Leaders we don't want.

CornPlanter

CornPlanter

Emperor
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
1,103
Location
Lithuania
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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
 
Now who's the racist?
Click to expand...
:)
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.
 
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.
 
Zomgmeister said:
Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.
Click to expand...
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
 
Aquila SPQR said:
Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War
Click to expand...

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.
 
mattigus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zomgmeister said:
Hannibal, because he never ruled over Carthaginians.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lord Olleus said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dido. Oh, sorry, I meant this Dido.

Never heard about Mansa Musa before Civ 4. Heck, never heard about Shaka before Civ 1!
 
Zomgmeister said:
Dido. Oh, sorry, I meant this Dido.

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Unrestricted leaders and civ uniques
Replies
10
Views
653
ArchGhost
ArchGhost
U
Pre-hispanic Mesoamerica (leaders, civs, maps, scenarios, mods)
Replies
0
Views
247
uriel Deveaud
U
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
Patine
Patine
Birdjaguar
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
22 23 24
Replies
460
Views
16K
aelf
aelf
King Phaedron
Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
Top Bottom