If not Mao, who?

[BSH]

Here's a description from Britannica about Huang-Ti:

Huang-ti is reputed to have been born about 2704 BC and to have begun his rule as emperor in 2697. His legendary reign is credited with the introduction of wooden houses, carts, boats, the bow and arrow, and writing. Huang-ti himself is credited with defeating “barbarians” in a great battle somewhere in what is now Shansi—the victory winning him the leadership of tribes throughout the Huang Ho (Yellow River) plain. Some traditions also credit him with the introduction of governmental institutions and the use of coined money. Huang-ti's wife was reputed to have discovered sericulture (silk production) and to have taught women how to breed silkworms and weave fabrics of silk.

Definitely a more progressive leader than any Communists.

[Pythagoras]

Didnt millions die of famine as Mao tried to make China self sufficient?

[Inverse Icarus]

Peter The Great turned Russia around.

he emulated the west (Europe at the time).

he encouraged industriliazation and western styles of dress and everything.

he even is rumored to have cut off the long beards of every statesman, and gave them modern, western facial hair. (i saw an old painting on this in history class)

[Phutnote]

Peter the Great did turn Russia around and did so by turning towards Europe and it's technology. Which makes it kind of amusing that Russia should be listed as a 'scientific' civilization over that of the rest of Europe. No biggie there tho.

I'd vote for Peter over Catherine but I think political correctness and an interest in drawing in the fairer sex makes Catherine the better marketing choice.

Likewise with Joan of Arc, the leader of France who never actually led France, held no official government position, and wasn't even regarded by many of her generals as a real general (more of a symbol). Of course, I only point this out because I won't get to see the diminuative little Nappie with his pug face going sour when I turn down his diplomatic overtures. Joan will be harder to turn down . . .

Phutnote

PS. Any ideas on the German leader? It's not Frederick from the screenshot. Looks like someone from 1600 or so?

[Odin]

Originally posted by BSH
Who? Well, I frequently use Huang Ti, the legendary and most ancient of emperors of the kingdom of Qin (Ch'in), from which China gets its name. The problem, which others have pointed out, is that our Western culture is largely ignorant of Chinese history. It's sad that Mao should be the most widely known emperor. But then, why not use Civ to educate?

Good Idea I'd rather have the first Emperor (thats what he called himself)
than Mao the bucher I heard about him on the discovery channel program on the Great Wall (Huang Ti ordered it to be counstructed to ward off the ancestors of the Mongols)

[tniem]

Re: China & Russia

Originally posted by Uffty
I think the Chinese Culture and their History is one of the most interesting things anyone can ever know about.

Read some books, you'll be amazed!
Japanese as well

No doubt. The stuff I do know, amazes me. However, I simply stated that I knew that the Chinese flourished well before the western world knew about them and so one of their early leaders should be the leader in the game. I did not know enough to add to the conversation.

I still believe that the Russians peak was during the Soviet reign. Of course it depends on what I mean by peak and what you mean.

I mean, their high point culturally was probably during Peter's reign. It was also the time that science was huge and who Firaxis probably is choosing if they have the Russians as a scientific civ.

However, the Russian power was biggest during the Cold War. One of the top two nations on Earth, controlling half the world, and at any moment nuclear war could have broken out. Really their should be only one 20th century ruler, if Firaxis has chosen Lincoln for the Americans, and that is Stalin or Lenin.

And if we rule out leaders whose government eventually collapsed then with the exception of Lincoln their will be no rulers in the game. And, hey, just give that some time. Such is what happens with the rise and falling of empires.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

For China, we've got Shi Huangdi, Zhu Yuanzhang (founder of the Ming dynasty, incidentally enough )... I'd like to say Kublai Khan, but he's more Mongol than Chinese.

For Russia, I'd go with Peter the Great or Ivan III. Then again, Leon Trotsky might not be such a bad idea...

For Germany, I'd have liked Barbarossa or Kaiser Wilhelm II...

[Ecthy]

3 sensible choices:

Mao
Ming
Chiang Kai-Shek

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Andz- Ming is a dynasty, not a leader Though you bring up a good point regarding Chiang...

While we're on the subject of Chinese leaders, how about Zheng He? (Actually, he was an admiral and was never emperor, but Gandhi never actually led India, Hannibal was never ruler of Carthage IIRC, and several of Civ II's female leaders never actually ruled their countries, to name some examples from Civ II.)

[Blaupanzer]

Are we now stuck with only one leader from each civ? THAT is a real step backward. I rather liked two, one male, one female. Should be Catherine and Peter (both with "the Great" tacked on). Huang Ti is so obvious -- you try for 6 techs in two turns pre-1000 BCE. Bismarck sounds right for Germany. How about Margaret of Anjou for France?

