Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[Angst]

Constantinople fell in 1453, so yes, certainly Tenochtitlan was bigger and more glorious than a city that had just been sieged and destroyed.

Tenochtitlan was still larger than all European cities at the time, which was my point.

EDIT: The fact, as cybrxkhan mentioned, that the Aztecs arranged sacrifices of insane numbers must also have counted some kind of a population-decreasing factor, also. Tenochtitlan could maybe have had 1000 more inhabitants in three years. And as the Aztecs was defeated in ~1520, building up the city in ~1200, remember the probability of the inhabitants that *could* have been present in 1500 (Just as the inhabitants that *could* have been present in Constantinoble the same years)

 

[Dennis_Moore]

Can somebody explain why Stalin is Aggressive?

Well, he did attack Finland and Poland among other things (and because Agg/Ind was available)

 

[dutchking]

Stalin could've been Protective/Industrious too. I mean, he has too much neck fat to be aggressive, and his anthem does have to do with kicking the crap out of invaders and such...I don't completely understand why he is Aggressive.



Stalin's aggressive/paranoid. Like Dennis Moore said, he did attack pretty much any place that wouldn't throw the world into chaos that he could. I love the story about how he died.

 

[onedreamer]

Constantinople wasn't renamed until after World War I. It was still the same city, but its population had been decimated by blockade and siege by the time it fell. 47 years isn't enough time to recover from that. If you look at the chart, it was actually twice as large 1,000 years before 1,500 AD.

The city wasn't destroyed at all. Mehmet II admired it and actually stopped the loot way before he had promised. It obviously lost its population since if it wasn't killed during or after the siege, it escaped at the end of it. It's obvious that a capital city that was one of the major stronghold of christianity for a millennia had to change its population when becoming islamic. But all this doesn't make of this city a "destroyed" city or Tenochtitlan more glorious, from its foundation in 667 BC until today. Actually it's safe to say that even if the Turks would have razed Constantinopolis in 1453 like you say, this city would have been more glorious than Tenochtitlan has ever been or dreamt to be.

 

[Peng Qi]

Tenochtitlan was still larger than all European cities at the time, which was my point.

Yes, it's true; a hundred years or so after the pneumonic plague went through, Tenochtitlan was larger than all European cities.

The city wasn't destroyed at all.

Oh yeah! I forgot that blockading and sieging a city repeatedly for hundreds of years "doesn't destroy it at all!"

 

[Arlborn]

Take Elizabeth out (this because she's the only reason why Firaxis refuses to rename England Britain) and replace her with the Duke of Wellington (Charismatic/Creative or Financial/Philosophical).

Uh? I thought Elizabeth's reign was the "Golden Age" over there...?

And a Duke? Was he of what importance? You might as well add Joan D'Arc and also leave Gandhi in peace then!

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Boudica's revolt failed and she only led her people for a year. The Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon I, which ushered a golden age for the British Empire, and he WAS Prime Minister for 3 or 4 years.

Montezuma II shouldn't be in IMO. And Joan of Arc is a bad choice for a leader; why does everybody want her back in?

Like I said Gilgamesh should be Charismatic instead of Protective; Hiawatha can get his current combo.

 

[0R4NG3]

Well, he did attack Finland and Poland among other things (and because Agg/Ind was available)

Catherine and Peter attacked even more places, yet strangely they are not aggressive. So your second argument about Agg/Ind being available is probably the main reason.

OK lets get back on topic I don't think Mao, or Stalin should be in the game for the same reason other leaders aren't, namely they were genocidal maniacs.

Both Peter and Ivan the Terrible were pretty much just as bad as Stalin was, and both of them appeared in CIV games. Also one could argue that Napoleon was a homicidal maniac, perhaps he also shouldn't be in the game?

 

[KrakenRouge]

Also one could argue that Napoleon was a homicidal maniac, perhaps he also shouldn't be in the game?

Correction, he was a homocidal non-Communist maniac. That makes a lot of difference.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Catherine and Peter attacked even more places, yet strangely they are not aggressive. So your second argument about Agg/Ind being available is probably the main reason.



Both Peter and Ivan the Terrible were pretty much just as bad as Stalin was, and both of them appeared in CIV games. Also one could argue that Napoleon was a homicidal maniac, perhaps he also shouldn't be in the game?

Napoleon is in because
1. He was the French leader in Civ1.
2. He is very well known today.
3. He proved that no leader could safely ignore the will of their people.

