Which historical individuals were too evil to be Leaders?

[TheSpaceCowboy]

As a disclaimer, I'm not sure that any historical individual was too evil to necessarily merit exclusion from the Civilization franchise. I'd not take offence to Hitler leading Germany in some future installment of the franchise, and I've suggested Leopold II as the Leader of a potential Belgium civilization. However, it's currently the case that Firaxis gives weighted preference to individuals who are not currently remembered or regarded as evil. This thread is a thought exercise to debate whether their metrics line up with each of ours. If we were to decide that some individuals were to evil to be Leaders, how would we rank potential candidates and where would we draw the line between inclusion and exclusion?

Also, we're only considering deceased individuals. While some of the worst dictators in human history are surely reigning today, Firaxis would never include a living person, so they're beyond the scope of our consideration.

My own rankings take into account two differing definitions of evil. The first is deontological. Did they violate an aspect of the Natural Law, particularly by depriving others of life or liberty. Mass murderers and dictators are guilty according to these charges. The second is consequentialist. How did their actions affect posterity? Did they turn a republic into a dictatorship? Did they destroy the hallmarks of civilization (by burning books and destroying art and artifacts and architecture) and leave nothing equivalent in their wake? Is the world still suffering for their actions? All these questions will factor into my own considerations.

That said, here's my rankings:

1. Mao Zedong - A mass murderer who overthrew a republic and turned it into a communist dictatorship, under the heal of which over a billion people still suffer directly and through whose influence others outside of China are deprived of their Rights
2. Attila the Hun - a nomadic warlord responsible for much of the ruin which befell the Roman civilization
3. Genghis Khan - a nomadic warlord and mass rapist responsible for much ruin throughout the Occident and Orient
4. Joseph Stalin - a mass murderer and communist dictator
5. Adolf Hitler - A mass murder who turned a republic into a dictatorship
6. Pol Pot - A communist dictator and mass murderer
7. Ho Chi Minh - A communist dictator
8. Julius Caesar - A mass murderer of the Gauls who turned the Roman Republic into a dictatorship
9. Octavius - a gangster who cemented the ruin of the Roman Republic and turned it into a permanent dictatorship
10. Caligula - a mad tyrant
11. Nero - a matricidal tyrant and religious persecutor who gelded a catamite
12. Xerxes - a despot who threatened all of the Occident
13. Fidel Castro - a communist revolutionary and dictator who threatened the West with nuclear war
14. Benito Mussolini - a fascist dictator
15. Theodosius I - a dictator, caesaropapist who normalized governmental interference into theology, and religious persecutor of the pagans

I'm sure there are many more individuals meriting inclusion somewhere in these rankings, but those are a few that jumped out at me most immediately. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. Obviously one would want to include Attila merely because the Huns were so instrumental in the fall of the Roman Empire, but at the same time it'd be plainly loathsome to include the likes of even Castro or Mussolini.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

Several of these ar leaders in past civ games. In VI the only one you've played?

I know for a fact Attilla and Genghis Khan are in V. I think Mao Zedong is, or maybe it was IV. Almoat positive Julius Ceasar was in one as well. Maybe more.

EDIT: A quick Google search confirms both Mao Zedong and Julius Ceasar were in IV.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Several of these ar leaders in past civ games. In VI the only one you've played?

I know for a fact Attilla and Genghis Khan are in V. I think Mao Zedong is, or maybe it was IV. Almoat positive Julius Ceasar was in one as well. Maybe more.

EDIT: A quick Google search confirms both Mao Zedong and Julius Ceasar were in IV.

I've played Civilization Revolutions, Civilization IV and all it's Expansions, Civilization V and all its expansions, and of course Civilization VI and all of its content. The question isn't who Firaxis has included. It's who they ought to include in future installments. It's really a question of by which calculation we should determine how evil one potential Leader is compared to another. For my money, as terrible as Hitler was, Mao was exponentially worse.

 

[Pistol90]

Julius Caesar shouldn't be on the list. Yes he murder a lot of Gauls, but it was mostly wartime and rebelion, it wasnt he was on genocidal crusade through Gaul. Also converting Rome to Empire technicly wasnt done by him but his successor Octavian. Also he is like poster boy for being Roman at the first place.

Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan are questionable. If you dont include those two, question is reasons to include their Civs at the first place.

P.S. My personal opinion is every leader should be on the list to be included, except modern murderers like Hitler. Even Stalin is !?? , but I would include him as Russian lider, but some alternative civ Soviet Union.

 

[Morningcalm]

We've covered Genghis Khan before -- he promoted women, tolerated religion, promoted egaliatarianism in the military (you earned your stripes through success in battle, not by noble bloodline per the traditional Mongolian rules), made safe the Silk Road, and also spared cities that surrendered to him (not all, mind - Khwarazm was not spared due to their shah's murder of Genghis' envoys). Many ancient rulers had a cruel streak.

