecexpansion.png

Only Montezuma I expanded more than Montezuma II of Civilization :)


Still, Hitler made Germany a fearsome superpower that dominated the European continent and that required the entire world to unite against him to have Germany defeated. I think he deserves to be in.

Hitler was just a flag people gathered around. Actually he made really poor decisions. Credits for domination go to Rommel and the likes.


If a Civilization 1000 is made in 2000 years, Hitler will be like Alexander the Great or any other guy

I am sorry but they are not even comparable. And I mean personalities and achievements, not some good/evil morality.

He's a famous leader, the point is to rewrite history
Admit it, in some years, when no one cares about Hitler anymore (and thus the controversy is over), you would love to build Germany as Hitler and actually dominate everything :P

He's a famous leader, the point is to rewrite history
Admit it, in some years, when no one cares about Hitler anymore (and thus the controversy is over), you would love to build Germany as Hitler and actually dominate everything :P

it could maybe happen in time for a CiV10 or something. Or you could wait till next March, I'm sure some modders will have added it to civ5 by then.

Modders doesn´t help. Those modded leaderheads when some happy modder puts a moustache over Napoleon to make him into Hitler looks awful! :huh:

It is particularly strange when in games like Hearts of Iron, Making History and the like, you are perfectly capable of playing as Nazi Germany and conquering the entire world indirectly playing Hitler. But somehow, putting a comical leaderhead featuring the agitated Austrian makes people upset.

But I guess it has to do with marketing. Germans are so afraid of being connected to Hitler and nazism that they will do almost anything to boycott a game featuring Hitler and swastikas. And at the same time, the same German people just loves to play Hearts of Iron 2 as Germany (just watch HoI-forums is you believe I make it up)... :shake:

Swastikas are really the low point to me
So, if Hitler used the cross instead of a Swastika, Crosses would be banned?

Keep in mind that Swastika is a symbol for peace LONG BEFORE Hitler was born

I do not want any leader that "lost" and weakened his nation in process. That means Joan the Arc, Napoleon (!!), any celtic leader :mischief:, Hitler, Xerxes I., Cleopatra etc. I personally think that Julius Caesar is ok, since he actually made Rome much stronger, despite being assasinated later. Simply no "losers" please and I will be fine with almost any leader =)

Hitler's reign is 12 years and they started and ended WORSE after him. Thus he should NEVER be in the game. Celo, Shaka also have their nations worst off than before. But they atleast have legends worth talking about. What good did Hilter ever do that is worthy of putting him in over Bismark?
Just to be pedantic, Shaka turned the Zulus into the dominant regional power for almost a century; the Anglo-Zulu wars (to which I assume you refer) did not occur until half a century after his death.

Actually Robert the Bruce was a Normano-Scottish Lowlander, not a Gael. Great Leader for a Scottish nation, just not a specifically Celtic one. William Wallace was also. If you want Gaelic Scottish leaders you have to either go into the highlands and islands or before the Norman conquest of England.
Actually, Robert the Bruce was of partial Gaelic ancestry, he simply happened to have Anglo-Norman paternal ancestors; common practice was for Anglo-Norman lords to marry daughters of the Gaelic aristocracy to cement relations with the indigenous power-structure. By that time, the Lowland nobility was a pretty thorough jumble of Gaelic, Anglo-Norman and English- Wallace's compatriot Andrew Moray, for example, had similarly mixed ancestry, but traced his paternal ancestry through a Gaelic noble house- but many identified as Gaels or Scots (at the time synonymous), and would've spoken fluent Gaelic, it being the court language of the time.
Granted, yes, Bruce may not be considered to be of pure Gaelic ancestry, but in a game with Macedonians in Greece, Germans in England and Corsicans as French, it's far from the most blatant inaccuracy. ;)

And, of course, we also have Brian Boru, who strikes me as a more appropriately Father-of-His-Nation sort of leader anyway, so I'm not entirely sure what all that was in aid of. ;)

Hitler was just a flag people gathered around. Actually he made really poor decisions. Credits for domination go to Rommel and the likes.
Exactly; he was a leader, not a ruler. When he began trying to play Emperor, he tended to screw it up. His success depended on entirely on his compatriots in the Nazi Party and military, and theirs on each other; not one of them had the ability to play the Napoleon. It was very much a team effort.

