Who do you think the leaders in Civ3 should be?

[Ozymandius]

Keep up the writing Civ Fanatics. I love the history stuff.

Oda, I like your reasoning. I think we have to look at the growth of French influence and their empire under the Kings and their advisers. France expanded "her" (there I have given them their due) empire in North America and later Africa and SE Asia. French was the culture and lingua franca for a while. Napoleon was a great leader but grasped for too much and bled the best of French blood in Russia. My dad used to say Napoleon was responsible for making the French shorter because the good breeding stock got killed off.
I think the defining moment has to be the leader in charge of the country during its greatest influence.
For China I think it should be the first person to unify it. Mao did more damage than good.

Who was the Chinese guy who burried that army of clay soldiers?

 

[hr_oskar]

Thank you all for the kind words

Interesting points made by Oda about the Cardinal of Richelieu and that Hollywood mess

I must concur that the French leader is a hard question. Napoleon with all his pros also has very many cons. Well, I'll leave the French issue to you guys, I have plenty of opinions on other civs anyway


I'm always more attracted to the leaders who brought prosperity and stability to their civ while also maintaining strength towards the outside, instead of those who shed the blood of their people for their own dreams of greatness. The benevolent, wise ones, not the harsh megalomaniac achievers. The ones who were enlightened and cultural.

According to that meter I should perhaps prefer Louis XIV to Napoleon

But according to that, I prefer Li Shimin (the high-scoring Tang emperor) for the Chinese, instead of Qin Shihuang (the one who unified China and built the Great Wall - and the one who buried that army of clay soldiers).

For the Romans some would prefer Caesar Augustus (Octavian) to Gaius Julius Caesar. Fine either way, both great guys, hard to choose between them.


Okay, I want to touch on the civs that aren't actually in the game but either will be in PtW, should be there, or were in Civ2.

The Arabs still haven't been in any of the Civ games, and that's a scandal. How can such a major cultural force be ignored? I won't go into counting up the merits of Arab civilization, because they're too many and it's simply silly because there's no need for it to be justified that way.

If your knowledge of Arabs is limited to current events, you'd better start reading - check the nearest library, or better yet, this (as an introduction):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/wiet.html

Some said it would be problematic to choose a leader for the Arabs, because it would have to be Mohammed and that would be offensive to Muslims because it's forbidden to make an image of him. That's a silly view, IMO, if not plain ignorant. Arabs do not equal Muslims, though there is a clear connection. And Arabs do have secular culture, or at least they did.

I suggest Salah ad-Din (a.ka. Saladin), Nur ad-Din, or the Caliph Umar (one of the first caliphs, I think). Probably lots of good choices, I haven't done much research.


Leaving it for now, excellent discussion here!

 

[davidky5]

Personally, I do not like to see Mao as the leader of China. All of his so-called reforms failed, and unless it was for Liu Shaochi and Deng Xiapeng, more would have died of hunger in addition to millions who did already. And, when those two were just about to make progress, he took away their power by Cultural Revolution. Frankly, beside establishing a communist China by bloody war, all Mao did was secure his power via another bloody purge. It was good that Deng Xiaping succeeded Mao; if it wasn't for him, China would still be a backward, ignorant, agricultural nation.

When it comes to choosing the leaders for each civ, I think Firaxis should do so by evaluating the people's legacy to its culture. In this term, Shi Huangti of Ch'in Dynasty, Liu Pang of Han Dynasty, or Han Wuti left more legacy than Mao Zedong. Shi Huangti created the first nation state of Unified China. The word China originates from his dynasty Ch'in. Meanwhile, Liu Pang created the dynasty that epitomized the ancient Chinese culture. The major ethnicity of China, the Han people, originates its name from this dynasty. Han Wuti was the man who raised China into a world power status by extending its control to Central Asia and establishing the Silk Road.

There are many more leaders of China who did far more significant and unique achivements than Mao. If Firaxis can, I hope it changes the leader of China from Mao to some great ancient emperor of China. Beside, the PRC has lasted for 53 years; the imperial China, for 2100 years.

