I think that the leader figure for Germany should have been Adolf Hitler, instead of Bismark. Compared to Bismark, Hitler was a much more important figure in German history. I know that Firaxis might have been a little touchy on the player playing as a Nazi, but a lot of the other leaders in Civ3 were pretty horrible people, committing many atrocities, but it doesn't make them any less important. What is your opinions on this?
Germany's leader?
- Thread starter Nightfire
- Start date
- Status
JDAllison
Prophet of Doom
This has been discussed at length before: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=76069&highlight=hitler+leaderhead is one among many. Enjoy!
civverguy
Emperor
Well there were many thread like this in the Civ 4 forums. Check there.
MAS
Deity
Hitler is better known to most people in the world today than Bismark, however, that doesn't mean he is a good iconic figure for Germany. Bismark fits that role much better.
Using Hitler to represent Germany is a kind of like choosing Bush to represent America instead of Washington or Lincoln.
This has nothing to do with what kind of politics they conducted. It has more something to do with what personifies these civilizations best.
A better question would be: why did they chose Mao for China? Because the same argument can be made against Mao! The whole of the Chinese civilization is much, much, older than its current regime. While in Europe, people where still digging in the sand, china already was a huge empire with a functional bureaucratic system etc.
Using Hitler to represent Germany is a kind of like choosing Bush to represent America instead of Washington or Lincoln.
This has nothing to do with what kind of politics they conducted. It has more something to do with what personifies these civilizations best.
A better question would be: why did they chose Mao for China? Because the same argument can be made against Mao! The whole of the Chinese civilization is much, much, older than its current regime. While in Europe, people where still digging in the sand, china already was a huge empire with a functional bureaucratic system etc.
That is highly disputable. It was Bismark who unified Germany. If not for him, Germany might still have been divided into many different countries, like Prussia, Bavaria etc.
Yoda Power
✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 13,870
JDAllison
Prophet of Doom
Personally, I like Bismark as the German leader. He unified the German states into the Germany we have today. My second choice would probably be Fredrick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786), or maybe Fredrick I Barbarossa (1122-1190). Hitler did unify Germany into a common goal: extinguishing "inferior" races and uniting all Europe under German rule. I cannot, however, think of another leader in the game (other than Mao Zedong) who was so brutal.
My own personal opinion is that the leader should be Bismark, and that the UU should be moved from Panzier to something that the Germans had while Bismark was in office. The point of a leader and UU is to give us an estimation of who was the most dynamic leader in that civ's history, who was in leadership when that civ was in their "golden age". The UU best matches the golden age, since it is the way most civs get theirs (excepting those started by wonders, of course). The man or woman who represents an entire country throughout history in the game should be the one who was most instrumental in bringing about that golden age. The one the most people identify with (preferably in a positive sense).
I don't see very much in my readings about how cruel Mao Zedong was. I'm not saying he wasn't, just that it doesn't get mentioned a whole lot. And I read a wide variety of things, too. I do read, however, about the cruelty of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Nero, Domitian, and others. That might be why we have him as a leader. I don't like that, though, because I think China's golden age was long before Mao was an ache in his father's loins. Several kings of the Chin dynasty come to mind.
My gripe is not so much with the German leader, but the American one
. Why Lincoln? Why not George Washington, who was General of the Continental Army, was elected by a landslide in both elections, defined the Presidency for all who followed, and had to face the difficulties of starting everything from scratch. Or Thomas Jefferson, who was a leader during the Revolutionary War and whose purchase of the French territories in North America doubled the size of the US and opened up the Mississippi river and the important port city of New Orleans for trade. Or James Madison, a brilliant man who is known as the "Father of the Constitution", and who led the country through the War of 1812, also known as "The Second War of Independence". Yeah, I know what Lincoln did, but I greatly disagree with his politics and with what the history books say he was and did. However, this is opening a tremendous can of worms, and I do not wish to threadjack. I'll discuss this in greater detail, but in another thread.
My own personal opinion is that the leader should be Bismark, and that the UU should be moved from Panzier to something that the Germans had while Bismark was in office. The point of a leader and UU is to give us an estimation of who was the most dynamic leader in that civ's history, who was in leadership when that civ was in their "golden age". The UU best matches the golden age, since it is the way most civs get theirs (excepting those started by wonders, of course). The man or woman who represents an entire country throughout history in the game should be the one who was most instrumental in bringing about that golden age. The one the most people identify with (preferably in a positive sense).
