Who are the best leaders

First of all, I wanted to thank Ahimsadharma for that fantastic piece of history he wrote about, it's always great to read about distant lands and realize that world is huge and Your Big Country (tm) is pitiful in trials of magnifying it's unimpressive, so-called "leaders" and history, by literally slagging other nations.
I can see that sort of "knowledge" here, I mean, FDR could be nice older man and stuff, but boy he was so American :crazyeye:
Especially one book, "A Question Of Honor" by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud taught me a LOT about WWII and it's leaders, concentrating mainly on Stalin, Churchill and FDR.
To justify him, he was getting more and more sick, and eventually he died, so that could be the answer why he was sooo from different planet/continent in terms of WWII, but still - he wasn't good leader. I know he's glorified, of course he is, and many children are learning how cool he was, but You know - the older You get, the more scales are falling from Your eyes and Your knowledge increases.
I'd never understood why on earth he decided to basically lick Stalin's boots all the time, he started all this stupid "Uncle Joe" action, and during his reign Russia was presented in american movies as a country "very similar to United States, with similar goals and society" :eek: :lol: On every meeting on the Three he was undermining Churchill to be more buddy-buddy with Stalin, and basically allowed Stalin to be in charge of many decisions.

Stalin was a beast, I hate him and I'll never stop hating him, Hitler is a peacefully grazing sheep next to Uncle Joe. But boy what a leader... Yes, he starved whole nation, yes he forbid Allies to use his airports to make sure that Warsaw won't receive any help during uprising in 1944, he committed hundreds of genocidal crimes, yet even with his maniacal activities (let's kill all officers, they'll definitevely want to kill me one day) his reign was significant to many nations, not only his own. Lenin was afraid of this guy :D
I also read somewhere that Stalin once said something that Russia is like a huge mad . .. .. .. .. . (I mean female dog, ok?), and it'll bite Your hand off if You'll allow it and do nothing. So You have to grab her mouth, pull a kick or two and than she'll obey, and do as You want.
Stalin played WWII nicely, transforming into "nice guy" after Hitler's attack (I think he loved him secretly and his DoW depressed him totally), but only blind could't see his ruthlessness. He used every possibility for his empire to evolve.
So as much as I hate him, I still can't say that he wasn't great leader. FDR is little next to him.

Once again Amisadharma (does this word mean something? Care to reveal?) - huge thank You for Ashoka's story - that's why I love CivFanatics that much - several days ago I was reading about Henry VIII and his wives, now this pearl... I've read a bit more, Ashoka was truly great, I'll give You that :hatsoff:

P.S. Sorry for longish post, but noone will read it anyway :p
 
guardian, ur post made me think of the alternate history question "What if stalin joined on hitler's side"... luckily for all of us, hitler thought so little of the russians that he would never have offered an alliance.

i feel that leaders in the end don't lead their country rather than being led by their country. they can do minor corrections, but in the end, what should happen will happen. in our times politician are led by public poles. in ancient times an unpopular politician could just get killed (ceasar rules these posts, so he's a good example).
alexander - no man could have maintined that big an empire in ancient times - the size of an empire was limited by the speed at which messages/army could have travelled - if it takes over a year for a message to reach from the capital to a city in the outskirts, holding it will cost more than razing it - just like maintanence costs in civ4. just the reason rome splitted in 2 when it got too big. in that alone i think augustus was great - he actually stopped all his conquests cause of that.
peter the great - made a 100 years progress in russia only to be lost later on, and then lenin/stalin had to do that all over again. it's like the middle east - u can't force democracy on people that are not ready for it.

it's kinda like inventions and science - sure there are great scientists and great inventorers, but the inventions that really get picked up are the ones that have a need, and they usually come in small steps rather than huge leaps. that's why the phone had 2 patents on it on the same day - the public had a need for such an invention, and why leonardo's inventions didn't see day light.
 
Peng Qi said:
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.
Click to expand...

But if they do not do what is popular then they will not be re-elected, your argument is a bit flawed imo.
 
