Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[Peng Qi]

Well in all fairness he did double the size of the US and write the Declaration and the university he founded was one of the first in the US to offer now standard courses like agriculture and philosophy. According to Wiki anyways.

He doubled the size of the US despite claiming that he was anti-expansion and anti-imperialist. His only real accomplishments were made in non-leadership ways, such as in philosophy, in writing the Delcaration, and in founding said university.

 

[Miles Teg]

He doubled the size of the US despite claiming that he was anti-expansion and anti-imperialist. His only real accomplishments were made in non-leadership ways, such as in philosophy, in writing the Delcaration, and in founding said university.

And that's why he's not in the game. He makes a decent candidate for 4th leader though.

Oh and lets not forget cleaning up the Barbary pirates. That was pretty important at the time, even if allot of people never heard of it.

 

[Peng Qi]

He makes a decent candidate for 4th leader though.

There are too many better candidates: Andrew Jackson (perfect for a Spiritual American leader), Theodore Roosevelt, and even Richard Nixon would all be better candidates.

 

[Blaarg]

I would second your first statement. I can't second your second, though, because Franklin wasn't a president. He deserves to be a great person, his name should appear, but he's not an official US leader. Jefferson would be my substitute for that one.

To clarify: Cleopatra is actually a Macedonian, I think, descended from Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals. However, taillesskangaru's points are still valid.

Franklin may not have been a president, but that probably was only due to his age at the time of the revolution. Had he been younger, he would have almost certainly been President.

He was also a great leader of the colonies in more ways than one. Sure he never held any sort of executive power, but that doesn't mean he didn't have leadership power.

 

[Blaarg]

There are too many better candidates: Andrew Jackson (perfect for a Spiritual American leader), Theodore Roosevelt, and even Richard Nixon would all be better candidates.

Andrew Jackson?!? Have you heard of the Trail of Tears?? If any of our Presidents should be considered a brutal murderer, it would be him. As a general, he defied direct order and invaded Spanish controlled Florida, risking a war, to slaughter Native Americans that didn't even live on American soil. He also defied our very legal system in defying our Supreme Court. He was the first President ever to use the veto, vetoing the renewal of the National Bank. He hated the very concept of our federal government. He was only ever elected by the political genius of Van Buren, who used Jackson's fame as the victiorious General in the Battle of New Orleans against the Britist in the war of 1812 and Van Buren's new invention of cronyism (at least in American politics) to thrust Jackson into the Presidency.

I read what you said about those who think GWB is the worst President would dislike Jackson more. You're wrong, I know all about Jackson, GWB is still much much worse.

Nixon is also a very poor pick, for obious reasons, had he not been pardoned, he would have been the first President to be convicted of a crime.

 

[Peng Qi]

Andrew Jackson?!? Have you heard of the Trail of Tears?? If any of our Presidents should be considered a brutal murderer, it would be him.

And yet Joseph Stalin, Montezuma, Isabella, Emperor Justinian, Mao Zedong, and Shaka Zulu are in the game.

As a general, he defied direct order and invaded Spanish controlled Florida, risking a war, to slaughter Native Americans that didn't even live on American soil.

And yet Julius Caesar, Catherine the Great, Emperor Justinian, Joseph Stalin, Shaka Zulu, Ramasses, Alexander the Great, and Mehmed II are in the game.

He also defied our very legal system in defying our Supreme Court.

And yet Joseph Stalin, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, and Queen Hatshepsut are in the game.

He was the first President ever to use the veto, vetoing the renewal of the National Bank.

Irrelevant.

He hated the very concept of our federal government.

Irrelevant.

He was only ever elected by the political genius of Van Buren, who used Jackson's fame as the victiorious General in the Battle of New Orleans against the Britist in the war of 1812 and Van Buren's new invention of cronyism (at least in American politics) to thrust Jackson into the Presidency.

And yet it was Jackson who was the president, and he made his own decisions, sometimes in the face of the decisions of others.

I read what you said about those who think GWB is the worst President would dislike Jackson more. You're wrong, I know all about Jackson, GWB is still much much worse.

Then you have a complete lack of perspective and suffer from an acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Nixon is also a very poor pick, for obious reasons, had he not been pardoned, he would have been the first President to be convicted of a crime.

