Who Would be the 'Worst' Leader for Each Civ?

[AlexByrde]

I feel the best answer for the US is William Henry Harrison. After 32 turns, you lose.

 

[Xen]

Nero for Rome, Marie Antoinette for France, Tutankhamon for Egypt. The first two would be cool tho.

Nero gets a very bad, and potentially undeserved reputation. It should be VERY telling that while the elite in Rome despised him the people outside of Rome adored him, enough so that years after his death people tried to gather popular support in bids to becoming emperor by trying to assume his identity.

 

[Liex]

Brazil: With a few rare exceptions, pretty much everyone.

 

[bcaiko]

This thread has the chance to be very interesting. Always fascinating to hear from folks who really know their historical backgrounds. Also interesting to see folks' interpretation of a "bad" leader (is a morally terrible, yet politically adept and successful leader "bad"?).

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Actually I think Napoleon for France is one of the most murderous leaders France has had^^ he did a coup kind of thing during a period of revolution and transformation of society that rejected dominant monarchy and proceeded to act like he was a kind of king himself, though the regime was then named a republic. At this moment policies attacked poor (and most of the) people to increase the profits of the rich and then he launched brutal assaults on neighboring countries killing thousands calling to feelings of patriotism in France seeking to control an empire as rich as possible for the few that governed. In short he caused a lot of regression and stagnation of society and suffering for terrible selfish reasons.

 

[apocalypse105]

Actually I think Napoleon for France is one of the most murderous leaders France has had^^ he did a coup kind of thing during a period of revolution and transformation of society that rejected dominant monarchy and proceeded to act like he was a kind of king himself, though the regime was then named a republic. At this moment policies attacked poor (and most of the) people to increase the profits of the rich and then he launched brutal assaults on neighboring countries killing thousands calling to feelings of patriotism in France seeking to control an empire as rich as possible for the few that governed. In short he caused a lot of regression and stagnation of society and suffering for terrible selfish reasons.

But he was a military master mind a brilliant general who brought the downfall of a lot of monarchy in europe who where loyal to the pope.

and it causes the ideas of the french revolution to spreadh "free religion".. Withouth napoleon it would have taken longer for europe to enter the renaissance.

 

[Bad Wolf]

I think Napoleon for France is one of the most murderous leaders France has had

I don't think any other French leader can really hold a candle Napoleon in terms of muderousness. His wars were pure vainglory, cloaked in the ideology of revolution.

 

[Jim_Puff]

United States: William Henry Harrison

He died in like four weeks or something silly like that

 

[bcaiko]

United States: William Henry Harrison

He died in like four weeks or something silly like that

At least he accomplished something. That's more than some presidents around his era.

Heck, he didn't even have time to do anything BAD. Think Harrison is neutral at best compared to someone like James Buchanan, who almost did everything he ineptly could to lead to the civil war.

 

[plasmacannon]

Germany: Hitler
Spain: Franco
China: Mao
Mongolia: Khorloogiin Choibalsan (The Stalin of Mongolia)
Russia: Stalin

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

But he was a military master mind a brilliant general who brought the downfall of a lot of monarchy in europe who where loyal to the pope.

and it causes the ideas of the french revolution to spreadh "free religion".. Withouth napoleon it would have taken longer for europe to enter the renaissance.

Are we thinking about different Napoleon's or different Renaissances?

As far as i'm aware the renaissance was so far entered by napoleons time that it was completed, and the enlightenment that followed it was basically completed too. The industrial revolution was the next big European movement and that was certainly stimulated by the need to generate arms to defeat Napoleon.

In terms of religion though, much of the modern distribution of protestant v catholic had already been established before the end of the 16th century. After Napoleon, Spain remained Catholic, Germany remained split and france had so much free religion that icons were destroyed, all priests who didn't declare their primary loyalty to the nation were killed and the cult of reason was formed to replace christianity.

But Nappy is iconic and a celebrated villain of history, much like Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Montezuma, Shaka and countless other warmongering leaders of history. He's clearly a fantastic leader choice just for the combination of personal mythology and the military conquest he achieved in such a short time. Whether he was a good leader of France is another question entirely.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In modern Russia a lot of people consider Stalin to be one of the best leaders, not worst. They talk about industrialization, winning WW2 and fighting corruption. They tend to forgot about industrialization being Trotsky's plan; a lot of problems in war caused by Stalin repressions and the fact what those repressions were more against opposition and innocent people than actual criminals.

The opinion on good/bad leader is a question of historical perspective.

 

[apocalypse105]

Are we thinking about different Napoleon's or different Renaissances?