SickCycle said:
the difference between hitler and genghis is genghis won... and hitler lost.. he obviously wasn't that smart.. and genghis didn't just go around cleansing the lands llike some psychotic he just conquered the world through force and even offered them submission before he attacked.. it's there own fault if they didn't agree.

the mongols were nomands so the leaders would be left in control all they had to do was pay tribute..

also..

'Genghis Khan saw the potential advantage in Khwarezmia (as it is also referenced) as a commercial trading partner, and sent a 500-man caravan to establish trade ties with the empire. However, Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, attacked the caravan that came from Mongolia, claiming that the caravan was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia.'

people were hostile towards genghis.. they just bit off more then they could chew, he was actually a good ruler.
Click to expand...


true, gengis often respected conquered land religion and culture, as long as they submitted to his rule

rule under gengis was often considered a meritocracy, as he promoted people based upon their performance, not heritditary ties

gengis also establish a brutal yet fair system of laws

Hitler was extremely racist, all those considered "inferior" were destroyed

given the choice I would rather have lived under gengis
 
Philo_Beddoe said:
But if they do not do what is popular then they will not be re-elected, your argument is a bit flawed imo.
Click to expand...
Well, originally the senate was elected for life and was supposed to be immune to that form of popularity contest. They're still semi-immune via 6-year terms, so people can get over their initial "OMG HE DID SOMETHING I DIDN'T WANT" and actually analyze the effects of the decision in a more long-term, broad perspective.
 
Once again Amisadharma (does this word mean something? Care to reveal?)
Click to expand...

Once again, you are most welcome.
As for my name, yes it does mean something.
'Ahimsa' means 'non-violence' and was the name Gandhi used for his non-violent protests & marches that cheesed off the Brits so much
'Dharma' means 'the way'. So Ahimsadharma = 'non-violent way'
A rather hypocritical name,i might add, for a Civ4 fanatic i must add, given how i pooh pooh non-violence in Sid Meyer's world.:)
 
LuckyAC said:
Stalin and Hitler were not just morally bad, they were terrible leaders, Stalin especially. Stalin completely destroyed their agriculture and the people he didn't murder directly died from starvation. At least for Hitler, you could argue that some portions of the population benefited, but everyone was worse off under Stalin, even his closest advisors (most of whom had family tortured and murdered and were later killed themselves).

Hitler had some economic success because of a hands-off approach, but as a general, he was completely delusional, for example invading the USSR without antifreeze and getting into a two-front war.

.
Click to expand...

i agree both were morally repugnant, yet when hitler died germany was in ruins

when stalin died, russia had gone from a backwards country to one of two superpowers

stalin was a much more effective leader then hitler was
 
Peng Qi said:
Well, originally the senate was elected for life and was supposed to be immune to that form of popularity contest. They're still semi-immune via 6-year terms, so people can get over their initial "OMG HE DID SOMETHING I DIDN'T WANT" and actually analyze the effects of the decision in a more long-term, broad perspective.
Click to expand...

right but in the end, they will still get voted out of office for being unpopular

if it were up to me the US would adopt a system of government similar to switzerlands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

switzerland is the best ran country in the world imo
 
Ahimsadharma said:
Once again, you are most welcome.
As for my name, yes it does mean something.
'Ahimsa' means 'non-violence' and was the name Gandhi used for his non-violent protests & marches that cheesed off the Brits so much
'Dharma' means 'the way'. So Ahimsadharma = 'non-violent way'
A rather hypocritical name,i might add, for a Civ4 fanatic i must add, given how i pooh pooh non-violence in Sid Meyer's world.:)
Click to expand...

Well, that means that You're perfectly on top with civ progress - Your nick indicates that You like Beyond The Sword options :lol: :crazyeye:
Name well placed :p

On topic

I also think that Washington was cool. I mean, of course, there were others who helped him, You know, foreign engineers and generals :mischief:
... But that's even better, that the spirit of freedom was with him right from the beggining, and he managed to endure war discouraged. Yeah, he's ok :]
 
Guardian_PL said:
Well, that means that You're perfectly on top with civ progress - Your nick indicates that You like Beyond The Sword options :lol: :crazyeye:
Name well placed :p