I talked about China because I somehow feel sensitive about it. Some changes of other leaders I would like to see are

Rome - Augustus (the glory of the Roman Empire begins from him. Caesar, in a rough sense, was one of several dictators that ruled the Roman Republic.

Egypt - Ramses II (During his reigh, Egyptian empire and its culture reached its peak.)

Japan - Mutsuhito, also known as Emperor Meiji. The long reign of the shogunates came to an end during his reign, and he initiated massive westernization of Japan that brought its status to a major global player in the early 20th century. His reform can be compared to that of Mao's, but whereas Mao's failed to change the fundamental agricultural society of China, Meiji successfully turned Japan into an industrialized nation.

Others include Charlemagne or Louis XIV of France and Ivan IV or Peter the Great of Russia.

 

[TOM_ASS]

FRANCE-NAPOLEON he was the most konow leader of france appart it caracterises the France after the revolution.

RUSSIA-JOSEF STALIN he migth have been a dictator but realy it is the most famous leader of the u.s.s.r. and of russia itself

AMERICA-GOERGE WASHINGTON the first u.s. president and the most recognised

GERMANY-ADOLF HITLER i know he was one heck of a bastard but he is probably the most important known leader of germany



I think some of the leader in civ3 are chose wrongly because of restrictions for example HITLER or SATLIN. There is rule u can't put hitler as a person u can use in a game and win it, u can only put were he gets killed or harmed , it is no so strict with STALIN but it's preaty much it!

 

[Ozymandius]

Thanks for that Chinese information. It is part of our western culture that determines widespread ignorance, including my own, of the world's most populous nation. The problem is continued with the tradition of fame/infamy. Unless someone develops an anti-civ game, I believe we should not continue the notoreity of major historical butchers. Joseph Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Mao is just a 20thC revolutionary like Robespiere. Just because he is known he is in the game.
I don't know why Lincoln was chosen over Washington. As an outsider I still consider him the father of the USA.

Perhaps we can develop a poll for the 16 civs by coming up with 4 candidates from each civ. If we have real experts among us on each civ, perhaps list your choices here in the order of importance to you??? I can't think of anyone other than Shaka though.
eg. England: Elizabeth I, William the Conqueror, Oliver Cromwell, George III???

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

So much to think about with these leader issues, maybe Firaxis' scheme wasn't so bad after all.

Ozy, I like the idea of multiple leaders. It might be cool to have leaders change once each era. Then you could go from Caesar to Garibaldi, from Charlemagne to De Gaulle, etc. etc. I know you are saying we should throw folks out there for the vote, strange choices for england. How about Henry 8, Elizabeth 1, Victoria, Churchill.

I definitely see the problem with animating Mohammed, that is what made the avatars in Civ 2 a better solution (plus the fact that you could gender change the leader without it affecting the graphics). Hitler will surely appear in a world war 2 mod.

In fact I suggested hopefully, long ago, that when they came out with mods we have to pay for, they give us animated leaders different in each mod. Can't wait to see Hitler furious! The mods ought to be the way of introducing new civs. I had suggested they do an age of exploration mod which brings in Spain, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Inca, and the Sioux. Also a golden horde mod that brings in the Mongols, the Turks, the Vikings. Frankly, I would also like to see a war of the worlds mod that brings in Martian civ (with their heat ray flyers replacing stealth bombers).

Lincoln was chosen because unlike Washington who owned slaves and grew hemp, Lincoln is a choice that our democrats (who like free people) and republicans (who haven't come up with a good president since Lincoln) can all agree was a good guy.

davidky5 - while repression of freedom is certainly backwards, there really isn't any reason to equate agriculturalism as opposed to industrialism with negative connotation. We should all thank our lucky stars that China didn't industrialize at the same pace as England or America - with their huge population they would have ushered in a greenhouse atmosphere decades ago. People always bash Nyerere of Tanzania for his agrarian socialism but the bottom line is people in Tanzania get fed, while neighboring capitalist Kenya faces starvation and internal disruption. Farmers are the base line of true civilization. Industrialists are ornamental at best.

 

[pharmacy]

Great leaders but to whom: global community (humanity) or his/her people?

I agree with TOM_ASS

FRANCE-NAPOLEON he was the most konow leader of france appart it caracterises the France after the revolution.

