View Full Version : Rating of all civilization leaders


sonofkong
Sep 03, 2010, 08:15 PM
I am just going to rate every civ leader from every game from the original to civ 5 (Colonization and Alpha Centauri not included.) This is more or less an article not a forum starter but comments are welsome lets get started.

flamingzaroc121
Sep 03, 2010, 08:17 PM
Whats going to be the basis of ur rating?

sonofkong
Sep 03, 2010, 08:21 PM
Abraham Lincoln *****
The leader I always want for America. This is mainly as I don't know why but George Washington just didn't seem to have actually done anything as a leader. I mean sure he was a terrific general and had wicked charisma but just didn't do anything government-wise. Lincoln on the other hand has no flaws, stopped the confederacy and of course being an ugly SOB I look to him as a role model. Just try to keep him ugly in civ 6.

Montezuma ****
Fits his purpose, Although I'm never sure which montezuma they mean in these games. The second was more historically important even though he ran his empire into the ground, but most editions show him old (as Montezuma was) but Montezuma II died fairly young. Either way, just use the Inca first, Aztecs are overrated.

Hammurabi ***
Not much to say, I like when they put Mesopatamian rulers but god is the middle east crowded. Clear some room and leave him out.

Chairman Mao ** (No I didn't intend to put these in descending order.)
I just don't like this guy on so many levels. He of course is a commie bastard who would give Eisenhower a heart attack but there are many better leaders. Not to mention it might have been creepy how recently he died when the first game came out, that would be like if I put reagan in the game, there would definitely be some controversy.

Ramesses ****
Not amazing but better than the other people they tried to rule egypt with (like that ho' cleopatra)

Elizabeth *****
I can't give anything less than 5 stars for the virgin queen. She may have been deofrmed in civ 4 but she raised the largest empire at the time from nothing.

Napoleon ****
Napoleon is great but he deosn't represent the french empire. He destroyed the french empire and created his own which was culturally Italian as well as French. Then again he is the biggest excuse for hitler in the game as hitler did exactly the same thing (but did it better.)

Frederick the Great **
Just your average monarch who drained his countries wealth to capture a miniscule amount of territory. I do like some of his internal leadership but these were basic rights.

Alexander *****
At first I thought he'ld have the same problem as Napoleon and he's a foreignor but it turns out that Macedonians were considered greeks and could even play at the olympic games. His macedonian rule was even disputed as his mother was greek. He's a greek (and a good one at that.) Some say his empire fell apart but no he just created a bunch of tiny little ones (such as the Seluecid and Ptolomeic empires)

sonofkong
Sep 03, 2010, 08:24 PM
Whats going to be the basis of ur rating?

Five stars, historical importants and whether the character was handled correctly.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 03, 2010, 08:26 PM
Washington set the precident of what a President should be. If he had abused his powers, the USA wouldn't exist now.

Lincoln used martial law to put down draft riots in the big cities and was quite pragmatic about whether to free the slave or not. The history books made him out to be better than he was.

snipperrabbit!!
Sep 04, 2010, 07:09 AM
No wonder you've kong in your username ! I thought this thread was about how leaders behave in game, like said they will emphasis on navy or culture or whatever .... which we know very few atm.

This current topic is judging history and belong to the colosseum forum.

rastak
Sep 04, 2010, 07:18 AM
Washington set the precident of what a President should be. If he had abused his powers, the USA wouldn't exist now.

Lincoln used martial law to put down draft riots in the big cities and was quite pragmatic about whether to free the slave or not. The history books made him out to be better than he was.

Exactly.

Lyoncet
Sep 04, 2010, 11:46 AM
What the last guy said, but to this [Elizabeth] instead.

Maybe he's thinking of Victoria? That's my only guess. On the empire part, not the Virgin Queen quip.

There's two criteria I use to determine how "good" of a representative a particular Civ leader is: their impact on the greater political landscape (meaning not just at home but abroad) and their skills in governance. Simply being a good warrior, IMO, isn't a good reason to be included in a game called Civiliaztion.

I'm pretty ambivalent on Lincoln. Yeah, his impact on America was huge, but his rule was pretty much entirely concentrated on the domestic. Of course the world would have been quite different if the CSA has remained a political entity (or subjugated the USA), but past the borders of the USA he certainly wasn't much of a presence. Washington was a huge force in shaping America as it related to the rest of the world; Lincoln falls short in that category. So scores high on governance, but low on world impact.