As far as i'm aware the renaissance was so far entered by napoleons time that it was completed, and the enlightenment that followed it was basically completed too. The industrial revolution was the next big European movement and that was certainly stimulated by the need to generate arms to defeat Napoleon.

In terms of religion though, much of the modern distribution of protestant v catholic had already been established before the end of the 16th century. After Napoleon, Spain remained Catholic, Germany remained split and france had so much free religion that icons were destroyed, all priests who didn't declare their primary loyalty to the nation were killed and the cult of reason was formed to replace christianity.

But Nappy is iconic and a celebrated villain of history, much like Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Montezuma, Shaka and countless other warmongering leaders of history. He's clearly a fantastic leader choice just for the combination of personal mythology and the military conquest he achieved in such a short time. Whether he was a good leader of France is another question entirely.

Ok i was wrong. But at least we agree on one point : he was a brilliant general and conquerd a lot of enemies.

 

[Sonmi]

Actually I think Napoleon for France is one of the most murderous leaders France has had^^ he did a coup kind of thing during a period of revolution and transformation of society that rejected dominant monarchy and proceeded to act like he was a kind of king himself, though the regime was then named a republic. At this moment policies attacked poor (and most of the) people to increase the profits of the rich and then he launched brutal assaults on neighboring countries killing thousands calling to feelings of patriotism in France seeking to control an empire as rich as possible for the few that governed. In short he caused a lot of regression and stagnation of society and suffering for terrible selfish reasons.

On the contrary, Napoleon's wars (the Peninsular Wars excepted) were defensive, he propagated an ideology that scared the oppressive monarchies all across Europe. He preached the importance of the nation and its people over its leader, an admirable idea that would later be tarnished by ultra-nationalists, and his social reforms very much did help the common people. (He did turn his back on a few of the changes brought by the French Revolution, granted, but some concessions had to be made in the name of stability.)

The only reason Napoleon is remembered badly by the English-speaking world is because he lost, and propaganda is a powerful, powerful tool. Napoleon had his bad sides (blatant nepotism being one of them), but calling him a "villain" of history is taking a ridiculously anglocentric view of history.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

but calling him a "villain" of history is taking a ridiculously anglocentric view of history.

It's taking a pragmatic view of the perception of a historic character, he is literally viewed as a villain of history. He's even represented this way in Civ V, as one of the game's biggest warmongers.

Anglocentric or not is irrelevant. He is no longer a person, but a character in an anglicised history of the world unfortunately for him. But that is the situation he's in.

Lucky for him (i guess) it means he has a strong place in the civ series.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Napoleon and Genghis Khan are rather similar, the main difference is that one won and one lost.

 

[Merciorum]

Persia: Darius III; Ismail II; Mohammad Khodabanda; Suleyman; Sultan Hosayn; Every single Qajar (with the possible exception of Agha Mohammad Khan); Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

 

[Sonmi]

It's taking a pragmatic view of the perception of a historic character, he is literally viewed as a villain of history. He's even represented this way in Civ V, as one of the game's biggest warmongers.

Anglocentric or not is irrelevant. He is no longer a person, but a character in an anglicised history of the world unfortunately for him. But that is the situation he's in.

Lucky for him (i guess) it means he has a strong place in the civ series.

Napoleon is only vilified in places where the anglocentric narrative still lives on. (And Russia, I suppose). He's still often seen as a hero in France, and to my knowledge, in Poland and among European Jews as well. The narrative is important, painting an inaccurate and dishonest portrayal of a man who stood for great things is rather terrible.

And to correct your earlier post, laying the blame for the Culte de la Raison at the feet of Napoleon is ridiculous, Robespierre started it way before Napoleon was relevant, and Napoleon actually got around to banning it. He reinstated Catholicism as the majority Church of France, but made sure that its interference with French politics was kept to a minimum.

Comparing him to Gengis Khan, Attila, or Montezuma is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[LDiCesare]

Napoleon didn't really fight only defensive wars. His handling of the spanish succession was just outrageous and uncalled for. He also attacked Russia in 1812 for instance.
However, it's not been mentioned much here that he did a lot for the improvement of the nation, in particular from the legal standpoint. His code Napoleon is still used today for instance.
On the other hand, I think it's somewhat exaggerated to say that making slavery legal again is a concession to be made in the name of stability.

 

[Sonmi]

Napoleon and Genghis Khan are rather similar, the main difference is that one won and one lost.

Nah, the difference is that Genghis Khan was aggressively conquering, Napoleon merely defended the Republique from its enemies. (With the except of the Iberian peninsula, where he was completely in the wrong)