If you had to replace a leader in the game...

[jac0001]

What if you had a sightly different concept of leaders such as:

You could choose Alexander and play as Macedonia, or a leader of Athens and play as Athenian or a Spartan leader and play as Sparta all under the heading of the major headings of "greeks".

 

[sirtommygunn]

ok so now i would remove the korean leader and add sun tsu also richard lionhart was not a warmonger he only went to war when he had to with the exception of the holy wars

 

[puglover]

*I'd replace FDR with Lincoln.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

 

[Flakdragon]

I agree with FDR for Lincoln, definitly one of the greatest leader of all time actually (along with Churchill!).

Hitler was a bad leader, thats a great reason to exclude him, but then what about the other horrible leaders like Stalin in this game? Louis wasn't all that great either.

Stalin and Mao both also commited genocide, but Stalin more so as he killed at least 12-18 million of the Russian people.

Stalin was on a winning side, and his only major loss was against the fascist Finns (although it wasn't really a loss due to the fact that they officially one and gained new knowledge, but the still lost many lives) just before the infamous event of 1941 (1939-1940), or as we all know, Operation Barbarossa.

The Cold War loss was way beyond him, do you realise how long the Cold War period was?

Mao's only major loss was probably against the Japanese in World War 2, but he got a major win in his Communist revolution of China.

 

[dh_epic]

It's been said a million times:

The difference between Hitler and other evil leaders is that Hitler is ILLEGAL in Germany. So yes, Caesar killed Christians, Washington and Churchill killed Indians (two different kinds), Isabella killed Mesoamericans, Napolean killed everyone (and lost, just like Hitler)... but none of their images are illegal in any major markets. (Germany is the THIRD largest economy in the world, behind the USA and Japan.)

 

[snipafist]

I agree with FDR for Lincoln, definitly one of the greatest leader of all time actually (along with Churchill!).

Stalin and Mao both also commited genocide, but Stalin more so as he killed at least 12-18 million of the Russian people.

Mao's only major loss was probably against the Japanese in World War 2, but he got a major win in his Communist revolution of China.

I too miss Lincoln. I'd replace Washington, though. I think both Lincoln and FDR were extremely influential politicians and set the tone for their respective centuries, not to mention a redefinition of how the federal government interacted with its citizenry. Washington, while being an able military leader, was nothing special as president. His main achievement comes from what he didn't do: choosing to be a king. While I like him as a person, I don't feel he deserves to be a civ leader. A great general would be adequate, I think.

I don't know how many times I need to correct you people on this, but Mao did not commit genocide. Look up the history of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution (which is how people associate so many deaths with Mao) and you'll see a consistent theme of Mao intending the best (even if his hopes are founded on illusion) and events rapidly getting out of his control. He did not establish death camps or deliberately seek to annihilate specific racial groups, so this constant charge of genocide or "being as bad as Hitler" is just traditional American anti-communist tripe. Just because someone is a communist leader doesn't make them a genocidal maniac. Mao screwed up, sometimes significantly, but comparing him to Stalin is just plain wrong.

Mao did well against the Japanese in WWII, when you consider he managed to tie up 80% of the Japanese infantry in China with guerilla warfare that came orignally from a group of motivated but under-equipped peasants, and also managed to construct a foundation that would serve him well against the Nationalists in the upcoming civil war. Compared to the impotent Nationalists (just read Stillwell's thoughts on Chiang Kai-shek to see what I mean), Mao's communists were about the only thing keeping the Japanese from conquering China.

Finally, there's a good reason Hitler isn't in the game, despite MisterBarca's veiled love of fascism that's not hard to miss on various repeats of the same issue (liberals are evil, Hitler's misrepresented, blah blah), Hitler's image cannot be sold in Germany. Hitler brought his country to ruin. Hitler was a maniac. Hitler has not inspired any major lasting social or political legacy. Hitler is a complete embarassment to his home country. Mind you, I don't like having Stalin in the game either for many of the same reasons (I would've taken Lenin in a heartbeat, but Stalin is a poor leader).

