The inevitable leaders thread

[Iván de España]

The Visigoths ruled a kingdom as "Hispaniorum reges", that means kings of the Spanish. The origin of the name "Spain" (o "España" in Castillian and "Espanya" in Catalonian) is the translation of "Hispania" in Latin and, even before, "Hi-Span" in the lenguage of Cartaginians. So, Spain was the name of the Iberian Peninsula until the independence of Portugal in 1640. Before, Portugal was considered a Spanish Kingdom, like Castille, Navarre or Granade.
"Spanish" doesn't refer to an ethnic people, like "French" or "English". So, the Spanish were the people who lived in the Iberian Peninsula, included the Visigoths. Now, the Spanish are the citizens of the Spanish State.

¡Que soy español! ¿Cómo no voy a saber esto mejor que los extranjeros?

 

[LightSpectra]

Here's my list, avoiding distinctly religious figures:

1. France (Napoléon I, Louis XIV, Charles de Gaulle)
2. Russia (Aleksandr Nevskij, Ivan III, Yekaterina II)
3. India (Jalāl Muhammad Akbar, Jawaharlal Nehru)
4. England (Alfred of Wessex, Edward III, Elizabeth I)
5. Japan (Shigenobu Ōkuma, Hōjō Tokimune, Tokugawa Ieyasu)
6. China (Qin Shi Huang, Taizong, Sun Yat-sen)
7. Rome (Romulus, Julius Caesar, Justinian I)
8. Egypt (Rammeses II, Hatshepsut, Saif ad-Din Qutuz)
9. Arabia (Harun al-Rashid, Salāh ad-Din, Baibars*)
10. Germany (Otto I, Otto von Bismarck, Frederick I Barbarossa)
11. Spain (Isabella I, Francisco Franco, Philip II)
12. Iran (Cyrus I, Darius I, Khosrau I)
13. Greece (Philip II, Alexander III, Themistocles)
14. Mongolia (Genghis Khan, Möngke Khan, Kublai Khan)
15. U.S. (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt)
16. Babylon (Hammurabi, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II)
17. Turkey (Suleiman, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Alp Arslan)
18. Aztecs (* * *)
19. South Africa (Shaka, Cetshwayo kaMpande, Nelson Mandela)
20. Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh, Tran Hung Dao, Ly Nam De)
21. Assyria (Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib)
22. Austria (Maria Theresia, Leopold I, Franz I)

Don't know enough about Aztec culture to name good leaders beyond Moctezuma. *Not sure if Baibars actually held political control over most of Arabia during the Mongol invasions, but he's a particularly successful leader so he'd be my first pick.

 

[awesome]

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.

yeah, that sounds pretty asian. i know they even changed a few people's given names if they sounded too much like the emperor's, or if the emperor's given name was a common word.


also, for all of the people saying that stalin shouldn't be leader of russia because he wasn't russian, neither was catherine the great.

 

[LightSpectra]

also, for all of the people saying that stalin shouldn't be leader of russia because he wasn't russian, neither was catherine the great.

Catherine was Tsarina of the Russian Empire. Stalin was chairman of the CPSU. Which one of these is "Russia," and which of them is not?

 

[johnny139]

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.

Oh, clearly - but I mean, as a leader. While he became famous because he was the Rough Rider, as President, he didn't go to war at all despite his rather... bloodthirsty nature, and instead focused on internal affairs and international peace. FDR is definitely a more likely choice, but Theodore has a shot, methinks. 70/30, I'd say.

 

[Atrebates]

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.

Cool, now I get what you're driving at, fair enough. I'd disagree on the significance of that difference, but I suppose it is semantics. Russia kept a load of other countries under its thumb and dominated them - not calling it the russian empire doesn't stop it from being Russia's dominion.

Although my personal rule-of-thumb for civilisations is "could you ever see them being in the same game together?" if not then you should lump them together as one.

So that covers England/British Empire , Rome/Italy & Russia/USSR; but I can understand why this isn't a universal view

All the best, agree to disagree and all that...
Atrebates

 

[Sian]

if people don't like Meiji because its appearently is illegal to decept him (which is news to me) we could problery take either Iwakura Tomomi or Ito Hirobumi (some of the respectively early and late Meiji Period leaders

 

[Tusked]

Oh hey, LightSpectra is still arguing against Stalin.

