Hannibal Should Not be a Leader Choice ...

[Rusty Edge]

From Wikipedia-
"The other half of his army was to accompany him on a march through the Gedrosian desert, inland from the ocean.[2] Throughout the 60 day march through the desert, Alexander lost at least 12,000 soldiers, in addition to countless livestock, camp followers, and most of his baggage train.[3] "

Maybe Alexander The Great shouldn't be in Civ either.

 

[AdamCrock]

From Wikipedia-
"The other half of his army was to accompany him on a march through the Gedrosian desert, inland from the ocean.[2] Throughout the 60 day march through the desert, Alexander lost at least 12,000 soldiers, in addition to countless livestock, camp followers, and most of his baggage train.[3] "

Maybe Alexander The Great shouldn't be in Civ either.

As I have stated earlier Alexander was no better than Hannibal. In fact he was even worse. He traversed unknown lands in search for "glory of the battle", found out only that he was a drunkard and "murderer?". All this actions has brought his insanity when he struck his field commander... than he fled and returned. In the end he was shunned but his famed lived up till today. He is considered most talented war leader off all times but he stand in "pantheon" along with Guderian, Stalin and other "not too good well doers but still done some good" That is my opinion Now discuss ...

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

NapoleonHitler attacked Russia late and fool got struck by winter badly, therefore, following the same logic as OP states, NapoleonHitler isn't worthy to be Civ leader.

I be just trollin'...

Therefore the best leaderhead is Luis XIV. Not only he is best dressed gentleman in the game but he was actually succesful monarch. He is not the head of state "He is the state"

Bleh. Louis was a pretentious fool who started a bunch of wars he couldn't win and bankrupted his country.

...and FDR's policies lengthened the Great Depression...
...and Lincoln was responsible for The War of the Northern Aggression...
...I still be trollin'...

 

[SquirrelCensus]

I thought this was about how Hannibal shouldn't be a leader because he wasn't a head of state.

Other Civ leaders to have this dubious honor: Gandhi, Joan of Arc (Civ 2 and 3)

Any others?

 

[calibur]

Brennus, bodacia, in a way gilgamesh, technically Alexander was never a 'Greek' head of state, pericles(?), ... That's all I know.

 

[AdamCrock]

I be just trollin'...

Bleh. Louis was a pretentious fool who started a bunch of wars he couldn't win and bankrupted his country.

...and FDR's policies lengthened the Great Depression...
...and Lincoln was responsible for The War of the Northern Aggression...
...I still be trollin'...

Nevertheles he was still best dressed pretentious fool + He would be more than happy to see Tsarina Catherine if You catch my drift (It would not be the snake actually).

Other Civ leaders to have this dubious honor: Gandhi, Joan of Arc (Civ 2 and 3)

Any others?

I'm sure we can dig up the dirt on just about anyone

How about uncle Mao Tse 'Dung' (or whatever his last name was ). Wrestling up his way to the top by sacrificing millions in pointless civil war than writing that ludicrous little red book of his It doesn't make people a respectable head of state in my book for sure

 

[Mec AntiKythera]

Carthage is an extremely interesting ancient empire, particularly as a counterpoint to Rome, and certainly deserves to be included in the game. Hannibal seems a logical choice as its leader, the title of Head of State isn't always what is is cracked up to be.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Babar disagrees.

I forgot about Babar. OK, one exception.

And certain post-teenage girls...

Now, now, you can't possibly mean me... Ok, you do. All right, I'm guilty, darn it!

 

[CocoIsKing28]

...and FDR's policies lengthened the Great Depression...
...I still be trollin'...

You take that back!!

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

What, the part about FDR? Or the part where I said I was trolling?

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Hannibal was a great tactical general but he wasn't much of a strategist...

One of his advisors even said something like "you know how to win battles but you don't know how to win wars!"

If he played Civ probably he would be a poor player overall but his armies would be extremely hard to beat!

 

[CocoIsKing28]

What, the part about FDR? Or the part where I said I was trolling?

Yeah, the part about FDR! Moderators, please delete his post about Roosevelt

 

[GHalfrunt]

Stalin and Mao were two of history's greatest mass murders. Brennus and Boudica are stretches for leaders at best. Sitting Bull was really a very minor leader in terms of many of the other civ leaders, since the only thing he really oversaw was the eventual subjugation of the native American peoples. The list goes on.

1. The one that really irritates me is the inclusion of Ragnar (IRL, a pirate, or possibly not even a real person), leader of the Vikings (a profession, not a historical culture or country). As far as I'm concerned, it should be Harald Bluetooth or Canute the Great of the Norse, with "Viking" as the unique unit (a supercharged Galley?)...

