Leaders we don't want.

[Traitorfish]

That would disqualify most rulers of our history, you know, and the whole British Empire while we are at it (they pretty much believed that Darwinism _proved_ that Brits are the peak of human evolution and thus have the right to rule over the lesser people, such as Africans who were less than wildmen in their eyes).

While the idea that Europeans were more highly evolved was present in that period, you may be misguided in your attribution of such beliefs of Darwinism; much as it is forgotten today, evolution was an established idea before Darwin's time (indeed, his grandfather was a proponent of such, in the form of much more linear models (which often left a comfortable amount of room for "intelligent design" of some sort). Darwinism was noted at the time as radically challenging these models- the very models which ordained the European as the natural and inevitable pinnacle of life- by suggesting an essentially randomly, amoral pattern to evolution and, importantly, suggesting that adaptation to an environment dictated the success of a species or "race" of humans. Darwinism suggested that the African and European were both adapted to their own immediate natural environments, not that either was functionally, let alone morally superior to the other. Darwin himself opposed this school of thought- already well established at the time, and not necessarily drawing on the principal of biological evolution- and deeply resented the appropriation of his purely mechanical explanation to serve political ends.

When you get down to it, the British ruling class believed that they were entitled to rule over "savages" simply because they were able to, through violence and coercion, much as they ruled over their poorer countrymen. Whatever pretensions they dressed their brutality in, it was never anything more.

 

[Kronix]

Abraham Lincoln - totally unnecessary Civil War and of course I don't like him because of this false opinion we have about him. He was a racist - he clearly said he thought that black peoples are worse than white.

Cleopatra - a little more "egyptian" ruler would be better. Thutmose, even Khufu, but certainly not this greek whor... queen.

Joan D'Arc - come on! We do not need a woman who thought that god spoke with her. Besides - he was the same "leader" like gen. Petraeus or Schwarzkopf is "American leader".

u gotta b kidding lets not have leaders cuz there racist towards blacks?? man if u knew how many leaders were racist lol i dont want to remove and leaders adding more would b nice

 

[Wolfwood]

While the idea that Europeans were more highly evolved was present in that period, you may be misguided in your attribution of such beliefs of Darwinism

I'm not attributing such beliefs on Darwinism, but the people who held such beliefs during that period in time used Darwin's theories as further proof that they were right in subjugating other races. But you are right in arguing that the imperialistic ideals pre-existed Darwin's theories.

M... never heard of it. Any sources please? At the times UK ruled the world... to say that Darwin was not widely accepted would be an understatement.

Pretty much textbook stuff. Search for British Imperialism and Darwinism and you should find several sources. Such as:
http://www.bookrags.com/research/social-darwinism-emerges-and-is-use-scit-0512/

 

[seasnake]

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.

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

I generally agree with all that except for Genghis.

Both Genghis' and Kublai's achievements were downright remarkable, but Genghis would be better in my opinion. He was the one who united the Mongols, he was the one who started the Empire and built up all the important institutions (like law codes, communication systems, military organization, and so forth) that would prove the basis for the Mongol Empire... In a sense, he was like (a very bloody) George Washington to all of Mongolia. Kublai Khan was a great leader and an important person in history too, but the Mongolians basically 'worship' (for lack of better wording) Genghis Khan as their nation's father.

Also Kublai, although not too shabby militarily, wasn't as military-focused as Genghis Khan... and in Civilization, the Mongols generally keep a militaristic atmosphere about them...

So that's why I think Genghis would be a better choice for the Mongols.

 

[seasnake]

I generally agree with all that except for Genghis.

Both Genghis' and Kublai's achievements were downright remarkable, but Genghis would be better in my opinion. He was the one who united the Mongols, he was the one who started the Empire and built up all the important institutions (like law codes, communication systems, military organization, and so forth) that would prove the basis for the Mongol Empire... In a sense, he was like (a very bloody) George Washington to all of Mongolia. Kublai Khan was a great leader and an important person in history too, but the Mongolians basically 'worship' (for lack of better wording) Genghis Khan as their nation's father.

