Zachriel
Kaiser
That is incorrect. Genghis killed to further his military and political aims. Genghis stopped killing when he had won. Hitler killed out of racial hatred, and would have kept killing until no one was left. That is a big difference.
Who do you think the leaders in Civ3 should be?
- Thread starter Exsanguination
- Start date
That is incorrect. Genghis killed to further his military and political aims. Genghis stopped killing when he had won. Hitler killed out of racial hatred, and would have kept killing until no one was left. That is a big difference.
Midnight Rider
Chieftain
I actually think there should be both male AND female leaders to every country. I don't exactly like playing Cleopatra, being the misogynist, sexist, man's man that I am.
I'd rather have Stalin than Czarina Katarina. Ya domayo eta niet haroshaya idea patamuzhta... Ya domayo eta durnaya idea!!!
I'd rather have Stalin than Czarina Katarina. Ya domayo eta niet haroshaya idea patamuzhta... Ya domayo eta durnaya idea!!!
PieceMaker
Chieftain
Genghis Kahn stopped killing because he died. He and his Mongol hoardes were poised to invade Egypt when he died and it was this that effectively stopped their expansion. When they conquered a city, they demanded total capitulation and, if it was not received, they slaughtered every soul in that city (they were not the only ones who practised this, I know). When you kill every person in a city, that means nobody's left to kill -- until the next city. I guess with racial hatred, you designate who you will attempt to exterminate. With Genghis' plan, you basically designate everybody.
FrosTi
Indépendantiste Québécois
the problem is that genghis khan is the only real leader I would put for Mongol Horde... Hitler isn't the only choice for Germany: it could be Bismarck or Friedrich too!
Jeff Yu
Prince
The problem with that is that some civs, like the USA, don't have any female leaders.
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
Hitler killed out of hatred for other people.
GK killed to win, and to ensure that he won't suffer from "cultural flips".
Also GK had no understanding of civilized life. He saw it as wierd and totally alien to him and his people. He could not appreciate the luxuries and did not care. Like we as civilized people see his people as barbarians, he would see us as barbarians or along those lines.
Maple
Canadian Patriot
They don't necessarily have to be leaders per se. Why not have Eleanor Roosevelt or Jackie Kennedy as a leader?
Napoleon not being the ruler of France is a joke IMO...
Some other bad ones are Bismarck (powerful figure, but never actually ruled...Frederick the Great/Barbarossa instead since Hitler would be too controversial?), Catherine the Great (should be Stalin or Peter the Great), Gandhi (self-explanatory)...
Some other bad ones are Bismarck (powerful figure, but never actually ruled...Frederick the Great/Barbarossa instead since Hitler would be too controversial?), Catherine the Great (should be Stalin or Peter the Great), Gandhi (self-explanatory)...
bobgote
Trousers
I think the whole point of the civ leader is that they do have to be a leader. That's why they call them a leader....
For me,
Russia - Stalin
and if you can have stalin for russia (as has previously been the case in civ) surely you can have Hitler for the germans. Stalin killed his own people, not another race. I think that's pretty bad too.
Germany - Hitler (only cos he's the one the rest of the world knows about. Frederic may be ok, just i don't really know much german history, if you're german, please say so and tell us who's best)
and for Napolean, i may be wrong, but he was only a military leader was he not? Not the actual French leader. Not sure on this one.
Most of the others look just fine to me. Maybe we hear from people from these cultures as to who is the best leader.
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
Yes!!! That's just crazy what Firaxis did with this issue. If they want to be p.c. that is the solution.
And for the Napoleon issue: he was an emperor (though I'm not sure about the exact title) not just a military leader, as far as I know he was the one who made almost all the decisions, and that's what leadership is about.
