Firaxis to Include Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro in Next XP?!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru

Germany is only 135 years old, and it's in the game. The Aztec empire lasted less than 100 years, it's only playable ruler accomplished nothing more than the empire's destruction, and it's in the game. The USA has been a major power for the last 90 years or so, which is quite an accomplishment.

Though by your definition of Germany, Frederick the Great shouldn't be their leader. Personally, I think their definition of Germany is from the beginnings of the 1st Reich (AD 800s/900s) to the present.

[Vince278]

Then there were the Germanic tribes in Roman times. Don't see any American tribes anywhere unless you want to say they descended from the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, etc., etc.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Vince278
Then there were the Germanic tribes in Roman times. Don't see any American tribes anywhere unless you want to say they descended from the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, etc., etc.

That's true. I wasn't counting the pre-empire days, but I suppose Arminius made a confederation of tribes as early as AD 9.

[Leuenberg]

Originally posted by Vince278
For the same reasons a civ barely over 230 years old (America) should be excluded.

That may be excessive, knowing the lasting impact (esp. culturally) America had (and certainly still has) on the world, it could be reasonably considered as a civilization, albeit a young one.

However, choosing a leader different from Washington is clearly questionnable.

Originally posted by Vince278
I guess having many of your customers (and company) there helps.

Yes, and it certainly also explain this biased view other Hitler/Mao/Stalin.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Though by your definition of Germany, Frederick the Great shouldn't be their leader. Personally, I think their definition of Germany is from the beginnings of the 1st Reich (AD 800s/900s) to the present.

Seems like it's really stretching to consider all the various Germanic states to be a "civilization", considering that through most of their history they weren't united in any sense, and even when they were it was a loose confederation. Go back 200 years and ask a Prussian if he was part of the same civilization as an Austrian.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Seems like it's really stretching to consider all the various Germanic states to be a "civilization", considering that through most of their history they weren't united in any sense, and even when they were it was a loose confederation. Go back 200 years and ask a Prussian if he was part of the same civilization as an Austrian.

What you are describing is called a nation.

A civilization does not necessarily have to be united under a common leadership. It has to share cultural values and world view, in a more narrow sense perhaps language (but that is not a necessity!). Civilization is close to the term culture group, and even so called in several languages.

There is no German or Germanic civilization nonetheless, and neither is there a French one or an English, let alone a Dutch. There is one Western civilization, the descendants from which are the inhabitants of modern Europe, the most part of North America and Australia.

Samuel Huntington counts today only eight civilizations:

Western
Islamistic
Confucianic
Japanese
Latino-American
Orthodoxal Slavian
Hinduistic
African

Some remains of former civilizations are still alive in East Asia.

Look here for a map.

(Note that some of the cultures are closely bound to a particular religion)

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


What you are describing is called a nation.

A civilization does not necessarily have to be united under a common leadership. It has to share cultural values and world view, in a more narrow sense perhaps language (but that is not a necessity!). Civilization is close to the term culture group, and even so called in several languages.

There is no German or Germanic civilization nonetheless, and neither is there a French one or an English, let alone a Dutch. There is one Western civilization, the descendants from which are the inhabitants of modern Europe, the most part of North America and Australia.

Samuel Huntington counts today only eight civilizations:

Western
Islamistic
Confucianic
Japanese
Latino-American
Orthodoxal Slavian
Hinduistic
African

Some remains of former civilizations are still alive in East Asia.

Look here for a map.

(Note that some of the cultures are closely bound to a particular religion)

I noticed that last part, and I have troubles connecting Greek culture with that of the eastern former Soviet republics based on the fact they both practice Orthodox Christianity. Likewise, saying that western Africa and Malaysia are the same civilization because they both practice Islam indicates his definition of Civilization is pretty much synonymous with religion.

[Harovan]

The affiliation of a region, or country, to a particular civilization may be questionable, but this does not change the fact, that there actually are less civilizations, than many people believe. So you can connect Greeks to either the Orthodoxal world (by religion) or to the Western world, but this does not change the greater picture. And borders between cultures can not be drawn with a line in the sand, anyway. They're more smooth transitions.

And culture and religion are, of course, closely linked, especially for such religions like Islam. But still half of these cultural groups exist without a (today) predominant religion. The Western civilization was largely Christian over the centuries, and is today largely atheistic (although still living by Christian morale and ethics).

[gdijedi7]

I'm glad Stalin is coming. I want Hitler and Castro. I'll start a game with me against Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Mao and destroy them.

Besides, these leaders, as evil and distasteful as they are, make for good scenarios.

[Prussia]

You fools honestly think that Hitler was the first to use "Concentration" Camps?

Honestly, I don't know why they included Stalin, but Chairman Mao was a good leader excluding the some bad parts.

But so what? Napoleon was a good leader, but he was sick in the head? Joan of Arc was a good leader, but she was just kind of stupid? Bismark was a good leader, but a bit eccentric?

Hitler was a bad leader. Why? He won his votes corruptly, refused the people what he promised them, and stole power so quickly, when the German people turned around and started to think, "This guy is getting out of hand," it's too late. Because their god-forsaken congress disbanded and gave Hitler all the power.

After that, for the rest of WW2 Germany was a starving, melancholy hell-hole. Stalin didn't completely destroy his country, nor did Mao. They just destroyed the people. But Hitler did both.

[Willem]

Re: Firaxis to Include Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro in Next XP?!

Originally posted by monkspider
I urge everyone who has a CFC account to go over there and vote for deserving leaders only.

What's so undeserving about Nelson Mandela? He orchestrated a bloodless revolution while behind bars. I'd say that's quite an accomplishment. Of course that would mean having South Africa as a civ which I can't really see happening.

[Son of David]

When Churchill (who is now in Civ) was head of the British Colonial Office, he ordered the gassing of a certain group of people who were making trouble in one of Britain's colonies, calling them the n- word.

Germany comes in for a lot of unnecessary criticism from certain kinds of people whose history isn't a whole lot better.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Prussia
You fools honestly think that Hitler was the first to use "Concentration" Camps?

I never liked that phrase. When I was real little I thought people went to "Concentration Camps" to do alot of thinking and studying. Just as bad, I also used to think that Arab guerrillas were a species of ape. Ah, the innocence of youth.

[Alexander I]

Re: Re: Firaxis to Include Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro in Next XP?!

Originally posted by Willem

What's so undeserving about Nelson Mandela? He orchestrated a bloodless revolution while behind bars. I'd say that's quite an accomplishment. Of course that would mean having South Africa as a civ which I can't really see happening.

He's very deserving. But you are correct, the trouble does lie with which civ he'd go to. South Africa is not feasible -- we already have the Zulus. And Mandela was a Xhosa, not a Zulu, though things like that haven't stopped mistakes like that in the past.

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Prussia
Hitler was a bad leader. Why? He won his votes corruptly, refused the people what he promised them, and stole power so quickly, when the German people turned around and started to think, "This guy is getting out of hand," it's too late. Because their god-forsaken congress disbanded and gave Hitler all the power.

While I don't think that Hitler was a good leader, all of these points serve to remind me that he was an excellent politician. None of them seem to be reasons to include or exclude him.