Irrelevant. At the time, he was incredibly popular. He was also the foremost political genius of the 20th century. Plus, he was a decent human being. He could have easily dodged the scandal and run out his presidency, but he chose to take responsibility for what the people beneath him did.

 

[Blaarg]

You can't say Jackson should be in the game because he shares the same negative traits with other leaders who are in the game. By that logic I should be the leader for the Americans because Churchill is fat.

While everyone has thier flaws, most of the people you mentioned did great things that deserves real recognition. Others are sort of the default because they are the most well known leader for thier Civ.

Jackson falls into neither of those categories and his list of flaws is great.

 

[Blaarg]

Then you have a complete lack of perspective and suffer from an acute case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is just something invented by Rush Limbaugh so he can ignore Bush's critics. If you think Bush going to be vindicated by history, you're the deranged one.

Irrelevant. At the time, he was incredibly popular. He was also the foremost political genius of the 20th century. Plus, he was a decent human being. He could have easily dodged the scandal and run out his presidency, but he chose to take responsibility for what the people beneath him did.

The only reason Nixon 'took resonsibilty' is because they had him and he knew they had him, and he was going to be impeached. There was no maybe about it, he was done.

I mean, he fired the Attorney General and Deputy AG because they wouldn't fire the special prosecutor investigating Nixon. That doesn't sound like someone taking responsibilty

Nixon did some good things, he got us out of Vietnam, opened relations with China. However, his method of governance was completely unconstitional and it is good that he got smacked down for it.

 

[Peng Qi]

While everyone has thier flaws, most of the people you mentioned did great things that deserves real recognition. Others are sort of the default because they are the most well known leader for thier Civ.

Jackson falls into neither of those categories and his list of flaws is great.

Jackson accomplished a lot, and remember how wildly popular he was. I'd happily (and I think correctly) compare him to Winston Churchill in terms of popularity and effectiveness.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is just something invented by Rush Limbaugh so he can ignore Bush's critics. If you think Bush going to be vindicated by history, you're the deranged one.

No, it was invented by Charles Krauthammer. Nobody is saying Bush is the greatest president of all time, but he is absolutely and without question not the worst no matter how you spin it. You're completely blinded by the fact that someone you fundamentally disagree with got elected president during your lifetime, and you're even willing to completely ignore the existence of people who were just like Bush except more extreme in their views simply because it didn't happen within your personal frame of reference.

The only reason Nixon 'took resonsibilty' is because they had him and he knew they had him, and he was going to be impeached. There was no maybe about it, he was done.

He could have easily said "I never told them to do that; they took it upon themselves" and gotten out of it. He could have at least let the impeachment trial play out and see if he was actually going to be kicked from office before he resigned. But no, he did the right thing instead of the thing that would have been best for him personally.

I mean, he fired the Attorney General and Deputy AG because they wouldn't fire the special prosecutor investigating Nixon. That doesn't sound like someone taking responsibilty

It also doesn't sound like something grounded in facts; sounds more like speculation.

 

[Blaarg]

Jackson accomplished a lot, and remember how wildly popular he was. I'd happily (and I think correctly) compare him to Winston Churchill in terms of popularity and effectiveness.

What exactly did Jackson accomplish?

Nobody is saying Bush is the greatest president of all time, but he is absolutely and without question not the worst no matter how you spin it. You're completely blinded by the fact that someone you fundamentally disagree with got elected president during your lifetime, and you're even willing to completely ignore the existence of people who were just like Bush except more extreme in their views simply because it didn't happen within your personal frame of reference.

Aren't you Mr. Assumtive.

My views had little to do with my dislike for Bush, at least initially. When Bush got elected, I actually considered myself much closer to the Republicans than the Democrats.

What makes Bush so bad, isn't his views, it's his judgement. No other President, aside from maybe Andrew Johnson, has shown such poor judgement. However, Johnson's judgement didn't matter because he was so marginalized by congress.

Who do you think was a worse president then?

He could have easily said "I never told them to do that; they took it upon themselves" and gotten out of it. He could have at least let the impeachment trial play out and see if he was actually going to be kicked from office before he resigned. But no, he did the right thing instead of the thing that would have been best for him personally.

You're deluding yourself. He DID try to say exactly that, that's what the entire investigation was centered on. "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

From Wiki:
In August, the previously unknown tape from June 23, 1972 was released. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented Nixon and Haldeman formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved. The tape was referred to as a "smoking gun." With few exceptions, Nixon's remaining supporters deserted him. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the committee announced that they would all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House. It was now almost certain that Nixon would be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate.