Just curious Light, is your country of origin something other than the US? (Not insinuating anything here, just don't know any americans who would argue the point this vehemently and am interested in other points of view on things) As for your arguments, I would point out that we're not trying to write out the other member SSRs of the Soviet Union - just saying that, after a point, they were being kept under Russia's thumb - more vassal states than permanent alliances, to put it in civ terms. As an example of this, notice how many former Soviet SSRs were friendly with Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union - few. Georgia and Russia were having a military dispute just a few years ago, during the last US presidential cycle. Also, Russia was larger than the other SSRs combined in population - 147 million for Russia, 128 for the other SSRs (1990 figures and done in rough mental arithmetic, so allow me a small margin of error) - and in total area (obviously). The vast majority of the SSRs were Russian territory before the Empire even fell, lending further credence to the fact that the USSR was an extension of Russian imperialism into more communist-friendly terms.

Anyways, you seem to be a really smart guy and I respect your opinions even if I disagree with them.

P.S. - Not that I really want Stalin as the leader for Russia. Don't particularly like the guy, and Tsarist Russia is just cooler in the first place.

P.P.S - The reason people kept raising arguments like Cathy was because you kept using the argument that Stalin was Georgian.

P.P.P.S. - As for your other leader selections, I personally would leave Justinian off of Rome, just to leave the possibility for a Byzantine civ open, as by his time the "Roman" empire was totally Byzantine. Anything through Theodosius is fair game by my standards.

 

[LightSpectra]

Just curious Light, is your country of origin something other than the US? (Not insinuating anything here, just don't know any americans who would argue the point this vehemently and am interested in other points of view on things)

I'm half Irish and half Ukrainian.

As for your arguments, I would point out that we're not trying to write out the other member SSRs of the Soviet Union - just saying that, after a point, they were being kept under Russia's thumb - more vassal states than permanent alliances, to put it in civ terms.

Not something I deny, but nevertheless, the relationship between the Soviet republics was not the same as the relationship between the subjugated nations of the Romanovs.

P.P.S - The reason people kept raising arguments like Cathy was because you kept using the argument that Stalin was Georgian.

Thus demonstrating that Russia is not synonymous with the Soviet Union, in the same way that California is not synonymous with the U.S. or Germany is not synonymous with the EU.

P.P.P.S. - As for your other leader selections, I personally would leave Justinian off of Rome, just to leave the possibility for a Byzantine civ open, as by his time the "Roman" empire was totally Byzantine. Anything through Theodosius is fair game by my standards.

The term "Byzantine Empire" was invented by Latinophile historians that thought the Eastern Roman Empire was some bastard off-shoot of the glorious Roman Empire. There's no real good reason to think that they should be separate civilizations.

 

[NA00]

Oh, clearly - but I mean, as a leader. While he became famous because he was the Rough Rider, as President, he didn't go to war at all despite his rather... bloodthirsty nature, and instead focused on internal affairs and international peace. FDR is definitely a more likely choice, but Theodore has a shot, methinks. 70/30, I'd say.

I think TR would be an awesome candidate for CivV. Contrary to simply making war, he helped broker peace during his presidency.

I do not mind FDR in the game, but I would much rather see TR.

Not that the following would ever happen, or should even happen, but today I got to thinking that it would be kind of neat for the gameplay for them to add a less than popular and/or less than effective leader to the civ's listings of leaders for sheer interest and for adding a unique element to gameplay. For example, the US could have someone such as Jimmy Carter as a leader. Again, not saying it would or should happen, I would just like to see some sort of obscure element effect the diplomatic/leadership of the gameplay every now and then. Also, I do not want anyone to think I am singling out Mr. Carter on political grounds or otherwise, he just comes to mind. But I know there are others. Just a thought that was not given too much attention by me, it would just be interesting to see every now and then.

 

[Tusked]

I'm half Irish and half Ukrainian.

Interesting to know.

Not something I deny, but nevertheless, the relationship between the Soviet republics was not the same as the relationship between the subjugated nations of the Romanovs.

Of course not, modern imperialism can't take the form of pre-modern imperialism. If it does you get stuff like british india - i.e., a complete disaster for the oppressors.

The term "Byzantine Empire" was invented by Latinophile historians that thought the Eastern Roman Empire was some bastard off-shoot of the glorious Roman Empire. There's no real good reason to think that they should be separate civilizations.

