Y'know, the leaders for Russia are kind of weird.

[LightSpectra]

It didn't strike me until I was thinking about this earlier today, but I would've picked Ivan the Great and Vladmir Lenin as leaders of Russia, far before Peter, Catherine and Stalin.

 

[Thanny]

Ivan's appellation is Terrible, not Great.

Lenin never got a chance to do much leading, because Stalin completely took over the Party.

Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Stalin are pretty good choices, in my opinion.

 

[LightSpectra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_the_Terrible

 

[Ecofarm]

Stalin's traits should be: Murderous Paranoid

 

[FuRRie]

Stalin was a good leader, agreed he killed a lot of people etc.
But in general, he was a good leader for the old "Russia"

 

[Ecofarm]

The increase in hospital building would have happened regardless of the leader. No other progress occured under his rule. He killed 20million of his own people (the largest mass murder of citizens in history). His citizens lived in fear and under oppression. The gulags are his most famous construction, followed by toxic pollution and the most environmentally damaging agriculture in history (witness the Aral Sea). He took a victorious WW2 country and caused a dark age, degredation, and collapse to 2nd world status. Russia still has not recovered from his rule and probably never will. He was not a good leader, merely a historical figure so large that Firaxis could not resist.

 

[RedRalph]

The people loved him. Even the werstern media admitted there was a mass outpouring of grief when he died

 

[Ecofarm]

Gee, "RedRalph", my friends that live in Latvia and Estonia certainly do not think so. Their parents hated him. He destroyed their culture and slaughtered their friends.

After his death and the end of his reign of terror, Stalin's name and regime were widely criticized by the Soviet authorities and people. He is remembered as a terrorist against his own people and countless human rights crimes.

http://www.russianlife.net/article.cfm?Number=348

The Great Purge were denounced by Nikita Khrushchev, who became the leader of the Soviet Union after Stalin's death. In his secret speech to the 20th CPSU congress in February 1956 (which was made public a month later), Khrushchev referred to the purges as an "abuse of power" by Stalin which resulted in enormous harm to the country. In the same speech, he recognized that many of the victims were innocent and were convicted on the basis of false confessions extracted by torture.

By the Glasnost era of the late 1980s, Stalin was denounced openly by Mikhail Gorbachev as a criminal, and Soviet records were opened to Western and Soviet researchers after the collapse of the Soviet Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

I suppose you have some proof of this "mass outpouring of grief"? Because I searched, and everything I found said that his people and even his fellow leadership hated him. While you are at it, perhaps you would like to try to find some proof that Cubans love Castro and we will see if it stands up to every free press article and free person (Miami) that states the opposite.

 

[yena]

I have studied history, and read several contemporary accounts of wide-spread genuine mourning in Russia when Stalin died. I don't have citations handy, but they shouldn't be hard to find. That the Baltic states may have reacted different goes without saying. Call it mass hysteria if you want, but the scenes were similar when in North Korea Kim-Il Sung died some ten years ago.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Ivan III the Great is a OK choice. Personally I think that the should be one Russian leader who ruled before the reforms of Peter in the game.

 

[r_rolo1]

I do agree with LightSpectra: it's wierd that 2 of the 3 "Russian" leaders in CivIV aren't Russian ( Cathy was German and Stalin was Georgian): almost like having Gandhi as a English leader . Why not Alexander Nevsky or any of the non Romanov Tzars? Maybe even tzar Alexander I...

 

[Leodavinci]

Well with Stalins death. There was a story my grandma used to tell me.
In their village one of woman started to cry. "Why are you crying?" others asked. "Great Stalin is dead," was her answer. "Dear woman, please beat your head against the wall, so you will have at least a good reason for crying!" was their answer.
So, yes there were some people who were influenced by propaganda and truly believed in beloved 'papa of the nations', even more because in public everyone should be morning so to say not be the 'enemy of the nation'.
tough times, but luckily in the past

 

[TheLastOne36]

nah, There perfect options.

 

[Lone Wolf]

it's wierd that 2 of the 3 "Russian" leaders in CivIV aren't Russian

They ruled Russia and were very improtant in Russia's development - for better or for worse. I have no problem with Stalin and Catherine as Russian leaders.

maybe even tzar Alexander I...

Why? An important ruler, of course, but I would say that his Grandma is even more important.

 

[Napalm102]

The increase in hospital building would have happened regardless of the leader. No other progress occured under his rule. He killed 20million of his own people (the largest mass murder of citizens in history). His citizens lived in fear and under oppression. The gulags are his most famous construction, followed by toxic pollution and the most environmentally damaging agriculture in history (witness the Aral Sea). He took a victorious WW2 country and caused a dark age, degredation, and collapse to 2nd world status. Russia still has not recovered from his rule and probably never will. He was not a good leader, merely a historical figure so large that Firaxis could not resist.

One could argue that the country that have just survived a revolution and a devastating civil war would not have been victorious in WW2 without such a leader. You are concentrating too much on his bad points and forgetting that without him Russians could be speaking German today, not to mention most of the Europe too. You have to be even handed in you analysis, otherwise your post is just a hatefull rant.

 

[ac196nataku]

One could argue that the country that have just survived a revolution and a devastating civil war would not have been victorious in WW2 without such a leader. You are concentrating too much on his bad points and forgetting that without him Russians could be speaking German today, not to mention most of the Europe too. You have to be even handed in you analysis, otherwise your post is just a hatefull rant.