I do not want any leader that "lost" and weakened his nation in process. That means Joan the Arc, Napoleon (!!), any celtic leader :mischief:, Hitler, Xerxes I., Cleopatra etc. I personally think that Julius Caesar is ok, since he actually made Rome much stronger, despite being assasinated later. Simply no "losers" please and I will be fine with almost any leader =)
Just to be fair to him, Xerxes was actually a pretty decent ruler overall. That he stumbled in Greece does not, despite the narrow Western view, mark him out as a "loser", any more than Kublai Khan's failure to conquer Vietnam implies that he is a loser. He may not be the most worthy candidate, but he's not quite in the same category as Joan of Arc. And Napoleon... He's a bit of a funny one, a sort of "Glorious Loser" category. He went down, sure, but did far more getting there than most "Winning" leaders in the game. After all, there's few rulers out there who had to be conquered twice. You've got to give him points for that. ;)

As bad as he was, some of you give Hitler way too little credit. In the end Hitler made many mistakes, but he also made several brilliant moves, despite that his generals were against them. For example, all the "peaceful" expansions into Rhineland, Austria and Sudet were his babies. He correctly assumed that the west would not go to war over Chechoslovakia and was proven right. He masterminded the Molotov-Ribbentrop-deal that caught the allies completely by surprise and which made it possible for him to concentrate on France and the allies. He also was in favor of the radical new warfare ideas of blitzkrieg and the use of tanks and the airforce in a new role.

So Hitler was clearly a formidable opponent! An evil, selfish and hateful man? Yes, but also in his early years a clever manipulator, a brilliant orator and a very daring and unpredictable politician and military strategist.

He was a genius with amazing charisma that entered at the right place, at the right time
He made some few bad decisions that screwed him, but he had a great rise

This thread has been brought to you by The Hitlery Channel.

Coming up next we have Hitler's Bodyguards, Hitler's Assassins, Hitler's Dogs, and Hitler's Garden.

In all seriousness, though.
1. Hitler was charismatic, but far from intelligent. He was a despised by the men that really -did- try to run the Nazi Empire. If you can't be bothered to read a book on the subject or see one of The History Channel's many, many, many, many, -many- documentaries on him, at least go pick up Der Untergang/Downfall or something.
2. Compared to most of the evil leaders we let in, he didn't accomplish much at all. He was the Pet Rock of Evil. For 13 years everyone wanted one, then we all realized how retarded they were.
Stalin, however, is one of those Sippy Birds of evil. It took us a long time before we found out the downsides of the Sippy Birds of evil (He's going for another drink! He's going for another drink! He's... waiting in line for toilet paper. Huh.)

HOWEVER.
I'm not against adding him. I'm just against the belief that he's more worthy, based on accomplishments, than Stalin, Alexander, Genghis, etc.
I'd love to play against a realistic Hitler. He'd destroy his own cities when I got close to capturing them. Saves a lot of time for me, since I almost never accept AI city positions "I see, you decided to build in the middle of a desert 3 tiles from a river."

I stand corrected about Shaka but I re-affirm that Hitler is a horrible choice.

If you have only ONE ruler of Germany who would you want? Peter the Great, Bizmark, or Hitler?

His reign is like back jack. You win a few hands and build up a little money. You hit blackjack 3 times in a row and get a big pile of money. Then lose and lose so badly that you use your car as a final chance to win a hand and get ahead that you end up worst than what you had when you came in. The little good he did is so far down the list of overall bad. It is like saying "Madoff was a great financial advisor. He help me gain $1,000 dollars. Too bad he stole $50 million from me".

I stand corrected about Shaka but I re-affirm that Hitler is a horrible choice.

If you have only ONE ruler of Germany who would you want? Peter the Great, Bizmark, or Hitler?

His reign is like back jack. You win a few hands and build up a little money. You hit blackjack 3 times in a row and get a big pile of money. Then lose and lose so badly that you use your car as a final chance to win a hand and get ahead that you end up worst than what you had when you came in. The little good he did is so far down the list of overall bad. It is like saying "Madoff was a great financial advisor. He help me gain $1,000 dollars. Too bad he stole $50 million from me".

Bismarck, easily.
I find his time period to be more interesting (I'm sorry, I've been burned out on WW2. At least the main figures of WW2: FDR, Hitler, Stalin. Hirohito? I'm fine with, he's just a background guy for some reason, the way most documentaries do it. Same goes for "And The Rest", IE Mussolini.)