Well, there is. They were culturally distinct (latin vs. greek culture), geographically distinct (italy-based european domination vs. greece-based Mediterranean domination), and linguistically distinct (latin vs. greek - the Byzantine switched somewhere around the seventh century). Besides the fact that one grew out of the other, there's really no similarity. They've got even less in common than the americans and the english.

Also, Byzantine is a cooler word.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I think TR would be an awesome candidate for CivV. Contrary to simply making war, he helped broker peace during his presidency.

I do not mind FDR in the game, but I would much rather see TR.

Teddy Roosevelt would be totally awesome! If I had to think of a totally badass leader that lived within the last century or so, he'd be it.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Teddy Roosevelt would be totally awesome! If I had to think of a totally badass leader that lived within the last century or so, he'd be it.

Nothing better then a president who likes to go hunting on the plains of Africa!

 

[NA00]

Nothing better then a president who likes to go hunting on the plains of Africa!

Hmmm...maybe that could provide +1 diplomatic relations with the countries located in Africa?/

 

[5t0rmm4k3r]

Well, since this whole Stalin thing seems to be over now, am I the only one who would like to see Tamerlane in the game (for the Mongols I think but I'm not 100% sure)? I agree that Teddy would be a cool leader. And would anyone like more African civs? It's not as if there is a shortage of them! Anyway, inevitable leaders... I think that (sorry LightSpectra) that Stalin will be in the game, along with other leaders like Montezuma. I always thought of Montezuma as proof of well known leaders being picked over really good ones. I mean, he's only famous because he ruler dring the Spanish conquest. As far as I'm aware he did nothing special, surely a leader like Itzcoatl would be better?

PS LightSpectra, I didn't mean to offend you but I think that, while you make a good argument, I'm not sure that it is something that will matter to the larger group of civ players...

 

[Bahmo]

I am really divided on this whole issue of leaders who do deserve it vs who don't. While on the one hand, Mao, Stalin, and hell, even Churchill if you're from India, are offensive leaders, they have one thing going for them--World War II. That doesn't mean I want Hitler except for scenarios, though. Some things are just untouchable, and that's one of them; as many people may have died in Russia and China, those countries still became modern superpowers while Nazi Germany devoted so much time to killing people solely out of racism and imperialism that everyone else opted to crush them.

But one more thing I would like to stress about Stalin and Mao. In part I agree with the person who said they were strictly modern leaders in a long-running civilization--but not any further, as just because they represent a notorious modern series of events doesn't mean that parallels can't be found in their countries going back for centuries. Authoritarian government has actually been part of Chinese and Russian culture for a very long time; China even built a religion on it. Yeah, I went there. There are many sections of Confucianist philosophy that would make typical Western democratic thinkers cringe. That's what separates Stalin and Mao from Hitler, not so much in terms of controversy, but in being appropriate leaders in Civ games. Stalin and Mao fit their countries more in the way Isabella and Montezuma do. Germany, by contrast, doesn't deserve to be given Hitler as a leader because they have not been infamous for brutal political climates throughout history. In fact the vast majority of the modern world's most famous, often progressive, political thinkers are from Germany.

That's not to say I want all modern leaders.
*While on the subject of Germany, I would be interested in seeing Armenius as a leader.
*For Russia, while I don't have too much objection to Stalin being there, I would like the leader who fought the wars of independence with the Mongols. (Not sure who that is) Peter still belongs there as the famous reformer who made Russia into a formidable presence, and Lenin should be there as maybe the main leader in the game who followed communism in its most idealistic form before his untimely demise--if Stalin returns, his favorite civic should be changed to Police State, or its equivalent. *For Egypt, I think the best leaders in terms of actual acomplishments would be either Horus Scorpion or Menes, as the ones that helped unite Upper and Lower Egypt. However a modern Egyptian leader in addition like Nasser or Sadat would be an interesting twist.
*With America, I still can't see anyone else more deserving than Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. (Either Roosevelt, as a matter of fact.) The first achieved American independence, the second preserved the USA as a large and united country worthy of the title civilization, and the last secured America's place as a major player on the world stage.
*Gilgamesh and Hammurabi are fairly appropriate for Babylon; no changes needed there.
*England could have a large variety of leaders worthy of notice. I think an early feudal figure like one of the Richards might be nice this time around.
*With France, again, I think Louis XIV, Napoleon and De Gaulle are the best choices. A country should be represented during its time of greatest importance.
*Japan should have Tokugawa but also a more modern leader. You can't accurately represent Japan without mentioning its dramatic embrace of futurian tendencies.

