Soniku said:
alright, now thats been said, despite the horrors that came of it I think Hitler deserves to be in civ because he was a great leader of his time. Germany had been crippled from their loss of WW1 and the treaty of versialles which put it billions of dollars in debt. The political situation was breaking down to violence and chaos, and people were useing money for firewood because it was worthless. Useing sneaky yet effective tactics Hitler came to power and fixed all that. He turned the chaos and destruction around and gave everyone jobs and houseing, turning germany back on its way to a prosperous industreal nation.
Up until the war and genoside, he was the Roosevelt of Germany, setting it up from depression to become the power it is today.
Got to second your vote. Hitler, as repugnant as he was, was one of the most transformative leaders in history. His influence, for good or ill, was immense. That so many see him as the epitome of evil/madness incarnate is testimony to that influence. Perhaps the greatest reason for NOT including him is that he lost. (Though see Monty below).
Just because he was evil doesn't mean he should be excluded from the game, history has had its heros and villains, and I think people have to accept that what has happened has happened, and no amount of complaining about useing the problems in games will help us get over the problems.
Some of the leaders included in CivIV could be seen as nearly as evil or were seen as such by their contempoaries:
Izzy - the Inquisition, the expulsion of Spain's Muslims and Jews upon pain of death, the genocidal destruction of countless "heathens" in the New World.
Ghengis Khan - he who boasted of the joy of slaughtering his enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women. The "Tartars" were the bogeymen of the European psyche for centuries.
Mao - enough has been said here already.
Qin - at least as bloodthirsty as Mao in establishing order in China under similar circumstances.
Caesar - destroyed Gallic civilization practically singlehandedly, primarily to gain the wealth and fame needed to further his struggle for domestic political advantage in Rome.
Napoleon - whom his contemporaries dubbed an ogre and who condemned Europe to nearly two decades of constant warfare.
Montezuma - who presided over a civilization that slaughtered tens of thousands of its own in the name of religion and to intimidate potential rivals, though how much of this is just bad press - see Izzy - is hard to say.
(On another front, Monty is the only leader better known for LOSING an empire than founding/expanding one. Better to have gone with Itzcoatl - first independent Aztec emperor - or Cuauhtemoc - doomed but brave - or another successful Aztec leader).
Huayna Capac - like the Aztecs, an accomplished practitioner of human sacrifice, though unlike Monty, he died before the Spaniards arrived, so can't be called a failure.
Lizzy and Vicky - ask an Irishman about ANY English monarch. Or ask the Indians, the Zulu, the Ashante abount the benevolence of English colonialism. The English response to the Indian Mutiny of 1857, on Vicky's watch, was as savage as almost any other incident in history.
Hitler, on strictly historical grounds, could rightly be included in the game. And simply being an evil, bloodthirsty, genocidal maniac shouldn't automatically exclude him unless the above are all excluded as well. The primary reason to exclude him is that his crimes, unlike the others, are still fresh in the memory, and though Mao is even more recent, Mao never plunged the world into war, thereby earning himself the wrath of millions the world over. In the end, it's just sound marketing to exclude the Austrian corporal to avoid both backlash from the game-buying public and any legal ramifications in countries where glorifying the Nazis is illegal.
No, I didn't have to look it up. But, it definitely illustrates your point, that there are "nickel/dime" dictators whose only significance is that they are current. Give a few years and nobody will remember them.