The other one I'm always not that happy with is Alexander. Questions of Greekiness aside, I just don't see him as a very good ruler. Great general, interesting guy, but he was no Cyrus. Perhaps if he'd had longer than 7 years (I think) between turning tail and his death he'd have shaped up a bit, but in that amount of time he, in my opinion and that of a great number of historians and scholars, totally fell flat on his face in terms of building a, oh what's it called, oh yeah Civilization. Scores high on world impact (since his conquest encompassed, to the Greeks, the greater part of the known world) but low on governance.

j51
Sep 04, 2010, 12:38 PM
You need to read up on your history:

Elizabeth *****
I can't give anything less than 5 stars for the virgin queen. She may have been deofrmed in civ 4 but she raised the largest empire at the time from nothing.

England under Elizabeth didn't really have an empire at all. Spain had the largest empire. Follow that with the Portuguese, who shared the same monarch as Spain at the time (Philip II). Then there was the Ottomans...

Napoleon ****
Napoleon is great but he deosn't represent the french empire. He destroyed the french empire and created his own which was culturally Italian as well as French. Then again he is the biggest excuse for hitler in the game as hitler did exactly the same thing (but did it better.)

He does represent the French Empire. He doesn't represent the Kingdom of France. And what's with the Hitler stuff? Napoleon was a lot different what with emancipating the Jews and the promulgation of his Code Civil which is still the basis for more law codes than the Common Law. He may have been a dictator, but he was a liberal one; far less authoritarian. Also, Hitler went down after, what, only 5 1/2 years of war? Napoleon was fighting for roughly 15 and then he came back for more!

Frederick the Great **
Just your average monarch who drained his countries wealth to capture a miniscule amount of territory. I do like some of his internal leadership but these were basic rights.

Average, hardly. His internal reforms where remarkable. No other monarch at the time was willing to go so far. And he was considered the preeminent military genius of his time. He brought the Prussian state up to equal footing with Austria, France, Russia, etc. in the power game. Considering how much smaller it was, that's no small feat.

As for your remarks concerning Alexander's or Napoleon's ethnicity: Ethnicity is never a clear line. No one is purely "one" thing. When we're talking about Civ leaders, it's legendary status, what they are remembered for doing for their state, not where they came from that matters.

Also, Mao wasn't a bad ruler because he was a "Commie bastard." He was bad because of his intense disregard for human life and the massive hardships that his projects created for the people of China. Projects that brought little gain and oftentimes set China back.

D712
Sep 04, 2010, 06:28 PM
England under Elizabeth didn't really have an empire at all. Spain had the largest empire. Follow that with the Portuguese, who shared the same monarch as Spain at the time (Philip II). Then there was the Ottomans...

Well no, it wasnt an Empire, but she sure did save England. England was rocky, and was on the verge of collapse. Then she stabalized the country. She established trade with Spains enemies, opened diplomatic relations with many countries and helped England stay afloat. For it was in so much turmoil, with the reformation, the succession crisis, and how Spain and the Hapsburgs were against the Prodestant England. She gave her people confidence and she dared to defy what other countries did. She didnt have an Empie, but she made the country stable enough that it could become an Empire. So she deseves 5 stars.

Lyoncet
Sep 04, 2010, 09:57 PM
Well no, it wasnt an Empire, but she sure did save England. England was rocky, and was on the verge of collapse. Then she stabalized the country. She established trade with Spains enemies, opened diplomatic relations with many countries and helped England stay afloat. For it was in so much turmoil, with the reformation, the succession crisis, and how Spain and the Hapsburgs were against the Prodestant England. She gave her people confidence and she dared to defy what other countries did. She didnt have an Empie, but she made the country stable enough that it could become an Empire. So she deseves 5 stars.

I don't think j51 was in disagreement with the rating (at least, didn't say so) but rather the reasoning. You're entirely right, and also j51's entirely right that the reasoning sonofkong gave for his rating was absurd. Still think he's talking about Victoria, probably.

j51
Sep 04, 2010, 11:02 PM
What Lyoncet said.

Edit: I wasn't even paying attention to the star rankings. "It's like people are movies!"

