Just for fun..think of the WORST leaders to lead a Civ

[Atrebates]

LBJ wasn't so terrible, if he hadn't cocked up REAL BAD in Vietnam he'd be considered one of the best presidents. (although of course people can only be judged on what they did).

Well its all subjectve and due to start some fights but you'd pick someone who was either

a) Incompetent eg: Napoleon III
b) Actually a foreigner
or c) Universally hated.

I'm pretty sure picking Tony Blair, Dubya, Chriac, Putin, Zemin and Gerhard Schroeder (or Merkel) would do it

Germany- Hitler
On the basis of b) and c)

 

[playshogi]

If you want a really pathetic leader for France, I'd see one of the "lazy kings" during the Mérovingian era, who actually did nothing for the kingdom.

By "lazy king" do you mean a king that was too lazy to lead France to war?

 

[Herr Doktor]

Why Hitler should be the worst president for Germany?
Just because it has started a World War?

We are talking about worst leader for a civilization.
If we speak for economy and politics Hitler wasn't so bad. The only true gift he had was that he was able to catalyse the efforts and the work of his aides ( as Albert Speer says in his memories ) make them giving the best.
This is a true gift ... that's a shame most of his aides were a bad lot.

 

[Superkrest]

uh oh...lets not start the ..he wasnt that bad thing about hittler..just keep it light..i vote to to stop any further discusion on the matter now.

 

[Melendwyr]

Why Hitler should be the worst president for Germany?

It's all about the genocide.

Also, starting major wars on multiple fronts and ultimately bringing down destruction on his own nation wasn't very impressive. But he would be considered a poor choice to act as a CivIV leader primarily because he was a virulent antisemite who committed atrocities on an epic scale. Stalin would be a poor Russian leaderhead for similar reasons.

 

[strhopper]

uh oh...lets not start the ..he wasnt that bad thing about hittler..just keep it light..i vote to to stop any further discusion on the matter now.

I would agree

 

[Soil]

Mao comes to my mind because of the 'Great Leap Forward' mainly.

 

[Herr Doktor]

It's all about the genocide.

Also, starting major wars on multiple fronts and ultimately bringing down destruction on his own nation wasn't very impressive. But he would be considered a poor choice to act as a CivIV leader primarily because he was a virulent antisemite who committed atrocities on an epic scale. Stalin would be a poor Russian leaderhead for similar reasons.

Yes but you have to consider a Hitler before war and a Hitler during war.
Let's not forget Parkinson disease and a sort of shell shock syndrome during the heavy bombing of Berlin ( as Speer said, and Speer should be trusted in my opinion because he was - apart from being a collegue of mine : an architect - the only who kept a sort of mind sanity among the bunch of nazi's madmen ).
The one before war isn't a so bad ruler. Of course it's indefensible because his party was a criminal party which based everything on violence.
Genocide ... well, I partially agree but don't forget from 1933 and 1936 nobody wanted to give political asylum to jewish ... even the so politically correct U.S.A.
Destruction of his own country ... if you consider the episode of Dunquerke, not so clear in fact, but as Liddel Hart explain: a sort of mistake made by a doubtful Hitler; and if you consider Hitler for many errors on the eastern front ... maybe you're right.

 

[oldStatesman]

Yes but you have to consider a Hitler before war and a Hitler during war.
Let's not forget Parkinson disease and a sort of shell shock syndrome during the heavy bombing of Berlin ( as Speer said, and Speer should be trusted in my opinion because he was - apart from being a collegue of mine : an architect - the only who kept a sort of mind sanity among the bunch of nazi's madmen ).
The one before war isn't a so bad ruler. Of course it's indefensible because his party was a criminal party which based everything on violence.
Genocide ... well, I partially agree but don't forget from 1933 and 1936 nobody wanted to give political asylum to jewish ... even the so politically correct U.S.A.
Destruction of his own country ... if you consider the episode of Dunquerke, not so clear in fact, but as Liddel Hart explain: a sort of mistake made by a doubtful Hitler; and if you consider Hitler for many errors on the eastern front ... maybe you're right.

Hitler STARTED his party personally...he shaped it in his image. He was evil...period. No justification, no excuse making. The man was evil personified. All that is bad about the human psyche distilled in one human torso. I will not be silent when revisionists try to make him out to be a not so bad fellow. Too many millions were slaughtered by him

...I apologize to everyone for my anger and rant, this is truly not the forum for this discussion, perhaps the mods should consider locking it before it explodes.

 

[Commander Bello]

Yes but you have to consider a Hitler before war and a Hitler during war.
Let's not forget Parkinson disease and a sort of shell shock syndrome during the heavy bombing of Berlin ( as Speer said, and Speer should be trusted in my opinion because he was - apart from being a collegue of mine : an architect - the only who kept a sort of mind sanity among the bunch of nazi's madmen ).
The one before war isn't a so bad ruler. Of course it's indefensible because his party was a criminal party which based everything on violence.
Genocide ... well, I partially agree but don't forget from 1933 and 1936 nobody wanted to give political asylum to jewish ... even the so politically correct U.S.A.
Destruction of his own country ... if you consider the episode of Dunquerke, not so clear in fact, but as Liddel Hart explain: a sort of mistake made by a doubtful Hitler; and if you consider Hitler for many errors on the eastern front ... maybe you're right.