He didn't take the high road, he only left after all other avenues were exhausted. He only left when it was certain he was to be impeached. He's said since that point that he should have burnt the tapes. Looking back at the whole thing he regreted he didn't break the law further to save his own skin.

It also doesn't sound like something grounded in facts; sounds more like speculation.

Well it's not, look up "saturday night massacre" or I can just post it from Wiki:

Cox refused the compromise that same evening, and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend. However, President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night – a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he also refused and resigned in protest.

Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere – Bork had made no such assurance to the committee. Thus, Bork complied with Nixon's order and fired Cox. Incidentally, the White House claimed to have fired Ruckelshaus, but as the Washington Post article written the next day pointed out "The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned."

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I hate to say this, but now since one civilization may have more than one playable leader, all the Civ1 leaders are a lock for Civ5 and the next few Civ games; they may not be in the core game, but they WILL make it in an expansion pack, wether we like or not.

To be honest Mao Zedong is one of favorite military leaders, but he's also one of my least favorite political leaders; he should probably be reduced to a Great General.

And for those who are going to say that the Byzantines and Holy Romans are joke civs, they WOULD be, except that they were Medieval superpowers in Europe during their times, and Civ4 was sorely lacking Medieval leaders. I think though, that the Holy Roman Empire counters what Civilization has been doing for leaders/civs; choosing stuff that people are familiar with and not what people are not. I mean, those who have never heard of the HRE before playing BtS will think they are the same thing as Rome and think "Why isn't Italy in?!" and they'll also see the leader choice and think "I thought Charlemagne was French!". This is also the reason why Etiopia and the Khmer might have made it; those civs not only represented drastically underrepresented areas of the world, but also a drastically underrepresented period of human history.

 

[Peng Qi]

What exactly did Jackson accomplish?

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/andrewjackson/p/pjackson.htm
He essentially established the executive branch's role in government and the federal government as an entity. He was also a good leader of men and a good tactician.

Who do you think was a worse president then?

I actually made a list of my ten worst:
10. JFK (For being a pretty terrible person and getting us into Vietnam.)
9. Franklin Pierce (For exacerbating the slavery situation.)
8. Calvin Coolidge (For being an abject politician.)
7. Warren G. Harding (For being an incompetent coward.)
6. William Taft (For betraying Teddy's reformist plans.)
5. Rutherford B. Hayes (For allowing white supremacists to regain control of the south.)
4. Thomas Jefferson (For being a complete hypocrite.)
3. Harry S. Truman (For finalizing and making permanent FDR's budget changes.)
2. Lyndon Johnson (For enacting the draft in Vietnam; if Bush ever enacts the draft for Iraq, he'll be right behind Johnson here, although he won't.)
1. FDR (For destroying the economy and budget irredeemably.)

As for the rest of what you said, sources other than wiki please.

 

[Miles Teg]

Weird list.

Coolidge wasn below average, but he did calm things down after Warren "Corrupt underlings? No big deal' Harding. He's in the lower 21 and a half though.

Speaking of which, Harding deserves a far worse ranking, at least in the bottom five.

Jefferson was a hypocrite, but the Louisiana Purchase is huge in my book.

Roosevelt and Truman... I will avoid the flame war. I will avoid the flame war.

Honorable mention to Bush of course.

 

[Blaarg]

He essentially established the exec... know little about watergate. Read up on it.

 

[Peng Qi]

Yep, those sound like the kind accompisments that merit inclusion as a civ 4 leaderhead. /sarcasm

But his personality is the type that merits it.

Your list is...well...almost laugable. I'm not going to debate your individual choices, just be advised that most non-partistan historians would disagree. This reminds me of an article in USA today a few years ago:

Oh man, you say this and then proceed to cite a man who listed four Republicans and one man who existed before the Republican party did as his top 5 worst! "Non-partisan" historians my ass. Did you or did you not notice that 4 of my top 10 worst are Republicans? Oh boy, it just doesn't get any more delightfully hypocritical and ironic.

The information I provided is well known to anybody who has studied the events. I merely posted wiki as a quick synopisis of fact. It's not my fault you know little about watergate. Read up on it.

It's not my job to prove your argument for you. So you concede the point, I take it?

