So you're telling me every Chinese leader has been directly responsible for roughly 40 million deaths?
More evil civs!
- Thread starter Gustavus Rex
- Start date
- Status
So you're telling me every Chinese leader has been directly responsible for roughly 40 million deaths?
At that stage Mao was really old,therefore made stupid decisions,but the biggest mistake was to trust his evil scum wife and the Gang of Four,they manipulated his intensions,Mao himself is mainly a victim to their conspiracy,surely he has to be responsible for all those deaths,but by no means was he evil,grouping him with Hitler and Stalin is just such a disgrace to him.
reddishrecue
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,496
Some civilizations have villains and evil people in their help. For example, Washington has Osama bin Laden as a villain and America. As for the rest of the civilizations, there are rivalries that civilizations had against other civilizations. Such as greeks against persians or Carthage against Rome where people chose a villain. I have no idea who could be a villain only way I could consider a civilization a villain is when the civilization is embargoed. Then who knows
Bulldog Bats
King
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 701
Remember - history is written by the victors.
True dat.
And in real life, war is cruelty, for all sides involved, regardless whether it's soldiers or civilians.
In the game though, I am surprised that Mongolians made it that high up the list - I've seen him fall over against the Austrians early game.
But yeah, I agree that some of the AIs do have a mean streak. I keep tabs on Alex very closely. I've seen him flip 3 CS surrounding my science city, DoW and cause me no end of trouble. Atilla is just annoyingly warmongering, especially if you're close and he thinks he's got a chance to get something out of you.
But then with BNW, I find that by the time ideology hits, your alliances can shift quite drastically at times...
This. It is all about personal perspective. People consider Hitler evil, but if he survived & won the WWII then it could be possible that he would be revered as a national hero!
I would rather prefer that civ tries to maintain a neutral perspective while providing player with tools to shape his own destiny.
Sent from my One V using Tapatalk
Mao killed 30mil+ people in his great leap backwards. Yet the chinese still call him a hero.
What kind of hero slaughters 30mil of his own people and brought China back into the stoneage?
As for hitler being evil, histories are written by the victors. Had hitler won, he would brand the US brits and Ruskies evil and today we will learn that they are the 'evil' ones in ww2
Bulldog Bats
King
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 701
As I explain to my son, if America had lost the Revolution (or if England had not decided that it was not worth it to keep fighting us when they had their own problems in Europe), Washington would have been remembered as someone who could not make it in the British Army, could not make it against the British Army), and considered a minor figure and failure, rather than the great leader we take him to be.
And MC, Mao was in charge, and I am sure had something to say about what was being written about him (kind of like North Korea's Fearless Leader).
And MC, Mao was in charge, and I am sure had something to say about what was being written about him (kind of like North Korea's Fearless Leader).
I think that your wish has already been granted. Guys like Ghandi are pretty rare in Civ. By-and-large, most civ leaders are the warmongers. And I suppose that's to be expected, as the term "golden age" is just a convenient method historians use to gloss over and fast-forward past periods of peace and prosperity. The leadrs during those periods are noted as being caretakers, more-or-less. Periods of war, OTOH, are stuides in very fine detail, and the personalities involved are studies in meticulous detial.
Bulldog Bats
King
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 701
Cf - what do you mean by that? Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Please explain (seriously - not being facetious).
Magma_Dragoon
Reploid
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,354
I've read that the estimates of people killed by Mao are essentially pulled out of thin air because they are made by comparing official census data, and China had not conducted an accurate census for over a hundred years before the communists took over.
People assume that when you say "written by the winners" that the history "written by the losers" is instantly the more accurate of the two. The fact is that history is more complex than that. It would be more accurate to say that history is written by the writers.
Take for example the Lost Cause mythology. After the American Civil War, ex-CSA leaders (mainly Alexander Stephens, Jefferson Davis, and that bastard Jubal Early) did quite a bit of writing about how they waged war against the Union not to preserve slavery, but to champion states' rights. This became the most popular view of the civil war, and is a view that is still stubbornly held to today by people, even after historians like McPherson and Stampp did their damnedest to get rid of it.
You could also point to things like the Mongols. Our main accounts of them were written by people who lost to the Mongols, hence why the concept of the Mongols doing nothing but raping, pillaging, and murdering still exists today. The same could be applied to the vikings, the Goths, the Aztecs, the Huns, etc.
Bulldog Bats
King
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Messages
- 701
Got ya. I am certainly not saying that the losers are more correct (having grown up in the 70s, I went through the "slavery was not the primary reason for the Civil War, and I am from New York).
My point is that most history books are written by the government/society in charge, and therefore, we need to take an objective and careful view. I love the US, and we have free speech as one of our most important freedoms, but we have whitewashed lots of dirty laundry ourselves.
My point is that most history books are written by the government/society in charge, and therefore, we need to take an objective and careful view. I love the US, and we have free speech as one of our most important freedoms, but we have whitewashed lots of dirty laundry ourselves.
The "history is written by the victors" bit is something of a canard. The Romans don't have today's historians bamboozled. We know of their accomplishments as well as their failings. Same goes for the Mongols, the vikings, the imperial nations of Europe. China, and so on And there's certainly no shortage of folks describing America as an evil aggressor.
The victors write the history books for their citizens as best their able, but time gets the best of them.
EDIT: Damn, seems Cyanfunk beat me to the punch on much of this.
It was famine that caused 30m death,great leap forward was his mistake,a huge one,but he did not order to starve those peasants,unlike Stalin.Mao is an honourable man,just a bit irrational when making decisions.Please learn more about him before grouping him with Hitler and Stalin,no historians would do that.
Magma_Dragoon
Reploid
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,354
The famine was caused by provincial leaders promising they could produce more grain than the entire country produced when the KMT was in charge. They all failed, of course, and they exported all the rice they produced and left nothing for the people actually living there.
reddishrecue
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,496
Stalin had managed to get a successful Russia going but what really dropped him was the death of his wife nadia. As for the United States and bin Laden, Bush's approval rating became high when the us made a Dow on terrorism. In civilization 5, approval rating rises when your people are happy. Other people in different places of the world didn't like the bush. I ve seen people in middle east throw a shoe at bush as he was speaking.
LoneRebel
Emperor
Not too different from the Holodomor in the USSR under Stalin then. Stalin wanted to turn the USSR from an agrarian economy into an industrialized power, and he certainly succeeded at that - at the cost of millions of lives. But even Stalin has been a leader in Civ...
In any case, even the Chinese Communist Party itself seems to be trying to move away from Mao. They're in an unusual position where they can't condemn him outright (because that would hurt them as well) but they are gradually and carefully trying to distance themselves from his legacy. It's a bit like Khrushchev's De-Stalinization process, only not as abrupt.
EDIT: Regarding Ronza's assertion that Stalin ordered peasants to be starved to death (and Mao did not), I have not read good evidence that Stalin specifically ordered their deaths. He just didn't care about them. On the other hand, I haven't read anything yet about what Mao thought about the millions of deaths caused by his Great Leap Forward.
sendos
Immortal
All civs are capable of evil. It's all a matter of angering them, mainly forward settling them.
- Status
