Pick the Civ5 Leaders (There's a Catch)

[CornPlanter]

marius would be a nice addition for rome, but chances are he won't be in there because it was still a republic.

Marius was never a true leader of Rome. He was leader of the part of Rome and his side got defeated. While I do sympathize with him way more than I do with Sulla, but I dont think he deserves to be in. With all due respect

Sulla is nowhere near a great leader.

While it's not easy to measure "greatness", I would argue that Sulla was far greater than half of the leaders who made it into Civ4. Montezuma II? Bah... Sury? Meh.... Gilga & Ragnar? They probably didn't even exist
That said, I do agree that he's nowhere near Julius... and nowhere near dozens of other great Roman leaders, for that matter. I included him just for variety. Maybe someone from Roman Kingdom period could make it in, too

Yeah, and Mao, and Gengis... but Hitler is still somewhat of a taboo... we don't need bad media attention and controversy around Civ V..

There's one more thing apart from mass hysteria why, I think, Hitler does not deserve to be in. He wasnt nowhere near great person. He was just an idiot in the right place at the right time. If not the really great generals like Erwin Rommel and other really clever people around him, history would have been different.

On the other hand, Temujin a.k.a Genghis Khan was a Great Person with capital G and P He personally changed everything and created what became unstoppable force. Sure, there was Subutai and others, but no one can deny Temujin's personal traits. While Hitler had none. Last but not least, Hitler got defeated. Stalin was victorious. Temujin removed the phrase "we lost" from Mongolian dictionary altogether

 

[Louis XXIV]

Scipio Africanus was a famous general of the Roman republic. He wasn't a world leader in any sense.

He was elected Consul in 205 BC. This means he also would have been a Senator. The Roman Republic didn't have "leaders" in the sense we think of them until Marius and Sulla started trying to screw with the system. I was going to suggest Gaius or Tiberius Gracchi, but they're even less qualified I guess, in your view (they weren't military leaders at all).

 

[Iván de España]

Respectively, wrong, maybe, and maybe, depending on how you define "culture" and "economy". And none of them had much to do with his actions.

Most of the leaders of Civ did bad and, even, terrible actions. Lincoln ordered to kill Native Americans, Isabel ordered to kill conversed Jews, Caesar killed Gauls, etc.

"Culture" means to build the library Bayt al-Hikma, to pay artists, writers, and scientists (in his reign the camera obscura was invented), and to give them his protection.
"Economy" means to build better roads for the trade, to make coin of good metals, and to improve the agriculture systems.

Do you need more reasons?

 

[Arakhor]

Consuls only served for year in every ten, if that, if I recall correctly. Choosing a leader based on a couple of years' joint leadership seems a little silly. More to the point, the Roman Republic glorified military leaders, as you probably well know.

 

[Kahless26]

I really think Marius qualifies quite well to be a Civ Leader. He defeated Yugurta (well, some credit to Sulla for that one), he also stopped the teutons and the cimbrians in Varcellas and Aquas Sextias, he was ellected Consul six times, four of them consecutive, and he did so going trough every grade of the cursus honorum.

Also he reformed the roman military, militarizing the plebs and reforming the tactics, creating the basis of what will later become the imperial legionary forces.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Consuls only served for year in every ten, if that, if I recall correctly. Choosing a leader based on a couple of years' joint leadership seems a little silly. More to the point, the Roman Republic glorified military leaders, as you probably well know.

That's why I tried to pick a Consul who had influence when he wasn't in office. Keep in mind that, the rule was that Consuls were the generals. If Scipio was commanding an army, he was either consul or proconsul. Plus, he was hailed as the savior of the Republic. Rome leaned towards collective rule (or at least collaborative rule), which limits most figures before the first century BC. People like Cato would be cool too.

Considering Civ2 had Jeanne d'Arc, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest somebody like Scipio. Technically, in Athens, rule was done by the assembly and the chief government positions were drawn randomly and only for a year. But Pericles managed to be the most influential person in the assembly and he did it by being a General, not an Archon.

EDIT: I'll echo the comments about Marius being a solid candidate. He was part of the trend that led to Caesar. But, in addition to holding consulships and having military success, his reform of the military was a nice accomplishment.

Then again, suppose we assume Caesar is going to be in the game no matter what. I don't see what Marius brings (both in representation of Rome or in personality traits) that differs significantly from Caesar.

 

[CornPlanter]

Considering Civ2 had Jeanne d'Arc, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest somebody like Scipio.

