1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Leaders we don't want.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by CornPlanter, Mar 2, 2010.

  1. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,020
    Location:
    Transtavia
    Well said. Also America's greatest president, but that's another matter ...


    :lol:

    Traits: Lustful/Nepotistic

    Or ... maybe Warren Harding, instead?!


    Or maybe even Marilyn Monroe (if being overpraised and dying "young" is a criterion)? :crazyeye:
     
  2. Midnight-Blue766

    Midnight-Blue766 The filidh that cam frae Skye

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,452
    Location:
    Northern Equestria
    Mao Zedong: I know he modernized China, but he also sort of screwed up China in the process.

    Gandhi: I know he was a great man, but there are many other people that represent India besides him.

    I wouldn't mind both Mao and Gandhi in a game of Civ with multiple leaders, but since there will only be 1 leader per civ in this game, I'll have to rule these guys out.
     
  3. The Almighty dF

    The Almighty dF Pharaoh

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,252
    Location:
    dFland
    Yeah. Mao's an odd one because his successes were basically just new lows of failure. And he was proud of this (I paraphrased his Qin Shi Huang quote in this thread earlier, I believe.)
    He's kinda like the little retard that could.

    He is... the dictatorial equivalent of Rube Goldberg.
     
  4. ADP101

    ADP101 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    211
    Yea but as i said, he was never actually the leader of India as the rest of the leaders are. And if you look at the history of india, its famous for war, lots and lots of war. And still is filled with violence and non peacfullness (yes i just made that word up :lol:) Gandhi is a terrible choice for a leader, he himself even stated he would never want to be the leader of the new union. The leader i suggested are a wayyy better alternative
     
  5. Churchill's Hat

    Churchill's Hat Mortal

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    325
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    This is a very warped view of history. During the Gilded Age, from about the 1870s to the early 1900s, the country was more governed by money and for bankers or machine politics. Then, they came back towards public good and ultimately we arrived at a partisan Congress that tries to work for what they see as the public good but ultimately fails.
     
  6. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    Despite your chosen handle, you seem to know absolutely nothing about the Iroquois, who were called the Romans of North America for good reason. With an army tinier than anyone else's, they built an empire the size of Persia. They introduced participatory democracy to the world and wrote a constitution generally known as the Great Law of Peace. Their agricultural advances, military skills and city planning, for instance, were at least on par with Europe at the time they met. No European colonials treated them as 'savages', rather they looked up to their philosophy which included free religion and emancipation. The Iroquois literature was mostly spoken, but that is not really so different from Rome (most written Roman literature is about military expeditions where written Iroquois documents are mostly treaties). Still the Iroquois golden age came only after the Europeans arrived, when they gained control over the region both economically and militarily thanks to the fur trade and Dutch muskets.

    Hiawatha is not a mythical figure. Don't mistake the Iroquois leader for Longfellow's character of the same name.
     
  7. )Zarathustra(

    )Zarathustra( Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Stop talking like a condescanding racist douche.

    You speak like a XIXth century colonialist. There is no reason why Zulu should worth less than Americans or English, nor their leaders being less importants than Lincoln or Victoria. And we could discuss the reason which make British civilization being "great" (mainly invading and inslaving half of the planet and destroying whole cultures with a racist ideology, very cool indeed).


    I think they should replace Stalin by Lenin. Putting Stalin for Russians is as silly as putting Hitler for Germans: there is, so to say, nothing positive in this figure.

    Lenin in another hand is a much more positive and important figure in Russian (and world) history (although USSR was in fine a complete failure), and, more important, was not just a straight bastard and tyran.
     
  8. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    Except that he didn't. It was an occupation at best, never an empire.

    The pace of history only seems to have quickened, but in reality it has not. It merely looks that way because we think of many details from recent times as significant. Five centuries from now, all we will remember may be the invention of the internet and some silly visit to the moon.

    In what way, exactly? IIRC the USA lost all the wars they got involved in, with the exception of some where other nations gave them military support. Economically and culturally, the USA are the world's dustbin. Nearly anything of value is owned by foreigners, the USA citizens just consume everything that's put in front of them. (Sorry, couldn't help myself. :p)
     
  9. )Zarathustra(

    )Zarathustra( Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Couldn't have said it better.
     
  10. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,971
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The only war IIRC the USA ever lost was Vietnam (and, by the way, South Vietnam only became annexed by the North two years after the war). The US had allies in almost every war they went into (including Vietnam), and the only ones they didn't were the Barbary Wars (won), the Spanish-American War (won) and the Latin American interventions (they had their way for almost two centuries).

    Lolwut?
     
  11. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    I believe the Cuban rebel forces had some role to play. Or do you mean the capture of Manila the day AFTER peace was signed? :)

    Against the North-African pirates, the USA needed the help of Greek mercenaries after the American navy managed to lose their ship. The second time around, the Dutch had to win the war for them, or the USA would still be paying tribute today.
     
  12. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,971
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The USA won both wars in the end. My point still stands.
     
  13. )Zarathustra(

    )Zarathustra( Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    To both of you guys: since when do we judge greatness of a people by the number of wars he wins? That's a bit sick.
     
  14. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,971
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was only pointing out some historical inaccuracies. IRL, I'm somewhat of a pacifist.
     
  15. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    35,854
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Well, we judge certain people by that - notably famous generals such as Alexander or Caesar, but we shouldn't judge civilisations that way. Basing the USA's claim to greatness on its military might is ridiculous.
     
  16. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,971
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Military might is quite important in history you know.
     
  17. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    What makes the USA interesting as a civilization IMHO is their philosophy that anyone can accomplish anything. This is by no means unique, but they take it to the extreme. That is how their empire came to be, not because of military might.

    However, they are still young, and it's hard to judge whether some golden age is still to come.
     
  18. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,971
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm not saying it's all due to their military might, I'm saying it helps. It's doubtful, for instance, that the United States would become one of the two superpowers of the Cold War without the military muscle to back up their power before and during that period.

    I think being the world's most powerful state in all of history with a contemporary economy almost twice the size of the nearest rival is quite a good achievement already.
     
  19. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    Given that the measurement is based on counting waste, I'm not sure that that is something to be proud of. A large percentage of the USA's population has very poor living conditions. That is not what I look for in a golden age. But who knows, perhaps later when we look back, we have no choice but to call this time so.

    As for the Cold War, since it was never fought, we have no way of knowing who was a superpower in it, or if that even mattered. If you have thousands of nuclear missiles but you cannot ever launch them, what power do you really have?
     
  20. )Zarathustra(

    )Zarathustra( Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    If you consider that dominating the world, wether it's economically or militarily is greatness, yes. This way, Soviet Union was great and Nazi Germany was quite amazing also.

    For my point of view, I would find Inca's achievement much closer to what I would call greatness than what US is today.
     

Share This Page