Sorry, but you clearly miss any knowledge about this person.
He announced his crimes in his book "Mein Kampf" which unfortunately was written in such a bad and ranting language that most people missed to read it carefully, when there still was time to stop him.
Furthermore, he personally ordered the killing of some of his former "friends" as soon as they seemed to become a danger (think of the Strassers and Roehm, just to throw in some names).

At the bottom line: Any attempt to find excuses for this insane crazy idiot is just unacceptable. The 20th century unfortunately has seen a number of crazy almost unhuman criminals, like himself, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Ze Dong and quite some others, but he clearly is amongst the 5 worst of them.

Before this thread again turns into any attempt to defend those bastards, I ask the mods to close it. Period.

 

[Herr Doktor]

Evil?
Revisionists?
Hitler started his party?

Uhm I'm unsure if you are a troll or just somebody who doesn't know anything about history before 1999.

 

[Vael]

There was also a Fench king who held a birthday party for his son. Games included bobbing for apples and jousting among other things. The son, dauphin, future king, died in a freak jousting accident. What kind of king (save a ego-maniacal power-hungry despot) would send the heir apparent into a deadly game composed of two people riding on horses with lances, playing "chicken", and not swerving? Happy Birthday! Thus came the rise of the Bourbons.

Jousting was common among nobles and rarely proved fatal.

 

[Herr Doktor]

Sorry, but you clearly miss any knowledge about this person.
He announced his crimes in his book "Mein Kampf" which unfortunately was written in such a bad and ranting language that most people missed to read it carefully, when there still was time to stop him.
Furthermore, he personally ordered the killing of some of his former "friends" as soon as they seemed to become a danger (think of the Strassers and Roehm, just to throw in some names).

At the bottom line: Any attempt to find excuses for this insane crazy idiot is just unacceptable. The 20th century unfortunately has seen a number of crazy almost unhuman criminals, like himself, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Ze Dong and quite some others, but he clearly is amongst the 5 worst of them.

Before this thread again turns into any attempt to defend those bastards, I ask the mods to close it. Period.

Didn't say is not a criminal.

But it's useless now try to explain, let's close discussion here.

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Ohhh, eternal topic it should be... cuz there is no end to the scum you can find in politics... But have to add a bit.
Nicolai II, Gorbatchev, Louis XVI, Erich Ludendorff, Fulgencio Batista... they are the loosers of the history for they've lost everything due to their incompetence.

 

[Pembroke]

a) Incompetent eg: Napoleon III
b) Actually a foreigner
or c) Universally hated.

I don't think that being considered "evil" or being hated by most qualifies someone as the "worst civ leader". Not from the civ player's point-of-view, anyway. Being infamous is probably a plus point. Consider Stalin and Mao in Civ I: Their purpose was to be opponents, bad guys whom you could bring down and grind to dust. The same applies to Mr Hitler. Who wouldn't want to kick him in the... uhm... you get the picture...

Perhaps the defining characteristic of the "worst civ leaders" is simply:

d) obscure

Who would want to play a leader (or against one) your average civ'er has never even heard of?

Therefore I present my list:

American: Peyton Randolph
English: Jane I
French: Pierre Pflimlin
German: Conrad II
Roman: Macrianus Minor
Greek: Paul I

 

[DiamanteLouco]

Perhaps the defining characteristic of the "worst civ leaders" is simply:

d) obscure

Who would want to play a leader (or against one) your average civ'er has never even heard of?

Therefore I present my list:

American: Peyton Randolph
English: Jane I
French: Pierre Pflimlin
German: Conrad II
Roman: Macrianus Minor
Greek: Paul I

But Jane I is in a Rolling Stones music!
How is that obscure?
DO YOU DARE TO OFFEND THE STONES?

My sweet Lady Jane
When I see you again
Your servant am I
And will humbly remain

 

[Akka]

By "lazy king" do you mean a king that was too lazy to lead France to war?

Nope, I'm talking about the line of Kings that actually was historically called like that (though they indeed didn't lead France to war, but that wasn't what gave them their name).
It was at the dawn of France's history, when the state was very weak, only barely recovering from roman collapse, and ruled hardly more than in name. As such, these kings didn't had a real fixed palace, but were on the road with their bodyguards, government, and a chest where the national treasury was located (it gives you an idea about the amount of organisation that was in place at this time...). They were supposed to travel on the same cart as this chest, and were notorious for doing nothing but going from town to town in order to get taxes, hence their name of "lazy kings".
Their line came to an end when Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) took the power for himself after being the actual real leader of the fight against the Arabs at Poitiers in 732, hence giving birth to the Carolingian line.

 

[thorsr]

hey can we only think of real people here?i mean I´d play a mod where Abraracourcix ,the asterix village leader would rule france(of course asterix and obelix should be your military leaders,and the harp guy could be arts GL.
and for USA,what if zappa had gotten the presidency?(well i guess nothing can be worst then the actual commander in chief).
anyone care to remember more fun possible leaders or stuff?

 

[Pembroke]

hey can we only think of real people here

Uhm, I'm baffled... Do you mean we weren't discussing real leaders here??

I thought the entire point was to have only (real) historical figures that at some point or other were the leader of their people but who by some-qualification-or-other are the worst choice for civ leadership.

 

[Melendwyr]

Hitler STARTED his party personally...he shaped it in his image. He was evil...period. No justification, no excuse making. The man as evil personified.

You give him way too much credit. Stalin would be a better example of evil personified, but even in his case, it would be excessive hyperbole.