And Cleopatra, too. Two fails... Yes, if we rely on what was already in, we can reasonably include anything and anybody And for that matter, Marius and Scipio would certainly qualify for any other nation without doubt. Hannibal is in, after all, and he was no more ruler of Carthage than Scipio of Rome. But the thing is, Rome had just too many great, real leaders. Lots of competition, you know Hannibal had no such competition, most of people couldn't even name any other Carthaginian apart from him...

Then again, suppose we assume Caesar is going to be in the game no matter what. I don't see what Marius brings (both in representation of Rome or in personality traits) that differs significantly from Caesar.

Caesar was the sole ruler of Rome. De facto and de jure. Marius was not. Moreover, he ended up being defeated by Sulla. Defeated with the help of the new army system he himself created. This is what differs him from Caesar. Significantly
Edit: Sorry, I probably got you wrong Yes, as a leader-in-game he wouldnt be much different. Speaking in Civ4 terms I would suggest Marcus Aurelius with Industrial/Philosophical (wadaya mean "OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!"? )

 

[Arakhor]

I'd agree that Gaius Marius would be an interesting alternative to Julius or Augustus, but I would like to see Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius make an appearance too.

 

[CornPlanter]

I see some people suggested Ataturk Yeah, while he certainly is one of my favorite historical persons, he was the one who ended Ottoman Empire. Doesn't make much sense to make him the leader of Empire he himself ended, does it Other than that, yes, he certainly deserves to be in Civ and he was far greater leader than most of persons who got included.

 

[Louis XXIV]

And Cleopatra, too. Two fails... Yes, if we rely on what was already in, we can reasonably include anything and anybody

Well, fail is certainly a matter of perspective. The game likes to pick well-known people. It's why Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus were the people they picked. If I were to make a prediction it's that, if Egypt has a female leader in this game, it will be Cleopatra again. The point being that we have no idea how narrowly they're going to construe the idea of a "leader".

And for that matter, Marius and Scipio would certainly qualify for any other nation without doubt. Hannibal is in, after all, and he was no more ruler of Carthage than Scipio of Rome. But the thing is, Rome had just too many great, real leaders. Lots of competition, you know Hannibal had no such competition, most of people couldn't even name any other Carthaginian apart from him...

The thing is, as far as diverse and successful rulers, Rome doesn't have as many as you think. There are only a handful of types of Roman Empires it seems (the first few that tried to keep up the pretense of Republic, the ones who basically wanted to be referred to as "Lord" and dominated everyone, the Christian Emperors). And most of these guys suck. The only ones that pop up as noteworthy tend to be guys who inherited/took over the throne and then went on to reconquer a territory or push back barbarians who were threatening a border. Even then, you're still dealing with Imperial Rome. Rome's greatest successes were as a Republic. Why shouldn't that be represented with a leader?

Caesar was the sole ruler of Rome. De facto and de jure. Marius was not. Moreover, he ended up being defeated by Sulla. Defeated with the help of the new army system he himself created. This is what differs him from Caesar. Significantly
Edit: Sorry, I probably got you wrong Yes, as a leader-in-game he wouldnt be much different. Speaking in Civ4 terms I would suggest Marcus Aurelius with Industrial/Philosophical (wadaya mean "OMG OVERPOWERED!!!!!"? )

FWIW, I think I mentioned Marcus Aurelius (along with Constantine) as someone who represented a unique period of Roman history that was diverse from the Caesar/Augustus time and the Republican time. He did screw up the system they had going for them by making his son the next Emperor, but how was he supposed to know his son would try and fight Russell Crow inside the Colosseum?

I see some people suggested Ataturk Yeah, while he certainly is one of my favorite historical persons, he was the one who ended Ottoman Empire. Doesn't make much sense to make him the leader of Empire he himself ended, does it Other than that, yes, he certainly deserves to be in Civ and he was far greater leader than most of persons who got included.

Yeah, I go back and forth on Mustafa Kemal. Certainly, if he's in, the Ottomans have to be renamed the Turks. That goes against what the Ottomans themselves tried to do (they tried to create a sense of "Ottomanism" in the Empire to include as many different groups as possible). But in a practical sense, it was still an Empire ruled by a group of Turks.

 

[Roller123]

3 times Hot Chick for every civ. You know you want it. Worked fine in civ3 and civ4(where implemented)

 

[CMKMStephens]

Sir George Grey for the New Zealand Civ - Even when he wasn't Prime Minister/Governor General he still had a finger in every pie from the 1840s to 1890s

 

[Turquoiside]

France:
Philippe-Auguste
Henri IV (?)

Ottoman Empire:
Murad IV and Selim I 'the Grim' and Abdul Hamin II or Mahmud II(?)