And about the Russian leaders, Catherine was born in what is now Northwestern Poland and was actually born a Prussian, so I'm not really sure why she's in (maybe because she nearly expanded her country's borders to the borders of 21st Russia and beyond). Peter helped bring Russia to tech parity with the European powers, and Stalin nearly did the same (except that he mortally punished people who didn't work well enough, which happened to be more people than the amount of Semitic peoples killed by Hitler). Not to mention that Stalin was the Russian leader in Civ1.

Stalin can stay in, but Mao should probably be reduced to a Great General (same should happen with Julius Caesar).

I am mad that Sargon I still isn't in; he was the world's first emperor of any nation. I also hate the fact that both Chinese leaders are benevolent despots; Firaxis, can we please, PLEASE, have a more enlightened Chinese leader?!

 

[aronnax]

Take Elizabeth out (this because she's the only reason why Firaxis refuses to rename England Britain) and replace her with the Duke of Wellington (Charismatic/Creative or Financial/Philosophical).

Do NOT touch my Elizabeth! The nerve of you to just toss the english peoples greatest ruler! I would rather have her and England than all the monarchs, generals, prime ministers, thinkers, inventors, writers and Political powers of Great Britian combined.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I also hate the fact that both Chinese leaders are benevolent despots; Firaxis, can we please, PLEASE, have a more enlightened Chinese leader?!

HERE HERE!!! THERES SO MANY FREANKIN' EMPERORS (and Emperesses) TO CHOOSE FROM (and generals and ministers too), its not even funny!

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

But Elizabeth is the only reason why Firaxis refuses to create a British civ (as opposed to an "English" civ)!

Oh, and if it's still called "England" in Civ5, the Celts (should they be in an exp pack) should represent medieval Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. (Robert the Bruce, Brian Boru, and Llywellyn the Great here we come!)

 

[0R4NG3]

Napoleon is in because
1. He was the French leader in Civ1.
2. He is very well known today.
3. He proved that no leader could safely ignore the will of their people.

And about the Russian leaders, Catherine was born in what is now Northwestern Poland and was actually born a Prussian, so I'm not really sure why she's in (maybe because she nearly expanded her country's borders to the borders of 21st Russia and beyond). Peter helped bring Russia to tech parity with the European powers, and Stalin nearly did the same (except that he mortally punished people who didn't work well enough, which happened to be more people than the amount of Semitic peoples killed by Hitler). Not to mention that Stalin was the Russian leader in Civ1.

Stalin can stay in, but Mao should probably be reduced to a Great General (same should happen with Julius Caesar).

I am mad that Sargon I still isn't in; he was the world's first emperor of any nation. I also hate the fact that both Chinese leaders are benevolent despots; Firaxis, can we please, PLEASE, have a more enlightened Chinese leader?!

Yep I totally agree.
Just a little note though: if we are going to point out that Catherine wasn't Russian we should also say that neither was Stalin, who was Georgian (I suppose you could say that Georgia was a part of the Russian Empire at the time).

 

[aronnax]

But Elizabeth is the only reason why Firaxis refuses to create a British civ (as opposed to an "English" civ)!

Oh, and if it's still called "England" in Civ5, the Celts (should they be in an exp pack) should represent medieval Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. (Robert the Bruce, Brian Boru, and Llywellyn the Great here we come!)

Newflash, when was the last time there was a British Civilisation, its as stupid as the American "Civilisation"

 

[Peng Qi]

I also hate the fact that both Chinese leaders are benevolent despots; Firaxis, can we please, PLEASE, have a more enlightened Chinese leader?!

Since when is Mao anything other than a mass-murderer?

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

At least we have one enlightened Chinese emperor in Civ4 (except that he doen't happen to be a Chinese leader!).

I didn't know that Stalin was from Georgia! I did know that he was educated there though.

And some people are saying that Frederick should be moved to the HRE; this is like having Alexander lead the Persians.

At least all the Civ1 leaders are back!

 

[RockTheCazbah87]

Shaka.

To put it mildly, he was a crap leader. He was hated by his people, I mean he was assassinated by his own brother. I know it's unlikely that people know of another Zulu leader, but he just wasn't that special.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Shaka was the one who made the Zulu one of Sub-Saharan Africa's greatest and most famous tribal kingdoms ever. Why are they even in Civ?! There should just be a Bantu civ (with Shaka as the leader, and possibly some Masai chief. Or King (well, actually Queen) Jinga).

 

[Nelgirith]

I mean he was assassinated by his own brother.

If you think about it, Julius Caesar was killed by his son.