Additionally, there's a good reason Mohammed isn't in the game. Muslims consider images of the prophet idolatry that tempts Muslims into worship of the prophet rather than contemplation of his message and worship of God. Additionally, Mohammed was more of a religious leader than a nationalistic leader. While Islam and Arab identity are tightly interwoven, a thorough study of Islamic history would reveal that Mohammed was mostly a leader to early Muslims, while later leaders were the ones who finished uniting the Arab world and went about the business of establishing an effective Arab state. Abu Bakr would make a fine nationalistic leader, but Saladin is a fine choice as well (despite technically being a Kurd).

 

[Willowmound]

[/flame magnet:]

Muslims tend to burn embassies whenever an image of Mohammad is published...

 

[Flakdragon]

I don't know how many times I need to correct you people on this, but Mao did not commit genocide. Look up the history of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution (which is how people associate so many deaths with Mao) and you'll see a consistent theme of Mao intending the best (even if his hopes are founded on illusion) and events rapidly getting out of his control. He did not establish death camps or deliberately seek to annihilate specific racial groups, so this constant charge of genocide or "being as bad as Hitler" is just traditional American anti-communist tripe. Just because someone is a communist leader doesn't make them a genocidal maniac. Mao screwed up, sometimes significantly, but comparing him to Stalin is just plain wrong.

When Hitler commited genocide, he saw a great future for the Germans with no Jews, and so did a lot of the German people (not all though, including the Jews of course!). He started intending the best for Germany. It ended up going wrong, though!

Stalin also did things, intending to make his country better. His ten-year plans were in his mind to improve things, as were his assasinations of military officers, he saw it as helping the country. His plans also went wrong!

People almost always do things thinking the best for their country, that is so completely obvious. Does it make them not as evil if they intend to do so, if that's correct than Hitler and Stalin weren't so bad...right...

The only thing I ask is Hitler and Stalin, or neither, Stalin was much worse.

P.S. Where do they compare being like Hitler is communism, I am afraid they are very wrong, right wing fascism, not left....

 

[Cereal Box]

I don't think I'd change any leaders. I'm not an expert at history, so certainly alot of countries I don't have much knowledge of alot of these countries leaders. Augustus Ceasar and Ramses were added so I have no complaints. I very much agree with the choice to axe Lincoln in favor of FDR, though it's a somewhat odd choice given the preference for unifying leaders. Lincoln might be considered more of a great leader than FDR, perhaps in part to historic misinformation (freeing black people wasn't really the point of the civil war, just sort of a side effect), but FDR seems closer to what could be considered an Emporer. He was in office more than any other president, he tried to pack the supreme court in his favor, was key in getting rid of the American isolationism and presided during WWII when we conquered a ton of other countries - which he had wanted to get into before the attacks on Pearl Harbor.

And contributing to the Hitler debate - yeah, Stalin was quite possibly worse than Hitler, but at least he won and really expanded his empire, and Mao was pretty bad too, but at least the Chinese still have a tendency to view him as a great leader rather than as a horrible tyrant and, anyway, it's just really bad business sense to include Hitler. I haven't even been on this forum for very long and I'm already deathly sick of this debate so let's shut up!

 

[Flakdragon]

You have the misconception of Lincoln I am afraid. In no way did I really think of the freeing of slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation a large part of it. We all know here the Civil War's original purpose was to reunite the country. He is one of the greatest leaders because of the fact that he was very depressed and stressed out from things happening around him, and I am afraid I missed the special on the mind of Lincoln, revealing he had had quite a few bad experiences and mentally was unstable.

Yet, he managed to reunite a whole country under one flag and he wanted no punishment as all great leaders do for war. He also freed slaves as you mentioned but it isn't as large as reuniting America. So he did all this, and still managed to try to keep his head. He had a really rough time, but he is one of the greatest leaders to me and many other historians I know.

 

[Thorbal]

I would have liked to see Friedrich Barbarossa as a German leader - but it would be quite hard to get rid of Friedrich or Bismarck... ^^ I´m just a bit tired that every time Germany is in a game, it has something to do with ( insert certain debate here ) or Prussia / the German Empire no.2 ( or even worse, there are lederhosen-clad Bavarians appearing ;-) no hard feelings ) .
I would also have liked to see Harald Finehair or Leif Ericson or Harald Bluetooth for the Vikings instead of Ragnar - the vikings are just too stereotyped in my opinion. I liked the civIII - version of them much more!