Also Kublai, although not too shabby militarily, wasn't as military-focused as Genghis Khan... and in Civilization, the Mongols generally keep a militaristic atmosphere about them...

So that's why I think Genghis would be a better choice for the Mongols.

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.

 

[Shiggs713]

George was pretty damn bloody himself. Early in the war he repeatedly lost battles and skirmishes with greenhorn militia, but they always managed to escape. The British literally should have won the war by the end of August, 1776, but Washington was too slippery. I forgot the guys name, but with the help of a Frenchman he basically whipped up a bunch of farmers and blacksmiths to take on the most powerful military in the world, and we all know the outcome. He overcame threats to his leadership both from the governor of Pennsylvania and from other competing generals like Horatio Gates. He organized a surprise attack on Christmas day on the Hessian's to swing the tide of war. Then there is Valley Forge and crossing the Delaware, it goes on and on, Washington was literally one of the greatest leaders to ever walk the earth.

If you've ever watched the American Revolution on the history channel, you know what I'm talking about, bone chilling stuff. He was a badass.

 

[cybrxkhan]

George was pretty damn bloody himself. Early in the war he repeatedly lost battles and skirmishes with greenhorn militia, but they always managed to escape. The British literally should have won the war by the end of August, 1776, but Washington was too slippery. I forgot the guys name, but with the help of a Frenchman he basically whipped up a bunch of farmers and blacksmiths to take on the most powerful military in the world, and we all know the outcome. He overcame threats to his leadership both from the governor of Pennsylvania and from other competing generals like Horatio Gates. He organized a surprise attack on Christmas day on the Hessian's to swing the tide of war. Then there is Valley Forge and crossing the Delaware, it goes on and on, Washington was literally one of the greatest leaders to ever walk the earth.

If you've ever watched the American Revolution on the history channel, you know what I'm talking about, bone chilling stuff. He was a badass.

Well, actually I'm not too surprised by that... I've learned to respect the guy over the years.

But he can't still beat the Khan. Because when you mess with the Khan... Well, you probably know what happens.

 

[cardgame]

ah just forget that.

I would like Shaka and the Zulu out, and also Mao and Cleopatra. Replace Cleo with one of the Ramsesses.

 

[Hadrean]

I heard somewhere that Mao has already been replaced (assuming one leader per civ). It always puzzled me why they used Joan of Arc in CivIII. I want Shaka and the Zulu out too.

 

[Metal_Casting]

I disagree; while Gandhi was doubtlessly important, and a leader of great significance, he was never a great ruler or statesman, as most leaders in the game are; his recurring presence in the game, I'm sorry to say, has always struck me as reflecting the ignorance of the Westerner in regards to Indian history. If nothing else, the implication that the history of an entire civilisation is best represented by referencing it's relationship with Europe is slightly insulting.

While I agree Gandhi was never a ruler, he was a leader. It was he, who managed to legitimise Nehru. Besides Gandhi, nobody else had authority over all of present day India, even Asoka didn't rule over south India.

 

[Pangur Bán]

While I appreciate why Americans love Washington and think he is a great leader, he's is after all just the leader of some English creoles whose state would one day be a great power. I.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible. Even Lincoln's America is quite unimportant. FDR's America is important though, being a soon-to-be superpower. I'd like FDR as US leader, or perhaps even Eisenhower.

 

[CornPlanter]

Also Kublai, although not too shabby militarily, wasn't as military-focused as Genghis Khan... and in Civilization, the Mongols generally keep a militaristic atmosphere about them...

That's why I'd really like to have them both But if we absolutely must choose only one, yes, it's Temujin without doubts...

I.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible.

