Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[GenocideBringer]

List leaders that you don't think should be in Civ IV!

-Churchill. Seriously, what did he do that was so epic and awesome? Yeah yeah he led Britain against Germany, but I still don't see any awesome accomplishment

-Lincoln. Okay...he quashed a rebellion during a civil war. What's so special? And why is he Charismatic? Lincoln was pretty unpopular

-For that matter, Roosevelt. His impact on the American economy is highly questionable, he didn't really do anything that heavily impacted the WW2 situation...even if he did, I don't see anything awesome here

-Gilgamesh. Been awhile since I've studied Sumerian history...but wasn't he just some warrior written about in an epic? The most significant "historical" information is really known only through an epic devoted to him, which really doesn't mean much. I just don't see how he was seen as a good choice.

-Ramesses really didn't do that much, other than lead a couple failed military campaigns (according to the Civilopedia)

 

[Elandal]

My list would be: "any leader not dead for at least a hundred years". But when it comes to actions and reasonings for including specific leaders, you'll certainly find enough arguments both for and against any and all leaders.

 

[Catharsis]

Montezuma. Didn't he sorta destroy the Aztecs, in the end?

 

[MrTomothy]

I don't see why De Gaulle was put in, as he seems like just another leader for the French.

 

[EdCase]

To OP

Those are your viewpoints others may vary. There is an arguemnet for and against most leaders (and most of the civilizations) inclusion.

Bottom line they are easily recognisable figures in the historys of their respective Civs.

 

[GenocideBringer]

I'd love to hear an argument for Lincoln or Churchhill's inclusion.

 

[Mewtarthio]

-For that matter, Roosevelt. His impact on the American economy is highly questionable, he didn't really do anything that heavily impacted the WW2 situation...even if he did, I don't see anything awesome here

Aside from being the longest-running President of the United States of America, he presided over what many Americans consider to be the high point of American history. Immediately before him, we've got fun stuff like the Great Depression and World War I; immediately after, we run into the Cold War. Americans really view WWII in a heroic light (though the atomic bomb is controversial--and Roosevelt wasn't president when we dropped it).

-Gilgamesh. Been awhile since I've studied Sumerian history...but wasn't he just some warrior written about in an epic? The most significant "historical" information is really known only through an epic devoted to him, which really doesn't mean much. I just don't see how he was seen as a good choice.

Who would you recommend, then?

Montezuma. Didn't he sorta destroy the Aztecs, in the end?

I think that the Montezuma in Civ is Montezuma I. As I recall, Montezuma II was the loser who got his entire empire killed before meeting his death (depending on whom you believe) by either outliving his usefulness and being summarily disposed of by Cortez or by getting stoned to death by his own people.

 

[hoopsnerd]

^^ yep, its based on historical recognition. Montezuma was a crappy Aztec leader, but he's the only one we know because the Spanish burned the ancient writings as heresy. Same goes for Huyana Capac, except he was less crappy than Montezuma and the Inca never had Writing so we can't read back about previous leaders. I don't know anything about Pacal II, my Mayan history is a little sketch... It's not the best leaders in history, it's the ones wwe remember... like Stalin.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Who would you recommend, then?

If there's no good civ to add, then don't add one.

Aside from being the longest-running President of the United States of America, he presided over what many Americans consider to be the high point of American history. Immediately before him, we've got fun stuff like the Great Depression and World War I; immediately after, we run into the Cold War. Americans really view WWII in a heroic light (though the atomic bomb is controversial--and Roosevelt wasn't president when we dropped it).

Still he never really did anything super amazing with any of those things.

 

[Paideia]

Oh dear.. I really should keep my mouth shut, but I can't help it..

Firstly, I don't think you should base your judgements on wikipedia's presentation. It is hardly the definitive source of historical information.
Secondly, I flatly disagree with you on FDR and Ramesses. I won't get into a longer argument here, but I can recommend reading up on both of them.
Concerning Lincoln and Churchill, I can see your point but ultimately their achievements under difficult conditions make them great leaders in my book.
Which brings me to the one point, where I actually do agree with you: Gilgamesh. I am very opposed to putting mythological figures into the game. Frankly, I would also have like to see a different leader for the Viking too. Ragnar Lodbrok's fame is too much tied up with the story of his death. I would have preferred someone like Knud den Store (Canute the Great), Leif Eriksson or Svend Tveskæg (Sweyn Forkbeard).

 

[LightSpectra]

I question Kublai Khan. Though the Mongolian empire reached its maximum territory under his rule, it wasn't so much him that did it: he conquered China, though it's not like any of the other Khans would've had trouble with that. All he did was increase tension between the Hordes and lead some failed invasions against Japan. Timur would be a much better leader for Mongolia, in my opinion. Or Subotai.

Leaders I'd like to see: Trajan (Rome), Nebuchadnezzar II (Babylon), Constantine the Great (Byzantium), Taizong (China), Menelik II (Ethiopia), Akbar the Great (India), Abu Bakr and Harun al-Rashid (Arabia), Charles I (Spain), Meiji (Japan), Ivan III the Great (Russia)

 

[Janus0]

See also: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=242805

... and the 287398341983741 other threads on the same subject lines..