RUSSIA-JOSEF STALIN he migth have been a dictator but realy it is the most famous leader of the u.s.s.r. and of russia itself

AMERICA-GOERGE WASHINGTON the first u.s. president and the most recognised

GERMANY-ADOLF HITLER i know he was one heck of a bastard but he is probably the most important known leader of germany

Just few comments:

Stalin is not russian, but he is great leader of Russia. He saved the USSR during the hardest time (Hitler got closer to Moscow than Napoleon) and won. Like him, I'm not Russian but I feel that most Russians would vote for him (or probably Lenin)!

Qin, the guy unified China (Chine came from his family name anyway), burned all books, killed all scholars and finished the Great Wall should be the leader of China. Like other 4 billions people, I'm not Chinese, However, most people in China seem to admire Mao (even they may hate or love him) so Mao is accepted.

Mongolia: Gengis Khan only occupied half China. It's his grandson who finished the job and spreading over Asia-Europe. However, he is older than his grandson, so most Mongalians would vote him first. He may be a butcher but a legend to Mongolian people.

For those who don't want Hitler to be named as a Civ leader, ask yourself this question:

Is the Holocaust worse than the Nukes dropped in Japan? Their purposes aren't the same, but the impacts are similar! Don't tell me that the Nuke is more appropriate because the Japanese were more evil the the Jews. (or Palestian suicide bombers are completely brainwashed by some kind of evils).

After all, killing is just the pathway not the goal of everyone (including Civ players).

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

pharmacy-

pretty sick posting if you ask me. You really think Stalin who killed more people in camps than Hitler would be voted for by Russians? I think Andropov has a better chance.

Is the holocaust worse than nukes dropped in Japan? Let's see, is six million people under your rule already rounded up and killed assembly line style with the intention to eliminate an entire ethnic group worse than the bombing demolition of three hundred thousand (not sure but that is the highest number I think) enemy civilians killed with the intention of forcing a surrender?

So you endorse putting two men in the regular game (I'm not talking about scenarios) who were between them the biggest mass murderers in history? Two men who are not only offensive to most of their living citizenry but also to countless survivors of the holocaust and Russian pogroms? Ask yourself this, when I round you up and burn a number into your arm and ask you to build your own crematorium, will you want Sultan Bhargash as a great leader in the game your grandchild plays?

 

[Ozymandius]

Sultan I agree totally. I don't know how your civ populace voted but after that post I'll start building your palace.

 

[Ozymandius]

Hitler is probably one of the "greatest" but evil "leader" of the 20th century. He was able to take a compliant people and turn their country into a temporary powerhouse. He is talked about because we cannot understand how a person can manipulate a rational people to become so inhumane towards others. He was extremely successful briefly. Take away his holocaust, a deed no person can justify, and freeze actions just prior to the invasion of Poland. Without the war which he initiated he would have been the leader of the largest German empire since the time of the Romans. Only in that light can we "admire" his achievement of one people etc. Then he would have been the leader Henry Ford admired... the power to take on the evil communists.
At what point do the atrocities begin.... I don't want to rationalize any admiration for him but a unified germany would have made a cold war much different. How can any person evaluate his traits as a leader without evaluating the horrific deed of his regime???

 

[hr_oskar]

Originally posted by pharmacy
Great leaders but to whom: global community (humanity) or his/her people?

What do you mean by "global community (humanity)"? Average Westerners?

Why do the leaders have to be immediately recognizable to new players? So they will not in any case have to read and learn anything new? So they can just start playing right away and see faces they can immediately connect with simplified, common knowledge? - "Oh yeah, it's that guy, the one who killed millions of people in gas chambers or whatever... cool, I'll nuke him!"

I'm firmly opposed to making Civ a black & white game, with "villains" leading some civs and "good guys" others.

Americans want to have somebody like Lincoln leading their civ because they traditionally see him as a good guy, a president who represented essential values of American culture. That's a good thing.

But why then do players of other cultures (especially the Germans and the Russians) not deserve to have _their_ heroes in place?

