evil leaders

[Rodman49]

Jefferson Davis was evil? You dirty facist yanks; Abe Lincoln was way more evil, waging his war of aggression on the South (although that Demon in a Wheelchair is already in the game, so we may not need a new evil leader).

In all honesty though, most of the posts so far seem to point either to more politically polarized American leaders or leaders who really didn't take a whole lot of action. If we have to pick an "evil" American leader it would have to be Andrew Jackson (in agreement with Uty); although the end result of his presidency pushed America significantly foward (particulary in land and Northern American dominance) he had by far the most deplorable actions of any president. I mean the Native Americans were given significant land and self rule but Jackson completely ignored earlier agreements between the Native Americans and the US, additionally he even completely ignored Supreme Court rulings on the issue - a definite type of rebellious act against the spirit of the US Constitution.

 

[maxpublic]

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments.

Jefferson Davis led the Confederacy, a nation separate from the Union. It only lasted five years but it was a nation in its own right.

Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

Wrong. The total population of the South was just over nine million in 1860, of which 5.5 million were white (the drawable pool for fighting men). The population of the North was around 23 million, the entirety of which were in the drawable pool. The North also had *eight times* the industrial capacity of the South.

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of millions of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.

It's only a rebellion because the South LOST, and winners write the history books. If the South had won it'd be a repeat of the American Revolution, at least in the modern-day Confederacy.

And as for millions of deaths...a grand total of 560,000 people died during the entire war. Not even close to one million, much less "millions". The South suffered far more than the North did, both in terms of human loss (especially compared to its much smaller population) and property damage (google "Sherman's March To The Sea", if you think otherwise). In any realistic appraisal, Lincoln was far more brutal than Davis ever was.

Max

 

[wooga]

Forget Lincoln, how about Sherman?

Anyway, as long as someone creates a scary leaderhead for Hitler, I'll be happy. Villains are so much more fun to play against.

 

[wooga]

Jefferson Davis led the Confederacy, a nation separate from the Union. It only lasted five years but it was a nation in its own right.

This is the debate as to whether the civs are supposed to represent a population or the nation. If the latter, you are correct. I've always viewed it the other way.

Wrong. The total population of the South was just over nine million in 1860, of which 5.5 million were white (the drawable pool for fighting men). The population of the North was around 23 million, the entirety of which were in the drawable pool. The North also had *eight times* the industrial capacity of the South.

You're comparing different eras. During the revolutionary war, the US population was about 3.5 mil. During the civil war, the Confederacy had over 8 million. I said Davis beats Washington. You said Lincoln beats Davis. I was correct.

And as for millions of deaths...a grand total of 560,000 people died during the entire war. Not even close to one million, much less "millions". The South suffered far more than the North did, both in terms of human loss (especially compared to its much smaller population) and property damage (google "Sherman's March To The Sea", if you think otherwise). In any realistic appraisal, Lincoln was far more brutal than Davis ever was.

You are correct. Thanks for making me look stupid.

 

[jbfballrb]

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments. Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of millions of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.

it wasnt two dueling governments, anymore than the Continental Congress and King George III were dueling governments.
just because he controlled more than Washington does not mean anything. naturally he would, as the population had increased quite a bit in 100 yrs.

 

[maxpublic]

You're comparing different eras. During the revolutionary war, the US population was about 3.5 mil. During the civil war, the Confederacy had over 8 million. I said Davis beats Washington. You said Lincoln beats Davis. I was correct.

Ah, I thought you meant "Washington" as in "the seat of the Union", not "Washington" as in "the guy who kicked British ass". My mistake.

Max

 

[Red Door]

Persia: Cambyses (Man who Darius replaced and Cyrus' son.)
America: George W. Bush
Germany: Hitler
Spain: Franco
France: Napoleon Bonaparte
Russia: Ivan the Terrible
England: Bloody Mary

 

[jpinard]

I was thinking about how every civ should have an evil leader version(or a good one if they don't have that) Post if you have any ideas to add to my list(short as it is)

going with the obvious for the first two:
Germany: Hitler
Russia: Stalin

America: Nixon! (wouldnt a nixon leaderhead be great?)
English: Henry VIII

Despite the election scandal, Nixon was an excellent President. In fact in modern day America, most Republicans would hate him as he was definately not a right-wing leader but a true moderate. I think Bush or Cheney should be the "bad" leader for America - not because they are "evil" per-say, but more-so because they are runing this country into the ground. Alexander Haig has worked under many presidents and has a lot of insight into the good/poor presidents of this country.

