What about Prophet Mohammed?

[JBearIt]

I know that they probably didn't have his image but didn't one of the Civ II expansion cds have a spread of Islam scenario with Muhammed as the leader?

 

[ist..since1453]

this is a little off-topic but some historians say saladin was kurdish not arab.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would think you would then not like a few other choices for leaderheads. Lincoln wasn't a Golden Age leader, although he got the US through the civil war (Golden Age leader for the US would be... Clinton?). When Ghandi was alive, India was plagued by poverty (don't know enough about India's history to recommend one but they have seen better days).

Furthermore, despite Saladin's accomplishments, Muhammed is vehicle that shifted the Arab empire's fate. What greater contribution could Saladin have?

As for stereotypes, I didn't know Firaxis was trying to encourage them. However, I am beginning to understand why they chose someone other than Muhammed. They're going to stay away from it if people believe there shouldn't be any images of Muhammed. Connotation is half the battle and they risk alienating at least their Muslim customers.

Actually Lincoln is definitely a Golden Age leader, because he's the only recognizable leader preceeding the 'Gilded Age' when America Industrialized

 

[Ghafhi]

Thanks for being the only one to actually address the issue but what makes the others leaders better? Yes, the Arab empire spread after Muhammed's death but for example, Saladin had nothing to do with that. Saladin drove the first Crusaders out of Jerusalem, the only military leader the was able to do so for a long time. Muhammed contributed not only as a military leader but was well skilled in social justice and political issues as well.

Others argues, then why not Jesus or Moses? But Jesus never involved himself in military, social and political forums. Maybe social in some ways, but he is strictly a religious figure, unlike Muhammed. Same can be argued about Moses. Take on the other hand Ghandi, a religious, social and political figure and therefore, you see him in the game.

Well if you inlcude Muhammad then Jesus must be in it to because that was the basis for the crusades. I would say Muhammad however is more appropriate than Jesus. Moses should be there if Muhammed is. I think Confuscious should definitely be there for China because he wrote one of the best books on war and other things. Not to offend muslims but most of the world would consider muhhamads actions leaving the world back on civil liberties of many people in the muslim world. Some times being a good leader means more than just killing people with a big army it can also be being a diplomatic genuis like cold war american diplomats or the king of beuchusland. Also muhammed did lose some battles from my understanding. It also depends on if you want an arabian, an arab, or an arabic empire.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Dunno, maybe Reagan better than Clinton? Because of the fall of the Berlin wall thing and the ending of the cold war... Or Eisenhower (sp?)

I think that Thomas Jefferson would have been a golden age as well, with the Louis and Clark expedition as well as the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the union. Jefferson also advanced public education and helped many states draft constitutional amendments outlawing slavery in their states.

 

[mitsho]

Not to pick on you, but that comment is pretty funny.

hmm, ok, I admit. But it had been quite a long day and I was already in thoughts in my bed...

@ist_since...something And? He did lead the Arab nation though, and that is the important fact. And btw. Napoleon was Corsican, Stalin Georgian, Catherine the Great German. Not the ethnicity counts (if that really could be distinguished correctly, especially for nobility who basically was one great family in Europe... )), but the politics.

m

 

[daufoi]

Actually Lincoln is definitely a Golden Age leader, because he's the only recognizable leader preceeding the 'Gilded Age' when America Industrialized

I took 'Golden Age' as meaning a prosperous time in a country's history rather than a specific time throughout the world's history. I find it hard to believe that America's Golden Age was during a civil war. Golden Age would mean, to me, a time when the country reaches its epitome of power and influence. Now seems a more appropriate time for that than the late 1800s.

 

[daufoi]

Well if you inlcude Muhammad then Jesus must be in it to because that was the basis for the crusades. I would say Muhammad however is more appropriate than Jesus. Moses should be there if Muhammed is. I think Confuscious should definitely be there for China because he wrote one of the best books on war and other things. Not to offend muslims but most of the world would consider muhhamads actions leaving the world back on civil liberties of many people in the muslim world. Some times being a good leader means more than just killing people with a big army it can also be being a diplomatic genuis like cold war american diplomats or the king of beuchusland. Also muhammed did lose some battles from my understanding. It also depends on if you want an arabian, an arab, or an arabic empire.

Like I said, Jesus and Moses are religious figures rather than social leaders. I'm not saying they didn't have their influences (whether direct or indirect).

As for being a good or bad leader, that is really relative. My point is he took the Arabs from obscurity to one of the largest empires to date. Furthermore, Hitler or Stalin are 'bad' leaders but some would argue to put them in the game because of their influence. Good and bad are just opinions and we might be looking at Hitler as a good leader if he had won the war.

And, even though Muhammed lost some battles, who hasn't? Every leader and every civ has lost at some point or another.

 

[Markus6]

Like I said, Jesus and Moses are religious figures rather than social leaders.

Well Jesus wasn't but Moses definitely lead the Israelite civ. When he took control they were Eygptian slaves and very soon after he died the Israelites had their own country. Admittedly he wandered around randomly in the desert for one heck of a long time.

Obviously he's not an important enough social leader to get in the game. But if he did I think instead of the normal traits he could have some very amusing special abilities. e.g. being able to create pathways through sea squares. And to balance out this awesome power? workers who have a tendancy to walk into desert squares, get lost and return 40 years later or climb mountains meet God and return to conflict with your ruling.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I agree that belittling someone as important to a faith as Mohammed to a mere sprite would cause public outrage.