 

[blackcatatonic]

IMO all the ones on that list from the 20th century are the least likely to be featured as leaders ever (or ever again, in the case of Stalin) as it really is still Too Soon. Firaxis would be crucified if they tried to add Hitler as a leader.

 

[Amrunril]

IMO all the ones on that list from the 20th century are the least likely to be featured as leaders ever (or ever again, in the case of Stalin) as it really is still Too Soon. Firaxis would be crucified if they tried to add Hitler as a leader.

I'd agree that recency is a huge factor here. Genghis Khan may have murdered a lot of people, but he didn't murder the family members of people who might be playing the game. That's a much bigger deal the "objective degree of evil" even if were possible to quantify such a thing.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Nero could be a leader if consequentialist is one of the qualifications. In his time architecture and engineering greatly advanced simply because of his outrageous spending on building projects. When art the he commissioned was rediscovered it was studied by the artists of the renaissance. Of course none of that was his intention - which should perhaps be an additional condition for inclusion to the leader's list.

 

[fsuscotsman]

I've no problem with any of these before 1600. Life was just different then. Trying to judge them by today's standards is just a fool's errand. That is pretty much true for any time in history. By today's standard 1500s Spain would be construed as an aggressor state.

 

[Sirsquier]

Out of the Romans only Nero and Caligula were truly evil. The other two didn't really do anything wrong. Turning from republic to empire helped Rome and the Gauls were at war with them so.

 

[Zaarin]

If Julius Caesar was a mass murderer, then anyone who conducted a war is a mass murderer. If anyone who conducted a war is off the table, we're going to have an awfully empty civ roster. (Gandhi's going to be lonely.)

Octavian was called Augustus for a reason. Rome would be a footnote in history without him.

Xerxes was also called "the Great," just like Darius and Cyrus. Though his wars with Greece were costly and unsuccessful, he renovated many Persian cities and invested in great building projects. He shouldn't be excluded just because of some Macedonian propaganda. Worth remembering that all Eastern rulers were regarded as debauched despots by the Greeks; they're an unreliable source at best on Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian history.

I agree about the 20th century dictators, though.

 

[Plymouth]

I think the whole notion of "too evil" in the context of historical leaders is flawed. (I also think your list is quite biased, but I don't really want to be political)

When you're talking about influential people from tens or hundreds or thousands of years ago, they will all, with very few exceptions, have flaws by modern standards. Even Gandhi has a history of racism and sexual misconduct. When talking about historical figures, you can't accept them as idols or icons without flaws, even if you generally are supportive of their ideas, actions, and impact on history. Similarly, accepting the historical relevance of Genghis Khan or Attila is not the same as condoning any or all of their actions. I know that you don't actually believe any of these leaders should actually be barred from appearing in future installments of Civilization, and I agree. But even theoretically, trying to assign objective evil to historical leaders is only an experiment in misinterpreting history.

Now, being hypocritical for a moment, I feel like Hitler is universally detested for very good reason, and I would rather him not be featured in Civilization until long after I'm dead.

Out of the Romans only Nero and Caligula were truly evil. The other two didn't really do anything wrong. Turning from republic to empire helped Rome and the Gauls were at war with them so.

This isn't the place for me to proselytise about anti-Julio-Claudian propaganda, but... it's all propaganda. Nero and Caligula were sketchy and immoral, sure, but probably not moreso than most classical Roman emperors.

 

[Sirsquier]

I think the whole notion of "too evil" in the context of historical leaders is flawed. (I also think your list is quite biased, but I don't really want to be political)

When you're talking about influential people from tens or hundreds or thousands of years ago, they will all, with very few exceptions, have flaws by modern standards. Even Gandhi has a history of racism and sexual misconduct. When talking about historical figures, you can't accept them as idols or icons without flaws, even if you generally are supportive of their ideas, actions, and impact on history. Similarly, accepting the historical relevance of Genghis Khan or Attila is not the same as condoning any or all of their actions. I know that you don't actually believe any of these leaders should actually be barred from appearing in future installments of Civilization, and I agree. But even theoretically, trying to assign objective evil to historical leaders is only an experiment in misinterpreting history.

Now, being hypocritical for a moment, I feel like Hitler is universally detested for very good reason, and I would rather him not be featured in Civilization until long after I'm dead.



This isn't the place for me to proselytise about anti-Julio-Claudian propaganda, but... it's all propaganda. Nero and Caligula were sketchy and immoral, sure, but probably not moreso than most classical Roman emperors.

Sorry to state but there are solidly evil people in the world. People who kill because it's fun or treat others like animals are evil. There is right and wrong in this world. Men like Caligula, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, Saddam Hussein, and leaders of terrorist organizations, are evil.
I would agree that any besides the 20th-century ones could be in Civ 6.
Also, I do have one leader who was almost completely perfect, Alfred The Great. Though he has been mythologized.
George Washington and Robert The Bruce were two men who lived by great morals.

Both Caligula and Nero are on pretty much every list of most evil leaders.