I think you are over-analyzing Stalin's personal effects on WW2. The Germans wouldn't have conquered Russia regardless of who was ruling. Because history has a funny way of repeating itself...

Hitler was pretty much Napolean part deux, and just like ole Nappy, he should've called it quits once he got to the Russian border. The sheer horrible conditions of Russia make it unconquerable, but personally, I wouldn't want it either.

You could perhaps give Stalin reasonable props for Scorched Earth policy however.

 

[Napalm102]

I think you are over-analyzing Stalin's personal effects on WW2. The Germans wouldn't have conquered Russia regardless of who was ruling. Because history has a funny way of repeating itself...

Hitler was pretty much Napolean part deux, and just like ole Nappy, he should've called it quits once he got to the Russian border. The sheer horrible conditions of Russia make it unconquerable, but personally, I wouldn't want it either.

You could perhaps give Stalin reasonable props for Scorched Earth policy however.

I would disagree with you. Tough times require tough leaders. Just holding the reigns of power in such troubled times deserves some respect.

As for autrocities commited....well thats a real question. Do the ends justify the means? When a whole country is threatened, morality gets thrown out of the window. Russia wasn't the first and won't be the last to do so, just look at what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Breunor]

I've always been struck that of the long lasting empires, Russia/USSR has maybe the greatest number of great personality/leaders, but they also had some real stinkers.

I view that Peter and Catehrine are very good picks. Stalin, of course, will be controversial. He did lead the USSR to victory, and took the USSR from a mid-range power to a superpower, but he was clearly a bad guy and his contribution will be disputed.

But there are a LOT of other good choices, and this isn't even close to a complete list:

Rurik: More of a legendary figure, sometimes viewed as the founder of the Kievan Rus, and defeated the eternal enemy the Pechenegs.

Sviatolslav I of Kiev: The conqueror of Kiev, defeated the Khazars, a key to Russian development, and also defeated the Bulgarians and the Alans.

St. Valdimir the Great: A time of peace, he brought Christianity to Kiev and greatly increased their influence. He was the father of another great leader, Yaroslav the Wise. By now, Russia was developing culturally and economically into a power.

Kiev, however, lost its power to rivaling Russian states.

Unfortunately, then there was the Mongol conquest ..........

As mentioned by another writer above, Alexander Nevsky is a national hero, for his defeat of the Livonian knights was a key point in Medieval history, possible saving their Eastern Orthodox religion. He was a 'client' ruler of the Golden Horde, and some people blame him for his conciliatory nature, but he believed (probably correctly) that taking ont he Mongols just wasn't going to work. The Mongols only wanted money, nothing more, but he maintained Russia in a tough era. His son Daniel Alexandrovich was also very important.

Dmitri Donskoi -- A very important prince, first of Moscow and then of Vladimir, he built the first early Kremlin, and lead to consolidation of power over the Russian neighbors and first started to successfully hold off Mongol rule, winning the battle of Kulikovo.

Ivan III, the Great, lead to Moscow's emergence as the most important Russian power. He defeated the Golden Horde badly and starting fighting off the Crimean Tatars, and established Moscow as the 'true' ruling part of Russia. His success lead to his family getting the name 'Czar'.

Ivan the terrible: Perhaps similar to Stalin, he REALLY WAS terrible, but did lead to a great expansion of Russian power. He colonized Siberia, which would become the key to Russian and even Soviet power (actually, the Stroganoffs hired the Cossacks in the Urals, but that's a different story). He also took Khazan and Astakhan.

Alexis I probably doesn't belong with the others ont his list, and may not have been a great Czar -- but this period is important because of the Polish weakening. Alexis extended power into the Ukraine and captured Smolensk and he took power over/made an alliance with the important Cossacks. However, he lost a lot of wars too.

Peter the Great -- Nuff said about him. Peter's Daughter Elizabeth I was also a very competent leader, and was ready to defeat Prussia in the Seven Years' War when she died (an event the Hitler kept holding out as a hope to win WWII in the dark days. When Roosevelt died, Goebbels apparently said, the Czarina is dead).

Catherine the Great -- Nuff said

Alexander I -- A solid ruler, maybe not as spectacular as other naems ont he list, he DID defeat Napoleon and contineud russia as a lead power. He took parts of Finalnd and Poland. He's hard to characterize, it seems like he was a reformed who changed later in life.

Alexander II -- The reformer, he ended the Crimean War, and is best known as the gret reformer who may have staved off the coming fall. He freed the serfs as a start, but tried other significant reforms.

And then, of course, we have Lenin and Stalin.

Breunor

 

[Ecofarm]

I would disagree with you. Tough times require tough leaders. Just holding the reigns of power in such troubled times deserves some respect.

Yea, all those dictators that hold onto power through the slaughter of their own citizens deserve our utmost respect! Ajihadforyou, Mugabe, Kimmy: acolades, my friends, acolades!

As for autrocities commited....well thats a real question. Do the ends justify the means? When a whole country is threatened, morality gets thrown out of the window. Russia wasn't the first and won't be the last to do so, just look at what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Spoken like a true Russian: "and you are lynching negroes".

Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki the result of war, or internal political oppression? Now, if instead of Hiro and Naga, we had the example of the US bombing New York and Chicago, then sure, we'd have a comparison.

 

[Ecofarm]

The people loved him. Even the werstern media admitted there was a mass outpouring of grief when he died

I'm still waiting for the slightest evidence of this "grief" being anything more than the conditioned response of politically terrified Pavlovian dogs.

Just.... one.... link....