Leaders we don't want.

[The Almighty dF]

calgacus - your obviously misinformed about US History. I've taken several college level courses on the subject and pretty much every point you have made is dead wrong. You put FDR up on a pedestal and try to belittle all of Washington's achievements. Its obvious your just arguing for the sake of it, and honestly I'm quite sick of reading your idiotic post. Your a moron if you think you know more about US history than people from the US that have studied it in college. That would be like me trying to tell you all about Albanian history which I know nothing about because its completely unimportant. Go read up on the subject and come back and kindly take your foot out of your mouth.

Moderator Action: You are welcome to show where another poster is, in your opinion, wrong. You are not allowed to do it by attacking them personally.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

In Shiggs' defense, calgacus seems to be trolling. At least I'm hoping that's trolling.

 

[Brownsfan02]

if you got rid of Lincoln IF you did, you should add Teddy Roosevelt

 

[The Almighty dF]

if you got rid of Lincoln IF you did, you should add Teddy Roosevelt

Teddy's too awesome to be a Civ leader, though.
He can't be held as just a leaderhead. He'd leap out and beat all of the animals on your continent to death.
We're talking about the guy that got shot in the chest while giving a speech, then decided "Eh, it's in the bone I think. Never mind it." then continues giving his speech, bleeding the entire time.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Yeah, guess Teddy really is too awesome to be a civ leader.

 

[Traitorfish]

However, with the Celts... you do have to go with a general type person. But even then, go for Vercingetorix. You can't get a better Celt leader than him.

Why not great nation-builders like Robert Bruce or Brian Boru? The Celts, I have said, survived long after the Roman period.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Why not great nation-builders like Robert Bruce or Brian Boru? The Celts, I have said, survived long after the Roman period.

I tend to consider that to be a seperate two civs, honestly. Those are more Scotland and Ireland to me than Celts.
It's all a matter of time. Can you honestly compare Boudica and Vercingetorix to Bruce and Boru?

 

[Shrinking_12]

Maybe another leader for Japan... I know Tokugawa its ok, but maybe one that represents a more "actual" Japan

 

[Traitorfish]

I tend to consider that to be a seperate two civs, honestly. Those are more Scotland and Ireland to me than Celts.
It's all a matter of time. Can you honestly compare Boudica and Vercingetorix to Bruce and Boru?

Well, they were both Gaels, who are considered a Celtic people. They may not have considered themselves as such, but neither did the ancient Gauls or Britons, at least not in the sense that we now use the term. Certainly, many modern inhabitants of the "Celtic Nations" consider themselves to be Celts, much as a Czech, say, may consider himself to be Slavic.

 

[ko3ak]

...I'm sorry but that doesn't make much sense.
The latter point does. I'm okay with tyrants being thrown in. Just as long as these tyrants were actually the leaders of their nation/tribe.
Gandhi was a spiritual guru to his people and as such works best as a Great Prophet. We're not making Muhammed leader of the Arabic Empire, for example, no matter how influential he was to the Arabs. Great Prophet? That's perfect. There's a big difference between leading in the way nearly all of the other Civ leaders lead, and leading in the way of Gandhi (Great Prophet), Joan of Arc (Great General), etc.

Yes, Gandhi was a spiritual guru. But he was also more. He was an influential LEADER for his people. LEADER is the key word. Leaders can come in many forms. Not all are kings and generals. I agree he would fit into the Great Prophet category as well, but there were many great prophets who were not great leaders. Gandhi was both. Therefore, it does make sense.

Also, comparing Gandhi to Mohammed is not fair because Gandhi, though he was a spiritual leader, he was also a political leader because he lead his nation to independence. Gandhi should be in the game, and he will be.

 

[ko3ak]

The only reason why Hitler isn't a leader in this game is because of controversy
If a Civilization 1000 is made in 2000 years, Hitler will be like Alexander the Great or any other guy, because his evil presence isn't felt anymore and he's just another historic figure

Agreed. So basically he should be in the game, but he's not because some people might be upset if he was.

Stalin made the Russia a worlds superpower. Hitler lead Germany to a disaster. Pretty different things if you ask me. And as a Lithuanian I truly dont feel any love for Stalin, believe me But facts are facts: Stalin deserved to get in civ despite the terrible things he did. Hitler did not. He was just an idiot at the right time in the right place.

Hitler also made Germany a world superpower. They were in dire straits after WW1. Hitler took a devastated nation and made them powerful enough to conquer most of Europe. Also, when last I checked, Germany is still a major world power. I hardly call that disaster. It's not like Germany disappeared with Hitler. Germany is a strong nation today, because Hitler got them there.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hitler's role is highly debatable. Certainly, he did not appear to be a particular gifted administrator, statesman or military commander- "ruler", if you will- and his attempts to involve himself on national policy in anything more than a superficial manner had a habit of ranging from ineffective to disastrous. While he was an charismatic leader, his competence as a "ruler" is far from assured; to attribute all the success of Nazi Germany to on individual is to ignore the political, military and economic powers which supported and sustained his rule.

Also, to suggest that Germany's current well-being is a result of Hitler's actions is simply ridiculous. World War 2 left Germany- an industrialised, modern nation long before Hitler got his grubby little paws on it- broken, partitioned and irrelevant as an autonomous political entity, a poor comparison even to the depths of the depression.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I agree, after WWII Germany was broken, and became an industrialized nation far after when it should have become industrialized because of Hitler (who I think should be in the game, but won't because he is associated with evil).

