The inevitable leaders thread

[Tee Kay]

For all those who wants Emperor Meiji, IIRC there's a law in Japan regulating the depictions of the royal family, and a Civ game with a cartoonish Meiji leaderhead might not be able to be sold in Japan.

 

[climat]

I didn't know that.
But yes, if you want to mention 'tennou' in front of japanese, you should be careful.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

This is basically not true, and if they only have one leader I can guarantee you Alexander will be the leader for Greece. He certainly was from the "pan-hellenic" world, he basically created the hellenic world when he spread Greek culture all over the eastern med and middle east. He was certainly lauded and celebrated by Greeks after his conquests. And Macedon was certainly hellenic, they spoke Greek too. Certain Greek city-states may have considered the Macedonians backwards, particularly Athens, but this was mostly due to their jealousy over Macedonian power at the time. I should also mention that Macedon kept Greece pretty safe from barbarian invasions, and was a huge power-player in Greece even before Alexander.

Well I certainly regard Alexander as a rightful leader for the Greeks in Civilization, and would be annoyed if he didn't make an appearance; however I do disagree over the issue of ancient Greek cultural identity and how Macedon fits into it. In reality its a moot point, and is most likely similar to the debates Greeks had among themselves when they looked at their Macedonian contemporaries.

 

[NA00]

I certainly hope multiple leaders of each country in the game will be portrayed. As has been said earlier, it is difficult to decide which leaders should be represented without knowing specifically which countries are going to be in the game.

For the US I would like to see Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Leaving politics aside, I just do not think FDR is as appropriate of a choice as others potentially are. There is no doubting FDR's role in US history, however.

I would like to see Simone Bolivar in the game, if a Latin American country is in the game. Maybe Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would not be bad choices either - to acknowledge there political contributions.....I'm joking about this part.

 

[drlcartman]

Simon Bolivar was very important in bringing South America much independence, and he is considered essentially the George Washington of a whole ton of Latin American countries. Hell, he's the only guy who has a country named after him.

Not exactly, there are a few others


Anyways, I would like to see a change up of some of the countries and/or leaders. For instance, why not Ivan III (The Great) of Russia, Thomas Jefferson for the Americans, William Wallace of Scotland, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and Casimir III (the Great) of Poland.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Not exactly, there are a few others

Oh darn... I never realized it for some of those! It's like one of those things that you never noticed before... Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[LightSpectra]

He wasn't Russian: so? The history of european leaders for the last thousand years is a bizarre intermashing of leader-trading: Elizabeth II, for example, is the direct product of Victoria marrying a german: Edward VII's house was officially the "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha." Does this make him, or indeed Elizabeth, any less English? Russia was FOUNDED when a bunch of Kievan princes sent away to Scandinavia. A dude called Rurik came, and you got the house of Rurik, longest lasting in Russia's history, based on a SCANDINAVIAN. It doesn't matter WHERE he's from, the fact is that the USSR was the product of Bolshevik-led latter-day Russian imperialism and thus he was the leader of RUSSIA!

He was not leader of Russia. He was leader of the Soviet Union, of which Russia was a member.

I don't know what you're going on about the House of Windsor being German. My dispute isn't that the leader of Russia has to be a native Russian. My dispute is that the leader of Russia has to be a leader of Russia.

 

[5t0rmm4k3r]

I can see the point your trying to make here, but I agree that the majority of the people who this game has to appeal to will see Stalin the leader of Russia. This is not to mention the various other good points that have been made. For example, while Stalin was leader of the USSR and not ethnically Russian, he ruled over a nation which included Russia. I think a similar argument could be made for Victoria. She ruled over Britain, not England, however, that nation included England, and I don't see many people arguing against her being included. And on the ethnicity issue, Saladin was not an Arab, he was Kurdish (an ethnically Iranian race). However this doesn't change the fact that the majority of the people playing civ see him as an Arab. I would not cry over Stalin being included for Russia, but I also wouldn't really care if he was their leader.

