An Intellectual Discussion About Leaders

[andrewlt]

Same reason as Cao cao, While Sun is a great man (in his time), but he didn't unite China, which effectively means he has never led china. He is a great scholar, intellectual and revolutionary, but as a politician he is less effective and certainly is not a ruler. As such, I don't deem him fit as a leader choice.

If Qing, Mao, Wu, Tang taizong, Ming taizhu belong to the first tier of chinese leaders, Sun belongs to the second tier, at best.

China needs Liu Bang. Gave the race its name.

 

[Cincinnatus C.]

Insinuations about the class of another participants are not, in fact, part of a historical or any kind of "debate." You can attack assumptions or weaknesses in argument, but direct accusations are actually the ad hominem fallacy, whether you find them pertinent to the argument or not.

Furthermore, the "bourgeoisie" designation a) doesn't hold across all or even most cultures, so an assertion that someone else is one, knowing nothing about him or her, is ridiculous and divisive, and b) doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of one's historical opinions, even in the traditional Marxian model.

That said, asserting that Hitler was unaware of the holocaust or was not responsible for it is just nonsense.

 

[crazyunits]

simple reason Hitler is not *officially* in any of the civs game: it would not be able to sell in Germany, plain and simple.

 

[Kamenev]

Insinuations about the class of another participants are not, in fact, part of a historical or any kind of "debate." You can attack assumptions or weaknesses in argument, but direct accusations are actually the ad hominem fallacy, whether you find them pertinent to the argument or not.

Furthermore, the "bourgeoisie" designation a) doesn't hold across all or even most cultures, so an assertion that someone else is one, knowing nothing about him or her, is ridiculous and divisive, and b) doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of one's historical opinions, even in the traditional Marxian model.

That said, asserting that Hitler was unaware of the holocaust or was not responsible for it is just nonsense.

Well, you can predict with some certainty whether someone is likely to be a bourgeois or not. Working class people probably dont have $50 to blow on a game, pay for the internet, and have an expensive computer. Its possible that a coal miner can come home exhausted and have all his luxuries, but unlikely. In that case he would be a 'petty-bourgeois' anyway. Know your class distinctions.

AND, in a Marxian model, someone's class origin is very important in evaluating their opinions. Have you ever read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Martov, or any other Maxists? They always attack someone's class IN their argument. They spoke often about the bourgeois analysis of the HISTORICAL Paris Commune. Really, did you just say it was not important? There are numerous more examples.


Atleast you agree on Hitler.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Many posts deleted. The discussion about the Holocaust/Hitler will stop now. Stay on-topic please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Pantastic]

I just used the search function to dig up my post on this topic from back when civ4 came out:

Hitler is not a good choice of a Civ leader not because he did some bad things, but because he was a very poor leader who succeeded in badly damaging his civilization. Stalin and Mao both killed massive numbers of people like he did, but both of them had a strong shape on the modern form of their civilization, and even Stalin doesn't make the cut for a Civ4 leader. Modern China would not exist if not for Mao; he took China from a large backwater collection of warlords to a great power, and his ideals have strongly shaped modern-day China. Hitler, by contrast, is reviled in Germany, and espousing any of his ideals is illegal.

Alexander was also a short-term leader, his reign was about the same length as Hitler's. But Alexander left a far, far greater legacy - while the empire he built pretty much ceased to be an empire after his death with various generals fighting over peices, it still left Greeks running those places, and a strong Greek cultural influence. Plus it left people of Greek ancestry who identified themselves as Greek living in various lands. How many peoples adopted any aspect of German culture past 1945 as a result of Hitler's conquests? Rather than spreading ethnic Germans around, it resulted in a lot of ethnic Germans being killed or forcibly resettled.

He accomplished nothing good for his civilization, while civ leaders did something to build their civilization (sometimes at the expense of others). If he belongs anywhere he should be one of the failed leader names used for scoring, definitely below Dan Qualye.

 

[ICNP]

Temudjin is still angry about his empire not being included in Civ 5.

If you thought Companion cavalry were strong, could you imagine a Civ 5 Keshik?

One leader per civ is kinda irritating. But George Washington is the most popular US president according to modern polls, and Bismark is the most important and successful leader of Germany.

Wu Zetian should have been replaced with Huang from Civ 4, Mao was just a communist screw up.

 

[w00tm0ng3r]

I think if the Mongols get put in they should have a passive ability that reduces unhappiness in occupied cities by 1 or 2 per city to reflect their nomadic nature and "largest land empire in history" status. Keshiks should be a unique unit, implementation is a bit trickier since the Arabs already have a horse archer knight replacement. Personally, I think the camel archer should be reworked to be a regular knight with a bonus against other mounted units because camels scare horses (and because desert terrain doesn't show up enough in my experience for a desert terrain bonus to really be useful). Then we can have keshiks be a horse archer knight replacement like they should be The other unique unit/building I'm unsure of, but I'm thinking of a stable replacement with an extra perk for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[ICNP]

Mongols:
Leaders: Genghis Khan
Power: Yassa: -50% Unhappiness from Occupied Population, and # of Occupied Cities
Unique Unit: Keshik: Knight with a 2 range an 16 Str Bow, and a 14 Str Melee
Unique Building: Ger: Stable that provides +15xp to Mounted units

Considering the current strength of mounted units, this would be overpowered. I think they deserve it though, and it would hasten the demise of the horsemen strategies.