 

[jpinard]

The more I think about this... I think the evil American leader should have an evil character that is a double-headed. Cheney on one neck and Bush on the other... maybe an oil derrick in the background, a thermometer reading 120 degrees, and the Halliburton logo on their shirt.

 

[Muad-Dib]

Americans: Andrew Jackson, John Adams(the first one)
England: Richard Cromwell, Charles I
France: Louis XVI, Napoleon III
Germany: Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler
Japan: Hideki Tojo
Rome: Nero, Caligula
Soviet Union: Ivan the Terrible, Josef Stalin
Spain: Torquemada(he wasn't a leader, bit still. He may count towards Isabella, though)

*edit*
Jefferson Davis wasn't evil, neither was Lincoln. The South broke away when they realized that they had no say left in Congress. They all strictly opposed Lincoln, all voted against him, and he still won. They broke away because their voice in government was lost to the North and the West. Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, knew the people loved him, and he did alot of very bad things to the government and it's people because he knew he could get away with it. Just look at the Trail of Tears.

 

[apenpaap]

Russia already has an evil leader, so they would need a good one: Trotsky. He never led the counrty, but came really close when Stalin pwn3d him.
Further some evil leaders:
Germany: Hitler
Rome: the Pope/Mussolini/Nero
France: Robbespierre
Mongolia: Genghis
Netherlands: Maurits
Greece: Draco
China: Mao
Russia: Stalin
Spain: Franco
England: Henry VIII/ Margaret Thatcher
America: McCarthy
Japan: Hirohito
Korea: Kim-Yong-Il

 

[Molybdeus]

For Middle Ages Europe "Ivan the Terrible" must be named "Ivan the Gentle". Hi is "Terrible" only for Russia by his time. It works for Franco and Stalin too.

While most leaders of that time were tyrannical, most of them didn't rape their daughters in law or murder their own children.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

Why am I the first to mention Pol Pot for the Khmer?

 

[King Coltrane]

I think Hitler is a given for germany, but for others:

Rome: Nero/Caligula/Commodus are all equally good (or bad) candidates
France: Robespierre is the best I would say... and the most interesting choice
Mongolia: as much as i love Tamerlane, I agree he would best fit the title of "evil" in this list
Greece: SOCRATES! that bastard was put to death for a reason! (haha)but really, i think that Antiochus IV (the one from the story of the Maccabees) would work well
China: Cixi would be the best... led her country to the bring of colony status (but mao works too)
England: John (the ONLY King John for a reason)
Khmer: Pol Pot
Egypt: Akhenaton!!!!! (even though i love Akhenaton, to the Egyptians he was evil)
America: McCarthy/GWBush are both equally good (though i tend towards the latter)

 

[King Coltrane]

damn! you beat me to it by 10 minutes! i started writing that at 9 this morning but didnt finish till just now! oh well...

 

[Vrenir]

I'm shocked that nobody has proposed the most villainous Englishman of all time, Edward I (Longshanks)! The man is responsible for the brutal annihilation of Welsh identity and the invasion that intended to do the same to the Scots. Plus, he represents a period of English history not yet referenced in Civ.

Seriously, who needs Henry VIII or Mary I when we already have Elizabeth, who's no more than a generation removed?

 

[Wolfshanze]

Davis led "America", at a time when "America" has two dueling governments. Davis controlled more American land and Americans than Washington...

He doesn't become 'evil' for his thoughts on race. He becomes evil for, oh, I don't know, how about "leading an open rebellion to the US Gov't and causing the deaths of [edit: lots] of Americans." Yeah, I think that'll do.

Not to defend Jefferson Davis, but a little reality needs to come to light here... 1st-off, Davis wasn't President of the Confederacy until after the states had succeeded from the Union. The ball towards war was already well-in-motion before Davis even became President.

2nd, most of the complaints and reasons for war by the Confederacy was over States Rights issues. In other words, Washington DC was too powerful, and the central federal governement was too domineering for the likes of the Southern states. Ergo, when the Confederacy was created, it deliberately had a very weak central government (ie: Davis had no real power), and the individual States had much greater power and say over the central government in Richmond then any states enjoyed in the North or in today's United States. Davis was little more then a powerless figurehead in Richmond to the Confederacy, much like saying Queen Elizabeth is the policy maker for Great Britain today... Davis had very little actual power or influence over the course of the war.

 

[NikNaks]

Am I the only one who's noticed that this thread is more than 2 years old?

 

[King Coltrane]

given how constructive and insightful that comment was, yes clearly.

 

[NikNaks]

No problem, but I just don't understand why you keep posting here when nothing is actually happening...