Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[Peng Qi]

Don't say the Aztecs are worse here. They were bad, but the Nazis were a heck of a lot worse, and the Europeans were pretty dang bloodthirsty at this time themselves.

The numbers are irrelevant. It's the concept that makes them so vile. "Sorry, we're taking your daughter up to the top of a ziggurat and slashing her genitals open so that our dark god of war can continue to empower our conquests of your people."

Inquisition, crusades, witch hunts, ring a bell? (Oh yeah, the Spanish Inquisition killed over 20 million people, and some say as high as 60 million, and this happened during and after the Aztecs fell; it even continued in small amounts until it was abolished in 1834! Total Aztec sacrifices don't even hold a flame to the amount killed in the inquisition.)

The inquisition was bad, but witch hunts were not state sanctioned in the vast majority of instances. The crusades were nothing short of a noble attempt at defending people who were being systematically slaughtered by invading Muslims; they were in no way inherently evil, only some of the people involved did evil things. The concept itself was noble.

Also admit that their Gods are evil? Where'd you get that load of ?

Most of their gods were underworld demons, from what I've read.

To the Aztecs he wasn't evil. The only evil part is he required human sacrifices to keep himself alive and strong, but they certainly didn't see it was evil.

It's frightening that any culture could see such an entity as anything but evil.

 

[Theodorick]

That's the number Jack Chick, a fundamentalist Christian and anti-Catholic bigot, gives. Would you like to consult a source that associates itself with sanity?

It's impossible for them to have killed 20 million people, considering the population of all West Europe was less than 80 million. In reality, the upper limit was 5,000 people, probably closer to 3,000 people all-in-all. The inquisition was more notorious for burning heretical books than executions.



First of all, the inquisition was designed to protect devout Catholics from being accused of heresy. The Spanish part of it was taken over by the monarchy, and began using it to wipe away Jews and Muslims for political control. You can hardly blame that on religion.

The crusades were a political war for Europe to push away the Muslim empire. They used religion as an inspiration for the common folk to bear arms, but don't fool yourself into thinking it was a bloodthirsty hunt to wipe out other faiths. The later crusades were solely about filling the kings' coffers with foreign gold.

You have a point about witch hunts, but like the Spanish Inquisition, only a few thousand people were killed, as opposed to the Aztec empire's mass sacrifices that happened all throughout its existence.

First, don't assume who I am based on my argument. I respect you enough to not stoop to that level, so please give me the same amount of respect back. I was only clarifying a few of the things Peng said.

Second, the inquisition didn't just happen in Europe. Most of the deaths from this came from Spanish territory. The exact numbers range from a low--a low even church scholars state--of 8 million killed, to a stupidly fantastical high of 100 million, the vast majority of which were Native Americans. Most quote around 50 million killed now, from text books to professors. I personally believe it's more around 20 to 25 million though, based on the population of the Americas before Columbus, and the fact that disease did the most damage. Whatever the number actually is, it was tremendously high, and done to forcefully convert the native population. And yes I realize the Crusades were more complex than most believe them as, but nonetheless.

And Peng, if you read me carefully, I certainly wasn't defending Aztec culture to try and verify their barbaric religious ways. I was just saying they weren't as bad as the Nazis, that Europe was also bloody thirsty at the time, and that the Aztecs didn't view their main God as evil. They did have other Gods of course, just as other religions have Devil(s), but they didn't worship these and sacrifice lives for them.

 

[BriGuy20]

I'm not too happy with Mao being in it. I suppose if Stalin is there, though.....

No real complaints about the other leaders, though I think they could have put Charlemagne under the French or the Germans.

Also think Haile Selassie might have made a better Ethiopian leader than Zara Yaqob.

 

[Corn]

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

It was also a very good post with some moving quotes that directly addressed the OP. I think it was well-played.

 

[LightSpectra]

Second, the inquisition didn't just happen in Europe. Most of the deaths from this came from Spanish territory.

You mean, 5,000 people executed is most of 50 million?

The exact numbers range from a low--a low even church scholars state--of 8 million killed,

This number is insane. I refuse to give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be like saying 20 billion people died in the Vietnamese war. How would a couple of priests and monks have killed 8 million people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

Remember that the Spanish inquisition was the only sect that was incredibly corrupt and bloodthirsty. The Roman and Portugese inquisitions probably had death tolls in the low hundreds, possibly even less than that.

to a stupidly fantastical high of 100 million,

Considering that's greater than the entire population of the Western world at the time... yeah, stop reading Chick tracts.

the vast majority of which were Native Americans.

Many were killed by disease. Some were executed to maintain religious control. To count every single one that died to smallpox as a death by the Inquisition is laughable. Jesuit missionaries may have deliberately killed something of a few hundred. The majority of native deaths came from orders by the kings from Europe who wanted to establish totalitarian colonies.

Most quote around 50 million killed now,

Most people who read Chick tracts are in the millions. Most historians go with 3 or 4,000 people total.

I personally believe it's more around 20 to 25 million though, based on the population of the Americas before Columbus, and the fact that disease did the most damage.

Which were transmitted through Catholic inquisitors? Yeah. Okay. I wasn't aware Columbus' men were under employment of the Pope.

Whatever the number actually is, it was tremendously high,

4,000 is tremendously high. I regret that the king and queen of Spain took the authority away from the Church and used it for politics and genocide. Though I don't go completely insane and try to cite millions of people dead.

And yes I realize the Crusades were more complex than most believe them as, but nonetheless.

Please read over what you just wrote.