2. The Celtic and Native American civs are just silly. Break them down into several ones that, you know, actually existed as cohesive political units. They should've added Iroquois, Sioux, Navajo, Cherokee, etc., and Ireland, Scotland, Wales, etc. (or at least Ireland, Gaul, and [pre-Roman] Britain, which the combined "Celts" appear to specifically represent) as several mod-makers have since done. In both cases, I think Firaxis was trying to get more diversity and ended up with comically sloppy research instead... and with the monolithic cultural mishmash of Polynesia in Civ V, they're doing it all over again...

3. "Historically important" ≠ "good person" by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Stalin and Mao were two of history's greatest mass-murderers. They were also long-reigning and influential leaders who brought their respective countries back from the brink of collapse and into the position to match or surpass the other great powers of their day. They were evil people, no doubt, but, like their fellow Civ tyrants Genghis Khan, Isabella, Shaka, or Montezuma, they were famous, effective, and influential. I would argue that, if it weren't for the bans on Nazi iconography in certain countries, Hitler would and should be in the game, too.

4. OTOH, "historically important to a country" ≠ "leader of that country". I always thought it was weird to have Gandhi as a leader for India rather than his contemporary and friend, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Similarly, as pointed out ad nauseum, Hannibal was not a leader of Carthage. If I'd designed it, I would've made Nehru and (based completely on their Wikipedia pages, as I am not a historian) Mago or Hamilcar their respective leaders, but Gandhi a Great Prophet and Hannibal a Great General instead.

 

[calibur]

Well, those two are fair. When anyone thinks of Carthage, anyone other than a historian thinks of Hannibal. Almost as much so for Gandhi and modern India.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Well, those two are fair. When anyone thinks of Carthage, anyone other than a historian thinks of Hannibal. Almost as much so for Gandhi and modern India.

That has been my point. I'm surprised they didn't use Vercingetorix instead of Brennus or Boudica.

 

[digitalcraft]

woah woah woah : P

Alexander the great was pretty great actually. He just got overly involved in his own mythology, but it would be hard not to, considering what he had accomplished. he wasn't that terrible a leader too, relative to your average leader at the time. He incorporated conquered persia and even took on some of their customs, and ordered some of his leaders to marry persians to unite the people. His big goal was to unite people, not destroy them. He just got a bit carried away over towards India and his soldiers had to threaten him with mutiny to get him to turn back.

Stalin and Mao were pretty ruthless its true. A lot of people died because of them, but they were also very strong leaders. They knew how to incorporate their own cult of personality in to the nationalism that people felt and even got most people to cooperate while many people were being killed. Quite a feat.

I've said it before, but I think hitler should have been a leader. He was a terrible person, but a very strong leader too.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

woah woah woah : P

Alexander the great was pretty great actually. He just got overly involved in his own mythology, but it would be hard not to, considering what he had accomplished. he wasn't that terrible a leader too, relative to your average leader at the time. He incorporated conquered persia and even took on some of their customs, and ordered some of his leaders to marry persians to unite the people. His big goal was to unite people, not destroy them. He just got a bit carried away over towards India and his soldiers had to threaten him with mutiny to get him to turn back.

Stalin and Mao were pretty ruthless its true. A lot of people died because of them, but they were also very strong leaders. They knew how to incorporate their own cult of personality in to the nationalism that people felt and even got most people to cooperate while many people were being killed. Quite a feat.

I've said it before, but I think hitler should have been a leader. He was a terrible person, but a very strong leader too.

You're right about Alexander, and I quite like his incorporation of cultures. We wouldn't have had the "Arab Renaissance" of sorts without him. But Philip is widely considered a better military leader because he pioneered the use of cavalry with infantry to create an unstoppable, though small, army.

 

[calibur]

I said Alex because he was in a mOst literal sense not a Greek leader. He was macedonian. That's like greece like wales is to England.
Yeah, vercingetorix would've been better. I've never heard of Brennus or boudacia.

 

[GHalfrunt]

I had heard of Boudicca before Civ, but not Brennus.

 

[Rusty Edge]

In the history of the entire world , and of all the billions of people who have ever lived, there are so very few who can be identified internationally by their first name alone.

One of them is Hannibal.

While he was never a head of state, he was more than just a general. As Carthage's magistrate after the Second Punic War he changed civics and improved revenues enough to meet the burden of reparations to Rome without raising taxes.

He really deserves to be the charismatic/financial leader.