On topic

I also think that Washington was cool. I mean, of course, there were others who helped him, You know, foreign engineers and generals :mischief:
... But that's even better, that the spirit of freedom was with him right from the beggining, and he managed to endure war discouraged. Yeah, he's ok :]
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol:
Yes i do like BTS but i am the sort who is very conservative at first, building culture+religion + few wonders + economy, then go to war with the (by now) weak neighbour in medieval times and then become simply too big to stop in the latter game. And yes, i am a sucker for Ashoka in this game- it just so happens that his organized trait helps me stay at 80-100% research level all the time and dear God, i just love my fast worker bretheren.
Last game i had to whack America because i found his capital by first 10 turns (it was high seas) and in the process fell behind Bismark,Hannibal and Mansa considerably. But thanks to 'uber-workers', i was able to close the gap in another 50-60 turns completely, pull ahead and now almost on the threshold of mass-producing an army and beating the frigg outta Mansa.
Ahimsa ?I think not for this game. Millitant 'convert or die' buddhist to the fore!
:lol:

PS: Tbh, i didn't like Washington too much in real life- he was quite the plagiarist, arrogant and hypocrite ( i can't imagine how those 'founding fathers' could keep a straight face while chest-thumping to the whole world about how God-amazing their 'free nation' is and still have the worst damn slavery laws/treament of slaves in the European world!). Lincoln is the guy i much rather prefer ( and i think it should've been Lincoln as 2nd Civ leader- Roosevelt has to go, really) but overall, i am not particularly impressed with America's history of leadership. In their 250 years of independent existance, i cannot think of anyone from America who is really the military/strategic/inspirational/oratory equivalent of Churchill/Gandhi/Hitler/deGaulle, nevermind the Napoleons, Justinians and Ashokas of the world. But hey, they are a fairly young nation/culture- perhaps their best days lie ahead when it comes to leadership.
 
Has to be Augustus, IMO. Man created a powerful, influential Empire and was a genius at adapting to shifting political and social climbs. Knew how to use his influence and how to downplay it, could use the military or gifts to get what he wanted, encompassed the his known world and created a profitable, powerful empire.
 
I disagree with those people here. The best leaders should serve the people, and not manipulate/control the masses for their own personal lusts of power, wealth, and glory. However, no human is perfect; the best we have so far in the world would be Gandhi, as he preached for peace and liberated his people.
 
Some very odd points of view abounding in this thread...

Most leaders have something to recommend them, either famously or infamously. Surely one of the judges of a leader would be an evaluation of him by the people he led? If so, some of the arguments presented here do not pass muster. Stalin, for instance, was so precipitously near defeat after Barbarossa that he feared his generals were going to topple him. And for good reason, he refused to listen to warnings about the threat of Germany, and his constant purges denuded his military ranks of qualified generals. His "reforms" were the stuff of Neolithic incompetence - other nations managed to industrialize without liquidating millions in the process. His legacy was murder and state control behind an iron curtain. This is a successful leader? He barely kept the enemy out, and had to seal his people, the ones who survived, in.

Hitler? Please. Unless demagoguery and the utter ruin of your people is a leadership goal, Hitler was a miserable failure. The argument usually goes like this - Germany, a downtrodden bankrupt nation, was turned around in just a dozen years to the precipice of regional power - ignoring that it was turned BACK into a downtrodden bankrupt nation in half the time it took to build it up in the first place. There is nothing of redeeming value in Adolf Hitler's leadership. He destroyed Germany, to the infamy of his name, to the utter damnation of all his government stood for.

In Civ4, some of the leaders make little sense. Napoleon for instance. Huh? Don't get this one. Another leader who took to war and ended in ruin. Charles Martel, much better example for France, ended the Islamic invasion of Europe and created the Carolingian line, including Charlemagne (who should also likely be French, but I digress).

A great leader should lead his people to do GREAT THINGS, without liquidating his own people to maintain control.

