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.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).
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".
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.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
Pretty much textbook stuff. Search for British Imperialism and Darwinism and you should find several sources. Such as: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.
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.
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.
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.
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...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...
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 opinionI.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible.
Right. We will have Empress 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 :/I heard somewhere that Mao has already been replaced
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.
fat women, ugly women and old women
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/