 

[Blaarg]

Oh man, you say this and then proceed to cite a man who listed four Republicans and one man who existed before the Republican party did as his top 5 worst! "Non-partisan" historians my ass. Did you or did you not notice that 4 of my top 10 worst are Republicans? Oh boy, it just doesn't get any more delightfully hypocritical and ironic.

First, actually, there are two democrats on the list. Jackson and Buchanan.

Second, he's the founder of the wildly considered NON-partisan USA today. Not exactly an intellectual newspaper, but few ever accuse them of bias.

Third, he cites Eisenhower as one of the best Presidents we have had...what's his party affiliation?

Forth, the Imbalance is irrelevent. The parties have completely evolved over the years, as have the issues. Partisanship is irrelvent when you're talking about people from 2 or more generations ago. Jackson's and Buchanan's politics are nothing like the Democrats of today, to criticize them is not a partistan attack in anyway at all. The same goes for Grant and Hoover. The only person on the list who would be considered Partisan is Nixon.

Fifth, I fail to see any hypocrisy or irony.

It's not my job to prove your argument for you. So you concede the point, I take it?

I'll concede your ignorance on the matter. My points were made and well founded in fact. If you want to wear blinders, then there's nothing I can do at this point.

 

[Blaarg]

You might be intersted in knowing.

The Murray-Blessing 1982 survey asked historians whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic, social and economic issues. The table below shows that the two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. There is only one difference between the ideologies' top 10 lists - Lyndon B. Johnson (liberals) instead of Dwight Eisenhower (conservatives) - and the "worst 7" lists also differ by only one person, with the conservatives selecting Jimmy Carter as one of the bottom seven instead of Calvin Coolidge, the liberals' choice for seventh-worst president

Rankings by Liberals and Conservatives Rank Liberals (n=190) Conservatives (N=50)
1 Lincoln Lincoln
2 Franklin Roosevelt Washington
3 Washington Franklin Roosevelt
4 Jefferson Jefferson
5 Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt
6 Wilson Jackson
7 Jackson Truman
8 Truman Wilson
9 LB Johnson Eisenhower
10 John Adams John Adams
...
30 Coolidge Carter
31 Pierce Nixon
32 Buchanan Pierce
33 Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson
34 Grant Buchanan
35 Nixon Grant
36 Harding Harding


It seems that Historians universally put Harding, Grant, Buchanan, Johnson, Pierce and Nixon as 5 of the worst 6 presidents regarless of thier ideology.

 

[Peng Qi]

First, actually, there are two democrats on the list. Jackson and Buchanan.

Oh I'm sorry, THREE Republicans and TWO people from before there were Republicans. Also, the two from before there were Republicans were much more right-leaning than most of the political stage at the time.

Second, he's the founder of the wildly considered NON-partisan USA today. Not exactly an intellectual newspaper, but few ever accuse them of bias.

Few on the left, sure. Almost every conservative I know thinks that USA Today is highly biased against them.

Third, he cites Eisenhower as one of the best Presidents we have had...what's his party affiliation?

Irrelevant. It would be very difficult for anyone to call Eisenhower a bad president and be taken seriously. He put that in there just to "prove" he's not partisan.

Forth, the Imbalance is irrelevent.

No, it's not. All of the people in his bottom 5 would be considered conservatives today, except maybe Nixon who might get away with being called a moderate.

Fifth, I fail to see any hypocrisy or irony.

You see no irony in calling my list partisan and then citing someone who lists conservatives in his bottom 5 and calls Bush the worst president in history. Right.

You might be intersted in knowing.

Here's the Average Scholar Ranking of the Presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

That lists them based on their success, not their quality. I'd take a Warren G. Harding who accomplishes nothing and is horribly vilified for a scandal that isn't much worse than Whitewater over a well-loved FDR who accomplishes a lot but ultimately destroys the country's economy any day of the week. Harding is far from a good president, but he didn't do any long-term damage.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I really can't see how people could vote for FDR as the worst president. The man did some pretty important stuff that actually saved the country.

 

[Peng Qi]

I really can't see how people could vote for FDR as the worst president. The man did some pretty important stuff that actually saved the country.

Mostly he just broke the federal budget and the economy and it still hasn't recovered. World War II and the military-industrial complex are what brought us out of the depression; the New Deal just made things worse. Of course, most people don't understand economics, so almost nobody realized it at the time, and almost nobody realizes it now.