 

[kivanc]

my list with multi-leaders, the bold one picked for the case of 1leader/per civ
(i copy from a post of mine in another thread w/o change)
by the way, i don't agree that generals may not be leader of a civ in the game. some guys don't support hannibal and similar guys in this way. why shall he not be? he is not the president, he is leader. de gaulle is a well known leader, so is Hannibal.

18 civs for civ5 vanilla
1) American : Washington, Lincoln
2) Arabian : Saladin (he's the most imp person in arab history, i don't support religious figures like Mohammad to be in the game as a leader)
3) Aztec : Montezuma
4) Chinese : Mao, Qin Shi Huang
5) Egyptian : Ramesses II
6) English : Winston Churchill, Victoria
7) French : Napoleon, De Gaulle
8) German : Bismarck, Frederick
9) Greek : Alexander, Pericles (although Alex is macedonian, he can be considered as Greek IMO)
10) Indian: Gandhi, Asoka (the guy who built Taj mahal wasn't Indian, he was Turkish)
11) Japanese : Tokugawa
12) Mongolian : Genghis, Kublai
13) Turkish: Mehmed II, Suleiman, Ataturk, Attila
14) Persian : Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes
15) Roman : Julius, Augustus
16) Russian : Stalin, Peter (USSR was successor of Russian Empire, and Stalin being a leader of USSR can be considered a Russian leader although he had Georgian origin)
17) Spanish : I don't have much info on spanish history
18) Zulu : Shaka

civs for the EPs
Babylonian : Hammurabi
Carthaginian : Hannibal
Celtic : Boudica
Dutch : Willem
Incan : Huayna Capac
Maya : Pacal
Native American : Sth else then "Sitting Bull"
Portuguese : Joao
Sumerian : Gilgames
Viking : forgot the name
Khmers: Surya (not drawn like an alien)

 

[climat]

6) English : Winston Churchill, Victoria

Why not Lizzy?

 

[ViterboKnight]

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)

I'd add Theodore Roosevelt, and pick a couple among them. One of them will surely be Washington!

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.

Barbarossa was Holy Roman. Many people want to merge Germans with Holy Romans, but I think they must be definitely considered different. It's like to "merge" native americans with "standard" americans (pass me the expression!).
I'd keep the current Civ4 leaders: Frederick and Bismark.

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.

The same as before for Justinian: definitely Bizantine (and the greatest of them, whatsmore).
Not much a choice: Julius and Augustus!! A third choice could be among Marcus Aurelius (the peacemonger) and Traianus (the warmonger).

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)

Anything.

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.)

With my very small knowledge of Spanish history, I know Isabella heavily promoted naval explorations and eventually the discovery of America with Colombo. I'd give her a fixed slot! Second choice: whoever.

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.

About Charlemagne, as said before, he was Holy Roman.
Loius and Napoleon are excellent choices.

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.

Elizabeth and Victoria for sure.

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.

Anyone.

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.

Ramesses II for sure.
Second choice: either the debated Hatshepsut or Thutmose III (who was called the Napoleon of Egypt, and brang his empire to the greatest extension of its history).
I think Akhenaten is not a good choice, because his impact in history was almost null. After his death, everything he changed was restored, and almost every clues of his existence were destroyed. So I cannot consider him a great "LEADER".

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.

Don't really mind, but for their first choices:
Montezuma, Hammurabi, and Cyrus.

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.

Six months after my trip in Perù, I can say: I TOTALLY AGREE!!
(Well... if I had to remove one, I'd remove Huayna!).

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.

Anyone.

 

[Camikaze]

if people don't like Meiji because its appearently is illegal to decept him (which is news to me) we could problery take either Iwakura Tomomi or Ito Hirobumi (some of the respectively early and late Meiji Period leaders

I would prefer Ito Hirobumi instead of Meiji more for the same reason I prefer Churchill instead of George VI, and Bismarck instead of Wilhelm I (although that's certainly not perfectly analogous).