Anyway, I think that there is probably a good chance that, seeing as there is 18 civs in ciV and 18 in cIV, am I the only one who thinks there is a good chance they will be the same civs? I think multiple leaders are bound to be in, seeing asthey were a very popular addition to civ IV and they aren't all that likely to tyake away such a popular feature (IMHO). I would like to see Abu Bakr and Lenin. Either Selassie or Menelik II would make a nice addition for Ethiopia and I think 2 leaders for each civ would be nice (although you may be pushed a bit with some civs, without going into obscure leaders). Also I don't think Charlemagne should be aleader for Germany. After all, he was no more German than French or Italian! I thinkhe should be leader for the Franks, along with either Clovis or Martel. If the HRE is in, then I think it should be lead by either Barbarossa or Otto, real Holy Romans.

Anyway, sorry bout the long post... Prob won't hear from me for while though...

EDIT: That is not to say I don't want Saladin in, I think he still works as an Arabic leader. For Stalin you would need to present a ridiculously good argument for him not being included for Russia, an argument which I'm not sure exists

 

[johnny139]

You know who I'm really pulling for? Theodore Roosevelt.

Washington's in for sure, and I bet, if there even ARE multiple leaders, Lincoln will follow. But if they go for a third, I'd like to see TR. He's consistently in the top five - and often in the top three - of scholarly polls, for starters. Excluding the Founding Fathers, he's really the only President to gain his fame WITHOUT a war. Sweeping reforms, a great environmentalist movement, politically savvy, a Nobel Peace Prize, a figure in popular culture (he's on Mount Rushmore for heaven's sake!), a writer, a scientist, an explorer, a boxer, a scholar, a hunter, and too many other things to list.

And above all else... just imagine diplomacy with the guy! Now that they have full-body leaders, good lord, the shouting and pointing and sheer motion would be AMAZING to watch.

I believe he was almost in BtS, so, with some luck, he'll end up in the game at SOME point.

 

[drlcartman]

You know who I'm really pulling for? Theodore Roosevelt.

Washington's in for sure, and I bet, if there even ARE multiple leaders, Lincoln will follow. But if they go for a third, I'd like to see TR. He's consistently in the top five - and often in the top three - of scholarly polls, for starters. Excluding the Founding Fathers, he's really the only President to gain his fame WITHOUT a war. Sweeping reforms, a great environmentalist movement, politically savvy, a Nobel Peace Prize, a figure in popular culture (he's on Mount Rushmore for heaven's sake!), a writer, a scientist, an explorer, a boxer, a scholar, a hunter, and too many other things to list.

And above all else... just imagine diplomacy with the guy! Now that they have full-body leaders, good lord, the shouting and pointing and sheer motion would be AMAZING to watch.

I believe he was almost in BtS, so, with some luck, he'll end up in the game at SOME point.

I hate to be this guy, but.....I think you forgot the whole War in Cuba thing. Without that, TR would of not become governor of NY, and would not of been nominated for VP, and would of never became Pres (he was VP when McKinley got shot and died). So, yeah, he DID kinda became famous for charging up this hill in Cuba, which he was posthumously given the Medal of Honor by President Bill Clinton.

 

[ViterboKnight]

For Incas, I cannot think at anyone else than Pachacutec! He did EVERYTHING: war, expansion, culture, wealth, buildings. All the greatest existing Incas monument are by him, while there's NO clue of Huyana Capac (whose only merit was to be alive when Europeans arrive, and to die just after for a flu!).

About Romans, I read that someone prefers Augustus to Julius Caesar. Arguable. The impact of Julius Caesar was huge, and he also was a great charismatic leader. If I had to choose between them, I'd pick Julius for sure.

Same thing for Egypt. Agree with you for Cleopatra (just WHY include her in the game??), but I'll insist for Ramesses II forever!! Like Julius Caesar, his impact on Egyptian history was huge, IMHO only second to the "Napoleon of Egypt", alias Thutmose III.

