Leaders we don't want.

[)Zarathustra(]

Problem is to relate greatness and power.

The reason why Germany should be in this game is not because of Hitler nor because they kicked everybody's arse in 1940, but because of Beethoven, of Wagner, of Kant and Hegel, of Goethe, of Luther.

Germany brought protestantism, brought an incredible number of incredible artists and artistic movement (hello romanticism), and the greatest philosophers since the Greeks to the world. That's greatness. Blitzkrieging Poland's arse, that's not really glorious.

Why do we remember Greek? Because of Plato, of Eschilles, of Pericles, of their religion, on the incredible influence they had on world history. And if Alexander is to be remembered, it's not because his army kicked ass, but because he brought Persian, Egyptian and Greek cultures together.

 

[Arakhor]

And because his wide-ranging military conquests imprinted the Ancient world for centuries to come, inspiring the Romans to become even better than they were.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

And because his wide-ranging military conquests imprinted the Ancient world for centuries to come, inspiring the Romans to become even better than they were.

That's absolutely not true. Romans conquest don't have anything to do with Alexander.

Plus, Roman civilization's greatness is the incredible synthesis they did from other cultures, their artists, philosophers, their incredibly original archtecture, society, etc etc etc...

Their conquest allowed them to get influenced, to share their culture etc... but they are definitly not what makes them "great" in my eyes. Roman civilization has been a pinacle, certainly not because of the size of their empire.

 

[Arakhor]

The Romans idolised the Greeks and Ancient Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Without Alexander's conquests, I doubt this would have been true.

 

[Ribannah]

To quote Isaac Newton: we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

To quote Isaac Newton: we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before.

I think we all agree.

The Romans idolised the Greeks and Ancient Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. Without Alexander's conquests, I doubt this would have been true.

Sorry I fail to see in what that goes against what I was saying. What Romans took to the Greeks is precisely their culture, their gods, their theatre, their philosophy, and everything also Alexander had brought from Orient during his conquest.

The military aspect is just contingent to all this. Saying that the most important thing Romans took from Greek is their military skill or that Greek influence to Roman civilization is mainly Alexander military success is just gross.

 

[TheDervish]

Khomeini.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

Problem is to relate greatness and power.

The reason why Germany should be in this game is not because of Hitler nor because they kicked everybody's arse in 1940, but because of Beethoven, of Wagner, of Kant and Hegel, of Goethe, of Luther.

Germany brought protestantism, brought an incredible number of incredible artists and artistic movement (hello romanticism), and the greatest philosophers since the Greeks to the world. That's greatness. Blitzkrieging Poland's arse, that's not really glorious.

Why do we remember Greek? Because of Plato, of Eschilles, of Pericles, of their religion, on the incredible influence they had on world history. And if Alexander is to be remembered, it's not because his army kicked ass, but because he brought Persian, Egyptian and Greek cultures together.

Why can't Germany be remembered for being both a cultural and military powerhouse? You seem to be thinking solely in terms of an in-game builder strategy, but try to remember that the Civilization franchise also tries to appeal to the warmongers. I think conquerors are very much viable candidates for leaders (though Hitler is right out for all the usual reasons). Alexander the Great, for one, is definitely remembered as a conqueror, not a builder. Julius Caesar, much the same; ask any historian what he did, and you'll get information about winning the civil war to take control of the Republic and conquering Gaul long before you hear any mention of his public works programs or calendar reforms. Ditto for Napoleon. The reputation of Genghis Khan goes without saying. And heck, even Washington was first and foremost a war leader. Like it or not, these are the names and deeds that are associated with these great empires in the minds of laymen. Do not underestimate the importance of war in the shaping both actual history and (just as important when designing a popular game series) the popular conception thereof.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

Why can't Germany be remembered for being both a cultural and military powerhouse? You seem to be thinking solely in terms of an in-game builder strategy, but try to remember that the Civilization franchise also tries to appeal to the warmongers. I think conquerors are very much viable candidates for leaders (though Hitler is right out for all the usual reasons). Alexander the Great, for one, is definitely remembered as a conqueror, not a builder. Julius Caesar, much the same; ask any historian what he did, and you'll get information about winning the civil war to take control of the Republic and conquering Gaul long before you hear any mention of his public works programs or calendar reforms. Ditto for Napoleon. The reputation of Genghis Khan goes without saying. And heck, even Washington was first and foremost a war leader. Like it or not, these are the names and deeds that are associated with these great empires in the minds of laymen. Do not underestimate the importance of war in the shaping both actual history and (just as important when designing a popular game series) the popular conception thereof.