Stalin is simply the best Italian ruler EVER
I want no one else

I stand corrected about Shaka but I re-affirm that Hitler is a horrible choice.

If you have only ONE ruler of Germany who would you want? Peter the Great, Bizmark, or Hitler?
Exactly. Even if he was worthy for consideration, he's about fifteenth in line for "Great German Ruler". At the very, very least, you've got two Fredericks and an Otto before you get to Adolf.

Bismarck was incredible, he made germany. The tiny kingdoms of the area we call germany were divided into 1000s of little pieces and he built them into one mighty nation. It's not even close, Bismarck should always lead over Hitler.

Bismarck was incredible, he made germany. The tiny kingdoms of the area we call germany were divided into 1000s of little pieces and he built them into one mighty nation. It's not even close, Bismarck should always lead over Hitler.

This.
That's why I'm miffed that Civ4 has yet to add Jefferson to America. We need more expansionist leaders.

I don't mind Washington, but I think Jefferson has more merit than Lincoln or FDR. But Washington and Jefferson are both fine by me.

Actually, Robert the Bruce was of partial Gaelic ancestry, he simply happened to have Anglo-Norman paternal ancestors; common practice was for Anglo-Norman lords to marry daughters of the Gaelic aristocracy to cement relations with the indigenous power-structure. By that time, the Lowland nobility was a pretty thorough jumble of Gaelic, Anglo-Norman and English- Wallace's compatriot Andrew Moray, for example, had similarly mixed ancestry, but traced his paternal ancestry through a Gaelic noble house- but many identified as Gaels or Scots (at the time synonymous), and would've spoken fluent Gaelic, it being the court language of the time.
Granted, yes, Bruce may not be considered to be of pure Gaelic ancestry, but in a game with Macedonians in Greece, Germans in England and Corsicans as French, it's far from the most blatant inaccuracy. ;)

Actually, the court language switched to English during the reign of Malcolm Canmore and the power center of Scotland moved south to the lowlands. Gaelic was well into it's decline by the reign of the Bruce.

And, of course, we also have Brian Boru, who strikes me as a more appropriately Father-of-His-Nation sort of leader anyway, so I'm not entirely sure what all that was in aid of. ;)

Brian Boru strikes me as a better Gaelic nation builder too. My Scottish ancestry wants a Scottish Gaelic leader though :) How about Kenneth MacAlpine?

Since we are talking about Robert the Bruce I totally think England should have the leader of Edward the I. I watched Braveheart like everyone else and had an opinion of him based on what Hollywood portrayed and then I read a biography on him and the dude was freaking amazing! He created England as we see it now. He brought the Welsh kingdoms into England and made them one. Did I mention that he fought in the crusades, survived when a tower collapsed, and was poisoned by an assassin’s blade? Oh and he built the most expensive and elaborate memorial to his wife in English history. It’s still around today, Eleanor’s Cross.

He had his flaws but still a total BAMF.

Brian Boru strikes me as a better Gaelic nation builder too. My Scottish ancestry wants a Scottish Gaelic leader though :) How about Kenneth MacAlpine?
Perhaps, but he suffers from being an essentially half-mythical version of the same archetypal role filled by Boru. No-one's even really sure if he was a Gael or a Gaelicised Pict. I suppose he'd make a decent enough second leader, though, but it'd be nice to see them use a British or Gaulish leader for that (that is to say, a worthy British or Gaulish leader, unlike those appearing so far...).

Since we are talking about Robert the Bruce I totally think England should have the leader of Edward the I. I watched Braveheart like everyone else and had an opinion of him based on what Hollywood portrayed and then I read a biography on him and the dude was freaking amazing! He created England as we see it now. He brought the Welsh kingdoms into England and made them one. Did I mention that he fought in the crusades, survived when a tower collapsed, and was poisoned by an assassin’s blade? Oh and he built the most expensive and elaborate memorial to his wife in English history. It’s still around today, Eleanor’s Cross.

He had his flaws but still a total BAMF.
Not a bad suggestion, although perhaps not as a first leader; I'm actually pretty alright with Elizabeth holding that spot, although Churchill strikes me as reflecting a somewhat narrow frame of reference. Certainly, a better choice than Victoria, of all people.
Plus, Hollywood had him throwing guys out of tenth story windows for a laugh. What's more BAMF-y than that? ;)

Swastikas are really the low point to me
So, if Hitler used the cross instead of a Swastika, Crosses would be banned?