For last century leaders. Maybe some people are right when they say they don't want them in the game.
Of course... Mao, Churchill, Stalin, FD Roosevelt (and I also add Mussolini)... I'd surely miss them!!

 

[Churchill's Hat]

I'd have to go with FDR over Roosevelt, and FDR didn't gain his fame through war. Social Security and the New Deal alone put him up there, WWII just helped. If they have 4 leaders, though, TR should be the 4th.

 

[Pan_Mieczyslaw]

I hope that Stalin isn't put in as the leader of "Russia" again. That makes my Ukrainian blood boil.

probably blood of Civ players from half of Europe would boil... Most of leaders were cruel murders, however the sins of Hammurabi & Co. have already expired, and effects of Stalin's terror are still present in memory of lot of people.

I think Civ GMs should not put leaders whose victims are still alive...

 

[climat]

About Romans, I read that someone prefers Augustus to Julius Caesar. Arguable. The impact of Julius Caesar was huge, and he also was a great charismatic leader. If I had to choose between them, I'd pick Julius for sure.

I agree. But I just wish to see both.

Agree with you for Cleopatra (just WHY include her in the game??), but I'll insist for Ramesses II forever!! Like Julius Caesar, his impact on Egyptian history was huge

IMO, they were in because simply they are well-knowned. (Oh, Christian Jacq!)

 

[ViterboKnight]

IMO, they were in because simply they are well-knowned. (Oh, Christian Jacq!)

Touché!

 

[LightSpectra]

I can see the point your trying to make here, but I agree that the majority of the people who this game has to appeal to will see Stalin the leader of Russia.

There's no reason a game based on counterfactuals can't correct public misconceptions.

This is not to mention the various other good points that have been made. For example, while Stalin was leader of the USSR and not ethnically Russian, he ruled over a nation which included Russia.

By this very logic, having Herman Van Rompuy (President of the European Union's Council) as leader of Britain wouldn't be objectionable, considering that he's a leader of the EU, of which includes Britain; despite the fact that Rompuy is Belgian.

I think a similar argument could be made for Victoria. She ruled over Britain, not England, however, that nation included England, and I don't see many people arguing against her being included.

You haven't looked hard enough. In addition to this point, she was also a pure figurehead, so people have rattled against her inclusion before.

And on the ethnicity issue, Saladin was not an Arab, he was Kurdish (an ethnically Iranian race).

I don't know why people are bringing up how leaders of nations don't have to be native to those countries. That has nothing to do with my point.

 

[Dragonflow]

Guys, you should consider that most great leaders in history were killers. With the same logic as Stalin is treated then neither Victoria, Genghis Khan nor Isabella should be included. For some reason nobody says that Genghis Khan shouldn't be included. The Mongols killed several millions during their conquests and the following occupations. But Genghis Khan will be included because during his time the Mongols were at their greatest hight. Same goes for Stalin, during his reign Russia was at the highest point of power during it's existence. I know that Stalin killed millions but so did many leaders which are included in Civilizations. We don't even know if there aren't multiple leaders and you guys are going wild because of one know leader. Maybe Stalin will be one of several Russian leaders and if you don't like him just pick another one.

 

[Iván de España]

This is my list of 18 civilizations and their each 3 leaders:

1) USA (CivI-V)
-Washington (CivIV-V)
-F.D.Roosevelt (CivIV)
-Lincoln (CivI-IV)

2) Germany (CivI-V)
-Bismarck (CivIII-V)
-Frederick I Barbarossa (CivII). He increased the imperial authority in Germany, fought the Pope, and conquered territories in Italy.
-Hitler. He conquered one half of Europe. If you don’t like him emotionally, my next option is Otto I (first German Emperor) because Frederick II the Great was King of Prussia, not of all Germany.