What leaders did great things by their people? Pick a transitory figure - Churchill for instance. Or any American President. Most simply led for too short a time to do things to compete with Genghis Khan or other leaders who were rulers, basically, for life. Still, Churchill did right by his nation for the brief time he led it - and let's also understand the difference between leading and ruling. American Presidents do not rule. They have power, but they are not unchecked, unlike most of the leaders you see in a Civ game. Stalin, the Caesars, Alexander, etc. are absolutely rulers. Churchill, Lincoln, etc., were merely leaders, not rulers.

Guess if I had to pick a favorite, it might be Lincoln. Some of his addresses are seminal works on human liberty and modern rule, and a perfect economy of phrases. It is through his efforts that the United States remained united, and the world would be a vastly different place had that not occurred.

Some leaders are perfect to circumstance - Washington to the revolution, Lincoln to the US Civil War, Churchill to WW2. Neither fits the other instances. Washington wouldn't be right to lead India to independence from Britain, but he was right to lead the US. Gandhi was not the right person to lead the Continental Congress. But each of these leaders can point to a positive outcome that didn't rely on brutality and murderous repression.

Those propping up Hitler and Stalin should likely ask themselves if they would want to live under those leaders.

Venger
 
I wanted to comment on some of the politics talk.

America isn't a democracy. I know they like to throw around cute little words like that but it isn't true, if you think about it. The United States of America doesn't even elect its President by popular vote which is the essence of a true Democracy, take the Bush/Gore election as example, it's well known that Gore actually won the Majority by a large margin yet Bush won because he won more states, the people of the United States actually voted Gore into office but the system had Bush as the winner.

Also, as far as the Term length, if the president decides to do whatever he wants you cant really do anything about it but not vote for him and if he does it on his second term he really has nothing to lose, yes you can not vote for him again for his first term but so what? What if the next President and every President after just ignored the people, there is nothing you could do about it except have a different guy every few years telling you what to do, that is not a Democracy. As for the Senate/House you don't have as much say in electing these guys as you think, the guy that wins is usually the one with the most Air time and the best ads, the corporations in America pretty much buy each elected official by donating millions of dollars to there campaigns and when it comes time to write the bills who do you think they have meetings with, the companies that donated all that money, didn't cheney meet with the oil companies 10 times while coming up with our energy plan and the senate once? I dont remember the details but something like that took place.

You ever wondered why people in the United States of America are some of the most Patriotic people in the world? Your taught to be that way in school, its called nationalism/fascism ;) and there is a reason for it, it's not just to have pride in your country.

Because there is so much Patriotism when the United States does something bad or something it shouldn't even if its on to its own people what happens? The people defend the country, no matter what.+

If they start torturing people, Americans defend it as necessary. If they start kidnapping people, Americans defend it as necessary. If they start holding people without trial, Americans defend it as necessary. If they start ease dropping on Americans phone calls, Americans defend it as necessary. If they pass the Patriot Act without even reading it, Americans defend it as necessary. If America overthrows a Democraticly Electected Government and installs a Regime/Dictator that is loyal to the United States, Americans defend it as necessary. If they start using mercenaries in wars and even domesticly during Katrina, Americans defend it as necessary.

... If the CIA helps narco-terrorists (Rebel Fighters) that are fighting one of the Regimes they don't like fly cocaine into Los Angeles, Americans.. look the other way :shifty:
 
I disagree with those people here. The best leaders should serve the people, and not manipulate/control the masses for their own personal lusts of power, wealth, and glory.
Click to expand...

A great leader should lead his people to do GREAT THINGS, without liquidating his own people to maintain control.
Click to expand...

I agree with both sentiments expressed here and that is why i rate Ashoka as the greatest of the leaders represented in Civ4- no other leader in the game comes even close to Ashoka's accomplishments, which he did from a very freedom & people oriented decision making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[BTS] Who are your favorite Leaders/Civs?
Replies
12
Views
720
NickGabben
NickGabben
M
UU/UB's and Wonders for map type, map speed and tech trading type
Replies
5
Views
2K
sampsa
sampsa
W
Looking for people to play with
Replies
1
Views
378
civac
C
F
GameRant: Abandoned Civilization 4 Leaders Who Should Return in Civ 7
Replies
5
Views
965
Lennier
Lennier
RavenousX
Can't return city
Replies
4
Views
363
RavenousX
RavenousX
Top Bottom