About China

[Uiler]

Just replace Mao with Tang Taizong (Li Zhimin), then every Chinese will agree.

IMHO, he is probably the most all-rounded emperor ever existed in the ancient history, not just the Chinese one, but the world. Early Tang was somewhat like the USA nowadays, dominant in basically every aspect - finanicially, militarily, culturally, diplomatically and politically.

Mao was a master in playing dirty politics and nothing more (OK, he's good military strategist). Li was a truly superb politician, and a real leader who could maximize the potentials of the people who followed him.

Hang Wu Di was actually a very flawed ruler. He overexpanded his empire. The early military actions against the Hunoi were correct, but he overdid it and led to the downfall of the Han empire. He is a legitimate candidate but certainly not in the class of Li.

I agree that Li Shimin was one of China's greatest emperors. I've suggested him myself on this forum. However, I don't want non-Chinese to get the impression he was a saint. He was perfectly capable of blood-thirsty cold calculated actions when it suited him. He killed his older brother (the crown prince) and younger brother in cold blood and forced his father the emperor to abdicate the throne for him. In his old age he also started getting senile. However he was a very very good ruler and cared a lot for his people. His nickname was "The incorruptable". I remember one of his quotes - the people are like the water and the emperor is the boat. The water keeps the boat afloat but can also sink it. He even pardoned one of his brother's advisors and made him his chief advisor (he advised Li Shimin's brother to kill him when he had the chance. Li Shimin thought that this was advice had been excellent and he was lucky his brother never followed it) and they used to have screaming matches in court when they disagreed with each other. Li Shimin however was a good enough ruler to recognise he needed someone to disagree with him to keep him in line.

Just goes to show that cold-blooded fatricide and threatened patricide and being a good emperor that takes genuinely cares about the welfare of his people are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to be a morally pure man to be a good ruler.

 

[gettingfat]

I agree that Li Shimin was one of China's greatest emperors. I've suggested him myself on this forum. However, I don't want non-Chinese to get the impression he was a saint. He was perfectly capable of blood-thirsty cold calculated actions when it suited him. He killed his older brother (the crown prince) and younger brother in cold blood and forced his father the emperor to abdicate the throne for him. In his old age he also started getting senile. However he was a very very good ruler and cared a lot for his people. His nickname was "The incorruptable". I remember one of his quotes - the people are like the water and the emperor is the boat. The water keeps the boat afloat but can also sink it. He even pardoned one of his brother's advisors and made him his chief advisor (he advised Li Shimin's brother to kill him when he had the chance. Li Shimin thought that this was advice had been excellent and he was lucky his brother never followed it) and they used to have screaming matches in court when they disagreed with each other. Li Shimin however was a good enough ruler to recognise he needed someone to disagree with him to keep him in line.

Just goes to show that cold-blooded fatricide and threatened patricide and being a good emperor that takes genuinely cares about the welfare of his people are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to be a morally pure man to be a good ruler.

Is there any word in my message that even hints that he is a saint? What I said was that he's a great ruler, a superb leader, and unlike many famous leaders, he is all-rounded, not just a conqueror that created an overexpanded empire which was prone to break up the moment they died.

And about the coup that he killed his brothers, nobody actually knows if the historicians were really honest or not whether he was doing it purely in defence. IMHO they very likely have sugarcoated a bit, but I guess if he didn't pull that out, he would surely be killed by his two brothers sooner or later, so the intention was definitely not pure, but realistically it didn't really matter.

 

[chauism]

I'm saying there were probably revolts and rebellions when the British took over Hong Kong. I am also saying there were probably many deaths when the Japanese took over Taiwan, and when KMT fled to Taiwan.

I am ALSO saying while KMT had the resources, they still basically built Taiwan from the ground up. There were barely any solid constructions in Taiwan during that time because it was at war. Whatever the case is, KMT effectively took its available resources and made Taiwan a global power economically and technologically. The British, too, took whatever resources it had and transformed Hong Kong from a fishing village to a dominant economic giant house in Asia.

Actually before KMT fled to TW, taiwan already had a very good industrial infrastructure due to the 50 years of Japanese occupation. Japanese actually treated taiwanese better than anywhere else during its occupation because they believed that people on that island could actually be integrated into their society even though they might still be second class citzen. So KMT did have a lot to start with in Taiwan. As for HK, HK did not have its economic acheivement until 70's. You can still call it a villiage until 70's. So for the 70 years that British were ruling HK they did not do much either.

Another note on KMT, it is just something I read, after WW2, President Truman were actually offering returning Okinawa known as Liuqiu Qundao to Chinese back to China's Control to Chiang, but guess what? For some unknown reason he actually refused this generous offer. Chiang realised this mistake couple years later and wrote in his memoir. Even though KMT was the one that allowed outer mongolia independence, after they fled to Taiwan, Chiang decided not to follow the treaty when there was nothing he can do about it. So on ROC's map, Mongolia is still part of China.

