Why is Ghandi a leader

[GoodGame]

It's just a game, get over it.

LockesDonkey had the correct answer in my opinion.

 

[Sisiutil]

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.

Ah--gotcha.

Then again, I don't recall Shakespeare writing a play about any of the Five Good Emperors. In other words, a lot of the leaders are in the game purely because of their familiarity. How many people can name all Five Good Emperors? But everybody has some idea who Julius Caesar was.

 

[JackRules]

I'm no historian, but I think if there were a poll asking everyone to choose from the leaders in CIVIV, who historically was the greatest ruler/leader, I suspect Ghandi would garner a sizeable share of the votes, IMVHO.

 

[Elandal]

I definitelly can't name the five good emperors, but I'm quite sure Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius are in that group - there was someone between them at least, and the two others probably before them.
The major issue regarding that time is that it was prosperous, the height of Pax Romana.

Many people probably can name Hadrian due to Hadrianus wall, the other four are likely harder to name.

 

[Sisiutil]

I definitelly can't name the five good emperors, but I'm quite sure Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius are in that group - there was someone between them at least, and the two others probably before them.
The major issue regarding that time is that it was prosperous, the height of Pax Romana.

Many people probably can name Hadrian due to Hadrianus wall, the other four are likely harder to name.

Just for the record, the five good emperors were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. 2 outta 5, Elendal--par for the course, methinks.

Free associating: has anyone else here ever visited the ruins of Hadrian's Villa, just outside of Rome? Looks like it must have been quite snazzy back in the day...

 

[EdwardTking]

Free associating: has anyone else here ever visited the ruins of Hadrian's Villa, just outside of Rome? Looks like it must have been quite snazzy back in the day...

I did in September 2002.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

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.

I wouldn't take anything away from Ghandi's glories, but it's worth noting that his methods only work if your oppressors are fundamentally decent people. Non-violence can work on myopic self-centered people who nonetheless value all human life; just don't try that on Gengis Kahn or Stalin, etc., they'll happily roll right over you.

 

[Psyringe]

I wouldn't take anything away from Ghandi's glories, but it's worth noting that his methods only work if your oppressors are fundamentally decent people. Non-violence can work on myopic self-centered people who nonetheless value all human life; just don't try that on Gengis Kahn or Stalin, etc., they'll happily roll right over you.

I think you underestimate the power of his strategy, as well as the decency of the British rulers of India at that time. The British *did* roll over defenseless Indians on several occasions. However, many other nations condemned them for doing so.

You're right that there has to be *some* decency around for pacifistic strategies to work, however it doesn't necessarily have to be on the side of the oppressors. It's sufficient to have it on the side of powers that the oppresors depend upon in some way or another.

To the OP: You don't have to be the ruler of a country to be included in Civ. Gandhi wasn't, Bismarck wasn't, arguably Churchill wasn't either, and I'm not sure about Shaka. But Gandhi actually did hold more political power than anyone else in India in his times, and Bismarck effectively ruled on behalf of his king. Also, both added influential, and perhaps even revolutionary ideas to the politics of their time. They may not have been the heads of their states, but powerful leaders they were, without a question.

 

[Antilogic]

Churchill was a Prime Minister, which handled all the upper functions of government--ever since Queen Victoria in the 19th century, the British monarchs, although nominal heads of state, do little to actually manage the country. The real men running the government was the Prime Minister and his Cabinet of officials.

Bismarck, you correctly point out, pretty much dictated the policy and ruled the country alongside Kaiser Wilhelm I. His official position was Chancellor, which was a similar position to that of a Prime Minister (the head of the representative body of the country).

 

[Gecko1]

You have given me a good explanation and made my initial argument look like a lot of babbling nonsense. Now my only thought is why isn't Akbar the Great in the game?

 

[Formula51]

I think, IMHO (which may be flawed), that the leaders are chosen on the basis of who is the most historically recognizable of that nation to the common people here in North America (perhaps in W Europe as well), where most games are sold.

Ie. Ghandi -> India
Churchill -> UK
America -> Washington
etc., etc.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

It's like I said, by the time Gandhi could hold a political office, he was too old. He couldn't be Prime Minister--with the medical technology they had at the time, he had no idea whether he would die the day he took office. The Governor-Generalship was Lord Mountbatten's until about the same time as Gandhi's death, so he couldn't have that position. And when the Republic was declared, Gandhi was two years dead. It really isn't fair not to give it to him--he was the most powerful Indian in India for a very long time, and the only thing keeping him from political office was bad timing.

Don't throw Mandela at me--Mandela took power in 1994. Medical technology had advanced a great deal between 1948 and that time.

 

[Gecko1]

I won't but it would be cool to have Mandela as a Zulu leader. I still want Akbar in it, and Tamerlain for the Mongols

 

[Miles Teg]

Tradition of course, theres been a Ghandi since CivI

 

[paperchase417]

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.

are you sure you haven't got him confused with Bush??

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I won't but it would be cool to have Mandela as a Zulu leader. I still want Akbar in it, and Tamerlain for the Mongols

You wouldn't want Mandela as a Zulu leader, seeing as he's Xhosa.

 

[Gecko1]

As countrys evolve into the modern states that we live in ethnic identities tend not to matter. I could go on and on about the monarchs of Europe.

 

[Joxer]

I was quite surprised to see Washington and Roosevelt as the new faces for Americans, it has always been Lincoln. Always thought he looked funny in that fur hat of the stone age.

 

[Antilogic]

As for Genghis Khan, the Mongolian Empire collapsed mostly because Genghis Khan was quite active in the bed and had many potential heirs, which all decided they wanted to inherit the throne. The lack of a clear progression harmed them, and caused the stoppage of the Mongolian march westwards...

As for America, I think Washington and Roosevelt were picked for variety's sake. I'm betting that Honest Abe will be thrown into the next expansion pack.

 

[binhthuy71]

Julius Caesar laid the foundation of the Principate, brought into full flower by Augustus, which allowed Rome to impose the Pax Romana on most of the known world.

Ghandi managed to create an India independant of Great Britain, a formidable military power, without warfare. I respect the real-life achievements of all of the leaders portrayed in Civ. I admire only those of Ghandi.