 

[Cereal Box]

You have the misconception of Lincoln I am afraid. In no way did I really think of the freeing of slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation a large part of it. We all know here the Civil War's original purpose was to reunite the country. He is one of the greatest leaders because of the fact that he was very depressed and stressed out from things happening around him, and I am afraid I missed the special on the mind of Lincoln, revealing he had had quite a few bad experiences and mentally was unstable.

Yet, he managed to reunite a whole country under one flag and he wanted no punishment as all great leaders do for war. He also freed slaves as you mentioned but it isn't as large as reuniting America. So he did all this, and still managed to try to keep his head. He had a really rough time, but he is one of the greatest leaders to me and many other historians I know.

I didn't say anything that would contradict that opinion and I agree with it even. So I don't know why you said I have a misconception.

 

[Cereal Box]

I would have liked to see Friedrich Barbarossa as a German leader - but it would be quite hard to get rid of Friedrich or Bismarck... ^^ I´m just a bit tired that every time Germany is in a game, it has something to do with ( insert certain debate here ) or Prussia / the German Empire no.2 ( or even worse, there are lederhosen-clad Bavarians appearing ;-) no hard feelings ) .
I would also have liked to see Harald Finehair or Leif Ericson or Harald Bluetooth for the Vikings instead of Ragnar - the vikings are just too stereotyped in my opinion. I liked the civIII - version of them much more!

Actually, Leif Ericson would be a really cool choice, if not only for the fact that's one of the few "vikings" that alot of people are familiar with.

 

[Eggolas]

I just completed another Marathon speed game and GG creation wasn't bad at all. Chose Imperialistic and built the Great Wall. When war came, I captured an important border city and held it against the inevitable counter attacks instead of pressing forward. It was the battles inside my new cultural border that powered the GGen xps because of the Great Wall.

You can really play around with this as some civs will go to any lengths to recapture one of their cities: Napoleon and Monty come to mind, but Qin was all over the city as well trying to pillage with chariots. Have not tried the tactic against Shaka, but he seems like the type also and the Impi is a pillaging machine.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

I'd consider replacing Saladin with Mohammed, as Mohammed was a successful political leader as well.

Will never happen. Remember earlier this year with the Mohammed cartoon? Any drawing depicting him is a no-no in their faith.

Another reason they wouldnt include him is, I think, the same reason you dont see Jesus or Buddha...some people hold these individuals to abilities above normal humans.

 

[Arturus]

Personally, and I know this will be unpopular, I'd replace Julius Caesar with Marcus Aurelius or Constantine. I think Augustus was the greatest of the Roman Emperors and certainly had such a profound impact on it that he cannot be eliminated. Caesar was only leader for a short time; while his actions near the end created precedents that Augustus would seize upon to create a divine monarchy, Caesar is more of a warlord I would argue because most of his accomplishments relate to the conquest of Gaul and the defeat of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. However, to keep Caesar is to keep a certain nostalgia as he has been the Roman leader for every other version of Civ.

 

[ahab_in_rehab]

Dr kodos who are J Polk and W Harrison? I've never even heard of them!

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Dr kodos who are J Polk and W Harrison? I've never even heard of them!

American Presidents from the 1800s.

 

[Little Corporal]

It's been said a million times:

The difference between Hitler and other evil leaders is that Hitler is ILLEGAL in Germany. So yes, Caesar killed Christians, Washington and Churchill killed Indians (two different kinds), Isabella killed Mesoamericans, Napolean killed everyone (and lost, just like Hitler)... but none of their images are illegal in any major markets. (Germany is the THIRD largest economy in the world, behind the USA and Japan.)

Hitler is not illegal in germany. He would probably alienate a large portion of germans though.

 

[Tekee]

Will never happen. Remember earlier this year with the Mohammed cartoon? Any drawing depicting him is a no-no in their faith.

Another reason they wouldnt include him is, I think, the same reason you dont see Jesus or Buddha...some people hold these individuals to abilities above normal humans.

Lol yes these are bound to draw contreversy