Please don't misunderstand my argument as anti-American. It isn't.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Even when you take away the atrocity, Hitler was a shabby military leader. People have argued against Napleon as a leader because he "wrecked" France forever. Hitler's decision to fight in every direction also a big mistake. If he hadn't attacked Russia, he might have taken over continental Europe and if he concentrated on defending that rather than attacking England, the USA might not have ever entered the war against them.

I predict that by Civ 9 we will have some of Germany's current or near-current leadership to look at. I am greatly impressed at the way that nation has turned it's back on its fascist episode and today has a higher "freedom index" than the USA. Also at how they survived a fifty year partitioning to emerge the virtual leaders of the E.U. Nice to know there is more than one way to conquer a continent.

 

[murewa]

hey for Germany, Hitler would have been great but too controversial. maybe Firaxis just wouldn't be able to handle that.

Imagine a teenage kid going nuts over rush-popping a captured Egyptian worker in a German city and calling that worker a Jew and himself Hitler just for the sake of history. internationally? that is such a no-no

 

[GhengisFarb]

Originally posted by pharmacy
For those who don't want Hitler to be named as a Civ leader, ask yourself this question:

Is the Holocaust worse than the Nukes dropped in Japan? Their purposes aren't the same, but the impacts are similar! Don't tell me that the Nuke is more appropriate because the Japanese were more evil the the Jews. (or Palestian suicide bombers are completely brainwashed by some kind of evils).

After all, killing is just the pathway not the goal of everyone (including Civ players).

Nothing against you, pharmacy, but this is one of those little 'hot buttons' of mine.

THE HOLOCOST AND THE USE OF ATOMIC BOMBS ON JAPAN ARE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ONE ANOTHER.

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to save lives. While many people died because of the bombs. Everyone of those victims would have been killed if they hadn't been dropped.

In addition, if the bombs hadn't been dropped many MILLIONS more Japanese would have died and many MILLIONS of allied soldiers would have died. The Japanese military already knew there was no way to win the war, but they had decided to fight until EVERY LAST JAPANESE CITIZEN ON THE MAIN ISLANDS WAS DEAD to make the Allies pay for the Japanese defeat.

Truman and his advisors had also come to this conclusion. They dropped the bomb to save lives. There is no way Hitler and the High level Nazis were rounding up and executing "Jews and other Undesirables" (the Nazis didn't just kill Jews) to save lives. They were killing them because they were disgusted by them and didn't consider them human. Truman saved more Japanese lives than he "killed" with the decision to drop the bomb.

By the way the Japanese were still going to fight to the death after the second atomic bomb was dropped. They only surrendered when Stalin stabbed them in the back and declared war.

 

[Ozymandius]

I agree, That Holocaust comparison is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Japan was at war and were certainly not very dainty when it came to killing civilians. just read about some of their atrocities in China and "medical/torture research that was as bad as what the Germans practiced.
The Holocaust had as its sole purpose the genetic cleansing of a populace that was not at war and posed no threat to the German war effort.
The fire bombing of Tokyo using conventional/incendary bombs were just as deadly as the Nuke.

The Nock I have against Firaxis' scoring system is that it rewards the Hitlers and back stabbers more than nation- and consensus- builders.
Too put it simply Hitler as a leader sucks..
If the world new about the Japanese as it did about German atrocities through Nuremburg trials, I think they would have used a few more nukes

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I predict that by Civ 9 we will have some of Germany's current or near-current leadership to look at. I am greatly impressed at the way that nation has turned it's back on its fascist episode and today has a higher "freedom index" than the USA. Also at how they survived a fifty year partitioning to emerge the virtual leaders of the E.U. Nice to know there is more than one way to conquer a continent.

Germany is a great country. Unlike Portuguese and latine as general, germans work hard and ask for lesser reward. After the war, citizens devoted 2 hours of free dutty service to the state, something unthinkable in most countries (perhaps Austria...).
They rule EU because they are the most competent to do that. We must recognise that...

 

[Portuguese]

OK, here it is my personal choice for rulers in CIV3, including for some new civs...