I don't see very much in my readings about how cruel Mao Zedong was. I'm not saying he wasn't, just that it doesn't get mentioned a whole lot. And I read a wide variety of things, too. I do read, however, about the cruelty of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Nero, Domitian, and others. That might be why we have him as a leader. I don't like that, though, because I think China's golden age was long before Mao was an ache in his father's loins. Several kings of the Chin dynasty come to mind.
My gripe is not so much with the German leader, but the American one
. Why Lincoln? Why not George Washington, who was General of the Continental Army, was elected by a landslide in both elections, defined the Presidency for all who followed, and had to face the difficulties of starting everything from scratch. Or Thomas Jefferson, who was a leader during the Revolutionary War and whose purchase of the French territories in North America doubled the size of the US and opened up the Mississippi river and the important port city of New Orleans for trade. Or James Madison, a brilliant man who is known as the "Father of the Constitution", and who led the country through the War of 1812, also known as "The Second War of Independence". Yeah, I know what Lincoln did, but I greatly disagree with his politics and with what the history books say he was and did. However, this is opening a tremendous can of worms, and I do not wish to threadjack. I'll discuss this in greater detail, but in another thread.My gripe is not so much with the German leader, but the American one
Not trying to be a jerk, but, isn't what I bolded sort of personal, not something everyone would think of the person?
gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
I agree that picking a leaderhead for American must have been problematic for Firaxis. Washington easily comes to mind, but he (and Jefferson, Madison, etc) were all British citizens before the Revolution, and many of the very early leaders were slave owners, so that creates a PC problem.
My family and I have been in the Far West of the U.S. for a long time, so Lincoln is politically neutral for me, but many U.S. citizens in the North and South still have pretty strong feelings for or against Lincoln stemming from our Civil War.
My family and I have been in the Far West of the U.S. for a long time, so Lincoln is politically neutral for me, but many U.S. citizens in the North and South still have pretty strong feelings for or against Lincoln stemming from our Civil War.
Globex
President Scorpio
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 437
About Mao:
I don't know whether this is true but my theory is that Firaxis wanted have leaderheads from all parts of the historical time-line. Many of the civs that can be played in the game have fallen long before the modern age so Firaxis had to choose a lot of ancient leaders for leader heads and this made them desperate to have a least a few modern leaders to be leader heads. Of course, there have not been many great leaders in modern times and Mao, although brutal did have some accomplishments that made him a possible leader-head candidate. Of course, putting Mao as the leader-head in the Chinese version of the game would be bad for business.
About Lincoln:
I think that Lincoln would be the best choice for the Leader-head for America. Washington, although a great general and a person who played a major role in the birth of the United States, did not have many significant accomplishments in office besides setting a few traditions about the office of president. Jefferson may have doubled the size of the United States but he didn't face many significant challenges during his presidency. The same is true about Madison. The war of 1812 might have posed a challenge for him but it is nothing compared to the civil war. The accomplishments of Jefferson and Madison where way to 'easy' to be counted among the accomplishments of Lincoln who held a country together during a time of war and unrest. Also, Lincoln's assassination made him a more memorable figure in history.
About Hitler:
It would simply be bad for business to put such a controversial and evil person as a leader-head in the game. It would offend a huge number of people and sales would decline. Also, Bismark was the one who united Germany and is a better choice for a leader head.
I don't know whether this is true but my theory is that Firaxis wanted have leaderheads from all parts of the historical time-line. Many of the civs that can be played in the game have fallen long before the modern age so Firaxis had to choose a lot of ancient leaders for leader heads and this made them desperate to have a least a few modern leaders to be leader heads. Of course, there have not been many great leaders in modern times and Mao, although brutal did have some accomplishments that made him a possible leader-head candidate. Of course, putting Mao as the leader-head in the Chinese version of the game would be bad for business.