 

[hoopsnerd]

Leaders I'd like to see: Trajan (Rome), Nebuchadnezzar II (Babylon), Constantine the Great (Byzantium), Taizong (China), Menelik II (Ethiopia), Akbar the Great (India), Abu Bakr and Harun al-Rashid (Arabia), Charles I (Spain), Meiji (Japan), Ivan III the Great (Russia)

Terribly good selections... too good. So good in fact that the common layperson has no idea who many of those people are - but a very good list -- especially Charles I who could be claimed by a lot of differnet civs... HRE for instance. Charles I was definately a better leader than Isabella and Ferdinand, but history doesn't remember him as well.

 

[LightSpectra]

Now that you mention it, shouldn't Frederick be moved to the HRE?

 

[LightSpectra]

Other civilizations I'd like to see: Poland (Casimir III), Isreal (David), Moors (Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik), Venezuela (Bolívar), Brazil (Bonifácio), Timurids (Timur and Babur).

The only leader I'm unsure about is Sulayman, I don't know too much about Moor history to pick a better leader.

 

[Trieste]

Lincoln was president during the worst war in American history - (the most US casualties in a war ever and the last major war fought on American soil). He wasn't as popular as other contemporary presidents during the war, but he was incredibly popular after the war. I think he really should be charismatic because of his incredible and amazingly famous speeches, like the Gettysburg Address, the House Divided Speech, or his lost speech. 40 reporters were there to cover his 1856 speech at the Bloomington Major's Hall, but everyone was so impressed by it they forgot to take notes on it.

"Abraham Lincoln for an hour and a half held the assemblage spellbound by the power of his argument, the intense irony of his invective, the brilliancy of his eloquence. I shall not mar any of its fine proportions by attempting even a synopsis of it."
- John Wentworth

"I attempted for about fifteen minutes, as was usual with me then to take notes, but at the end of that time I threw pen and paper away and lived only in the inspiration of the hour. ... His speech was full of fire and energy and force. It was logic; it was pathos; it was enthusiasm; it was justice, equity, truth, and right set ablaze by the devine fires of a soul maddened by the wrong; it was hard, heavy, knotty, gnarly, backed with wrath."
- William Herndon

Don't take my word for it though, read a book! Team of Rivals, by Doris Keats Goodwin, is an amazing book that goes through Lincoln's politics and personal life. This is a bit from the very end, after he is killed.

In 1908, in a wild and remote area of the North Caucasus, Leo Tolstoy, the greatest writer of the age, was the guest of a tribal chief "living far away from civilized life in the mountains."

Gathering his family and neighbors, the chief asked Tolstoy to tell stories about the famous men of history. Tolstoy told how he entertained the eager crowd for hours with tales of Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon.

When he was winding to a close, the chief stood and said, "But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock...His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man."

"I looked at them," Tolstoy recalled, "and saw their faces all aglow, while their eyes were burning. I saw that those rude barbarians were really interested in a man whose name and deeds had already become a legend." He told them everything he knew about Lincoln’s "home life and youth…his habits, his influence upon the people and his physical strength." When he finished, they were so grateful for the story that they presented him with "a wonderful Arabian horse."

The next morning, as Tolstoy prepared to leave, they asked if he could possibly acquire for them a picture of Lincoln. Thinking that he might find one at a friend's house in the neighboring town, Tolstoy asked one of the riders to accompany him. "I was successful in getting a large photograph from my friend," recalled Tolstoy. As he handed it to the rider, he noted that the man's hand trembled as he took it. "He gazed for several minutes silently, like one in a reverent prayer, his eyes filled with tears."

Tolstoy went on to observe, "This little incident proves how largely the name of Lincoln is worshipped throughout the world and how legendary his personality has become. Now why was Lincoln so great that he overshadows all other national heroes? He really was not a great general like Napoleon or Washington; he was not such a skilful statesman as Gladstone or Frederick the Great; but his supremacy expresses itself altogether in his peculiar moral power and in the greatness of his character.

"Washington was a typical American. Napoleon was a typical Frenchman, but Lincoln was a humanitarian as broad as the world. He was bigger than his country -- bigger than all the Presidents together.

"We are still too near to his greatness," Tolstoy concluded, "but after a few centuries more our posterity will find him considerably bigger than we do.

"His genius is still too strong and too powerful for the common understanding, just as the sun is too hot when its light beams directly on us."

He should definitely be a leader.

 

[Thorn]

I'd love to hear an argument for Lincoln or Churchhill's inclusion.

For Lincoln it's simple. He was in Civ 1 and therefore has tenure.

 

[Underdawg]

Man do I love this smiley...

 

[Trieste]

ok yea, that was a huge post to say "lincoln = good", but he really should be a leader

 

[Lurking Liu]

Now that you mention it, shouldn't Frederick be moved to the HRE?

While he was an Elector, I don't think he should be put in for two reasons, the first being semantics:
1) He was never the Holy Roman Emperor.
2) This is the big one: By claiming to be King in Prussia, Frederick was able to escape the authority of the Holy Roman Empire and assert a legitimate level of autonomy to Brandenburg-Prussia while maintaining its Elector status.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: That's my understanding of the situation, actual Germans or scholars of European history would know better. I only know what I know about Frederick the Great via Europa Universalis II.