3) Rome (CivI-IV)
-Julius Caesar (CivI-IV)
-Augustus (CivIV)
-Justinian (CivIV). He was considered Roman Emperor by his people and his neighbours and conquered Northern Africa and Italy, so he recovered the city of Rome.

4) Greece (CivI-IV)
-Alexander the Great (CivI-IV)
-Pericles (CivIV)
-Milciades the Younger. He defeated the Persians in the battle of Marathon.

5) China (CivI-IV)
-Qin Shi Huang (CivIV)
-Mao (CivI-IV)
-Hongwu, also known as Zhu Yuanzhang. He expelled out the Mongols and was the first Emperor of Ming Dynasty.

6) India (CivI-IV)
-Ashoka (CivIV)
-Chandragupta II. During his rule, the Gupta Empire achieved its zenith politically and culturally.
-Nehru. He was the first Prime Minister of India and was the leader of the Indian National Congress under the mentorship of Gandhi, who never ruled in India.

7) Arabia (CivIII-IV)
-Harun ar-Rashid. He made the Abbasid Caliphate to achieve its zenith in culture, science, power and economy, and is famous to be in The Book of One Thousand and One Nights.
-Umar I. He conquered Mesopotamia, Siria, Persia, and Egypt and was the first Caliph to be called Amir al-Muminin (Prince of the Believers).
-Muawiyah I. He conquered lands in Anatolia, defeated Ali in the fitna, and was the first Umayyad Caliph.
(Saladin wasn’t arab but kurdish and didn’t rule in Arabia. Abu Bakr ruled only 3 years)

8) Spain (CivII-IV)
-Phillip II (CivII). In his time, Spain was the most powerful political entity in Europe and the most advanced land in science, tecnology and culture.
-Charles III. He applied politics of Enlightenment for the intelectual, educational and economic innovation of Spain, established Spanish symbols (flag and anthem) for the creation of an Spanish nation, and helped US in the War of Independence.
-Liuvigild. In the time of this Goth king, Hispania (Spain) was the most powerful economically, the most peaceful, and the most advanced intelectually in Western Europe.
(Isabel or Isabella was just Queen of Castille. However, his husband, Ferdinand, was King of Aragón and Castille and was considered King of Spain abroad.)

9) France (CivI-IV)
-Louis XIV (Civ II&IV)
-Napoleon (Civ I&IV)
-Charlemagne (CivIV). He was the King of the Franks, the old name of the French, so he fits in this civilization.

10) England (CivI-IV)
-Elizabeth I (CivI-IV)
-Victoria (CivIV)
-Henry II. He had huge territories in France and increased his authority against aristocracy and the Pope.

11) Russia-USSR (CivI-IV)
-Stalin (CivI&IV). If you don’t like emotionally, my next option is Peter the Great.
-Catherine the Great (CivII-IV)
-Ivan IV the Terrible. He made Russia into an Empire conquering huge territories in Asia, established a new code of laws, and centralized the power.

12) Egypt (CivI-IV)
-Ramesses II (CivI,II&IV)
-Hatshepsut (CivIV)
-Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV and Amenophis IV. He leaded a religious revolution changing the Egyptian politheism into monotheism (probably he made influence in the first jews), and concentrated the authority in himself.

13) Persia (CivII-IV)
-Cyrus the Great (CivIII-IV)
-Xerxes (CivII-III)
-Darius I (CivIV)

14) Babylon (CivI-IV)
-Hammurabi (CivI-IV)
-Nebuchadnezzar II. He built the Hanging Gardens, expelled out the Assyrians, and conquered Judah and Jerusalem.
-Nabopolassar. He left the Assyrian dependence and founded the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

15) Aztec Empire, also known as Mexica Empire (CivI-IV)
-Moctezuma II, also known as Moctezuma Xocoyotzin (CivI-IV). No more skulls in his hat, he isn’t a cannibal.
-Moctezuma I, also known as Moctezuma Ilhuicamina or just Ilhuicamina. He subjugated the Huastecs, Totonacs and Mixtecs.
-Itzcoatl. He laid the foundations for the eventual Aztec Empire conquering the surrounding cities, and did a religious and law reform.

