I like Ghandhi very much and admire what he did in real life, but I think that he should not be put in the ranks of world leaders. He would fit better as a great person. He never really did any governmenta;, he really just pushed freedom and independence. Someone please correct my inaccurate logic, and spelling, I feel really stupid today.
Why is Ghandi a leader
- Thread starter Gecko1
- Start date
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
He lead the INC in the pre-independence years, which was tantamount to being the shadow Prime Minister of India at the time. The only reason that Nehru and not Gandhi was the first Indian PM is that Gandhi was just plain way too old by 1947--78 years old, compared to Nehru's 58 (about average Presidential age in the USA). Gandhi would have been a good choice--indeed, the only choice--for President of India when India became a republic in 1950, but he didn't survive that long.
I'm sure Genghis Khan didn't do a whole lot of governmenty things. He was more of a conquer and kill kinda guy. If I recall correctly his empire fell apart after he died because there wasn't much in the way of infrastructure or anything like that.
Joxer
Warlord
To be a history dork, the empire lasted long after his death. His govermenty things were to let the locals govern themselves and not impose on their culture which allowed the empire to stay intact.
Julius Caesar wasnt any more impressive than the other Roman leaders except he is more memorable because of his death. I dont think the list is limited to leaders but expanded to historical figures who helped shaped their nation.
Lars_Domus
Say No 2 Net Validations
In my humblest opinion, Gandhi's achievements are unrivaled in known history. Sure, there have been fighters, warriors and conquerors, people who have gone in to the history books because they killed a lot of people - but Gandhi won his peoples' freedom by literarily doing NOTHING. He achieved through non-violence what violence is still failing to achieve today. If there ever lived a person who deserve to be a playable character in a game called *CIVILIZATION* it is none other than Mohandas K. Gandhi – leader or not.
Old Spice
King
So if I use Gandhi I should be able to win the game with out doing anything, right? The fact that he was able to bring peace by doing nothing doesn't make him a great man it makes him lazy! The end does not justify the means that includes not doing anything at all ether. Julius Caesar was a far better ruler then most other roman leaders and I don't have to name names here...
Joxer
Warlord
Ill take this as sarcasm as its too obsurd not to be.
Old Spice
King
I really think that the greatest leaders of all time improved there Civilization so that it would last even when they where gone; be that through war or more peaceful means. I don't see Gandhi's India as lasting past him for any amount of time and there for is not on my list of greatest rulers of all time. He did a lot for civil rights and thats all I remember him for.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like you don't know your Roman history very well.
Julius Caesar was a key figure who arose to prominence at a key turning point in the history of ancient Rome. The Republic was becoming an empire, and Caesar understood that the old ways of doing things weren't going to work any more; this large, geographically dispersed empire needed more efficient centralized governance than the old, complex Republican system could provide. Thus he set about changing and reforming Roman government, and was one of the few people around with the talent and force of will to do so. The man even reformed the calendar, for cryin' out loud!
Caesar excelled at just about everything he set his mind to--generalship, governance, law, writing, even the seduction of his enemies' wives
. Which is the main reason he was killed: the little stars can't shine while the sun is hogging the sky. His death was remarkable, but it's certainly not the only reason he's remembered. Oh, and he also killed a lot of people, which means he's in good standing with almost all the other leaders included in Civ. Gandhi, in contrast, is all the more remarkable for being one of history's few "great leaders" who didn't do that to achieve his ends.
Lars_Domus
Say No 2 Net Validations
I want to emphasize that I do recognize that many of the other leaders in the game have made important contributions to world history. In the time and place of their lives violence was sometimes a necessity. Were it not for Cæsar's campaigns, Rome might have never risen to become the empire it was at its height, Europe would have never gotten the cultural heritage it did (nor the legislative heritage from Byzants.) And Gandhi might never have become the person he was.
Yet Gandhi's uniqueness cannot be denied, nor can the remarkable means by which he achieved his goals. To me he is the very imbodiment of selflessness. If you are so ungrateful for the freedom you enjoy that you find Gandhi's exploits trite, then I pitty you. Really, I do.
And one could wonder if Rome would have survived the death of Cæsar if not for Octavian.
Yet Gandhi's uniqueness cannot be denied, nor can the remarkable means by which he achieved his goals. To me he is the very imbodiment of selflessness. If you are so ungrateful for the freedom you enjoy that you find Gandhi's exploits trite, then I pitty you. Really, I do.
And one could wonder if Rome would have survived the death of Cæsar if not for Octavian.
I see the point. I just thought that his exploits would put him in the ranks of a great person? Or better a new class of non-combat units? I just think that using the same logic you can put Marten Luther King as a leader of America and Mother Teresa as a leader for a pious state or any other user of non-violence as a leader for their respective state. I think that Gandhi would be put in the annals of the most influential people to ever live but perhaps in the game he should be put in as a revolutionary or a unit and such. (that can't be killed) I do not think what Gandhi did to revolt against the British was trite he was a very good person. Can anybody just ask a simple question anymore?
Old Spice
King
Yeah,you could sneak him into a capital and bring down production by telling the citizens to not do anything unless they get there way.There would be no way to get production back up unless you adopt the civic that the unit tells the citizens would be "better". This unit would be like a spy but would spawn like a GP, i see it being more powerful in they that it could change civics of other civs.
Old Spice
King
Yep, we could call it a civil rights GP and they could add the names of a great civil rights leaders to a name list!
Lars_Domus
Say No 2 Net Validations
That comment wasn't aimed at you, Gecko, but rather Old Spice's disrespectful remark that "The fact that he was able to bring peace by doing nothing doesn't make him a great man it makes him lazy!" My apologies, I should have quoted.
Martin Luther King and Mother Teresa are certainly to be admired alongside Gandhi for devoting their lives to bringing peace and equality - and for the people they helped they where without doubt infinetly more important than Gandhi - and as such it is not for me to say who was the noblest. Still, in scale, Gandhi's acheivements are unrivaled.
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Martin Luther King as an American leader, though I guess others might have issues with that. Gandhi, however, led his people to independence, he had millions of followers that would do whatever he asked of them and in India he is remembered as Father of the Nation. Really, compared to many of the other leaders in the game, the only thing that is missing is an element of political formalities.
The thought of a Revolutionary unit or GP is tantalizing, though.
Old Spice
King
Sarcasm is fun!
Anyway I think the idea of a civil rights GP would be a great idea. But what else could one do?
Anyway I think the idea of a civil rights GP would be a great idea. But what else could one do?
I'm sure some people would object to this, and at the risk of sounding politically incorrect they are probably in the NRA. Good ol' Marty did a lot for the US and the world, but as a game marketed mostly to North America and Europe, its less touchy to stick with long dead guys who people only know from history lessons and thusly don't have strong personal feelings, than it is to take a brilliant leader type from our current era. For example, some people loved Clinton, others hated him. Some love Bush, others hate him. But who doesn't love good ol' Abe? See, safe there. Nobody getting all uppity cause they don't like what he's done, cause he was long dead before anyone is playing this game.
Joxer
Warlord
You are right, Im no expert on Roman history and my comment may have been taken a bit out of context.
Caesar was good, great even. I was trying to imply that he was not the only great Caesar the Romans ever had. The Roman empire lasted over 1000 years, technically, so they had other great rulers at some point.
As an example, there were the "Five Good Emperors", each who did wonderous things for the Roman empire, each to rival what Caesar did, whether militarily, politically, or domestically.
So there are many other rulers who did great things who were not chosen as the face of the Civ.
Similar threads
