Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[GuitarHero]

The problem with all Governments is the leader. Dictatorships and Monarchies need skilled leaders to work. Whereas Democracies are instant doom to a good leader. Anarchy against the weak, Dictatorship for the strong, that's the way to go!

 

[Antilogic]

I fully believe the best government is enlightened despotism. Now, insuring your leader is enlightened takes a little work...so I espouse the far more realistic Plato's Republic-inspired idea that only the educated should rule.

 

[BYC]

I fully believe the best government is enlightened despotism. Now, insuring your leader is enlightened takes a little work...so I espouse the far more realistic Plato's Republic-inspired idea that only the educated should rule.

I agree with this. Obviously, it's almost impossible to do, but if the evils that lurk in the hearts of man isn't there, then all it takes is somebody with the vision and the drive, and everybody will follow that person.

I think the Burger King would be an awesome ruler. He personally goes around making sure people aren't suffering from hunger.

Just sayin'

 

[Arlborn]

Somebody baselessly hates authoritarianism.

I don't see your point with relation to his post.

 

[dragodon64]

Personally the more liberal the government, the better. I don't mean Democracy vs. Monarchy, I mean the policies of the actual ruler/administration. The more governments leave people alone, the better off the people (and by that, the government) are. You could have a hands off approach with a despot, a king, a president, but not in a theocratic or communist leadership.

 

[Kettu]

Great guy? Great guy?!

He deliberately dissolved the republic, and effectively crowned himself king of Rome. He threw back the political system of one of the most forward-thinking empires of the age about 500 years! I can appreciate his work trying to avoid a civil war with Pompey, but naming himself "Dictator For Life" just ended up causing another. Good general, crap human being.

What I ment was that he was "great" in historical point of view, he did great deeds. You can say that he changed the history of Europe and the whole world. Didn't intend to say that his actions were in right or what kind of a person he was as a human being.

 

[Angst]

Julius maybe declared himself dictator for life and made the Roman Republic dissolve, but as long as the Roman dictator was good and able, a dictatorship is quite effecient. (That is, I agree with Antilogic)

 

[QBurrito]

But the problem is that Antilogic's system only works if the dictators are incorruptible. All of them. Just look what Nero did! Once you start a dictatorship, you leave it open to exploitation by future dictators.

The republic was an excellent government. No leader, all posts were redundant. I really think that, barring an ability to genetically engineer a perfect line of dictators, we should attempt to emulate the Roman Republic. Maybe with a few more guaranteed rights, and less slavery, but conceptually, it is one of the best governmental systems I've heard of.

 

[GuitarHero]

Hmm. Well, there could be a Council whose members were members for life as well as the Dictator. The system would work like this: First, there is a Council elected by the people, then the Council elects a Dictator, who elects new Council members when old ones die. Every important decision would be voted on by the Council and the Dictator. The not important ones would be settled by the Dictator.

 

[Menzies]

Julius maybe declared himself dictator for life and made the Roman Republic dissolve, but as long as the Roman dictator was good and able, a dictatorship is quite effecient. (That is, I agree with Antilogic)

Yeah, judging by you picture you have a depth of wisdom to call upon.

Why if your at your own home would you bother with an ear phone...

Also, you look like a twit with your hand in front of your face.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. The resulting off-topic conversation has been deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dragodon64]

One of the main benefits of an enlightened despot wouldn't be what they did for the country, but that they could prevent more restricting leaders from stepping in and screwing things up.

 

[Menzies]

I agree, the choice to not have Italy in the game was spot on!

 

[DrewTate]

It would have been ridiculous to have Italy in the game. They have no spot whatsoever in a game like this. Rome? Yes, definitely, in fact, they need a third leader. Italy? Are you serious?

 

[GuitarHero]

I vote Constatine for the new leader of Rome. (Spi/Org).

 

[Angst]

I vote Constatine for the new leader of Rome. (Spi/Org).

Why not Byzantium?

 

[GuitarHero]

Even though he founded Byzantium and renamed their capital Constantinople, he was the Roman Emperor.

 

[dutchking]

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

Wow.

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

He's unpopular by rednecks. YOu know why he was charismatic? He held the entire US together during the civil war.

-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

WOW.
I cannot reply to the first and third...

 

[cybrxkhan]

There was once this nice little quote said by someone I forgot the name:

"That government which wants to make the people happy, and knows how to, is the best government"

So, my conclusion is that there is no good government really. But, in all, i believe the best government you can get to is enlightened despotism.

But...


Some leaders I think shouldn't be here:

- Ramses II - okay, he built lots of stuff. and people know him. but not as many as Cleopatra, really. i think someone like Thuthmosis, Snefru, Narmer (as originally planned by Firaxis), or even Khufu would be better.
- Mao - it isn't very surprising even the PRC doesn't think Mao should be in Civ - the CHinese version of Civ DOESN'T have Mao in it, i think. anyhow, too many good good chinese emperors and leaders to choose...
- Hannibal - he's a cannibal.
- Ragnar - he's half-real. Canute can fit the Viking stereotype just as good.
- Any one of the WWII leaders. Not that they were crap, but I just think theres too many of them. most of history isn't one decade, you know.

and theres me finish complaining.

 

[LightSpectra]

Even though he founded Byzantium and renamed their capital Constantinople, he was the Roman Emperor.

So was Justinian. At the time, it was called the Eastern Roman Empire.

Constantine marks the split between the two halves of Rome.

 

[Peng Qi]

He's unpopular by rednecks.

No, he's not. Stop trying to pretend that conservatives love slavery. Remember: The Republican party's first platform was abolitionism. The Democrats tried to keep slavery alive.

WOW.
I cannot reply to the first and third...

A lot of people agree with him on FDR, myself included.