 

[ko3ak]

Hitler's role is highly debatable. Certainly, he did not appear to be a particular gifted administrator, statesman or military commander- "ruler", if you will- and his attempts to involve himself on national policy in anything more than a superficial manner had a habit of ranging from ineffective to disastrous. While he was an charismatic leader, his competence as a "ruler" is far from assured; to attribute all the success of Nazi Germany to on individual is to ignore the political, military and economic powers which supported and sustained his rule.

Also, to suggest that Germany's current well-being is a result of Hitler's actions is simply ridiculous. World War 2 left Germany- an industrialised, modern nation long before Hitler got his grubby little paws on it- broken, partitioned and irrelevant as an autonomous political entity, a poor comparison even to the depths of the depression.

If it wasn't for the infrastructure that was built up during Hitler's rule, Germany wouldn't have recovered so quickly. West Germany rebounded very quickly after the war. Yes, they were occupied, but they still managed to form a new government and get their economy back on track.

 

[Traitorfish]

If it wasn't for the infrastructure that was built up during Hitler's rule, Germany wouldn't have recovered so quickly. West Germany rebounded very quickly after the war. Yes, they were occupied, but they still managed to form a new government and get their economy back on track.

And because the Allies poured massive aid into the country to fast-track it's recovery. Perhaps they utilised some of the infrastructure left by the Nazis- itself adapted from older Republican infrastructure, which was in turn received from the Empire- but that in itself was worth very little when weighed against the damage that Hitler's madness inflicted upon the country. Certainly, Germany in 1933 was in no less of a position to improve itself than Germany in 1945.

The simple reason that Hitler should not be in the game, beyond any political associations, or because of the atrocities he was responsible for, is because he was a delusional, incompetent demagogue, and would be a very poor, even insulting representation of the German nation. That he weighs so heavily on the conscience of the Western world is no reason to pretend that he was much more than that, nor to pretend that he ranks alongside nation-builders like Cyrus or statesmen like Bismarck.

 

[ko3ak]

And because the Allies poured massive aid into the country to fast-track it's recovery. Perhaps they utilised some of the infrastructure left by the Nazis- itself adapted from older Republican infrastructure, which was in turn received from the Empire- but that in itself was worth very little when weighed against the damage that Hitler's madness inflicted upon the country. Certainly, Germany in 1933 was in no less of a position to improve itself than Germany in 1945.

The simple reason that Hitler should not be in the game, beyond any political associations, or because of the atrocities he was responsible for, is because he was a delusional, incompetent demagogue, and would be a very poor, even insulting representation of the German nation. That he weighs so heavily on the conscience of the Western world is no reason to pretend that he was much more than that, nor to pretend that he ranks alongside nation-builders like Cyrus or statesmen like Bismarck.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Hitler was equal to Bismarck or Cyrus. I'm just saying he was a very powerful and influential leader for Germany and during his reign that nation gained significant power and dominated all of Europe. It took the entire developed world to bring him down. You can't argue with that.

Also, many of history's conquerors and rulers were downright madmen. Just because Hitler was a lunatic, doesn't detract from what Germany accomplished during his rule.

 

[Perfxion]

Hitler's reign is 12 years and they started and ended WORSE after him. Thus he should NEVER be in the game. Celo, Shaka also have their nations worst off than before. But they atleast have legends worth talking about. What good did Hilter ever do that is worthy of putting him in over Bismark?

 

[Jagatai]

Well, they were both Gaels, who are considered a Celtic people. They may not have considered themselves as such, but neither did the ancient Gauls or Britons, at least not in the sense that we now use the term. Certainly, many modern inhabitants of the "Celtic Nations" consider themselves to be Celts, much as a Czech, say, may consider himself to be Slavic.

Actually Robert the Bruce was a Normano-Scottish Lowlander, not a Gael. Great Leader for a Scottish nation, just not a specifically Celtic one. William Wallace was also. If you want Gaelic Scottish leaders you have to either go into the highlands and islands or before the Norman conquest of England.

 

[bonafide11]

A
Hitler also made Germany a world superpower. They were in dire straits after WW1. Hitler took a devastated nation and made them powerful enough to conquer most of Europe. Also, when last I checked, Germany is still a major world power. I hardly call that disaster. It's not like Germany disappeared with Hitler. Germany is a strong nation today, because Hitler got them there.

Can't believe this turned into another Hitler thread. This debate will never end.

Anyway, your sense of history is absolutely terrible. You act like Hitler's policies have led to Germany being a world power now. That's not the case at all. If you remember, Germany was split between the West and East up until a couple decades ago and the fall of the Soviet Union. They were occupied by two of Hitler's enemies for over four decades after Hitler's demise. Hitler left Germany much worse off than when he rose to power, and they were in a bad situation then. So don't act like Hitler turned Germany into a world power and they've remained once since then. Great leaders don't leave their capital cities divided by a giant wall with their enemies controlling both sides of the wall! Sure, Hitler made Germany a power for a time, but Germany lost the war and were much worse off for quite a while after that. Bismarck actually turned Germany into a respectable and powerful national state that other European nations had to recognize.

 

[cardgame]

What good did Hilter ever do?

Umm, conquer or ally nearly all of continental Europe?

that is worthy of putting him in over Bismark

oh. Well, true that
Bismarck > Hitler for the purpose of ciV!

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

Leaders we definitely don't want in ciV:

Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama.