"Less Popular" Leader Elimination Thread

[Morningcalm]

Yes, but Rameses II did not neglect military or foreign affairs. He did everything and then self-aggrandized on top. I'm fine with that--makes for a good agenda. It's selfish self-aggrandizement at the expense of the ruled people that rankles with me in Akhenaten's case.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Akhenaten 7
Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 23+1=24 - He's among my top choices to represent Byzantium
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 15
Calvin Coolidge (America) 11
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 8-3=5 - He's not among my choices to represent England.
Hezekiah (Judah) 19
Menawa (Creek) 16
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 23
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 20

 

[Morningcalm]

Akhenaten 7 - 3 = 4 (Simply a poor ruler. People only like him due to his monotheistic mandate, which did not keep Egypt's borders secure, its military feared, or its taxes well-balanced.)
Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 24
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 15
Calvin Coolidge (America) 11
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 5
Hezekiah (Judah) 19 + 1 = 20 (Created alliances to defy the Assyrian Empire, made religious reforms, and created defensive measures.)
Menawa (Creek) 16
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 23
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 20

 

[Guandao]

Akhenaten (4-3)=1 Opinions on him here seems divided, but I think there are better male Egyptian pharaohs who should take precedence over him (including Thuthmoses III).
Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 24
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 15
Calvin Coolidge (America) 11
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 5
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) (16+1)=17 I agree with Zaarin on him being a decent leader choice for the Muscogee/Creek. I don't think William McIntosh makes a good leader choice.
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 23
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 20

 

[Morningcalm]

Indeed. Better pharaohs include Senusret III, Rameses II, Hatshepsut, and Amenhotep III (the "Magnificent").

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I didn't know Akbar did this, too. It was done by some other rulers throughout history as well. Most famous is probably Amasis (or was it Psamtik?), as told by Herodot. He found out that the language is phrygian. What did Akbar find out? And while I'm not a big fan of the experiment, I think if you start looking for human rights violation in history....

We'd be hear all year, I know. The experiment was considered a failure as I recall, and while I'm not overly familiar with the example you provided I would probably question they authenticity of its results.

I imagine he found that children who aren't taught a language develop no language. Astonishing.

The irony would have been palpable.

Though not an evolutionary linguist (or whatever the term is), I would guess that mankind has no natural language, and is instead designed to learn how to communicate from their parents. I say that without knowledge of how this works in other primates or mammals, I know some birds have to learn their song but I can't recall if some know them naturally. We might also take a look at that small handful of children raised by animals (which I don't think is a hoax) for this as well.

Nero was interesting. Hitler was interesting. There are plenty of bad leaders who were "interesting".

On that note, I find the idea of Joseph Stalin being a man suffering from legitimate paranoia pretty fascinating, potentially compelling even, though you could argue he was actually somewhat successful if still a bit of a prick.

It's selfish self-aggrandizement at the expense of the ruled people that rankles with me in Akhenaten's case.

I would argue that most leaders who do well don't do so out of altruism, which isn't hard to imagine when you realize that we look back positively on leaders who increase a nation's wealth, territorial possessions, or intellectual community (and thus the power available to the ruler).

 

[Siptah]

We'd be hear all year, I know. The experiment was considered a failure as I recall, and while I'm not overly familiar with the example you provided I would probably question they authenticity of its results.

They just wanted a result. They choose the first thing that sounded and interpreted like it was the word bekos which is the phrygian word for bread and thus decided phrygian is the natural language of humans. It's really no proof for anything, but a good story and Herodot was after those at least as much as he was after history (a word that got his 'modern' meaning because of him).

 

[Zaarin]

We'd be hear all year, I know. The experiment was considered a failure as I recall, and while I'm not overly familiar with the example you provided I would probably question they authenticity of its results.


The irony would have been palpable.

Though not an evolutionary linguist (or whatever the term is), I would guess that mankind has no natural language, and is instead designed to learn how to communicate from their parents. I say that without knowledge of how this works in other primates or mammals, I know some birds have to learn their song but I can't recall if some know them naturally. We might also take a look at that small handful of children raised by animals (which I don't think is a hoax) for this as well.

Studies of feral children and childhood language acquisition has adequately established that children who aren't taught language acquire no language, though they may still communicate paralinguistically like infants do. Chomsky still clings to his notion of a "grammar organ," but neither linguistics nor biology nor psychology are on his side.

 

[Morningcalm]

On that note, I find the idea of Joseph Stalin being a man suffering from legitimate paranoia pretty fascinating, potentially compelling even, though you could argue he was actually somewhat successful if still a bit of a prick.

I would argue that most leaders who do well don't do so out of altruism, which isn't hard to imagine when you realize that we look back positively on leaders who increase a nation's wealth, territorial possessions, or intellectual community (and thus the power available to the ruler).

Joseph Stalin is more iconic and was more successful than Akhenaten, yes. I don't think all leaders need to be saints to make it into the game. But they ought at least not be completely uncaring about foreign affairs, which Akhenaten pretty much was, neglecting allies and enemies alike.

You are avoiding my point about why I take issue with Akhenaten's selfish self-aggrandizement--it came at the expense of success elsewhere, whether in taxes, military, or foreign affairs. As I said, I don't need leaders to be saints, but they ought at least care somewhat about foreign affairs. Akhenaten's person is detestable too--literally everything he did was just for his own self-benefit. He never did anything for the sake of unifying the country or strengthening it in any way. And he could afford to do this because his general and vizier did most of the heavy lifting, and also because he inherited vast wealth from far better pharaohs before him. This allowed him to get away with his monument creation, shifting the capital city, etc., even as the Hittites grew stronger not far from Egypt's borders.

 

[Manifold]

Akhenaten 1
Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 25 (24+1) He plays in the same Champions League like Genghis
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 15
Calvin Coolidge (America) 8 (11-3) The worst suggestion I have ever ever heard
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 5
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 23
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 20

 

[Zaarin]

Akhenaten 1
Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 25
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 12 (15 - 3) -- He's just not the best option for the Mughals.
Calvin Coolidge (America) 8 -- Don't hate on the best American president of the 20th century.
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 5
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24 (23 + 1) -- In a game about big personalities, I think Chief Wahunsenacawh and the Powhatans would be an excellent replacement for the Iroquois, who for all their significance lack obvious leaders.
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 20

 

[Kimiimaro]

Akhenaten 1-3=-2 (ELIMINATED) - I'll finish him and thus I'll end this long debate about him
Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 25
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 12
Calvin Coolidge (America) 8
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 5
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 20+1=21 - He would make a good alternative Chinese leader.

 

[Guandao]

Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 25
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) (12+1)=13 He should hang on a little longer for now. I know his reputation is that of a intolerant Muslim King, but he did ruled at the empire's greatest extent.
Calvin Coolidge (America) 8
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) (5-3)=2 I must confess I do not know much about this Edward, but surely there are better early English Kings?
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 21

Akhenaten the God has fallen....

 

[Morningcalm]

Akhenaten was not worthy of the pharaoh's high seat. Others like Senusret III were worthy (Senusret III was worshipped as a god by his enemies, the Nubians, and even conferred the honor of being deified during his lifetime).

Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 25 + 1 = 26 (Among the more interesting and capable leaders remaining.)
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 13
Calvin Coolidge (America) 8 - 3 = 5 (Certainly not an awful president as such (though some of his choices I do not approve of). However he is hardly iconic or exciting enough in his deeds and struggles to appear in VI. I can't figure what his agenda would be. Maybe he would suit better as a secondary American leader in VII.)
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 2
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 21

 

[Manifold]

Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 27 (26+1) all the other interesting candidates are gone
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 13
Calvin Coolidge (America) 2 (5 -3) with full steam in the global economic crisis! this is the last American president which I can imagine as Civ leader
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) 2
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 21
Yongle Emperor 21

 

[Zaarin]

Calvin Coolidge (America) 2 (5 -3) with full steam in the global economic crisis! this is the last American president which I can imagine as Civ leader

William Henry Harrison? Millard Fillmore? John Tyler? Herbert Hoover? Lyndon B. Johnson? Jimmy Carter? James Buchanan? James A. Garfield? Benjamin Harrison? Warren G. Harding? Gerald Ford? I won't go more recent for fear of treading on toes. But I think there are a lot of presidents a lot lower on the list than Coolidge.

 

[Guandao]

William Henry Harrison? Millard Fillmore? John Tyler? Herbert Hoover? Lyndon B. Johnson? Jimmy Carter? James Buchanan? James A. Garfield? Benjamin Harrison? Warren G. Harding? Gerald Ford? I won't go more recent for fear of treading on toes. But I think there are a lot of presidents a lot lower on the list than Coolidge.

I would blame Hoover more for the Great Depression. I don't really know much about Silent Cal's Presidential tenure or actions, but he seems decent as a leader.

 

[Zaarin]

I would blame Hoover more for the Great Depression. I don't really know much about Silent Cal's Presidential tenure or actions, but he seems decent as a leader.

I'd absolutely blame Hoover's failure to carry on Coolidge's policies.

Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 27
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 13
Calvin Coolidge (America) 2
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Edward the Confessor (England) ELIMINATED -- Nothing against him personally, but there are better Anglo-Saxon kings to choose from.
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 22 (21 + 1) -- The Celts or a Celtic civ will inevitably be added, and Vercingetorix would spare us from another awful portrayal of Boudicca.
Yongle Emperor 21

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

You are avoiding my point about why I take issue with Akhenaten's selfish self-aggrandizement--it came at the expense of success elsewhere, whether in taxes, military, or foreign affairs. As I said, I don't need leaders to be saints, but they ought at least care somewhat about foreign affairs. Akhenaten's person is detestable too--literally everything he did was just for his own self-benefit.

Well, many would say that Akhenaten's religious policies where motivated by sincere belief, so I would take issue with that statement.
However, with regard to your first point, there seems to be an axiomatic disagreement between you and me. With regards to judging people's character, I do not feel it appropriate to base it primarily on their success. I do not believe that Ramses II was particularly motivated by altruism (he was a ginger, after all), so even if Akhenaten was doing what he did simply to have a power structure he more desired, and it was for his own glorification or success, then the thing which really distinguishes him from Ramses II is that Akhenaten's idea didn't work and Ramses II's did, rather than any apparent superior of the latter's morality.

I still maintain, despite his being eliminated now, that his being interesting is enough. Leaders in Civilization 6 aren't the most successful, some of them ended their reigns in horrible failure, but they're at least interesting or recognizable, both of which are traits of Akhenaten.

He never did anything for the sake of unifying the country or strengthening it in any way.

Fascist.

Moderator Action: Please maintain a civil tone when responding to other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

William Henry Harrison? Millard Fillmore? John Tyler? Herbert Hoover? Lyndon B. Johnson? Jimmy Carter? James Buchanan? James A. Garfield? Benjamin Harrison? Warren G. Harding? Gerald Ford? I won't go more recent for fear of treading on toes. But I think there are a lot of presidents a lot lower on the list than Coolidge.

I'd absolutely blame Hoover's failure to carry on Coolidge's policies.

...I kind of like Herbert Hoover...

Alexander II (Russia) 21
Alexios I Komnenos (Byzantium) 24 I don't usually like to use the reason of "There's a Better Option," but when in Rome. I would personally prefer Basil II or even Alexios's son John II, though I do prefer Alexios to Justinian or Theodora.
Atahualpa (Inca) 22
Aurangzeb (India / Mughal) 14 I maintain my favoritism towards Zebby. I have a fairly lengthy explanation of my reasoning on the previous page.
Calvin Coolidge (America) 2
Coloman the Learned (Hungary) 15
Hezekiah (Judah) 20
Menawa (Creek) 17
Napoleon III (France) 23
Powhatan (Powhatan Confederacy) 24
Vercingetorix (Celts / Gauls) 22
Yongle Emperor 21

 

[Morningcalm]

Well, many would say that Akhenaten's religious policies where motivated by sincere belief, so I would take issue with that statement.
However, with regard to your first point, there seems to be an axiomatic disagreement between you and me. With regards to judging people's character, I do not feel it appropriate to base it primarily on their success. I do not believe that Ramses II was particularly motivated by altruism (he was a ginger, after all), so even if Akhenaten was doing what he did simply to have a power structure he more desired, and it was for his own glorification or success, then the thing which really distinguishes him from Ramses II is that Akhenaten's idea didn't work and Ramses II's did, rather than any apparent superior of the latter's morality.

I still maintain, despite his being eliminated now, that his being interesting is enough. Leaders in Civilization 6 aren't the most successful, some of them ended their reigns in horrible failure, but they're at least interesting or recognizable, both of which are traits of Akhenaten.


Fascist.

Firmly disagree re: Rameses II. As I have repeatedly said, Akhenaten was a failure due to purposeful neglect of military, taxation, and foreign policy. The issue isn't not simply that his religious reforms did not do well even in his own lifetime--it's that he sacrificed any interest in military or foreign affairs for his cult. In his own time and thereafter, almost everyone moved to eliminate Akhenaten in an actual example of an attempt at damnatio memoriae, as I earlier evidenced. Though here's another source speaking on that regarding Akhenaten: http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/damnation-memory-and-efforts-erase-condemned-history-002331

Further, scholars note the possibility that Akhenaten was not a genuine believer as well, as I previously indicated is evidenced here: https://www.google.ch/amp/s/www.ancient.eu/amp/1-16201/ ("Further, it is quite likely that his religious reforms had less to do with a divine vision and were more an attempt to wrest power from the Cult of Amun and the power and wealth they had accumulated at the expense of the crown."

Leaders need not be altruists to lead in Civ VI. But they should at least care somewhat about foreign policy and maintaining their nation's overall strength. Especially stupid is to sacrifice your country strength whether in economics or military for the sake of purely selfish gains, which I also earlier evidenced was something Akhenaten did.

I will ignore that last insult you hurled at me starting with a certain word beginning with f.