"Well I know I was just completely wrong, but I still maintain it."

I was just saying they weren't as bad as the Nazis,

It's feasible that they were, death toll-wise. Most ancient Aztec history is unclear or just lost. If their human sacrifices have been around since the beginning of their civilizations, they may have killed millions of people.

 

[Luso]

If some of you say that Aztecs was worse than Nazis then why Nazis isn't in the game?

spain worked like nazis in the discoveries,and dont believe in all you read about aztecs or incas,because if they were extincted then spain could changed what they were,so we dont have any aztec or inca descendent to prove it.

 

[Scaramanga]

People are always talking about leaders featured in Civilization like they could have done a better job if they were in their shoes .

Winning isn't everything when it comes to inclusion in the games, it's more about fame IMO (although not in a Paris Hilton kind of way).

 

[dante alighieri]

People are always talking about leaders featured in Civilization like they could have done a better job if they were in their shoes .

Yeah, I find it particularly irksome when someone says something like "If Firaxis had any balls they'd have put hitler in the game". Anyone who makes a statement like that is automatically considered a loon.

 

[GuitarHero]

Hitler was a terrible Leader. But that mustache is really funny looking.

 

[Luso]

What is for you a good leader??

 

[Peng Qi]

If some of you say that Aztecs was worse than Nazis then why Nazis isn't in the game?

Because none of our grandparents fought in the war against the Aztecs, very few of our relatives were slaughtered by the Aztecs, images of the Aztecs aren't banned in Germany, and most people don't know how truly awful the Aztecs were (the same way most people don't realize that Stalin was much worse than Hitler in terms of slaughtering his own people).

spain worked like nazis in the discoveries,and dont believe in all you read about aztecs or incas,because if they were extincted then spain could changed what they were,so we dont have any aztec or inca descendent to prove it.

Actually, the Aztecs' own pictographic records support everything the Spanish said about them.

 

[Angst]

Hitler was a terrible Leader. But that mustache is really funny looking.

Hitler was succesful rebuilding Germany from WWI, and he had a dang good charisma, but his strategical skills were... Ehm... *cough cough*

"Hey, we're fighting Britan now and have a broad naval front... Heck, I want to backstab Russia and get a hell of a land front too! Yay!"
-Hitler

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

No, the problem isn't really Charismatic...
...But Philosophical? WTH?

"I am a great American thinker = I look like a monkey and think like a banana." -Abe Lincoln

No Anti-Americanism, I just thought that was a tiny bit too nationalistic...

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Actually, those are polls. He's not cited by historians as one of the greatest, he's cited by common people as one of the greatest.

"ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion."
There are many rankings...

Go to the section scholars survey...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents#Scholar_surveys_details
In the table get down to the 32nd President of the USA (FDR), look at the consistency of his rankings in multiple surveys of scholars...
Lowest ranking: 3, best ranking 1
This is from 1948 to 2005...

"The 1962 survey was also conducted by Schlesinger, who surveyed 75 historians"
"The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents also gives the results of the 1982 survey, a poll of 49 historians conducted by the Chicago Tribune."
"The 1996 column shows the results from a poll conducted from 1989 to 1996 by William J. Ridings, Jr. and Stuart B. McIver, and published in the book Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent. More than 719 people took part in the poll, primarily academic historians and political scientists, although some politicians and celebrities also took part."
"A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced."

"Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. [5] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholarsequal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholarsrated him the sixth-best, giving President George W. Bush a split-decision rating of "average"."

Before discarding data provided to you, you might want to read with more care... There was clearly a visible section with the title "Scholar surveys". Which is what I was talking about.
I know you don't like FDR, but come on!!!

 

[GuitarHero]

What is for you a good leader??

Somone who can unite the people for one cause.
Who can work out problems.
Who is a boon to their people.

Hitler is only the second trait. Genghis Khan is all three.

 

[wooitee6]

If we want to include leaders like FDR, Churchill, Stalin and even de Gaulle(I dun think he made any great impact during the WWII), I think we should include Chiang Kai-shek for China as well. He was in a even more difficult situation than any above leaders and he did it. China was underdeveloped, disorganized, chaotic and controlled by several different military power but he managed to unify Chinese people to fight against the mighty advance modernized Japanese army and won the eight year war(1937-1945). Even he couldn't have done it without U.S. help, even he lost the civil war to Mao Zedong a few years later after WWII, I really think he deserve more credit for leading China to fight against Japan invasion.

But for now, China people dun know much about him, and Taiwan people dun like him anymore. Sigh...

 

[GuitarHero]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

[LightSpectra]

If some of you say that Aztecs was worse than Nazis then why Nazis isn't in the game?

We have Germany. We don't have Hitler, which is because then Firaxis would lose its German market.

 

[wooitee6]

Welcome to the Forums!

haha, thanks just started playing beyond the sword. This forum is really amazing. A lot of interesting discussion here.

 

[GuitarHero]

We have Germany. We don't have Hitler, which is because then Firaxis would lose its German market.

I know corporations have no spine, but Hitler was still a terrible leader, no matter how branded he is in the mind of all.
That last part sounded kind of deep.

 

[Peng Qi]

Before discarding data provided to you, you might want to read with more care... There was clearly a visible section with the title "Scholar surveys". Which is what I was talking about.
I know you don't like FDR, but come on!!!

I actually just didn't notice it. Sorry.

No, the problem isn't really Charismatic...
...But Philosophical? WTH?

Lincoln was the closest thing that America has ever had to an atheist president (he was very agnostic). He thought about religion and morality constantly.