Muhammad was going to be an ARABIAN LEADER in CIV IV

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'm unclear of views about Hannibal in modern Tunisia, to be honest.

Tunisians consider themselves the heirs/descendants of the Carthaginians. Hannibal is not an uncommon Tunisian boy's name.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I don't know if defeat in WW1 can be at all viewed as impacted by a corporal in a reserve Bavarian regiment - that participatory level for even, "bit player," status, and he had almost straight, overwhelmning, and shocking successes until Winter, 1942 in WW2, so...

I'm saying from a lens of "successful vs. non-successful," Hitler falls into the later camp easily on almost every level, personal and professional, large-scale and small. He feels almost divinely called to enter WW1, gets rejected for being too scrawny, then gets picked up by the more desperate Imperial German Army, (possibly) gets syphilis, loses in the war, gets rejected from art school, fails his coup, goes to jail, never has a meaningful romantic relationship, finagles his way into power only to screw up everything his generals worked so hard for, gets hooked on lots of drugs to cope with daily life, kills a bunch of people who were more competent than his late-war yesmen, fails to eliminate either Judaism or Bolshevism, and finally "marries" his mistress and spends their honeymoon eating a bullet together while declaring that it's the German people who failed him and that it's not important what happens to them next as a race anyway, which is just the fate I'd expect from a perennial loser LARPing as a Germanic warlord. Everything Germany did "successfully" was in spite of Hitler, not because of him.

Ergo, I can't possibly think of why people would include him as a great leader, and that's ignoring all of the obvious moral issues with the man's ideologies.

 

[Patine]

I'm saying from a lens of "successful vs. non-successful," Hitler falls into the later camp easily on almost every level, personal and professional, large-scale and small. He feels almost divinely called to enter WW1, gets rejected for being too scrawny, then gets picked up by the more desperate Imperial German Army, (possibly) gets syphilis, loses in the war, gets rejected from art school, fails his coup, goes to jail, never has a meaningful romantic relationship, finagles his way into power only to screw up everything his generals worked so hard for, gets hooked on lots of drugs to cope with daily life, kills a bunch of people who were more competent than his late-war yesmen, fails to eliminate either Judaism or Bolshevism, and finally "marries" his mistress and spends their honeymoon eating a bullet together while declaring that it's the German people who failed him and that it's not important what happens to them next as a race anyway, which is just the fate I'd expect from a perennial loser LARPing as a Germanic warlord. Everything Germany did "successfully" was in spite of Hitler, not because of him.

Ergo, I can't possibly think of why people would include him as a great leader, and that's ignoring all of the obvious moral issues with the man's ideologies.

His big talent was that he was a captivating speaker, and a lot of footage you see of him happens to be during one of his rallies or harangs. I used to mow the lawn and shovel sidewalks for an Austrian-Canadian retiree who lived next door to the house I grew up in for exttra pocket money, and she talked about a day as a girl in Vienna about the mandatory parade and rally in 1938. This talent he shares with some other extremist leaders in the modern day...

 

[Plains-Cow]

His big talent was that he was a captivating speaker, and a lot of footage you see of him happens to be during one of his rallies or harangs. I used to mow the lawn and shovel sidewalks for an Austrian-Canadian retiree who lived next door to the house I grew up in for exttra pocket money, and she talked about a day as a girl in Vienna about the mandatory parade and rally in 1938. This talent he shares with some other extremist leaders in the modern day...

All of the clips of Hitler's "greatest hits" are the same 5 or 6 speeches. Also, how amazingly persuasive are you as a draw if the rallies are eventually mandatory? Sort of loses the plot, right? Also, it doesn't take being charismatic to snake your way into power. Just look at...almost any president? Ironic how throughout history some of the most power-hungry cravers of visible status and obligatory obedience are frequently the least charismatic people alive.

 

[Qgqqqqq]

I'm more surprised they didn't add Saladin's foil Richard I in for England during the Warlords expansion. Makes more sense than CHURCHILL to me lol. I guess Churchill is more Anglo-Saxon...?

Why?

Churchill is a much, much more notable British leader than Richard I.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Why?

Churchill is a much, much more notable British leader than Richard I.

Richard I feels more like a warmonger than Churchill, and I feel like he would have fit the theme of the expansion better. Also, having more leaderheads in the game that are foils of one another would be cool for AI drama purposes when they fight. Who's Churchill's foil? Stalin? Even though they never went to war against one another but actually teamed up to fight Hitler?

