Should Stalin and/or Hitler be a leader in Civ?

[potoroo]

Originally posted by swat-spas2
There are other Greek leaders we could use (Pericles, Leonidas, Ulysses) but Alex is by far the greatest

Point of order: Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek. Macedonian culture was certainly Hellenised but did not regard itself as Greek.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Alexander01 Hatshepsut and Saladin only reigned for "a few decades" each; George Washington was only preisdent for a brief period (compared for example to FDR's 4 terms), and before that he was a mere general of a small rebel army needing French aid. Who's even heard of Huayna Capac? Alexander's conquests took place in a brief period and his greater impace was in his absence.

One need not rule for a long time to have a profound impact. Abraham Lincoln was only president for 5 years.

I can't speak with certainty about Hatshepsut or Saladin off the top of my head, but Washington and Alexander (and Lincoln who isn't in CIV) at least were part of a legal succession of leadership and didn't bring their people to utter defeat, making them much 'greater' (ie part of a larger whole) leaders in the grand scope of history.

[armchairknight]

True, potoroo, but Alexander was provided the best tutelage Aristotle could provide and enjoyed many other Greek pleasures. It is very common to link lesser items to greater- for instance, the city of Belleville is sometimes lumped in with Detroit even though Belleville isn't even part of the Metro area, but it isn't as well known and I guess it must be close enough....

[swat-spas2]

Originally posted by potoroo

Point of order: Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek. Macedonian culture was certainly Hellenised but did not regard itself as Greek.

True. The Hellenistic element however associates it more closely with Greece than somewhere else. You could argue that he wasn't spreading Macedonian Culture by conquering Persia, but rather Greek culture. The other issue there is recognizable; popular culture establishes Alexander as a Greek. This is unfortunate as it ignores the rival city-states of Greek history and the various divisions that exist within the Balkan pennisula in general to this date, but it is probably closer to the truth to say he is larger figure in Greek history and influence than Macedonian. Few people outside of scholars and people who live there know much about the place. Lots of people know what Greece is and what Alexander did for it (not so much to it though).


note: Aristotle was Macedonian too

[armchairknight]

swat-spas2, I'm confused. Didn't Aristotle actually live much of his life in Greece? It's been awhile since I've brushed up on my Greek history, but I thought he did.

[swat-spas2]

He was taught by Plato and eventually founded the Lyceum in Athens. But he was not a native Athenian, he was from Macedonia. That distinction was VERY important at the time. He fled the city when Alexander died "in order that the Athenians might not commit a second crime against philosophy", the reason being that he was a still a barbarian to their eyes, irrespective of how many years he lived there among them. There was a backlash in Greece to all things Macedonian because they were repressed throughout Alexander's reign.

The Lyceum was essentially a state-sponsored competitor to Plato's Academy. He did not get the chair there when Plato died because he wasn't Athenian, so he founded his own school after tutoring Alexander for a time in order to compete with it (and to teach his own ideas which are distinct from Plato)

[Zoid]

Originally posted by potoroo

Point of order: Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek. Macedonian culture was certainly Hellenised but did not regard itself as Greek.

Oh, man you´ve done it now. Markos is gonna ban your ass

[armchairknight]

Thanks for the update, swat-spas2. I bow before your superior wisdom. Macedonian and Greek cultures were related and while it is not as significant to me as it must've been to Aristotle, the difference is important. Regardless, I believe Alexander deserves to be in the game, but that Macedonia does not. Alexander shaped his world, but Greece shaped Alexander.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
in what way is "killing by race" worse than "killing by intellect" (pol pot) or "killing by political stance" (stalin)?

The latter at least may allow potential victims to forswear.

[lockstep]

On topic: Hitler as leader in a Civ game is very unlikely simply because Firaxis and Take 2 will not want to put their German (and Austrian) sales at risk.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
CIV is a game produced in the core of Western Civilization and for the most part marketed within that culture. Stalin/Communism I think is largely viewed in the 'first world' as either dark comedy or tragedy- a form of entertainment. Hitler/fascism is a genuinely horrifying reflection of values held close to the core of Western Civlilzation. Dealing with those topics is a soul-searching journey few will take willingly.