 

[Kil]

Himiko would've been an interesting choice for Japan what with its rich history of successful women and the general dearth of female leaders in CiV.

 

[carmen510]

Almost all Civilization leaders had in some way led their chosen nation to greatness. Be it Gandhi who founded India, to Stalin who made the USSR a global superpower, they all contributed to their nation in some profoundly significant way culturally, economically, militarily, or simple expansion of power.

The problem with say, Adolf Hitler, is that he led his nation into ruins. (Not to mention localization and such which other people have described)

That's also the problem with more modern leaders; it's a bit too early to judge their accomplishments, particularly when the person in question is still living. Plus, some people may object to a portrayal of a living person in a video game for any number of reasons, be it distasteful or the controversies that may arise.

 

[Centurio]

I would love to see Trajan as the Roman leader, standing in full armor in his Forum under his massive Equestrian statue, shouting at the player from a distance and waving his sword about. I think he would embody the Roman spirit and personify the Roman Empire much more than that weak little shell of an Augustus they have in the game...

 

[Venger]

I think Firaxis may listen to Glenn Beck because they seem to idolize George Washington at every opportunity, despite being a failed military leader (the only reason the U.S. won the war is France), and anti-Enlightenment hypocrite. He is often portrayed as egalitarian, yet he strongly opposed abolition and argued that as president he should be exempt from Pennsilvanyia anti-slavery legislation. I'm not saying that leaders should be saints (I prefer characters with more colour to them), but Lincoln or one of the Roosevelts would make a far more American leader.

So much nonsense in one paragraph - is it worth refuting? Yes. Yes it is. Failed military leader? I am pondering exactly who is surrendering to who in this photo?



Won because of France? France finally openly supported the Revolution only after it became apparent that the Continental forces could defeat the British, after taking the British Army at Saratoga. As usual, the French show up well after someone else has done most of the fighting... but to give credit where due, they were VERY important in the late course of the war.

As to slavery, he is the only of the main founders to free his slaves upon death, and he refused to sell them, though it would have made him fabulously wealthy. He did not oppose abolition, he openly wrote of his great disdain for slavery. I am not sure if there is a factual statement in your whole paragraph.

Funny you mention Lincoln, he had generals far worse than Washington on his worst day.

Eh George is possibly the most overrated general in history. The way I learned it in school he fought 9 conventional battles with roughly equal forces on both sides against the British and lost 6 of them. The American revolution was a lot like Vietnam: one side kept losing all the battles but eventually won the war because the other side's home people eventually got sick of their loved ones getting shipped off to die halfway across the world for a cause they didn't care all that much about.

It was like Vietnam? The side that won the key battles in BOTH wars were the Americans. Saratoga. Yorktown. Trenton/Princeton. These are the three most important battles of the War, all won by the Americans. The British weren't upset because they kept winning battles but losing soldiers, they bloody well lost a quarter of the British Army at the surrender at Yorktown. They, kept, losing. Now the information vis a vie Vietnam is a little closer at least to your description,

None of this even begins to weigh on the importance of Washington as the first leader of the United States. Smother Washington in his crib, and it's unlikely the United States exists in it's present form.

 

[Venger]

And to put even a finer point on it, this was against an extremely well trained and well lead force, the British Army. That they won at all is remarkable.

 

[teks]

You know I was just talking about this earlier today.

I would absolutely love it if Hitler was a world leader. Oh man, America gets clinton (and he plays his sax when you make him happy), and Nixon!! yes Nixon's back baby!!
Russia's cold war leaders would be great too. Stalin
Aww man if only...if only this somehow came true.

 

[Justicex]

I was thinking of making a mod but I don't know anything about modding

 

[zuraffo]

Wu didn't unite China either - she just took power. And taking power within an empire is not much of an achievement, as even some eunuchs (宦&#23448, most of whom are completely incapable of doing any good politics, succeeded in getting power.

You are confusing the matter. Taking power and become the crowned emperor is two very different achievements.

While Wu didn't "unified" the country, under her reign the unified Tang dynasty flourished and it would mark her a greater ruler if little else.

Besides, on the more literal side, she invented characters.

 

[zuraffo]

Wu Zetian should have been replaced with Huang from Civ 4,<snip>

Oh you ignorant dear. Qin Shi Huang is a title. His Name is Ying Zheng. And if you are calling him by the title, the english equivalent is First Emperor Qin.

 

[zuraffo]

China needs Liu Bang. Gave the race its name.

If you are proposing a monarch from the Han dynasty Han Wu Di would be a better choice.

 

[zuraffo]

By that argument Oda Nobunaga never led Japan... The country was not unified until Hideyoshi and Tokugawa finished his work after his death.

Yes, that's why I was puzzled by the choice of Nobunaga. For sure he is a great character, but well, his achievement in terms of politicks wasn't as great as even hideyoshi.

But I would not engage in that argument. Poor ole Oda has too many fans.