 

[Patine]

I'm more surprised they didn't add Saladin's foil Richard I in for England during the Warlords expansion. Makes more sense than CHURCHILL to me lol. I guess Churchill is more Anglo-Saxon...?

Richard I, as a military leader, was defeated by Saladin in the Middle East and Phillipe II in France, was horribly cold to (and unfruitful with) his wife, did of unspeakabe and gratuitous things, even for a Medieval European King, and practically neglected any duties of rulership of England, only being resident for six months of his ten-year reign, with rule delegated, after an initial power struggle, to his younger brother John, who succeeded him as King John (one of four monarchs post-Norman conquest in the English, then British, then UK continuous line of succession, too kings and two queens with no regnal number due to lack of namesake successors), who, despite the Robin Hood and Ivanhoe legends, was not overly more tyrannical than was typical for a Medieval King, and no worse of a tax collector, and any exhorbitant taxes were likely sent to his brother's - lionized as the good legitimate king, in those myths - war campaigns, given the Occitan-born Richard viewed England as little more than a resource base for his bloody wars.

What a great leader! And an Occitan-Norman French Angevin who spoke those dialects of French, and wrote in Latin, is truly an epytomy of an, "Anglo-Saxon.!"

 

[Plains-Cow]

Richard I, as a military leader, was defeated by Saladin in the Middle East and Phillipe II in France, was horribly cold to (and unfruitful with) his wife, did of unspeakabe and gratuitous things, even for a Medieval European King, and practically neglected any duties of rulership of England, only being resident for six months of his ten-year reign, with rule delegated, after an initial power struggle, to his younger brother John, who succeeded him as King John (one of four monarchs post-Norman conquest in the English, then British, then UK continuous line of succession, too kings and two queens with no regnal number due to lack of namesake successors), who, despite the Robin Hood and Ivanhoe legends, was not overly more tyrannical than was typical for a Medieval King, and no worse of a tax collector, and any exhorbitant taxes were likely sent to his brother's - lionized as the good legitimate king, in those myths - war campaigns, given the Occitan-born Richard viewed England as little more than a resource base for his bloody wars.

What a great leader! And an Occitan-Norman French Angevin who spoke those dialects of French, and wrote in Latin, is truly an epytomy of an, "Anglo-Saxon.!"

Richard I and Saladin were effectively drawn. Without his direct military intervention, the remnants of the Crusader States would have been smashed into much smaller crumbs by Saladin. Instead, he not only expanded them, but helped shore them up against further Arab attacks. He failed to get Jerusalem, making his Crusade a tactical failure, but from a strategic perspective, it was certainly a win. There was simply no competent follow-up in the next generation. Richard also won multiple other wars apart from the Crusade. He even established Cyprus as a Crusader kingdom all the way until the Ottoman times. Also, I'd expect most warmongers from the 12th century to be mostly disloyal to their wives. Again, neglecting the economic rulership in favor of military campaigning seems to be the hallmark of a "Warlord," which is the literal name of the expansion.

Also, the Anglo-Saxon point was because Churchill is clearly more Anglo-Saxon than Richard I (right down to his overt choice of words in his speeches), but Churchill wasn't nearly as much of a warlord and has no foil in the game like Saladin would have been. It just would have been cooler.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Richard I, as a military leader, was defeated by Saladin in the Middle East

?? Richard I militarily defeated Saladin each time in their only two battles. From all accounts he seems like a terrible ruler otherwise, but he was a successful military leader

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Churchill wasn't nearly as much of a warlord and has no foil in the game like Saladin would have been

He had Stalin

Churchill in his memoirs described the “teasing of me, which I did not at all resent until the Marshal [Stalin] entered in a genial manner upon a serious and even deadly aspect of the punishment to be inflicted upon the Germans. The German General Staff, he said, must be liquidated. The whole force of Hitler’s mighty armies depended upon about 50,000 officers and technicians. If these were rounded up and shot at the end of the war, German military strength would be extirpated.” When Churchill angrily declared he would be no party to such mass retribution, the President quipped that he would act as mediator, and suggested the compromise of shooting only 49,000. In heat, Churchill left the room. Stalin himself fetched him back, assuring him it was all a jest.