 

[gettingfat]

In another thread I express my strong disgust for including Mao. I don't want to repeat everything I said. But some of the main points:

• The only positive thing Mao did was to reunify (sort of) modern China.
• However, once he had it, he practically destroyed it by all his ridiculous moves.
• This game is called civilization. This person was essentially against the every part of the culture of this civilization. One of the main reasons why the Chinese nowadays are generally very materialistic is because the old value system (including both good and bad aspects) has been practically destroyed by him, with nothing valuable to fill in the void left. And what? He is philosophical?
• There are many more much better leaders in Chinese history. Tang Tai Zong should be included because his age was likely the golden age of ancient China. Tang at that point was equivalent to the USA in the 20th century or England in the 18th/19th century. Fewer than 100 death penalties were documented under his ruling. Mao, on the other hand, was a mass murderer.
• Han WuDi did expand the empire and defeated the HunNu, but he also overexpanded and practically drove the Han dynasty downhill. If one wants an emperor from the Han dynasty, pick the first one (Han GaoJao).
• Sun Yat Sun died too soon, and left a mess to the hand of the wrong person, so he shouldn't be considered.
• Like Mao, Qin is a great leader but a horrible ruler. In classical Chinese history (not all those revisionist views by Chinese communist party) he was widely regarded as a tyrant. I don't mind him being included in the game, though. Give him credit for being the first one who truly found a unified empire in China. Unlike Mao, he laid down some truly useful infrastructures (e.g. Great Wall, some ancient highways, unified the writing, currency, etc). He just went too quick and too unmerciful.

Keep Qin, replace Mao with Tang Taizong. Give Qin organized and expansive or industrious trait, give Tang Taizong financial and industrious/creative trait. That will be more like it.

 

[chauism]

Honestly I don't think Mao personally is responsible for the culture revolution that destroyed that tradition of chinese. His wife and the "Gang of Four" is more responsible for that. His mistake was that he allowed those horrible thing to happen under his watch. However you also have to take into account that most of the information of what was going on were not directly passed onto him. So one can assume that he wasn't really making the right decision based on what he had known at that time. And Mao wasn't the one that made himself a god-like figure, it was his wife. So that she can do things in the name of "god" like what happened in a lot of religions. Throughout history that people did horrible thing in the name of god, but is god the one to be blame for? Not really, right? The fault lied with the people who were using it as an excuse for their actions.
The reason for three years natural disaster partially is the natural itself, but there were a lot of human errors. However to be honest, Mao was not the one to be blame for, because at that time all those lower management people weren't really honest with their informations. They exaggerated greatly about those crop yield that were under their control, so they can get credit for what they claim. So base on those informations, Mao assumed he can support the population with enough food, and put the extra labour into other industry like steel. At that time, PRC was a very young country and most of its system were far more from being good enough let alone being perfect. It was still a trial and error period for China. So personally I don't think any individual was to be blamed for at that time. It was just the mess that had been in China for the last 150 years.
This is not a gender discrimination I want to make, but throughout Chinese history whenever the fate of China was left in the hand of Woman, horrible things would follow.

 

[Zhahz]

Absolutely no idea what the OP was going on about. Didn't read the thread.

Just a reminder though, that Civ IV is just a game - not a simulation of reality. If you take a game too seriously then you have issues, not the game.

 

[Eternalsteelfan]

Last night, before I read this thread, I was thinking to myself in the shower , "Why the hell does Mao Zedong have the Philosophical trait, because of the the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution? That is rather distasteful."

 

[Albatoonoe]

He was a well known leader. They are not glorifying Mao or Stalin in this game. He was part of history, and that is why he is in the game.

He might not have been a good leader, but he was a leader.

On a side note, Genghis was brtual to his enemies, whether they were woman, children, old, or soldiers. He is not disputed, though. Why? He was an influential leader. That's the same reason why Mao is in the game.

 

[Eternalsteelfan]

He was a well known leader. They are not glorifying Mao or Stalin in this game. He was part of history, and that is why he is in the game.

He might not have been a good leader, but he was a leader.

On a side note, Genghis was brtual to his enemies, whether they were woman, children, old, or soldiers. He is not disputed, though. Why? He was an influential leader. That's the same reason why Mao is in the game.

I'm FOR Mao Zedong and other brutal leaders in the game, becuase they are a a part of our history, even Hitler, but that's not the point.

I am AGAINST Mao having the Philosophical trait. Imagine he uproar if Hitler was in the game and he had the Philospihical trait.

 

[aes0p r0ck]

It's very simple.

Some Americans don't like Lenin, they think Lenin is not loved by millions of Russian.

Some Americans don't like Mao, they think Mao is not loved by millions of Chinese.

Yes, Americans have their standards, their standards are the only correct standard for human beings.

They send their standards to Iraq, although they can't find any weapons there but they saved Iraqi, Iraqi love them.

Welp, I made an account just to respond to this.

