WORST leaders to lead a civ?

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

After reading (most) of this thread i'm realizing if you really want to call your self a historian you need to study bad leaders. I didn't understand all the discussions but they were interesting.

Nero's two most important achievements were completely unintentional. The first was building his Golden House in Rome. I was able to tour it while there and it's truly impressive. I'm guessing most of the engineering marvels such as the colosseum the romans built were based on what was learned from building the Golden House.

His other major achievement was killing of the last two male Julio-Claudian heirs, which resulted in the roman empire choosing leaders based on merit rather.

 

[Zaarin]

the roman empire choosing leaders based on merit rather.

I mean, that's already how the Julio-Claudian dynasty operated, more or less. None of the Julio-Claudian emperors was the biological son of the previous emperor (though Nero was a direct descendent of Augustus). After the Julio-Claudians, most of the Roman dynasties would operate on a mixture of primogeniture and military coup--with the notable exception of the Antonine dynasty (Machiavelli's "Five Good Emperors"), which would return to the adoptive model of the Julio-Claudians.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I mean, that's already how the Julio-Claudian dynasty operated, more or less.

I wouldn't really say that. Augustus notably wanted basically anybody but Tiberius, notably his two grandsons, to be the next emperor. Caligula and Nero were too young to say they were chosen on merit and Nero was adopted by Claudius since his mother, Agrippina, had married Claudius and, possibly, killed Claudius' biological son to ensure Nero succeeded.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't really say that. Augustus notably wanted basically anybody but Tiberius, notably his two grandsons, to be the next emperor. Caligula and Nero were too young to say they were chosen on merit and Nero was adopted by Claudius since his mother, Agrippina, had married Claudius and, possibly, killed Claudius' biological son to ensure Nero succeeded.

My point was more that the Julio-Claudian and Antonine dynasties were as close to tanistry as Rome ever got, and semi-tanistry is as close to meritocracy as Rome ever got. Unless you want to count military coups as meritocratic, but more often than not those emperors were chosen for their ability to follow orders rather than any leadership qualities they possessed--since they could (and were) easily replaced when they stopped following orders. The empire certainly didn't get more meritocratic after the Julio-Claudians.

 

[InsidiousMage]

The empire certainly didn't get more meritocratic after the Julio-Claudians.

I would actually argue that the Tetrarchy was an attempt at meritocratic succession. A poor attempt, but an attempt none the less.

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

Brazil -Hermes da Fonseca
When a religous unit (great prophet included) run out of charges it turns into a barbarian unit and starts spawning barbarians each turn until its killed, railroads spawns barbarians when build, your unique unit has a random chance to turn into a barbarian unit each turn

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Brazil -Hermes da Fonseca
When a religous unit (great prophet included) run out of charges it turns into a barbarian unit and starts spawning barbarians each turn until its killed, railroads spawns barbarians when build, your unique unit has a random chance to turn into a barbarian unit each turn

Huh? What's that a reference to?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

After reading (most) of this thread i'm realizing if you really want to call your self a historian you need to study bad leaders. I didn't understand all the discussions but they were interesting.

Nero's two most important achievements were completely unintentional. The first was building his Golden House in Rome. I was able to tour it while there and it's truly impressive. I'm guessing most of the engineering marvels such as the colosseum the romans built were based on what was learned from building the Golden House.

Just a note: about 300 BCE the Romans started building using opus caementicum, a waterproof cement or form of concrete made from quicklime, pozzolana volcanic ash, and pumice aggragate which engineers have recently realized lasts longer than modern concrete mixtures and so they have revived the scientific study of it.
This was the real Revolution in Roman architecture, because it allowed them to effectively build with 'artificial stone' in forms that were practically impossible with anything else: like the huge free-standing dome of the Pantheon or the curving, tiered arches of Trajan's Amphitheater (the Colosseum) - note that both of those have stood for almost 2000 years virtually intact, where modern concrete buildings start to crack within 20 years!
Equally worth noting is that it also allowed the building of 4 - 5 story Insulae apartment blocks that would otherwise have been economically and physically impossible: a similar height is practically impossible in mudbrick or fired brick without reinforcement, buildable in stone only at great expense and by solidifying most of the lower floors, and completely impossible in timber without truss structures not invented until a 1000 years later! The new Roman Concrete completely changed the look and the density of population in Rome.
- Would make the basis for a great UA representing both the special appearance of Rome and emphasizing Roman Engineering

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

Huh? What's that a reference to?

The contestado war, civil war in Santa Catarina who started over land disputes between a railway company and the local caboclo people who had their land stolen to build said railway, the caboclos were lead by a series of monks and joan darc-ish warrors girls who claimed to fight in a crusade and that the republic was established by the anticrhist. Religous revolts like that were frequent during the early republic, the unique Unit part is reference to Minas Geraes and the chibata revolt when its was taken by rebels, also during Hermes government.

 

[Futumch]

Good topic! : )

I'd like to suggest Caligula for Rome. Give him an extra governor, Inciatus (his horse, who he made a consul).

I would also suggest Admiral General Aladeen of Wadiya if you're after purely silly ficticious leaders / places. Have him do things like name all his cities after himself (in the same vein as Alexander), an execute ability, where a unit damaged below 50% defects to some other civ, a unique unit called the "Beard of Doom" rocket. But give him really good ecology related bonuses like extra food from desert tiles and power from solar plants.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd like to suggest Caligula for Rome. Give him an extra governor, Inciatus (his horse, who he made a consul).

Though the historian in me has to point out that this anecdote is often relayed to show that Caligula was mad when in fact he appointed his horse to the Senate to let the senators know what he thought of them.