Keep in mind that Swastika is a symbol for peace LONG BEFORE Hitler was born

General Swastika is not banned in any country as far as I know. What is banned is particular nazzi swastika, you know how it looks like.

That said, it's still silly in my opinion. I'm strongly against banning symbols.

General Swastika is not banned in any country as far as I know. What is banned is particular nazzi swastika, you know how it looks like.

That said, it's still silly in my opinion. I'm strongly against banning symbols.

Most people are. It's just that a few countries are a little... kooky, and don't learn from their own history. Something funny about showing how different you are from an oppressive regime by... curbing free speech in regards to references to said oppressive regime.

In asia the swastika is a symbol of eternity, wealth, or good fortune. Its still popular to this day in temples and monasteries out there.

Okay, here's what I think about American leaders. Basically, I feel there should be 6 candidates considered.
FDR, Teddy, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln
Now, we don't know how many leaders per Civ. But I feel that Washington will never be left out of the game-- America is one of the biggest markets and Washington's a national hero. Jackson, in my opinion, is probably not well known enough to make it in the game, especially as the more famous national heroes such as the other five are in the race. So we come down to the two Roosevelts, Jefferson, and Lincoln. FDR was one of the most, if not the most powerful President ever. He also accomplished a hell of a lot. Social Security, Medicare, ending the Great Depression, as well as being the head of our nation during WWII. So he should be in second. Ultimately, I feel like TR, Lincoln and Jefferson all represent different interests. Jefferson, as someone else has pointed out, was more expansionist, in terms of city settling in Civ. TR would be the kind of leader who would attack city-states and try to strong-arm other leaders. Lincoln would be the type inclined to avoiding war but be damned good at it if he got into one (firing McClellan, moving Grant to the east). He would also probably put a greater price on defending his territory than conquering someone else's. To sum up:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3-5. Jefferson: Expansive
TR: Warlike, but only if he knows he can win
Lincoln: Diplomatic, Defensive
6. Jackson

Now, we don't know how many leaders per Civ.

There's only one leader per civ, that's already been confirmed.

I'm glad you at least mention Jackson, he deserves a mention, but yeah he is not well known enough to make it into civ. cybrxkhan is right... looks like Washington only. Which I'll add is the best and most obvious choice. Still though, I think everyone can agree we'd all rather have multiple LH's for civs, even if it has to come with an expansion or mods.

Okay, here's what I think about American leaders. Basically, I feel there should be 6 candidates considered.
FDR, Teddy, Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln
Now, we don't know how many leaders per Civ. But I feel that Washington will never be left out of the game-- America is one of the biggest markets and Washington's a national hero. Jackson, in my opinion, is probably not well known enough to make it in the game, especially as the more famous national heroes such as the other five are in the race. So we come down to the two Roosevelts, Jefferson, and Lincoln. FDR was one of the most, if not the most powerful President ever. He also accomplished a hell of a lot. Social Security, Medicare, ending the Great Depression, as well as being the head of our nation during WWII. So he should be in second. Ultimately, I feel like TR, Lincoln and Jefferson all represent different interests. Jefferson, as someone else has pointed out, was more expansionist, in terms of city settling in Civ. TR would be the kind of leader who would attack city-states and try to strong-arm other leaders. Lincoln would be the type inclined to avoiding war but be damned good at it if he got into one (firing McClellan, moving Grant to the east). He would also probably put a greater price on defending his territory than conquering someone else's. To sum up:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3-5. Jefferson: Expansive
TR: Warlike, but only if he knows he can win
Lincoln: Diplomatic, Defensive
6. Jackson

or

We dump that fan-servicing waste of a civ-slot altogether. Just a suggestion. ;)

Fan-servicing waste of a civ slot? Ok, you should get off your high horse. You know what? America's not a fan-service Civ. Its a world superpower, and has been a major power for a third of its existence. You want a fan-service Civ? Zulus. Aztecs. Neither anything more than a historical footnote. But please don't suggest one of the Civs that deserves to be in the top 10 is a fan-service Civ.

Fan-servicing waste of a civ slot? Ok, you should get off your high horse. You know what? America's not a fan-service Civ. Its a world superpower, and has been a major power for a third of its existence. You want a fan-service Civ? Zulus. Aztecs. Neither anything more than a historical footnote. But please don't suggest one of the Civs that deserves to be in the top 10 is a fan-service Civ.