16) Incan Empire, also known as Tawantinsuyu (CivIII-IV)
-Pachacutec (CivIII)
-Huayna Capac (CivIV)
-Manco Capac. He founded the Kingdom of Cusco, the origin of the Incan Empire.

17) Ethiopia (CivIV)
-Zara Yaqob, also known as Constantine I (CivIV)
-Ezana. He was the first Christian ruler of the world, organized the Ethiopian Church, and destroyed the Kingdom of Kush.
-Haile Selassie. He fought Mussolini’s armies and is considered the black reincarnation of Christ by the Rastafari (his pre-imperial name was Ras Tafari, that means Lord Tafari).

18) Japan (CivII-IV). I’d choose Mongolia before, but the game developers will be interested in selling more games in Japan.
-Ieyasu Tokugawa (CivII-IV)
-Mutsuhito, also known as Meiji Tenno. He abolished the shogunate and the feudalism, leaded the Meiji Restoration to modernize Japan and to make it into an industrial country and a great power, and conquered Korea.
-Minamoto Yoritomo. He was the first Shogun of Japan and founded the Kamakura Shogunate, 1185-1333.

 

[Atrebates]

@Ivan
Very good post. I generally agree with all your choices. I'd promote HenryVII as my favourite oddity for English rule, partly 'cos he did good things and partly for the gameplay reason that he offers a very good way to put in a fluff-correct strong economic leader for England. (and England is generally a strong economic nation in Civ, representing that British empire dominating trade thing that stands out in everyone's mind).



@LightSpectra
Your central point (USSR is not Russia/Russian empire) is not generally accepted. I'm curious as to where this belief comes from. Wikipedia (which is a hotbed of far-out discussion at the best of times) doesn't even have a citation needed next to statements like

"The Soviet Union is traditionally considered to be the successor of the Russian Empire and of its short-lived successor, The Provisional Government"

You are entitled to hold your belief, and indeed railing against historical inaccuracies is a mainstay of many a civ fan, but the idea that the USSR isn't a vehicle of Russian domination is a very unusual one.

PS. Not to mention that many of those ex-member states of the USSR ing HATE Russia holding them under their thumb in the USSR. National politics aren't inherently accurate (hello bigotry and racism) but I would pay some attention to the thoughts of the USSR members when debating what the USSR was all about.

PPS. I'm faintly concerned that this post sounds aggressive - not my intention! I am genuinely interested as to where your opinion comes from, especially as you are a US resident, and for very understandable reasons the teaching of Cold War history leans more towards boo-hiss Russian aggression than elsewhere (which is not to say that anything like all americans hold this view, this is just a trend relayed to me in Cold War history via a man who had been through scholarships in US universities).

 

[LightSpectra]

Xerxes was a terrible leader of Persia, "France" as we consider it today did not exist until the Capetian dynasty (and Visigothic rule of Hispania isn't considered "Spain" for the same reason), Miltiades was not a political leader of Greece but a one-time military leader of a coalition, I'd think that Alfred of Wessex is a more deserving leader of England than Henry II, and I don't know why you keep listing "fought the Pope" as an accomplishment for leaders.

@LightSpectra
Your central point (USSR is not Russia/Russian empire) is not generally accepted. I'm curious as to where this belief comes from.

From the fact that it's not Russia? You say that it's "generally not accepted." By who? No credible historian I know will erase all of the Soviet Republics from the pages of history and pretend Russia was the only member.

You are entitled to hold your belief, and indeed railing against historical inaccuracies is a mainstay of many a civ fan, but the idea that the USSR isn't a vehicle of Russian domination is a very unusual one.

That isn't my claim. Russia was obviously the most powerful and significant member of the Soviet Union, but nevertheless, the two entities are not synonymous.