You're right, it is simple;

Get off yer high horse, you damn generalizing, stereotyping, loudmouth, prejudiced, bigoted, uncreative and bordering on illiterate waste of time. Go educate yourself on history, socializing, and sentence structure.. THEN we can talk.

To the topic: Yeah, Mao had his faults. So did Washington, So did Napolean, so did.. you guessed it ... every leader in history. I don't really think Lenin and Hitler really qualify as competition to Mao as far as actual progress. Hitler and Lenin didn't really accompish THAT MUCH. Especially Hitler. Yeah, as far as people dying, Mao and Hitler are close, but the INTENTION behind it speaks leagues. Not only that, but Mao (or at least Mao's gov't) succeeded in many of the goals it set out to accomplish. A lot of people think that his right hand man, Eichmann, was more the true leader anyways. Kinda like Bismark was for Wilhelm.

Cool story about the birds and the grasshoppers, btw, whoever that was .

 

[Sabretou]

The only reason they kept Mao in the game was because he's been the Chinese leader since Civ I. Heck, Gandhi is shown as the Indian leader, but he was no leader in reality. He was a philosophical person, who showed the Indian people the way to spirituality. Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru or Akbar would've been better options.

 

[ionimplant]

Last night, before I read this thread, I was thinking to myself in the shower , "Why the hell does Mao Zedong have the Philosophical trait, because of the the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution? That is rather distasteful."

well that's because the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution is the story that have been told again and again in the US. Mao definitely has his philosophical side, with those poems and books backing it.

 

[stanleyshi79]

I don't think a man with so many serious problem and being disputed so hard can be brought into the civilization series for the last died person, mao (our china people now called lao mao)cannot stand for chinese civilization ,it is difinitely a exinanition to Chinese civilization. But in another way the peculiarity given to mao is a quip mapping something ,organization --3 years' real problem?
philosophy(100% birth rate of wisdom)-- today's population problem of china?
I don't think it is the right way ,if you think he is not worth to be the head ,just remove him .

i don't understand why you dislike mao. Mao is great and is a best leader in china. China will be a weak nation without mao.

 

[elisk]

Yeah. And Soviet Russia might have been a weak nation without Stalin.

Anyway, why not Sun Tzu as China's leader? I know he was only a general, but as pointed out, Ghandi was not a leader either. Since taking out Art of War, they should give him something, right? I mean, their wouldn't really be any controversy, and he's fairly well known to the Western World (is world capitalized in that?).

 

[stanleyshi79]

Yeah. And Soviet Russia might have been a weak nation without Stalin.

Anyway, why not Sun Tzu as China's leader? I know he was only a general, but as pointed out, Ghandi was not a leader either. Since taking out Art of War, they should give him something, right? I mean, their wouldn't really be any controversy, and he's fairly well known to the Western World (is world capitalized in that?).

Sun Tzu made a name for himself as military leader in China but he is not eligible for chinese leader.
In my opinion, Li shiming can stand for china as the third leader. Tang Dynasty is very stong around the world.
China will be splited by the west superpower without Mao. China will lose Tibet, north of china, mongolia. i know he made many mistakes in 1950~1960. Anyway he is a greater leader in China.

 

[Anexus]

Mao... was unfortunate. He took control of china away from the nationalists and entrenched communism into the country and today the people still aren't free. All you have to do is look at how Taiwan developed and see they have achieved prosperity and freedom long before mainland china. Same with Hong Kong.

If the Chinese government wasn't so repressive, Taiwan might actually want to be reunified, but why would anyone want to join that government when they live in a democratic, mostly free society.

Still, he is an important leader in modern chinese history, but I will never respect what he did to China and the ramification of Communist dictatorship that still exists today.

 

[JujuLautre]

Please, this thread was 3 years old... Why raise it again ?

 

[stanleyshi79]

Mao... was unfortunate. He took control of china away from the nationalists and entrenched communism into the country and today the people still aren't free. All you have to do is look at how Taiwan developed and see they have achieved prosperity and freedom long before mainland china. Same with Hong Kong.

If the Chinese government wasn't so repressive, Taiwan might actually want to be reunified, but why would anyone want to join that government when they live in a democratic, mostly free society.

Still, he is an important leader in modern chinese history, but I will never respect what he did to China and the ramification of Communist dictatorship that still exists today.

Do you know GMD take many money to Taiwan when mao occupied mainland and west superpower blockaded the mainland and supported Taiwan for many years.
Everyone knows Taiwan is richer than mainland. Taiwanese is more free than mainland. But Taiwan can not stand for Chinese civilization. Chinese enjoies more freedom/happiness than before.Taiwan will be absorbed to china in the lone run when mainland is more powerful/richer.
You also can compare China and india. India is a free society. But China is superior than India in most respects.

 

[stanleyshi79]

Please, this thread was 3 years old... Why raise it again ?

who can stand for a civilization is a controversial topic at all times.

 

[Dida]

Mao clears stands for modern (communist) China as we know it. I am for the inclusion of Mao.