Altaria87
Sep 05, 2010, 02:45 AM
Well no, it wasnt an Empire, but she sure did save England. England was rocky, and was on the verge of collapse. Then she stabalized the country. She established trade with Spains enemies, opened diplomatic relations with many countries and helped England stay afloat. For it was in so much turmoil, with the reformation, the succession crisis, and how Spain and the Hapsburgs were against the Prodestant England. She gave her people confidence and she dared to defy what other countries did. She didnt have an Empie, but she made the country stable enough that it could become an Empire. So she deseves 5 stars.
I only agree in so far as she gave the people confidence. Elizabeth was a success story in so far as she probably made the best use of propaganda ever seen at that point in history. British people back then, and even many today, are convinced she was a great Queen, despite most of the credit she got was for achievements of much greater people within the country (the repulsion of the Armada being a textbook example). The real heroes of the time were the propaganda men.

civfan1
Sep 05, 2010, 11:54 PM
Alexdander should't be in the the game. Macedonian Civilization: Rebelling Territries Under One Banner Revolting was common in Alexander's Greek "Empire." (No offence but a large World impact, but minor domestic impact.):scan:

Semmel
Sep 06, 2010, 12:54 AM
*sigh* not again.. :(

MisterBarca
Sep 06, 2010, 11:13 AM
The inclusion of Wu is an utter farce--and it probably doesn't even make that much sense from a marketing viewpoint (how many Chinese buyers would prefer Wu over Li Shimin, for instance?). Might as well have chosen Warren Harding for the American leader.

sensual benny
Sep 06, 2010, 12:00 PM
Ramesses II - Guy was a huge jerk! Kept loads of slaves, wound up dead when the salty waters of the Red Sea closed in on top of him. Overall rating : :thumbsdown:

Gandhi - "The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least." We'll see how that works out for you buddy. Rating: :rolleyes:

Hiawatha - "Depending on the version of the narrative, Hiawatha lived in the 12th, 15th or 16th century and was a leader of the Onondaga or the Mohawk."
NOT EVEN A REAL PERSON! Rating: :dubious:

swatmp5
Sep 06, 2010, 12:03 PM
The Arabian empire, that gets double oil resources ranks, high on my list. It'll come in handy during the modern period. The Russian empire also gets double uranium and some other resources which could also tip the balance in terms of GDR.

Boris Godunov
Sep 06, 2010, 12:06 PM
Ramesses II - Guy was a huge jerk! Kept loads of slaves, wound up dead when the salty waters of the Red Sea closed in on top of him. Overall rating : :thumbsdown:

Gandhi - "The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least." We'll see how that works out for you buddy. Rating: :rolleyes:

Hiawatha - "Depending on the version of the narrative, Hiawatha lived in the 12th, 15th or 16th century and was a leader of the Onondaga or the Mohawk."
NOT EVEN A REAL PERSON! Rating: :dubious:

I hope this is satire, and if so, well done. ;)

Boris Godunov
Sep 06, 2010, 12:08 PM
And the comparison of Napoleon to Hitler is astonishing... overall, these descriptions appear to be borne of misconceptions and outright false information, not actual facts.

OMG!!!
Sep 06, 2010, 12:44 PM
Montezuma 4 stars and Frederick the Great only 2? :eek:
You sir, don't have idea about history.

And about Napoleon and Hitler, well, Napoleon was seen as the Antichrist (not in a metaphoric sense) and the evil in the Earth for the people of his period. In that sense is like Hitler, the modern equivalent to Satan, if you want to make an example about something or somebody evil you usually uses Hitler or the nazis.

j51
Sep 06, 2010, 03:34 PM
The Arabian empire, that gets double oil resources ranks, high on my list. It'll come in handy during the modern period. The Russian empire also gets double uranium and some other resources which could also tip the balance in terms of GDR.

wrong thread

Binestar
Sep 06, 2010, 07:17 PM
Washington set the precident of what a President should be. If he had abused his powers, the USA wouldn't exist now.

Absolutely true. Washington was essentially given the option to become King Washington (The continental congress gave him broad leeway to define the presidency). He also single handedly stopped a military coup that *would* have succeeded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newburgh_Conspiracy

Really, read up on him on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington There was no greater president. His actions during his presidency put into place a foundation for what the presidency of the united states was going to be all about.

VikingMaekel
Sep 07, 2010, 06:49 AM
Frederick the Great **
Just your average monarch who drained his countries wealth to capture a miniscule amount of territory. I do like some of his internal leadership but these were basic rights.


My gods, history feels sore in the buttocks right now.
Frederick transformed Prussia from a backwater region in Europe to an economically strong region. He captured a large amount of territory, Silesia being instrumental for example in uplifting Prussia economically and Prussia became the dominant state in the Germanic sphere of influence, to the detriment of the Austrians, under his rule. He installed a modern bureaucracy, he promoted an education policy that was seen as the best in Europe at that time and Napoleon said of him that he was the greatest tactical genius of all time.

Lord Arska
Sep 07, 2010, 10:27 AM
I think that I already posted in this thread. Was my message deleted or is my memory playing tricks on me? :crazyeye:

Anyway, I think that Mao deserves more starts if judged by historical importance.