 

[Krajzen]

I have once read a scholarly biography of Caligula, written few decades ago by some highly respected (Polish?) historian who has essentially claimed that Caligula wasn't crazy in the slightest. According to him he wasn't exactly a great candidate for the office by any means, but his insane black legend consists either from him doing audacious crazy things on purpose (out of spite and for political reasons) and especially of his political enemies propaganda against him. Essentially the book claimed that he wasn't as much cartoonish psychopath as he was in a really bad political beef with the establishment, while having a lot of audacity. As well as the modern public having the tendency to fall for each and every case of Roman historians accusing every political enemy of ridiculous sexual depravities

The problem is, I have long forgotten the title of this book and iirc it may have been written in the communist era of Poland (meaning total obscurity in the West), so I always euncounter this extremely succesful popular image of Caligula and doubting it with no means to argue

 

[Zaarin]

I have once read a scholarly biography of Caligula, writtein, by some highly respected (Polish?) historian who has essentially claimed that Caligula wasn't crazy in the slightest. According to him he wasn't exactly a great candidate for the office by any means, but his insane black legend consists either from him doing audacious crazy things on purpose (out of spite and for political reasons) and especially from his political enemies propaganda against him. Essentially the book claimed that he wasn't as much cartoonish psychopath as he was in a really bad political beef with the establishment, while having a lot of audacity.

The problem is, I have long forgotten this book and iirc it may have been written in the communist era of Poland (meaning total obscurity in the West), so I always euncounter this extremely succesful popular image of Caligula and doubting it with no means to argue

Quite a few "bad emperors" have had their images slowly rehabilitated by scholars, and I believe Caligula is one of them. Commodius is another. These kind of scholarly rehabilitations rarely make their way to pop history, though--e.g., Mary I Tudor still has her nefarious reputation even though scholars generally agree she was an effective leader in a difficult situation, and people still love Richard and hate John even though Richard bankrupted his kingdom and left John with the mess.

 

[Patine]

Though the historian in me has to point out that this anecdote is often relayed to show that Caligula was mad when in fact he appointed his horse to the Senate to let the senators know what he thought of them.

I have once read a scholarly biography of Caligula, written few decades ago by some highly respected (Polish?) historian who has essentially claimed that Caligula wasn't crazy in the slightest. According to him he wasn't exactly a great candidate for the office by any means, but his insane black legend consists either from him doing audacious crazy things on purpose (out of spite and for political reasons) and especially of his political enemies propaganda against him. Essentially the book claimed that he wasn't as much cartoonish psychopath as he was in a really bad political beef with the establishment, while having a lot of audacity. As well as the modern public having the tendency to fall for each and every case of Roman historians accusing every political enemy of ridiculous sexual depravities

The problem is, I have long forgotten the title of this book and iirc it may have been written in the communist era of Poland (meaning total obscurity in the West), so I always euncounter this extremely succesful popular image of Caligula and doubting it with no means to argue

But, Caligula teaches us one good lesson. Don't mock and bully your personal bodyguards, of all people, for perceived or real effeminacy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Though the historian in me has to point out that this anecdote is often relayed to show that Caligula was mad when in fact he appointed his horse to the Senate to let the senators know what he thought of them.

In defense of the horse, he'd be less partisan and probably more effective than some, or most, politicians today.

 

[Zaarin]

But, Caligula teaches us one good lesson. Don't mock and bully your personal bodyguards, of all people, for perceived or real effeminacy.

At the end of the day, I think this was Caligula's real problem: he didn't know when to shut his big mouth.

In defense of the horse, he'd be less bi-partisan and probably more effective than some, or most, politicians today.

Mark Twain suggested a ruling family of cats, and I'm all for it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

At the end of the day, I think this was Caligula's real problem: he didn't know when to shut his big mouth.


Mark Twain suggested a ruling family of cats, and I'm all for it.

In all fairness to both Caligula and the horse, at least the horse was a whole horse, instead of the back half of a horse that is all most politicians aspire to . . .

 

[Patine]

Mark Twain suggested a ruling family of cats, and I'm all for it.

Except, then, knowing how these things work, some charismatic shuyster would make the compelling claim they'd learned or the discerned the Cat Tongue and rule by scam as a, "royal translator for the masses."

 

[krmarci]

For Hungary, probably king Vladislaus II, in personal union also king of Bohemia. He is the successor of Matthias Corvinus, who gained the throne after a short fight for the throne against the Habsburgs and Matthias' bastard. He quickly earned a reputation for being weak and following the nobility's requests - his nickname was "dobrze", meaning in Polish very well, his catchphrase. Spending on defenses against the Ottomans lessened, allowing them to increase their power in the Balkans, eventually leading to Hungary's downfall at the end of his successor's rule. He also had to deal with a crusade that turned into a serf rebellion.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

For Hungary, probably king Vladislaus II, in personal union also king of Bohemia. He is the successor of Matthias Corvinus, who gained the throne after a short fight for the throne against the Habsburgs and Matthias' bastard. He quickly earned a reputation for being weak and following the nobility's requests - his nickname was "dobrze", meaning in Polish very well, his catchphrase. Spending on defenses against the Ottomans lessened, allowing them to increase their power in the Balkans, eventually leading to Hungary's downfall at the end of his successor's rule. He also had to deal with a crusade that turned into a serf rebellion.

I'd go towards Franz Joseph if you want to show a leader that was terrible for Hungarians and Slovaks and Czechs among others (dual leader?) He was a terrible tyrant.