This.
For a country that's only been around for a few hundred years, the US has had a giant impact on the world.
It's more than just the fact that the company that makes the game is in America, and that the US probably has more gamers than most nations. If that alone qualified for a civ, Canada would be added in, because I'm pretty sure Canada makes up for a good % of Civ4's sales (which was part of the reason Hitler was removed from Road to War, then made downloadable if I remember right. Canada agrees with Germany on the whole... usage of Hitler's image thing.)

Fan-servicing waste of a civ slot? Ok, you should get off your high horse. You know what? America's not a fan-service Civ. Its a world superpower, and has been a major power for a third of its existence. You want a fan-service Civ? Zulus. Aztecs. Neither anything more than a historical footnote. But please don't suggest one of the Civs that deserves to be in the top 10 is a fan-service Civ.
Eh, I suppose I just have different criteria; I like to see a diverse range of civilisations and cultures, rather than a list of powerful Western nation-states, and I find the inclusion of a thoroughly modern nation-state like America in an epic historical simulator to be slightly jarring. I can see that, if you are yourself American, then you may see things differently, but I've never seen it as anything more than a slightly self-indulgent move on the part of an American developer and audience.
I suppose it's simply that, while America has indeed had a massive impact on the modern era, that's just not the one that I'm interested in.

And, yes, the Zulus are also a waste of space. It just took them until 4 to realise that there were other, real civilisations in Africa.

t's more than just the fact that the company that makes the game is in America, and that the US probably has more gamers than most nations. If that alone qualified for a civ, Canada would be added in, because I'm pretty sure Canada makes up for a good % of Civ4's sales
It's more about mentality. Americans are typically a little over-awed by their own admittedly impressive rise to power, and so are prone to a certain style of masturbatory self-congratulation. Europeans are often little better, but at least have the bulk of history to begin backing it up, while Americans- as Churchill's Hat has done- inevitable start referencing the last century, as if that actually means anything on a grand scale, let's alone makes them a halfway interesting civ.
I am reminded of the old observation, "In America, one hundred years is a long time, and in Britain, one hundred miles is a long way."

Well, I'm half British and half American. Inevitably, it is part of the syndrome that you defend Britain to Americans, and America to Britons. But anyway, going on ad hominem attacks doesn't make you right. Yes, Americans can be self-righteous. Yes, we can be centered around America. But ultimately, the last century was the most globalized century. Furthermore, it was also one of the quickest paced in terms of technological development and speed to get from one place to another. I see history more as a sliding scale-- so, 100 years in 2000 B.C. is nothing compared to the 1200s, which is nothing compared to the 1900s. It took Genghis Khan twenty years to spread an empire from Korea to the Black Sea. It took Hitler 2 years to spread an empire from France to very nearly Moscow, as well as extending south into North Africa.

And I don't just admire the United States' rise to power. I feel countries that were recognized as the strongest power-- or very high up there-- in their day deserve to be in. China, Japan, Russia, Britain, the US, Germany, the Ottomans, Rome, Persia, Mongolia, and Egypt. Then we can start talking about other civs.

Finally, the US was only a major power/superpower for a little over a century, but they were/are very powerful during that time. Yes, the Greeks were there for centuries, but if Western civilization had not become as powerful as it did they would fare only somewhat better than the Huns-- a warlord who conquered huge swaths of land and then lost it.

Well, I'm half British and half American. Inevitably, it is part of the syndrome that you defend Britain to Americans, and America to Britons. But anyway, going on ad hominem attacks doesn't make you right.
To what do you refer? My comments as to American self-importance? Those were merely observations of an aspect of the typical American mentality, furnished as an explanation as to the inclusion of, in my opinion, an unworthy, or, more accurately, inappropriate civ in the game.
But, then, all criticism is an "ad hominem attack" nowadays, isn't it? I do love the internet.

Yes, Americans can be self-righteous. Yes, we can be centered around America. But ultimately, the last century was the most globalized century. Furthermore, it was also one of the quickest paced in terms of technological development and speed to get from one place to another. I see history more as a sliding scale-- so, 100 years in 2000 B.C. is nothing compared to the 1200s, which is nothing compared to the 1900s. It took Genghis Khan twenty years to spread an empire from Korea to the Black Sea. It took Hitler 2 years to spread an empire from France to very nearly Moscow, as well as extending south into North Africa.

