Leaders we don't want.

cardgame said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Cipherium said:

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?

Click to expand...

Gilgamesh is hardly ideal, though; he's simply the only Sumerian king with any name-recognition, pretty much because he didn't exist. Sargon 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.

Traitorfish said:

Gilgamesh is hardly ideal, though; he's simply the only Sumerian king with any name-recognition, pretty much because he didn't exist. Sargon 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.

Click to expand...

Don't forget Catherine the Great for Russia.

Zomgmeister said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Traitorfish said:

Gilgamesh is hardly ideal, though; he's simply the only Sumerian king with any name-recognition, pretty much because he didn't exist. Sargon 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.

Click to expand...

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?

SGRaaize said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

cybrxkhan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ko3ak said:

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.

Click to expand...

...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

cybrxkhan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Shiggs713 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Churchill's Hat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Churchill's Hat said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Moderator Action: You are welcome to show where another poster is, in your opinion, wrong. You are not allowed to do it by attacking them personally.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889