The only sting though that some guys from Corsica could doubt that he was French...
allhailIndia
Deity
THIS GAME HAS BEEN MADE FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD NOT CORSICA 
Napoleon is a better choice that Joan d' Arc and here GI Jane looks
(looks pretty hot tho')
Napoleon is a better choice that Joan d' Arc and here GI Jane looks
(looks pretty hot tho')
Exsanguination
No longer here
i think even the notion of putting hitler or stalin into civ3 is appalling (no offense to anyone). Those two characters are two of the worst people who ever lived inthe civilized world - sure, GK and hordes of others killed just as much, but it is what those two stand for. In modern society when you think of hitler or stalin (esp hitler), you think cold-blooded, disgusting, ignorant killer of several million. Anyone who doesn't think along the same lines, well...
If either were put into civ3, I probably wouldn't play the game. Not joking.
(and just for the record, I have no family and know no one who was in the holocaust or had anything to with WWII or the Soviet Regime)
If either were put into civ3, I probably wouldn't play the game. Not joking.
(and just for the record, I have no family and know no one who was in the holocaust or had anything to with WWII or the Soviet Regime)
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
That's a perfectly understandable way of looking at things, but they've included Chairman Mao, who killed far more people than either Stalin or Hitler.
bobgote
Trousers
Also, Stalin was leader for russia in Civ 1, i dunno about civ 2. Genghis Khan would've been a lot worse than the lot, i would imagine. And death isn't the worst thing that can happen to a person, they can live a long, pointless life in a dead end job and end up achieving nothing. could be worse u know. ( not that I'm dishonouring those who Hitler and Stalin etc killed). Many bad things sometime have to be done, or perceived to have to be done. can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
klazlo
Avatarless Sociologist
That's for sure.
Exsanguination
No longer here
the issue with GK (and Mao I guess, but I've never even heard him outside the game... I should read that little civilopedia entry) is that he/they lived during an "uncivilized" - if you may (dont take that too literally please) - time in history (the 1000s if I am not mistaken for GK). Despotic cruelty and such was consider the 'norm' for many barbaric rulers. Now, Hitler and Stalin, they lived during the 1st half of the 1900s! I guess we can call that time "civilized". There were set morals and expectations for rulers, and mass murder wasn't one of them. People didn't expect it, as they may have with the ruthless despots of old.
Trust me - some other dude worse than Hitler or GK out there who lived ere 0 AD probably wiped out his entire civilization in a mannerism akin to Hitler or GK - we just don't know about it. Its the fact of the era and cultural/social effects it had on our culture.
Trust me - some other dude worse than Hitler or GK out there who lived ere 0 AD probably wiped out his entire civilization in a mannerism akin to Hitler or GK - we just don't know about it. Its the fact of the era and cultural/social effects it had on our culture.
Zachriel
Kaiser
There were rules of war even then. The earliest rules were the rule of utility. Only as much barbarism as was required. Of course, even this flexible doctrine was often ignored.
Now, consider Henry V at the siege of Harfleur,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
. . . .
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?
http://classics.mit.edu/Shakespeare/henryv/henryv.3.3.html
Henry is expressing the basic rules of siege warfare. Surrender or suffer annihilation. Once surrendered, the violence ends. This is a basic of warfare from ancient times. Avoidance of needless warfare is standard strategy.
A big army approaches a small army, which takes refuge behind fortification. The big army sieges the fort. If a bigger army comes, the sieging army would withdraw. If not, it is expected that the fort would surrender once it was clear that no relief was in sight. If they did not surrender, this would cause suffering in both armies, which would be avenged once the walls came down. The suffering would be the fault of the unyielding defenders who broke the customs of war, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd.
Exsanguination
No longer here
good point, but Hitler did not persecute the Jews through War. He just slaughtered them. There was no German-Jewish War, just the Holocaust. What Hitler did on the battlefield was the same as any other ruler - Alex the Great, Joan of Arc, Bismarck, any of them. I do not ridicule Hitler or Stalin for what did in War. It's what they did underneath the war to their people.
Zachriel
Kaiser
That's why it is considered that Hitler broke the customs of war, but that generally Alexander, or even Genghis Khan, did not. Both Alexander and Genghis slaughtered whole city populations, but only to further their military and political ambitions -- usually due to the city's refusal to surrender.
Similar threads