And I don't just admire the United States' rise to power. I feel countries that were recognized as the strongest power-- or very high up there-- in their day deserve to be in. China, Japan, Russia, Britain, the US, Germany, the Ottomans, Rome, Persia, Mongolia, and Egypt. Then we can start talking about other civs.

Finally, the US was only a major power/superpower for a little over a century, but they were/are very powerful during that time. Yes, the Greeks were there for centuries, but if Western civilization had not become as powerful as it did they would fare only somewhat better than the Huns-- a warlord who conquered huge swaths of land and then lost it.
Again, I believe we have differing criteria; I favour a variety of cultures or literal civilisations, each with a unique flavour and who made significant cultural contributions to the world, while you apparently favour a sort of willy-waggling list of powerful nation-states.
I've never quite understood this points-scoring system by which people argue for and against certain civilisations or leaders, much as I occasionally find myself stumbling into it. I think a lot of it originates in the conflation of "civilisation" with "nation-state", which seems to demand comparisons of political and military influence from certain people, although I'm still not sure on what grounds any given civilisation or leader is attributed value on those grounds alone.

To be honest, I don't object to the inclusion of America in Civilization, I simply object to the inevitable inclusion as a first-wave civ; that, at the very least, strikes me as self-indulgent. It's simply not that interesting. It adds little or no flavour to the game. That's why it belongs alongside those other slightly samey civs, like Korea, the Netherlands and the Mayans, in an expansion, freeing up some Vanilla space for an altogether more characterful contender.

I favour a variety of cultures or literal civilisations, each with a unique flavour and who made significant cultural contributions to the world, while you apparently favour a sort of willy-waggling list of powerful nation-states.

I don't think I can reply to this quote in a moderator approved way, so I'm just going to quote it and laugh.

Rather have Otto the Great as German leader. Seems like it'll never happen though.

In Shiggs' defense, calgacus seems to be trolling. At least I'm hoping that's trolling.

No, I have been very serious. If you guys could wipe your tears from your eyes about Washington and actually read what I said, you'd probably find there is less there you object to than you think. ;)

Actually, Robert the Bruce was of partial Gaelic ancestry, he simply happened to have Anglo-Norman paternal ancestors; common practice was for Anglo-Norman lords to marry daughters of the Gaelic aristocracy to cement relations with the indigenous power-structure. By that time, the Lowland nobility was a pretty thorough jumble of Gaelic, Anglo-Norman and English- Wallace's compatriot Andrew Moray, for example, had similarly mixed ancestry, but traced his paternal ancestry through a Gaelic noble house- but many identified as Gaels or Scots (at the time synonymous), and would've spoken fluent Gaelic, it being the court language of the time.
Granted, yes, Bruce may not be considered to be of pure Gaelic ancestry, but in a game with Macedonians in Greece, Germans in England and Corsicans as French, it's far from the most blatant inaccuracy. ;)


You are right about Robert. Robert was as much a descendant of Fergus of Galloway as the Bruces of France. He was quite at home in the Gaelic lands of Carrick and Argyl, and in the English lands of Annandale, and among the French elite of Britain.



Actually, the court language switched to English during the reign of Malcolm Canmore and the power center of Scotland moved south to the lowlands. Gaelic was well into it's decline by the reign of the Bruce.


Although this is frequently stated, this is a myth. It is a myth in that there is no evidence for it, and in that it probably isn't true. The first detailed evidence for the composition and cultural makeup of the Scottish court comes from the writings of Ailred of Rievaulx. Ailred makes it clear that one half was "us" [i.e. the Anglo-Normans], who are clearly newcomers, and the other half "the Scots". This is the second decade of the 12th century.

Also, there was no concept as "Lowlands" in this era, nor for centuries to come. People in the 12th and 13th centuries however did distinguish "Scotland" [the area north of the Forth] and "Lothian" [roughly, Lothian and Borders]. There was also Galloway, which wasn't really part of the kingdom until the era of Robert's granddad.



Brian Boru strikes me as a better Gaelic nation builder too. My Scottish ancestry wants a Scottish Gaelic leader though :) How about Kenneth MacAlpine?

I've often pushed for a Gaelic civilization in the past, though it is a tough one as there is such a clear division between Scotland and Ireland, it may very well just be better to accept one.