About Lincoln:
I think that Lincoln would be the best choice for the Leader-head for America. Washington, although a great general and a person who played a major role in the birth of the United States, did not have many significant accomplishments in office besides setting a few traditions about the office of president. Jefferson may have doubled the size of the United States but he didn't face many significant challenges during his presidency. The same is true about Madison. The war of 1812 might have posed a challenge for him but it is nothing compared to the civil war. The accomplishments of Jefferson and Madison where way to 'easy' to be counted among the accomplishments of Lincoln who held a country together during a time of war and unrest. Also, Lincoln's assassination made him a more memorable figure in history.
About Hitler:
It would simply be bad for business to put such a controversial and evil person as a leader-head in the game. It would offend a huge number of people and sales would decline. Also, Bismark was the one who united Germany and is a better choice for a leader head.
civverguy
Emperor
My question is why does anyone actually care about the leaderheads? I usually just say Civ "X" and not the leader's name. I usually rename the cities also.
Goldfool
Alchemist
I heard the game could be sold in Germany with Hitler as a Leaderhead, is this true, does any one know.
Goldfool
Alchemist
, I meant to say could not be sold with Hilter in the game, is this true?I can't say definitively, but Germany has (by American standards) very strict laws regarding things that can or could be related to Nazi Germany. It would seem unlikely that Civ 3 could have been sold there with Hitler as a leaderhead.
JDAllison
Prophet of Doom
My wife's family is hosting a foreign exchange student this year. She is from the Berlin area. I asked her about this, and she indicated that it would be illegal to sell the game in Germany if it contained Hitler as the German leaderhead.
Goldfool
Alchemist
JDAllison
Prophet of Doom
No offense taken
, and I'm sorry if I came across as one, too. I read extensively, and my favorite part of American history is the time between the ratification of the US Constitution and the end of Reconstruction (roughly 1789-1877), but especially the War Between the States. Although I have come to my own conclusions after viewing the historical record and the words of reliable authors who were living at the time, I do not wish to impose this on anyone. I am strongly thinking about editing that part of my post out.Washington's job was not the easiest. I daresay that few other people could have handled the stress and the sheer power with the amount of class that Washington held. When everyone wanted to crown him King George I of America, he said no. Would you or I be able to give that up? It was never about him, it was about the office, about the country. Whenever someone tried to glorify him, he always tried to deflect that. He was quiet, stern, very respected, listened to.
Madison, although a brilliant expert on government, just about failed in prosecuting the War of 1812. The White House was burned, for crying out loud. He did, however, manage to fight off a much larger Great Britain that sent veteran troops to North America soon after Napoleon's defeat. He also defined our foreign policy in the area of freedom of the seas. Jefferson was the President during a good time, but he did face some of the same issues that Madison did (he directly preceded Madison).
I submit Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin, FDR. Both of those men were dynamic leaders in important times in American history. Shoot, FDR was the leader in Civ II; the herald was a man in buckskins and a coonskin cap and carrying a rifle.
That is very true.
Optional
Deity
I already find it quite daring for this game to come up with a government called 'Fascism'. I don't think in Europe this would have happened. My personal origins lie in the Netherlands, and there you have to be very careful linking to Fascism, Hitler, Swastika's and so on.
I'm not saying the views in America are different, but we in Europe, considering recent history, are probably touchier on this subject matter.
But I do like the non-political correctness in the game. You can happily enslave your victims, and you've got geisha houses -brothels- against war weariness - in the Japan scenario.
But I like to be spared the face of Hitler, please!
I'm not saying the views in America are different, but we in Europe, considering recent history, are probably touchier on this subject matter.
But I do like the non-political correctness in the game. You can happily enslave your victims, and you've got geisha houses -brothels- against war weariness - in the Japan scenario.
But I like to be spared the face of Hitler, please!
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Regarding legality of a Hitler leaderhead in Germany, I do believe that it would actually be legal to portray him.
From the Wiki article on Hearts of Iron II:
"Laws in Germany prohibit the use of the Swastika. Additionally in the German version of the game pictures of leading Nazi leaders such as Hitler, Göring and Himmler were removed and their names subsequently altered, though this is not required under German censorship laws."
From the Wiki article on Hearts of Iron II:
"Laws in Germany prohibit the use of the Swastika. Additionally in the German version of the game pictures of leading Nazi leaders such as Hitler, Göring and Himmler were removed and their names subsequently altered, though this is not required under German censorship laws."
- Status
Similar threads