 

[Plains-Cow]

He had Stalin

I get it, but that quote just feels like that makes my point stronger that Churchill doesn't FEEL like a warmonger and never even went to actual war with his supposed foil in the game.

 

[Patine]

Richard I and Saladin were effectively drawn. Without his direct military intervention, the remnants of the Crusader States would have been smashed into much smaller crumbs by Saladin. Instead, he not only expanded them, but helped shore them up against further Arab attacks. He failed to get Jerusalem, making his Crusade a tactical failure, but from a strategic perspective, it was certainly a win. There was simply no competent follow-up in the next generation. Richard also won multiple other wars apart from the Crusade. He even established Cyprus as a Crusader kingdom all the way until the Ottoman times. Also, I'd expect most warmongers from the 12th century to be mostly disloyal to their wives. Again, neglecting the economic rulership in favor of military campaigning seems to be the hallmark of a "Warlord," which is the literal name of the expansion.

500 years of Ottoman rule over the Middle East quoted, as of 1917, by T.E. Lawrence, shows the ultimate futility, there.

Also, the Anglo-Saxon point was because Churchill is clearly more Anglo-Saxon than Richard I (right down to his overt choice of words in his speeches), but Churchill wasn't nearly as much of a warlord and has no foil in the game like Saladin would have been. It just would have been cooler.

In the parlance of the 20th Century, when Churchill was relevant, save his earlier role in the Boer War, and into the 21st, "warlord," (and, "warlordism,") has become a derrogatory, not honorific term, and certainly not one an elitist Colonialist like Churchill would want to slapped with.

 

[Plains-Cow]

500 years of Ottoman rule over the Middle East quoted, as of 1917, by T.E. Lawrence, shows the ultimate futility, there.

In the parlance of the 20th Century, when Churchill was relevant, save his earlier role in the Boer War, and into the 21st, "warlord," (and, "warlordism,") has become a derrogatory, not honorific term, and certainly not one an elitist Colonialist like Churchill would want to slapped with.

So? By that time, Richard I was long dead and the Crusades as a concept weren't hip-hoppin' funky fresh anymore. Doesn't detract from what he did do warlord-wise.

Also, that's another reason why Richard I would have worked better: he would have embraced the title lol

 

[Patine]

Also, that's another reason why Richard I would have worked better: he would have embraced the title lol

Then again, Richard might not like it either, as to him, it would be a noble knight and fiefholder beholden to a king (like his analog of an, "officer," class in his armies were made up of), but not the King, himself.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

As leaders Churchill and Richard I are overrated anyway; I'm more of a Henry VIII man myself

 

[Tecumseh1]

I think it's best to leave out contemporary leaders in this kind of game. There were better choices for their respective cultures than Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt. IMO indigenous Australian civilization not making it is the biggest oversight IMO.

 

[Patine]

I think it's best to leave out contemporary leaders in this kind of game. There were better choices for their respective cultures than Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt. IMO indigenous Australian civilization not making it is the biggest oversight IMO.

Aboriginal Australians have a taboo of the portrayal of dead people, especially their own. I have read quite a few news articles online from Australian outlets that have, if relevant, began with the disclaimer, "to our Aboriginal readers, this article discusses and/or depicts a deceased person." That is the reason no Aborginal Australian has ever appeared in an iteration of Civ - it's not an oversight.

 

[Patine]

I think it's best to leave out contemporary leaders in this kind of game. There were better choices for their respective cultures than Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt. IMO indigenous Australian civilization not making it is the biggest oversight IMO.

And, what leader does the U.S. have who so much greater than FDR, anyways. And Churchill is certainly, at least, in contention for top rank.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

And Churchill is certainly, at least, in contention for top rank.

From what I've read Churchill was overly lionised by the British press. His famous wartime speeches, for all their reputation of keeping morale up, were delivered so sloppily and indistinctly (allegedly while he was drunk) that they had to rerecord them after the war. There's a reason Churchill was so thoroughly thumped in the post-war elections

 

[Patine]

From what I've read Churchill was overly lionised by the British press.

So were William I, Richard I, Edward I, Edward III, Elizabeth I, George III, and Victoria in British history books. I mean, yes, they were definitely those who accomplshed and achieved things of merit and importance, but they're often made into legends, and they're rougher points are often smoothed away, too, in a lot of popular portrayals.