If you would read the OP's post a few spaces above yours, you'll see that the fact that you were militarily victorious makes you a threat - and this is what "warmonger" means (as opposed to what you would reasonably assume looking it up in the dictionary).
Yes, in the twisted Civ5 world of diplomacy, where almost every player action other than rolling over and licking boots is deliberately weighted to make most of the other civs want to go to war with you, to accomplish the developer's primary goal of getting the player into as many wars as possible, as fast as possible, it makes perfect sense. As long as you keep that in mind, you'll do fine. Just throw common sense and reasonable assumptions out the window, when dealing with the AI civs.
If you defend yourself (and often your neighbors, bless their black, thankless souls), they'll all hate you. If you don't defend yourself, they'll all steamroll you. If you join an 'ally' to fight someone else, the ally will hate you for it. If you liberate another AI, they'll hate you for it. If you are successful in any way, they'll all hate you. If you are unsuccessful, they'll call you weak and gang up to tear you apart. You can give a neighbor free stuff and gold for nothing for millennia, be the best of friends and allies, and yet they will covet your lands and detest you for building wonders, and eventually hate you and stab you in the back for no good reason whatsoever. Sense a pattern, here? Hehe. Sense is nowhere involved. Reason is nowhere involved. They just made the whole stupid diplomacy system to make you hated and get you into wars quickly, because they made Civ5 a war game, and that's bloody well what they want to see you having... wars
Once you figure out how to play their weird sort of unnatural hardball, then you can sometimes manage to avoid a lot of those wars, but you don't do it by using any standard real-world form of reason or sense, but by learning how Firaxis made diplomacy work in the game.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Civ5, and in a lot of games, I play for the Domination win and go forth and war and kick AI arse like there's no tomorrow. It's a pretty good game IMO, for the most part. But just about every aspect of the diplomacy system, and a lot of the silly things they've done with it, makes me cringe and shake my head constantly.
A prime example of the kind of thing we've been referring to- last night, I was rolling to a domination win, and owned 2/3 of the world already, just finishing off the last 5 or 6 remaining civs. I completely outclassed every one of them. None of them would DoW on me, and they couldn't even get up the guts to form a possee and group DoW me. So, I just rolled up to the next civ on the continent, steamrolled them down until all they had left was maybe one or two tiny island-cities way out in the antartic or something that didn't amount to anything, and watch in bemusement as all the remaining civs group-denounced and then group-DoW'ed the freshly-beaten remnants of the dying civ. I'd make peace with the hapless beaten civ, and move on to the next one... same scenario... wipe it out down to 1-2 tiny remote cities remaining, then again all the other civs would promptly group-denounce and group-DoW that one. Over and over again, until each of them were finally gone. Pathetic. It must have been sad to be that last civ, with nobody left to group-DoW the previous civ's corpse with. As unreal as it gets, but that's Civ5 diplomacy for you.
So for over 200 turns he was dead wrong about how I was winning the game? Also NO ONE declared war on me, EVER, the WHOLE game. I thought when you started the space race the world was supposed to turn on you.
