Leaders we don't want.

Koning said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Aquila SPQR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Koning said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

CornPlanter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

bob bobato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Koning said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

war ensemble said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Aquila SPQR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

CornPlanter said:

Shaka together with his "civilization".

Click to expand...

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!

smackthewise said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

CornPlanter said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your attitude is pathetic and borderline racist.

Your attitude is pathetic and borderline racist.

Click to expand...

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.

Zomgmeister said:

Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.

Click to expand...

Hannibal Barca, Sophet of Carthage. 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.

CornPlanter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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