I don't think either of these leaders are good candidates for a united Gaelic civ. Brian Boru is too Irish, and Cinaed is too Scottish [probably a Pict too]. Maybe a legendary leader like Niall Noígíallach? Or a religious one, like Columba?

Masturbatory self-congratulations? As opposed to writing, say, Americans are sometimes unable to see that they weren't always the center of power? And yes, I guess it isn't an ad hominem attack. I thought you were merely using that to say how this is a fanservice civ, but you seem to be saying its your observations. I just don't think your observations are correct.

Anyway, I think diverse civilizations should come second. Besides which, America is a civilization. So are the Germans. So are the Turks (yes, I called them the Ottomans, because Firaxis doesn't seem to like to use the correct term). Historical importance should come first; civilization is, after all, based on history, and history has always come first in Civ. Besides which, they can choose many different civs in the expansion packs.

"Turks" are also Chinese-looking central Asian nomads, as opposed to civilized Mediterranean state-builders. So "Ottomans" distinguishes them. I guess "Anatolians" might be used as a more generic term reflecting what they called themselves, but this would be incomprehensible and confusing to the gamers.

I've often pushed for a Gaelic civilization in the past, though it is a tough one as there is such a clear division between Scotland and Ireland, it may very well just be better to accept one.

I don't think either of these leaders are good candidates for a united Gaelic civ. Brian Boru is too Irish, and Cinaed is too Scottish [probably a Pict too]. Maybe a legendary leader like Niall Noígíallach? Or a religious one, like Columba?
I suppose there's some truth to that; much as the distinctions drawn between Ireland and Scotland in the Early Middle Ages were far lesser than they are to do, people to have a habit of imposing these things on the past. Columba could be a could choice, and certainly subverts the warlord-figure that most players would expect from the Gaels/Celts, although he suffers from the same not-really-a-ruler criticism as Gandhi. I suppose a legendary leader could work- Gilgamesh certainly provides something in the way of precedent- but it wouldn't be ideal.
I suppose a lot of this is tied to the tendency to see civs as representative of nation-states, rather than cultures. The former leads people to look for contemporary nation-states, while the latter allows a lot more wiggle-room with that sort of thing.

Also, for the record, the bit about Malcolm Canmore wasn't me, as the way you've quoted it implies.

Anyway, I think diverse civilizations should come second. Besides which, America is a civilization. So are the Germans. So are the Turks (yes, I called them the Ottomans, because Firaxis doesn't seem to like to use the correct term). Historical importance should come first; civilization is, after all, based on history, and history has always come first in Civ. Besides which, they can choose many different civs in the expansion packs.
Again, I think we simply differ in opinion. Given that Civilization is pretty specifically intended to be a "Make Your Own History" sort of game, I'd rather be presented with a diverse and interesting range of civ choices, rather than simply being handed a bunch of similar-yet-historically-significant Western European civs. You, apparently, differ, and I'm sure that you have your reasons.
And, I as I said, America is a unique enough entity in it's own right to warrant inclusion, I simply object to the assumption that it is a necessity. I'd rather they add the Babylonians or Turks before another Western nation-state.

The Malcolm Canmore thing was all me. I screwed up the quotes when I deleted part of it that was irrelevant and accidentally destroyed the formatting. I don't really know how to fix it.

Niall Noígíallach certainly works as a Gael leader, as does Columba. Maybe we should create a Gael civilization for Civ 4 while we wait for Civ 5 :) What would Gaelic UU and UB be?

I believe that Grover Cleveland is the best possible USA leader. After him, there weren't any true democrats. Plus, his name is awesome.

Way better than some ridiculous-looking general.

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.


Yes I agree racist leaders should be removed, but why stop there?

I also think sexists, homophobes, adulterers, war mongers, and death penalty advocates should also be removed as well.

List the leaders you are sick of and want to see no more :)


Wu Zeitein

Yes I agree racist leaders should be removed, but why stop there?

I also think sexists, homophobes, adulterers, war mongers, and death penalty advocates should also be removed as well.

Yeah! Which brings up more questionable topics: Violence, propaganda, rebellion, pollution, SLAVERY (who here has clicked that button?) and deciet. I just really don't think these things are very nice. I mean, we can look at history right, but we shouldn't ENCOURAGE these things.

Oh, gawsh, no, we can't be having those things in a peaceful game of conquer the world. That just would not do at-all! Not one bit! Terribly inappropriate, I'm sure you'll agree ;)