Well, if we're talking about an American leader (which was one of the original questions earlier in the thread,) there really isn't much to go on beyond the past 200 years or so.
For Spain, well, per your earlier point, their current leader, Isabella, is hardly a 20th Century leader. Franco would certainly be an interesting contrast, as (I think) he should be more isolationist, and less aggressive in foreign affairs.
Sun Yat-Sen was hardly a lackluster leader, nor was he a WW2 leader.
I am a disappointed that you describe yourself a historian and yet actively avoid studying a specific era.... History is one big story, and to fully appreciate it, you need to see and understand what happened later as well as earlier.
Sorry I forgot to explain the one exception to the rule. Since America is so recent, I would probably select both Washington and Lincoln. Beyond that, I may not pick any more. T. Roosevelt would probably be the latest president I would select for the game.
But, how great was Franco for Spain? The point of Civ leaders is draw attention to great historical leaders, and to give the cream of the crop, so to speak, a chance to shine as animated leaderheads. Too often, I get the feeling that too many people latch onto common names they have heard their parents refer to, or people they saw in the news awhile back, or some WW2 special they saw on the
History Channel.
I'm not talking exclusively about WW2, but the 20th century in general. Sun Yat-Sen was especially active in the beginning of the 20th century, so I think my point stands.
And on the study of history...by your statement I sincerely doubt you understand how historians operate and do research. Every university professor I know tends to specialize in a particular piece of the historical puzzle, so to speak, and if I specialize in earlier time periods because I am more interested in those than the contemporary period, it doesn't make me any more or less a historian. For every person who focuses on European history, there is another who studies East Asia, one who works on specific African tribes, a person who studies the Ancient Mediterranean. Often times, a historian will be quite skilled in a few particular historical subjects and only be as competent as the average person in the others. Calling history a singular "story" is a gross oversimplification; history is many interwoven stories into a tapestry, each with their own cast and plot lines that intersect and diverge constantly. And one man cannot learn it all.
In any case, this rant is directed more at those on this forum who cannot be bothered to do any research whatsoever on a culture when trying to select a leader, and instead immediately recognize a contemporary leader (such as ones from WW2, which provoked the rant) as the "best" choice. I cannot recount how many times I have seen Franco's name posted with no serious consideration of other names. I cannot count how many times Hitler has come up, but nobody proposes an alternate (like I always do--when I see somebody suggest Hitler, I suggest Otto I or Barbarossa). Same goes for France and De Gaulle, and disturbingly that was the Firaxian pick. At least there are some people on this board who have read something on China and suggest leaders like Taizong or other ancient figures as leaders. However, I have the nagging suspicion that is because Mao has already been implemented as a Civ leader.