What I say is the following: war isn't, and will never be a good or great thing by itself, nor a criteria for any kind of value of a civilization.

It can be a "good", it can be greatness. Revolutionary wars from the French revolution and the first part of Napoleonic era are a moment of greatness, but it is the entusiasm, the wind of freedom which carried them which made them great. Not the fact that French army was better and kicked everybody's arse. And later, Napoleon as a tyran and a conqueror is not a glorious page of French history.

Colonial wars are nothing great. Japanese wars of the twentieth century are nothing great. And if Japan has to be rememberd for something it's not for its imperialist policy of agression, and its disastrous results but for its amazing culture.

Germany will be remembered as a military powerhouse, but that's related to the most shameful and low part of its history. Nothing to be entusiastic or proud about.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Some leaders I don't want and ones I do:

I have never understood what Cleopatra did for egypt. She's an interesting love story, but closer to Lady Chatterly than Queen Elizabeth. Much rather have Hatshepsut who ruled the empire or best of all Ramses II.

Don't bring back FDR. Rather have Jefferson or Washington. Feel they did a lot more for the country.

Never again use Joan of Arc. Napoleon should always always always rule France and he should be a wicked awesome general.

Gandhi is not one I would pick either, because he didn't ever build an empire, he was an outstanding citizen. He's like Martin Luther King Jr., an inspirational spiritual figure, but not in my opinion an Empire builder. I'd rather have Asoka. But I do get that Gandhi is iconic.

I don't get preferring Wu Zhou to Qin Shi Huang. The articles indicate taht Wu is in and Shi Huang is out, but that's just silly to me. Wu's accomplishment was impressive, but Shi Huang took the warring states and made China. I honestly wonder if we're just going for more female leaders here.

Last, I don't want Ghenghis, but only because I think Kublai Khan is a better choice. I'm fine with either, but prefer Kublai who turned the nomads into a political empire.

you make very good points. I'm sold.

Okay, have to admit one thing -- Can't stand the thought of Julius making it in over Augustus. Well, obviously I can because I'm going to buy the game, but still ... shoot.

You make good points and I agree with all of them (now that you've been converted on Genghis )

Caesar is in over Augustus simply because he's a much more famous figure that's been romanticized in countless Hollywood movies. I mean his surname is used to this day to describe powerful rulers. The drama and turmoil that unfolded between him and Pompeii, Cleopatra, Mark Antony is legendary and no doubt he is certainly one of the "great men" of Roman history so I cannot complain about his selection too much BUT

That being said, Augustus (Octavian) Caesar is ROME, (the Roman Empire at least) as far as I am concerned. There simply is no better representative of peak Rome, Golden Age Rome, the Pax Romana than Augustus.

Caesar is a great representative of the inflection point in Roman history between Republic and Empire.

But Augustus is the representative for a powerful, dominant Roman Empire.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Also Julius has always been the leader for Rome in the Civilization games as opposed to Augustus, so it's more also just a tradition more than anything. For example, in every civilization game, Gandhi's traditionally the Indian leader, Alexander the Greek leader, Montezuma the Aztec leader, and Bismarck the German leader (not that I agree or disagree with them per se). However, it does seem like the developers are breaking away with tradition for some of the civilizations - such as kicking Mao out and putting in Wu Zeitian for China and having Nobunaga instead of Tokugawa for Japan (changes that I personally like).

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

What I say is the following: war isn't, and will never be a good or great thing by itself, nor a criteria for any kind of value of a civilization.

It can be a "good", it can be greatness. Revolutionary wars from the French revolution and the first part of Napoleonic era are a moment of greatness, but it is the entusiasm, the wind of freedom which carried them which made them great. Not the fact that French army was better and kicked everybody's arse. And later, Napoleon as a tyran and a conqueror is not a glorious page of French history.

Colonial wars are nothing great. Japanese wars of the twentieth century are nothing great. And if Japan has to be rememberd for something it's not for its imperialist policy of agression, and its disastrous results but for its amazing culture.