- Americans - Lincoln is OK
- Aztecs - Montezuma is a must
- Babylonians - Nabucudonossor
- Chinese - Qin (origin of the word China...)
- Egyptians - Ramses II
- English - Queen Victoria
- French - Charlesmagne
- Germans - Bismark (Hitler would open wounds...)
- Greeks - Alexander (although he was born Macedonian...)
- Indians - Gandhi is the only viable option...
- Iroquois - don't know about their leaders...
- Japanese - Tokogawa
- Persians - Xerxes is ok...
- Romans - Cesar Augusto
- Russians - Peter the Great
- Zulus - Shaka Zulu is the only acceptable

- Spanish - Isabella
- Mongols - Genghis Kahn!
- Portuguese - D João II
- Vikings - Erick the Red
- Dutch - Difficult to choose (let that to others...)
- Arabs - Sulliman, the Magnificient
- Israelits/Jews - David

 

[pharmacy]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb



THE HOLOCOST AND THE USE OF ATOMIC BOMBS ON JAPAN ARE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ONE ANOTHER.

Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to save lives. While many people died because of the bombs. Everyone of those victims would have been killed if they hadn't been dropped.

In addition, if the bombs hadn't been dropped many MILLIONS more Japanese would have died and many MILLIONS of allied soldiers would have died.

By the way the Japanese were still going to fight to the death after the second atomic bomb was dropped. They only surrendered when Stalin stabbed them in the back and declared war.

Alright. I was wrong. The Nazis were worse. But USA dropped bombs to save lives???

I don't think so! They dropped the bombs to win. That's just a part of the war, and has nothing to do with humanity. And as you said the bombs didn't end the war.

My point was "there was no bad vs good leaders in history just winner vs loser "

Anyway, I was over-reacted since I have a different view about WW2 from you guys....
So what? United Nations hasn't got a united notion yet.

 

[Beloyar]

Originally posted by pharmacy

RUSSIA-JOSEF STALIN he migth have been a dictator but realy it is the most famous leader of the u.s.s.r. and of russia itself
...

Stalin is not russian, but he is great leader of Russia. He saved the USSR during the hardest time (Hitler got closer to Moscow than Napoleon) and won. Like him, I'm not Russian but I feel that most Russians would vote for him (or probably Lenin)!

...

If the average high school or college student in America only remembers Stalin as a leader of Russia, doesn't mean he is the most famous. He may be the scariest.

Stalin did not save Russia, but was the direct cause of millions of Russian deaths at the beginning of WW2. Before the war Stalin killed and imprisoned almost all Russian generals, which resulted in poor Russian resistance at the beginning of the war.

Zhukov was the only great Russian general to survive Stalin's purges because he was far away in eastern Siberia. Thanks to Zhukov, Russian armies were able to push Hitler back, first at Moscow in 42-43, and then at Volgograd (Stalingrad) in 43.
Unlike German generals, who had direct orders from Hitler, Zhukov had a free hand from Stalin and was able to work out his own strategy against the nazis.

Stalin also peed his pants and tried twice to secretly conclude peace with Hitler in mid war, under any conditions.

Most Russians would agree on Peter the Great.

P.S. Zhukov was misspelled in Civ 3 as Zukhov.

 

[Reboot]

Originally posted by davidky5
Personally, I do not like to see Mao as the leader of China...
... When it comes to choosing the leaders for each civ, I think Firaxis should do so by evaluating the people's legacy to its culture. In this term, Shi Huangti of Ch'in Dynasty, Liu Pang of Han Dynasty, or Han Wuti left more legacy than Mao Zedong. Shi Huangti created the first nation state of Unified China. The word China originates from his dynasty Ch'in. Meanwhile, Liu Pang created the dynasty that epitomized the ancient Chinese culture. The major ethnicity of China, the Han people, originates its name from this dynasty. Han Wuti was the man who raised China into a world power status by extending its control to Central Asia and establishing the Silk Road....

Well said. Let's not forget the founders of the Tang dynasty as well.

However, we should give Mao the credit of unifying and effectively nationalizing a country torn by years of colonization, warlord banditry, and war. He might not be a very good economist, reformist, welfarist, whatever. But he scores bigtime for politics and warfare. In sense, like many of the examples of Dynasty founders, he created a "dynasty" of his own.