As art or a cultural reference tool, Hitler somewhat belongs in it. As a commercial venture to generate revenue and to support a group of owners/employees, its unlikely to happen...

The Nazi genocide is meticulously documented by the capture of their records, which they kept meticulously during the time of their slaughters. The Jewish subculture they largely eradicated from several countries, was the root basis for large numbers of other subcultures contributing to culture and values throughout the rest of the world. As a third generation, formerly Catholic, Ukrainian, I am sorry to say, we haven't been able to get around as much. The Nazis will always get the worst press and probably, with reason. They were very calculating about what they did and very discriminate, whereas some of this other violence, Stalin, Genghis, whatever; was rather indiscriminate.

Some Soviet records have been released post-1990. But the documentation, including film, which the former Allies have released plenty of, regarding Nazi atrocities, is just not there for the Soviets, Alexander Solzhenitsyn notwithstanding. One of the first and best summaries of the extent of what is called in the West, The Holocaust, was in former journalist, the late William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," which appeared I believe in the early Sixties and utilized captured records extensively. Heinz Hoehne's history of the SS, also was very extensive in documenting genocidal atrocities, in great detail; among others.

If you dig, you can probably find almost as much these days on Soviet crimes, but they haven't had the decades of publicity that the vanquished Reich has. The West's need through 1990 to cooperate with Soviets in avoiding nuclear conflict or other world conflagration, has probably something to do with it. Ex-Communist Party leaders and bureaucrats still abound in former Soviet and East Bloc governments. It is apparent to me, from here in the States, that some punches will probably be pulled for years. We still need their cooperation.

As far as Genghis, and Tamerlane and their ilk. Population records for those predominantly Eastern cities they razed are really just crap-shoot estimates. Again, the killing was rather indiscriminate, rather than focused, and a good many centuries ago. I am not offended by Genghis in the game, personally. I would be, if they included Hitler.

I must ask again, as in the other thread, "Who would really want to play as Hitler?"

I would also remind those that had access to American television that two years ago, the CBS network tried to air a TV movie about the presumed life of young Hitler as an art student in Vienna. The outcry that Hitler was somehow being "humanized," was enormous, worldwide. The movie aired, after a script rewrite, but I would guess will never air again; becoming instead a footnote in American television trivia. Firaxis including Adolf, in the continued climate evidenced, is highly unlikely.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor

I must ask again, as in the other thread, "Who would really want to play as Hitler?"

I wouldn´t mind playing as Hitler. He´s just another historical figure as far as I care. I´ll be as happy to grind the enemy to dust under my SS Panzers as any other...

[MPower]

Well, you should care because you could be killed by some great leader too come, and some kid way in the future may say the same thing, how would you feel. But for the History sake, Hitler should definately be included, expecialy for the WWII senerio, I would absolutely love that, or WWI, or even the Napoleoninc war. What one has to realize is that for a game like this me must not consider how many people they killed. Napoleon was probebly the best leader of all time IMO, and he should deffinately be in the game (good thing he is, too bad we do not have a napolionic war senerio). All of the greatest leaders, were murderers. The whole point of being a great leader (in today's standards) is the ability to expand your nation, and no one will just give you there land without a fight. This is a "Historical' game, and if a person (like Hitler and Stalin) was a great leader, he should be included without question. How do you think I should feel, I'm Ukrainian? So lets put our cultural differences aside. I still appriciate Stalin being in the game because he had great impact on our Civilization, and that, my friends, is what this game is all about.

God Bless

[Dis]

I don't care either way. Both countries have good leaders to choose from. Are they really going to put more than 2 leaders for a country? in that case Germany may consider using Hitler. Bismark and Frederick should be in there though.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dis
Are they really going to put more than 2 leaders for a country?

Both England and Russia will have 3 leaders. I don't see why they're doing it that way personally. Since Hitler is not included, it can't be for use in any WW2 scenarios. I would have prefered to see those leaders go to civs that currently only have one to choose from.