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

[SMcM]

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.

One thing I'd point out would be that Khan and others were in fact not card board-cutout baddies either. Also, Napoleon is not generally seen as evil over here, just as having been on the other side. He is not seen as being in the vein of Hitler or anything like that.

 

[Sonmi]

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.

I did concede that his involvement on the Iberian peninsula was aggressive, and in no way justified. The attack on Russia was more justified in that it broke the pact that stated that it would abide by the continental system.

Napoleon thought he had an ally in Russia, or at least a friend, but was ultimately betrayed.

Reinstating slavery in the colonies, while horrible, was definitively a concession, the nation was under attack left and right. It needed money to rebuild itself and support its defensive efforts, money it got through its colonies, either by enforcing slavery, or by downright selling territory (American acquisition of Louisiana).

Agreed on the Code Civil being one of his greatest gifts to the people.

 

[Sonmi]

One thing I'd point out would be that Khan and others were in fact not card board-cutout baddies either. Also, Napoleon is not generally seen as evil over here, just as having been on the other side. He is not seen as being in the vein of Hitler or anything like that.

Less and less, but from what I understand, Napoleon was pretty much Hitler for the British before Hitler came to be.

The fact that he's still called a blood-thirsty warmongering tyrant pretty much shows how tarnished his reputation is.

To Genghis, the reputation as a conqueror and a warmonger is actually justified, he was bloodthirsty as well. But he did have his good sides too, he was extremely meritocratic, and open-minded as far as faiths and cultures went. (The Mongols in general were)

 

[gfeier]

Where you stand depends om where you sit. Face it, Napoleon is the all time best French leader, but he deserves a vacation, so Catherine is fine with me.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I would not call somebody who send thousands of people to their deaths as the best leader ever.

 

[Sonmi]

I would not call somebody who send thousands of people to their deaths as the best leader ever.

Your list of "Best leaders" is going to be extremely limited then, I believe.

 

[True_Candyman]

Honestly, in terms of leaders of historical proto-nations and empires, killing is literally in the job description in the vast majority of cases. Napoleon was a good leader in his time.

I think we can probably all agree Napoleon would rock the boat a bit too much to pilot France today.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

Well I'm from France and when I see Napoleon as a leader in a Civ game, then I don't play France lol

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

[Civciv5]

Well we already got Cleopatra, who pretty much led Egypt to its doom, despite her best efforts.

Tutankhamun would be far worse though.

For England: Ethelred the Unready
For France: Marie Antoinette
For Rome: Caligula, Nero and Romulus Augustus (though it would be pretty cool to have a child leader)
For China: Cixi or Qin Er Shi
For India: Gandhi (tired of seeing him!) and Bahadur Shah II
For Persia: Khomeini or some other radical nutcase
For Korea: Kim jong-il
For USA: James Buchanan

 

[durfal]

For the Netherlands the worst would be : Regent Johan de Witt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_de_Witt
His negligence of the Dutch land army in the 17th century (as the regents focused only on merchant vessels, thinking they could avoid war) proved disastrous when the Dutch Republic suffered numerous early defeats in what is called the Disaster Year in Dutch History. In the hysteria that followed the effortless invasion by an alliance of three countries (England, France and the combined forces of Munster/Cologne), he and his brother Cornelis de Witt were blamed and lynched by Dutch peasants.

 

[MinnesotaNation]

Japan - Hideki Tojo, who led Japan to failure in WWII
Russia - Feodor the Bellringer, completely crazy son of the the mostly crazy Ivan the Terrible. Spent most of his reign walking around Russia ringing bells. Last of the proper Rurikid dynasty (to actually rule Russia, at least)
Russia - Peter III. Most know him as basically the punchline of the Seven Years' War, before being assassinated by his wife, Catherine the Great, that's why I put him here. In reality though, he could have possibly been a pretty good ruler of Russia, deciding to ally with Prussia rather than with Austria is a rather good idea, but he sadly got assassinated by Catherine before he got his chance.
France - Charles VI the Mad is definitely my first choice. Leading the country between two pretty decent kings, one of which, Charles V, had practically already won the Hundred Years' war before Charles VI screwed it up, and then his son Charles VII had to pick up the pieces. Do I even need to mention his madness?
France - Adolphe Thiers. This is more of a personal hatred for him then anything else. Back in 1840, he was prime minister of France (I believe, or someone really important in France), and egged on France to annex the Rhineland, causing unnecessary strife in a country full of it (although demanding the Rhineland did get Germans to write a pretty cool song). Then, in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, Adolphe Thiers led France and massacred the citizens within the Paris Commune.
Austria - Franz Joseph. The guy who oversaw Austria go from a Great Power to basically disintegration (almost, not quite, he was just 2 years off from that mark)
Spain - Charles II. While I don't quite know enough about his rule personally, I do know that it ultimately led to the War of the Spanish Succession (not quite 100% his fault, I don't think we can really blame him for being impotent. We can blame him for being incompetent though!)
Denmark - Christian VII, the fapping king. Oh, he's hilarious
Denmark - Christian II the Tyrant. Hated in Sweden, and as far as I know he isn't anyone's favorite in Denmark or Norway either.
Zulu - Shaka. In many ways, Shaka is both the best and worst leader in Zulu history. He founded an empire, yes, but he also did so very brutally, and in founding an empire he caused a massive, disastrous upheaval in the region (so much so, that period is pretty much called The Upheaval). Later, he would go crazy and kill a lot of people in his country.

 

[kamex]

Denmark - Christian VII, the fapping king. Oh, he's hilarious

I'm imagining the leader screen now.

 

[Sonmi]

Despite his great contribution to the social and political progress of Western political philosophy, I'd say that Maximillien Robespierre is to the obvious pick for France.

 

[Guandao]

America-Warren Harding (quite frankly one of the worst American presidents)
China- Huhai (Qin Shi Huang's ineffective son and heir)
Japan-Hideki Tojo (because reasons)

 

[Kirejara]

Lady Jane Grey of England (Queen for nine days! )

 

[INVICVS]

England-Harold of Godwin or Bloody Mary
Germany-Wilhelm II or Hitler
France-Napoleon III
US-Trump
Arabia-Saddam
Russia-khrushchev
Japan-Hirohito
Portugal: Salazar

 

[Leyrann]

Rome: Commodus

Caligula was far worse. On Commodus historians don't even agree wheter he was really that bad or wheter he was simply disliked by the writers of the time while having the bad luck of a plague happening during his reign. Also, Gladiator is not a good source.

 

[Metecury]

Caligula was far worse. On Commodus historians don't even agree wheter he was really that bad or wheter he was simply disliked by the writers of the time while having the bad luck of a plague happening during his reign. Also, Gladiator is not a good source.

To be fair Caligola was subject of slander and lies from his contemporaries and those who came after. It's hard to tell wet her the reports of his erratic behaviour were exaggerations or outright fabrications.

What we do know is that he despised the nobles and mocked them quote often and that he was pretty popular with the people.

 

[Reboot]

China - Ci Xi. But if you want to stir up heated debate or just mean Worst for the game, then Chiang Kai Shek (cos you'll alienate pretty much all of PRC for this).