 

[daufoi]

Well Jesus wasn't but Moses definitely lead the Israelite civ. When he took control they were Eygptian slaves and very soon after he died the Israelites had their own country. Admittedly he wandered around randomly in the desert for one heck of a long time.

Obviously he's not an important enough social leader to get in the game. But if he did I think instead of the normal traits he could have some very amusing special abilities. e.g. being able to create pathways through sea squares. And to balance out this awesome power? workers who have a tendancy to walk into desert squares, get lost and return 40 years later or climb mountains meet God and return to conflict with your ruling.

First, to include Moses, you would have to include Isreal as a civ, that in of itself is debateable. Second, although Moses led the Isrealites out of slavery, he did not build a country or a civ. He never even entered the 'promised land'. He didn't even fight the war that led to their new country.

 

[Markus6]

Though he did instigate the 10 commandments. The basis of a rather good justice system. However, I was joking. Do I need to start putting joke marks in? I thought the parting of the seas power made it obvious enough?

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]

And, even though Muhammed lost some battles, who hasn't? Every leader and every civ has lost at some point or another.

Alexander the Great never lost one of his battles. This seems to be really a unique attribute.

 

[daufoi]

Though he did instigate the 10 commandments. The basis of a rather good justice system. However, I was joking. Do I need to start putting joke marks in? I thought the parting of the seas power made it obvious enough?

Guess I'm just a serious kind of guy.

 

[apatheist]

Alexander the Great never lost one of his battles. This seems to be really a unique attribute.

Only because he died too soon ;-)

More seriously, maybe that reflects a greater virtue: knowing how to pick battles. It's like watching a skilled pool player. You never see them make spectacular plays because the skill is setting up your shots ahead of time so they're always easy.

 

[Black Flag]

Yeah.. Trajan's right, creating Mohammed as the Arabic leader would stir greater controversy than reasons why the American Muslim Association (I think thats right...) has commercials not demonizing themselves... or something like that. There'd be riots...

 

[Hellfire]

Dunno, maybe Reagan better than Clinton? Because of the fall of the Berlin wall thing and the ending of the cold war... Or Eisenhower (sp?)

I know everyone else dodged it but I must address this

Clinton and Reagan are too controversial to be considered American leaders. While approxamitely 50% of the country loves them, the other half absolutely despises them. Which half depends on who you are talking about.

(Hey that's funny, a leader where you'll never get a we love the president day with, but one where you will never have civil unrest! )

I think we can agree for the most part that Washington and Lincoln are our two premiere leaders of history in America. Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt are right behind him. Next I'd say FDR, but there are still people alive from that time who just don't like him so he's not old enough for history to put him on a perfect pedestal.

 

[Justy]

Concerning the sub-thread of American (US) golden age leader I would agree with Eisenhower. The U.S. at that time took the mantle away from Europe who were rebuilding from the ashes of WW2. The U.S. was no longer an isolationist power but fully involved in world affairs afterwards. The economy was powerful and pop culture truly boomed.

Any leader before FDR is too early, the nation was still too young. Sure we were expanding but hardly a world power and certainly not in a golden age.

As for the main issue. Depicting any religious leader would be a mistake. They should have went with the Ottomans as opposed to the Arabs. The Ottomans were a pan-middle-eastern power and nominally muslim. Then you have a nice group of leaders to choose from.

 

[apatheist]

Concerning the sub-thread of American (US) golden age leader I would agree with Eisenhower. The U.S. at that time took the mantle away from Europe who were rebuilding from the ashes of WW2. The U.S. was no longer an isolationist power but fully involved in world affairs afterwards. The economy was powerful and pop culture truly boomed.

He was certainly the leader at the time, but I don't know if you can credit him with all of that. He built on what FDR and Truman accomplished, especially with the Marshall Plan. The United States had the benefit of being the only major Western nation that wasn't practically destroyed by the war, so could use being relatively unscathed to be the factory for the world while Europe and Japan rebuilt. That powered a golden age of American prosperity, but it was much more a result of WWII than Eisenhower's leadership. I'm not saying he was a bad President, just that he can't be credited with that.

 

[Justy]

He was certainly the leader at the time, but I don't know if you can credit him with all of that. He built on what FDR and Truman accomplished, especially with the Marshall Plan. The United States had the benefit of being the only major Western nation that wasn't practically destroyed by the war, so could use being relatively unscathed to be the factory for the world while Europe and Japan rebuilt. That powered a golden age of American prosperity, but it was much more a result of WWII than Eisenhower's leadership. I'm not saying he was a bad President, just that he can't be credited with that.

Well there are many factors that go into any nations golden age. Those factors usually involved the decline and/or subjugation of its neighbors. If not for WW2 FDR could have been a one-term president as America struggled through the Great Depression. There's no proof that New Deal was going anywhere. However, the US rallied around FDR beacause of the turbulent events transpiring outside the country.

So its true to point to FDR and WW2 and say that was the root cause for the US emergence. Yet at the time of his death the US was still mired in WW2. I suppose an arguement could be made for Truman, but his legacy is mixed. The Marshall plan was a no brainer, that had to be done. France was ready to vote in the communist party and similar elections were tilting that way through Europe. Throw in the faux paus that placed Korea outside the US sphere of protection giving the green light for communist forces in the north to attack. The legacy is somewhat mixed.

With all that being said I see the Eisenhower / Kennedy span of the golden era as the time I would rather live in. That's really the whole point of the Golden Age, everybody looking back and saying how great things were.