Quote: "Nero wreaked havoc in the Roman Empire. He burnt entire cities, murdered thousands of people & every member in his family. People were stabbed, burned, boiled, crucified, and impaled. It is believed that he started the great fire that burned Rome but blamed it on Christians, who were then brutally tortured. Nero committed assisted suicide when he knew the rebellion will be lost."

Quote: "The name Caligula is essentially synonymous with brutality, insanity, and evil. A narcissist, Caligula declared himself a god, would kill on a whim, slept with his sisters and many of other men’s wives and bragged about it. He spent money on lavish things while his people starved. Yet, out of all the evil things he did, watching people being sawed in half while he ate his dinner is probably the highest up there."

 

[Vahnstad]

I think the more recent you go, the more civilised leaders should be... Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pot, Zedong should never be included because of that

 

[Sostratus]

Hitler has the problem that including him would get the game outright banned in several european countries. Can't have that. It would also lead to extremely bad PR when combined with city razing and the religion system...

I think the core audience of US/western europe was more tolerant of mao and stalin in the age of civ4. Things have changed. But given how much they are promoting leaders in the first look videos and as a part of marketing these days... I mean can you imagine Sarah's voice over "Adolf Hitler leads Germany in Sid Meier's Civilization 6...*cue Panzerlied*"?

 

[Zaarin]

I think the core audience of US/western europe was more tolerant of mao and stalin in the age of civ4.

I blame ignorance. I'm endlessly astonished at how much more easily they get a pass despite have five times Hitler's body count each.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

The general sentiment of this thread seems to be that the ignorance of past should give pass to some of the villains of antiquity. I'm in agreement with that metric, to an extent. That fact that we ourselves live in a more enlightened age means we are, to some extent, more morally culpable, at least in the eyes of our contemporaries, if not in the eyes of God or Nature. But there were in ancient days some nations that largely shared our moral sentiments. The Romans of the Republic enjoyed freedom of speech and equality between citizens, any of whom could rise to the level of consul on mere merit, if he was indeed meritorious enough. They were lovers of liberty, like the best of us today. That's why it's so especially egregious that one of their fellow citizens, having grown up as a fellow citizen to other free men, should reject freedom and turn a republic into a dictatorship. The fact that heroes like Brutus and Cassius had the moral fortitude to sentence him to death for that capital crime is proof positive that the enlightenment of that age had not entirely darkened yet. And that Caesar nephew, having seen the just punishments of tyrants done to his uncle, should take as lesson that he should not merely become a tyrant himself, but to make tyranny hereditary, null and voids the good he did in building monuments. Sans the House of Caesar, the Occident might have been a republic of free men for hundreds of more years. Julius and Octavius are consequently responsible for more oppression than anyone till Mao.

 

[HWP2001]

I think there is some bias here about the word 'evil'. Why isn't Washington considered, for example, since he owned hundreds of slaves and ordered the deaths of Indians? Why aren't any British monarchs considered, having resided over slavery and the deaths of millions of subjects? If Pol Pot is evil, then surely the United States is also evil for having supported him? Also since when was Castro a dictator, and how did he threaten anyone with nuclear war? IIRC it was America that caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, by placing nuclear missiles in Turkey in order to provoke the USSR.

 

[Zaarin]

Also since when was Castro a dictator

Wow. Yes, since when is a murderous autocrat a dictator?

 

[Sostratus]

I think there is some bias here about the word 'evil'.

There's a recency bias, and the 20th century was documented with words and pictures and video in real time. Also, industrialized societies can engage in industrialized killing and oppression. Before mass media, industrialization, and urbanization, you really could not have the kind of organized totalitarian governments that people think of with respect to certain mid 1900s facist and communist regimes. (This is not to say some wholesale genocide never occurred before. Of course it did.)

Julius and Octavius are consequently responsible for more oppression than anyone till Mao.

Well... I'm not sure if equating a lack of political freedom in history to straight oppression on the level of a moral failing of an executive is a very useful metric. No king or emperor, no matter how improved the lives of their citizens or how just their reforms, would meet such a standard. Rome in general, and the millennium of messy European affairs after the fall of the west, illustrates how hard the simple act of administering government was - and how unique Rome was for having their stuff together enough to rule a continent. Outside of anarchy, effective states are necessary to protect rights/freedoms, whatever they might be, because humans are jerks. And the most practical solution to having an effective state in the scope of human history is autocracy/authoritarianism, for whatever reason. The word Tyrant was originally somewhat neutral term, and specifically described someone who came to power "unconventionally," IE, they weren't an elected dictator nor were they a king. (often it was a popular uprising that put them there! checkmate, aristocrats!)

I don't know if the idea that a ruler, whether elected or crowned or otherwise, could not morally possess absolute power was a thing until the enlightenment. Greek democracy was a tyranny of the majority, which isn't necessarily better from a individual liberty perspective. (Again, kind of an enlightenment concept.)