Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Bast, Aug 30, 2007.
... in real life history?
Not in the game. I'll give my list later.
Just leaders in the game please.
If you mean real life leaders who are also in the game the most obvoius choices for me are Ramesses II and Augustus, basically beacuse they had long and productive reigns and brought stability to their nations.
I would also like to contribute a loser list that includes:
*Napoleon (didn't know when to stop)
*Alex (same as Nappy + dying young is no excuse)
*Julius (Dude when the senate proclaim you Dictator for Life, there is bound to be a catch:
"of course I accept, I'm honoured...BTW what's that shiny thing you're holding behind your back?")
It depends on how you are rating them. As a person Mansa Musa was a good guy, but alexander did almost conquer the world.
Marcus Aurelius, King Richard I, Saladin, Belisarius, Theodore Roosevelt off the top of my head.
Well Churchill is very popular in England, but he was a horrible old racist man. Genghiz Khan was a brutal conqueror and rapist, but he built a massive empire and brought stability where there had formerly been none. It depends what you consider qualifications for being the "best" - do you mean who would I most like to be ruled over by? Well, most of them would make awful rulers today as the mindset is so different (can you imagine Alexander taking control of Greece today? There would be chaos), so, given I'd rather they be (at least reasonably) modern leaders, I'd say Gandhi, or FDR/De Gaulle if they have to be real political leaders.
But if you mean which has had the greatest impact on history, well, it's hard to say as its difficult to attribute any "impact" to any one individaul. E.G. the British Empire has had a great influence on the world, but it's debatable as to how much of that influence Queen Victoria was directly responsible. In most cases, had it not been one leader in control it would have been another!
Oh, and don't forget to add Brennus to the losers list.
Well we talk about the best in the game like so and so is best for conquest victories and space race etc...
I'm asking the best in real life as in who achieved the most as a leader. Who made their country shine and their people happy.
Well, if were tlaking about people who improved their countries standing in the world, and excluding moral issues, then Alexander, Stalin, FDR, Bismarck, Augustus...
He did nothing but hurt the United States economy and stay out of a war that we should have been in from the start. I'm sure his cousin Theodore would have been horrified by the fact that the United States sat on its hands while her allies were fighting and dying.
Monty. Idiot imo.
Single handidly started the cold war with the Russians with his post war comments.
Just a question.If they are not the best leaders,then there is better Leaders.Then they must be added,not Gandhi,Justinian,Victoria etc...
when he took over the US was in ots worst depression ever, when he died the US was in a position to bankroll the entirety of Western Europe... he didnt hurt the economy that much, fellah. and he kept the US out of the war because the people who elected him wanted him to do just that til Peral Harbour. I believe thats called democracy
Then what are Bush wars called?
I think if it was American Football or Baseball they would be called "The 1/2 for 2 wars"
War is good for business. Most serious economists will tell you that every measure that he passed actually made the depression worse and last longer. World War II and the military-industrial complex got us out of the depression in spite of the New Deal, not with the help of it.
But the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. It's up to the leadership to do what's best, not what's popular. Theodore Roosevelt would have convinced the American people that it was a good idea, then he would have done it.
So would you only count Switzerland as a democracy?
Justinian was the man who very nearly reunited the Roman Empire, after Western Rome crumbled, he used the forces of Eastern Rome to reconquer the west. It didn't last much beyond his death, though.
But for all the pretenders and supposed successors to Rome, Justinian is the only one who came close to making a new Rome.
Shaka and his forces resisted the full brunt of the most advanced nation on the planet, the British Empire. They may have eventually fallen, but it was still impressive leadership.
FDR used the events around him to turn a spineless, xenophobic nation into an economic and military superpower.
Genghis Khan. He united Mongola, broke into China and conquered half of Europe. What a guy.
Suleiman.His kingdom laid from Wien to Morocco.He controls over mediterranean and black sea.He protected french monarch.German monarch was afraid of him,so he cant take his place on the battlefield.Austria emperor was equal to one of Suleimans Vizier.He accepts the jewish people from spain.
Gandhi,without dropping blood he gained the inpedence of his Nation.
Alexander united Greeks,put a end to Persia.
Most of leaders here had too much achieved.How can we choose one of them as the Best?
Cyrus - his charisma and natural leadership ability meant he took a backward nation of horseriding aryan warriors from being a vassal state to ruling the biggest empire the world had seen at that stage, the Persian Empire.
Alexander's empire didn't last long after he died so he doesn't get my vote.
Julius Caesar, while he personally acheived alot for Rome, made Rome a hated nation by all the people he conquered, which ultimately contributed to its downfall centuries later.
Separate names with a comma.