Shouldn't confuse the Governments as concepts with the leaders who carried them out. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Bela Kuhn (Hungary) called themselves "Communists." None of the concepts advocated by Marx and Engels were necessarily applied by these men. What they have in common is ruthlessness. On this basis, we would choose Caligula for Rome, Ivan III for Russia, or Pol Pot for the Khmer.

In terms of economic, cultural, political, and scientific advancement, relative to other powers in their own age, neither Stalin nor Mao have left the proven legacy of earlier leaders of the same states.

[Jon Miller]

Re: ???????

Originally posted by Uffty
I do not think anyone of you americans superbrains has the right to tear communism down, since you are not "free" enough to read about it

I am a very democratic person, but since I'm german, i Know BOTH systems and they are both not too different.

Democracy has one disadvantage: Crime!
Communism has one too: less materialism!

This is the great part of communism IMNSHO

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by BSH
Who? Well, I frequently use Huang Ti, the legendary and most ancient of emperors of the kingdom of Qin (Ch'in), from which China gets its name.

Hm.

The emperor who re-unified the Warring States to found the Qin dynasty is Qin Shihuang (Di is unnecessary).

The first emperor of China is Huangdi.

Two different persons.

[kolpo]

You are assuming the Communist revolution was something other than a political coup; in other words a revolution from below rather than above. Also, the famines of the czars were nothing compared to the famines of the Communists. About 400,000 of the Czar's subjects perished in the horrible famine of 1891-92. About how many Soviet citizens died in the famine of 1920-21? 5 million. The figure is even higher for famines in China under Mao. In the 92 years preceeding the Communist revolution, the czars executed a little over 6000 people for political crimes. In the first 2 months of Communist rule, over 15,000 were executed for political crimes. This is perhaps getting off topic, but I just wanted to point out that the czars, bad as they were, were not as bad as the Communists.

Especial in China was it a revolution from below. The top was death some years after the revolution so it can't be them! and Mao was certainly not a member of the top. I'm not saying that communism was good but i'm saying that the Czar's are responsable.

Mao got in power by doing a large mars where he was support by the people he met, who decided to fight at his side because they had no futhure under the Czar's.

It is true that Moa lost support after the revolution from the majority of the people who didn't deared to say that. But UNDER the revolution against the Czar's has he won because the others supported him. Mao wasn't rich and had no influence in the top so without the support from people had he no chance. He was a normal person and had nothing to do with the top.

It is true that he commited many crimes after that(that's why his popularity decresed). But the reasons why communism became popular are the Czar's. If the Czar's would have allowed democratic election then would there have been no revolution! If the Czar's had forced the rich to give food to the poor then would there have been no revolution! Instead of just looking to the results can you better look to the cause: an unfear social and political system. I don't like communism or any form of radicalism(like nazism and fundamentalism) myself but only in a bad working nation have they a chance! So the leaders before it aren't that good either, they are the big responsables.

btw, Czar's = emperor(just in different languages)

[phoenixcager]

Is there any particular period of time in Chinese history which can be considered a 'golden age'? If so, then it would be a simple matter to just pick the/a ruler from that age.

Personally, I would go with Qin Shi Huang as well....unifying the country was a major task....although he is also known for some other not-too-pleasant things

[Simon Loverix]

Don't confuse Marxism and communism/Maoism. The last two are the practical implementation of Marxism. Marxism is the actual theory, in which was never included an actual way to run an empire, only the hypothesis that the laborers IN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY(not in absolutist, non-industrialized lands like China and Russia) would revolt and overthrow the government. Marx never was clear about what was to do AFTER the revolution. The communist/Maoist parties in China and Russia were only able to take absolute power because that's what the people there were used to the last few millenia. In China, every few centuries there was a rebellion, but most of the times it got suppressed. On the rare occasion that it didn't, a new dynasty was founded (Ming) and everything continued like it was before.

The disadvantages of both systems (capitalism and communism) are well-known today. Communism lacks the creativity and flexibility to adapt to new situations. Coordination and responsibility, due to egoïsm are the weak points of capitalism. That's why both systems no longer exist today. Every mayor industrialized nation has a free market, but with government control and regulations, to preserve the best of both worlds.

I'm in for Qin (Shi Huang).

Czar is derived from the latin caesar (= emperor).

a couple of ancient Chinese proverbs:
He who wins the revolution, is the new emperor. He who loses, is a criminal.
Peasants are like sesame seed: the harder you press, the more you get out of them.