Well, in my opinion that makes him even more worthy. He waged war against UK, the top world's power at the time - and he won. I believe we should judge leaders by their own achievements, not by status of their country at their times. Just my opinion

I heard somewhere that Mao has already been replaced

Right. We will have Empress Wu Zetian instead. As I strongly believe the main reason why China is in Civ at all is really not it's achievements as a comunist country but all the rich history before that, I strongly support removing Mao. China must be represented by some ol' Emperor... or Empress if they feel like having more women in the game :/

 

[war ensemble]

While I appreciate why Americans love Washington and think he is a great leader, he's is after all just the leader of some English creoles whose state would one day be a great power. I.e. he's not the head of a major world power, and I'd prefer civ leaders to be that when it is possible. Even Lincoln's America is quite unimportant. FDR's America is important though, being a soon-to-be superpower. I'd like FDR as US leader, or perhaps even Eisenhower.

I'm sorry, but I can't buy this argument. What leaders allowed the US to become a great nation? Washington helped unite the nation, and his democratic ideals are still highly influential today. He formed the first government--if he agreed to a lifelong term as some hoped in his day things would be very different in America.

Lincoln's America is incredibly important for uniting the nation. FDR might have been ruling over the North United States if it wasn't for him.

 

[the Falcon]

…

 

[cardgame]

fat women, ugly women and old women

Victoria covers all of this

 

[ko3ak]

I don't like Cleopatra for the same reasons above. She makes it in usually because of the need for more female leaders. Hatshepsut should replace here and Ramesses II would be a good second leader.

I also feel that a Civ leader does not necessarily have to be a ruler. A leader could be a great general or revolutionary as well. Anyone who is considered a national hero could be a leader. Most of them would of course be presidents, kings and emperors. But why not a great general like Hannibal?

 

[Del Pino]

It doesn't really matter to me, although I wouldn't pick Cleopatra for Egypt.

 

[tantaluss]

I'm not attributing such beliefs on Darwinism, but the people who held such beliefs during that period in time used Darwin's theories as further proof that they were right in subjugating other races. But you are right in arguing that the imperialistic ideals pre-existed Darwin's theories.


Pretty much textbook stuff. Search for British Imperialism and Darwinism and you should find several sources. Such as:
http://www.bookrags.com/research/social-darwinism-emerges-and-is-use-scit-0512/

Your arguements are completely untrue. British Imperialism was never linked to Social-Darwinism. The British Empire in the Americas and Indias was formed for economic reasons that sequring overseas resources gave Britian political and economic independance from Europe. 17th, 18th and 19th century justifuications of the empire were nothing to do with Britain having a superior race, instread it was believe that Britain had supior instuitutions and a constitution, and that it was believed that Britian had a long history of individual liberty and moderatism, which other contries lacked. And that Britain encouraged inovation in ways that others didn't. There were no arguements about racial superioty or social-darwinism until the early 20th century when 'superior race' ideas began to spread in Europe. However, these far-right ideas were a rebellion against the established views of the ruling classes by radicals.

Also claiming that the works of men like Thomas Malthas has anything to do with race is just wrong. Malthus was the first demographer and his study was entirly based on the idea that populations were always kept in check by the ability of the land to produce food. Malthus worry was that the rapid urbanisation of the 17th and 18th century would create food shortages. This was nothing to do with racial improvement.

 

[seasnake]

I don't like Cleopatra for the same reasons above. She makes it in usually because of the need for more female leaders. Hatshepsut should replace here and Ramesses II would be a good second leader.

Agree. Cleo is silly. Ptolemy would be equally silly. But if they want a great leader who's female, just use Hatshepsut again. I actually like her, she's one of a few leaders that can be competitive without being a jerk.

Victoria and Catherine I understand. Wu Zhou did enough I get why you get put her in, even if she's not my first choice. Hatshepsut I WOULD understand. These are female leaders that are great and have intrinsic merit for their accomplishments beyond being women.

But Cleopatra just did not do anything, really. It's sort of like Boudica. Boudica was raped by the Romans and led a rebellion that took a year to crush. Big whoop. Cleopatra managed to seduce Caesar into helping her and Antony into giving Egypt preferential vassal status. Sorry, but I'm just not that impressed.