Japan:
Meiji and Yoritomo (?)

Germany (with the goal of including Austria here since they don't seem to have a good chance of their own civ anytime soom): (There are many 'good' Austrian leaders that could go here. Possibly not great.) and Wilhelm II

Aztecs (Though I dislike their inclusion): Montezuma I and Itzcoatl

India: Akbar the Great and Chandragupta Muarya

? means that I don't know whether they should be included. THey had some good points, but I don't know if it either outweighs their bad OR makes them more 'deserving' than others.

 

[CHEESE!]

Damnit, I was just about to say Scheherezade, Shakala, and Wu Zhao.

 

[Sportyatuncw06]

Wow this thread really is out there. We are just throwing names out there now. I am college educated and fairly well read but I have never heard of any of these people we are nominating. I want to throw Hitler and Nero out there for two reasons. Number 1 both are very common names and much more renouned than many of the leaders currently in the game. Number 2 they both headed up the most powerful nations at their time period even if for only a small time, and number 3 I would love to smash them to a pulp
Three other names I will throw out that I haven't seen come up are Gorbachev and Woodrow Wilson (but I think he may have been in a previous version) and Truman.

 

[Kenny B]

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter. The few i would like to see are:

John F. Kennedy (America)
Okanoken (Egypt) sorry if spelt wrong
Adolf Hitler (German) not a joke, i think he deserves to be represented as a chancellor. bts had stalin...

Thats all that i can think of that should be in it.

 

[Tusked]

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter. The few i would like to see are:

John F. Kennedy (America)
Okanoken (Egypt) sorry if spelt wrong
Adolf Hitler (German) not a joke, i think he deserves to be represented as a chancellor. bts had stalin...

Thats all that i can think of that should be in it.

Saying Jefferson didn't do anything except talk and then nominating John F. Kennedy is the definition of irony.

 

[NA00]

I am not too particular as to which leaders are included, but for the US I would at least like to see:

Teddy Roosevelt.
Thomas Jefferson.
Woodrow Wilson would be an interesting one I think. He would also provide an alternative to FDR as a leader who presided over the country during one of the World Wars.


Also, an idea, that I know would never make it into the game, would be for each civ to have a few leaders, a couple of the leaders per civ would be great, but one would be a "loser" by most measures. That way, during a game not every civ is represented by a wonderful historic leader. Of course, the leaders for the AI I presume would be randomly selected before each game, so some civs would end up with these bad leaders. This would provide some interesting game-play as not every civ would be ruled by a wise or effective leader each time. Again, I don't know how seriously I think this should be implemented - its just an idea I was kicking around to emulate realism in the sense that some civs would flounder as others flourised due to leadership strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Zenon_pt]

Portugal - Afonso Henriques; Marques de Pombal; João I
USA - JFK
Russia - Ivan, the Terrible
Mongols/India - Akbar; Shahabuddin Mohammed Shah Jahan
China - Confusius (would be fan)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Germany (with the goal of including Austria here since they don't seem to have a good chance of their own civ anytime soom): (There are many 'good' Austrian leaders that could go here. Possibly not great.) and Wilhelm II

If we could include the Austrians as part of Germany, we could go with Maria Theresa. Always good to include a female leader when we can.

Lots of you say Jefferson for a us leader, i think not. As a president he didnt do anything. He is more of a speech wrighter.

Yeah, doubling the size of the United States isn't an accomplishment. His administration was fraught with diplomatic difficulties with the British and the French (especially the British), but he managed to overcome them in a peaceful way. He also led to a successful expansion of US merchant power by his actions in Trinity. In many ways, I'd say he was similar to

John F. Kennedy (America)

Except he accomplished a lot more and had more terms as President.

Okanoken (Egypt) sorry if spelt wrong

Akhenaten is historically important for his attempt to introduce monotheism (whatever his motives were), but he was a disaster for Egypt. The Priests of Amun were simply too strong and all he did was bring political termoil to his Kingdom.

Adolf Hitler (German) not a joke, i think he deserves to be represented as a chancellor. bts had stalin...

Stalin undoubtably accomplished a lasting legacy of greatness for the Soviet Union. He modernized the country, annexed the Baltic states, and created buffer puppet states that spread Soviet influence at least as great if not greater than it had ever been before. Sure he did a lot of things that are simply unforgivable on a human level, but those things tend to balance out. Hitler on the other hand led to a Germany that was weakened and partitioned. The only reason the nation has recovered is because it's been economically strong since the Industrial Revolution. The controversy doesn't outweigh the accomplishments because the accomplishments weren't all that great to begin with.