Germany will be remembered as a military powerhouse, but that's related to the most shameful and low part of its history. Nothing to be entusiastic or proud about.

I'm not speaking of pride or enthusiasm. An empire's historical high point can easily be its moral low point; one does not have to be good to be great.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Just to be fair to him, Xerxes was actually a pretty decent ruler overall. That he stumbled in Greece does not, despite the narrow Western view, mark him out as a "loser", any more than Kublai Khan's failure to conquer Vietnam implies that he is a loser.

A really excellent point: despite the obvious (and at times ignorant bias from many Westerners about Xerxes coming from entertaining works of fiction like "300" where the Persians were basically monsters) Xerxes was a decent ruler who actually achieved the minimal objectives in the Greek campaign by taking Athens.

 

[Tavdy79]

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.

In terms of dominance, the British Empire at its peak wipes the floor with America. During the 19th and early 20th centuries the ultimate display of military might was naval supremacy - and the Royal Navy was over twice as big as the nearest two competitors. Modern military might is based on number of nuclear weapons, and that puts the USA in second place (to Russia).

In terms of economic might, the USA's position is nothing like as strong as the British Empire's was. Both had/have direct control over roughly a quarter of the planet's economy, however the British Empire had no significant economic rivals during the century following the defeat of Napoleon, and was able to use its dominance to gain economic control over countries like China, Siam and Argentina throughout that period.

By contrast, the USA has only enjoyed economic hegemony for a few years following the dissolution of the USSR. The European Union has been the planet's dominant economy for over half a decade, and since its economic growth is primarily due to ongoing territorial expansion, with the potential for its population to increase by around 150 million over the next few decades, it is likely to retain its current position for some time to come. During the same period four other contenders for the top spot have emerged - China, Russia, India and the USAN (South America).

 

[The Q-Meister]

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.

A large percentage of every country's "golden age" population has people living in poor conditions.

That being said, the poor in America (and much of the industrialized world) have access to a social safety net (welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, subsidized housing, unemployment insurance etc) which would have seemed quite generous to the poor people of the industrial, renaissance or ancient epochs of history.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Interesting how this thread has morphed from "leaders we don't want to see" to a debate about the superpower status of the United States.

 

[Ribannah]

A large percentage of every country's "golden age" population has people living in poor conditions.

That being said, the poor in America (and much of the industrialized world) have access to a social safety net (welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, subsidized housing, unemployment insurance etc) which would have seemed quite generous to the poor people of the industrial, renaissance or ancient epochs of history.

I doubt it. Rome, for instance, had an excellent social security net. You could sign up as a slave and be taken care of for the remainder of your days. Not what we would want to do now, but it worked. In many civilizations, clans took care of their own. In others, guilds. In India, beggars were honoured. The USA, otoh, are the only civilization in all of mankind's history where someone can work three jobs and still not have enough to eat.

But the point is that it is not normal to have a large percentage of needy people during a golden age. Golden ages describe the entire civilization, not the happy few.

 

[Arakhor]

Insurance does not make a social security net; it simply provides for those who can afford to pay for a rainy day. The truly disadvantaged are still buggered.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

Okay. Let's straighten a few things out.
1) Zarathustra seems to think that military doesn't matter, but cultural achievements do. If it was all culture, Mongolia wouldn't be in Civ. Furthermore, you defend the inclusion of the Zulus when there are much more deserving sub-Saharan civilizations. The Zulus are in because of their military.
2) The US is not the dustbin of the world's culture. Hollywood produces more internationally recognized films than any other country. You can find American songs in many foreign countries radio stations. Many of the famous musicians in the world today work in America, if they are not from America. The US exports a lot of culture; you don't have to like it, but it does.
3) How bad were conditions for Roman slaves? Most defeated enemy soldiers chose death before slavery. Furthermore, in many other civilizations they didn't have the same rights. In the US, you still have your basic rights whether you're rich or poor.

 

[Traitorfish]

The USA, otoh, are the only civilization in all of mankind's history where someone can work three jobs and still not have enough to eat.

If there's any truth to that assertion, it's the "three" part; traditionally, you just had one twelve-hour job to starve with.