Inappropriate Leaders

[mrbilll]

We're all talking about who should've been the leader of civ X, but what about the worst leaders? We could do a "terrible leaders" mod.

For starters, I'm thinking Nixon for the Americans, Hitler for the Germans, and Stalin for the Russians. Filled with inappropriate, politically incorrect diplomacy dialogue.

"Take this deal- I am not a crook!"
"I find myself in need of more leibensraum."
"I feel a purge coming on- and I'm not talking about lunch!"

Just a thought.

We could leave Chairman Mao where he is, he'd fit right in.

[Kekkonen]

Well, Stalin wasn't Russian but Georgian. Of course, Hitler was Austrian, but he was actually German head of state for a time; Stalin wasn't Russian and never ruled a country called Russia.

You'll probably find fairly depraved Czars if you dig into Russian history. Ivan the Terrible wasn't a nice guy, and Nikolay III was apparently a dolt whose family tree didn't branch much. I'm sure there are others. You could even put Boris Yeltsin there -- I don't know if he was a particularly poor ruler, but there's a near-endless potential for booze jokes...

For the English, I vote for Neville Chamberlain. (Technically he was an UK minister, not English, but English by nationality, I believe; "Thank you for this treaty, Mr. Shaka. It will surely secure peace for our time.") I'm sure you can find less-than-stellar kings or queens in earlier periods though.

For the Romans, you could do worse (or actually better) by going with Nero. ("Please keep the negotiations brief, I've got an urge to fiddle.")

For the Egyptians, you already have a pretty poor ruler in there, the over-romanticized Cleopatra, who I believe was a pretty big factor in the eventual annexation of Egypt by Rome. Akhenaton, the early monotheistic zealot who almost lost the empire too, would be another candidate.

[mrbilll]

Technicalities. You don't hear much about, "Stalin, leader of the Georgians", or "Hitler the Austrian".

Poor clueless Neville's heart was in the right place, and unlike many a king, he wasn't a brutal monster. Cut him a little slack. I'd say either Edward I or his son, Ed II, would do nicely.

The Romans! How could I forget! Take your pick- Nero, Tiberius, Caligula- the list of depraved emperors is long and distinguished.

The Egyptian Monotheist would be Akhanatan, though I'm sure I just butchered the spelling. He was king Tut's father, BTW. Knowing the matrimonial practices of ancient Egyptian royalty, he was probably Tut's uncle at the same time, if you follow.

Eewww... I'd say that qualifies just about ANY Pharoah.

[Dauphin]

For the English, I vote for Neville Chamberlain

Forget it, Cromwell wins hands down, not even Madge gets close to him.

[History Guy]

Neville Chamberlain is a good one. Nixon isn't a good one for the worst American leader. Look around the 1993-2000 period for America's worst.

Edward I was certainly never a bad king, in fact in my humble opinion he was one of the best. Unless you have fallen under the spell of Braveheart (I sincerely hope that is not the case, as that is a fate I would wish on no man) I'd say Edward is commonly regarded as a good king.

[Mister Hand]

How about Caligula for the Romans?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Mister Hand
How about Caligula for the Romans?

You could have the horse that he made senator as one of your advisers/commanders.

[Dr. Nick]

Edward I was a good King in the same measure that Stalin was a good leader for Russia.

Edward I is still responsible for the brutal conquests in Wales and Scotland. And, no, I am not Braveheart influenced.


I think the current Shrub would do well for the Americans.

[Xard]

Way to be Partisan, History Guy :P


As for American crappy leaders:

I think we'd do best with one of the Gilded Age Presidents (late 1800s) because they were generally pushovers. In particular, Ulysses S. Grant was more or less just a corrupt gambler that got the Presidency through his soldier past, and not through any actual ability to discharge the duties of the President.

English:
Either of the Edwards, or Charles, the king between them, I believe. All of them fell around the Protestant period, and were generally pretty crappy in their leadership of the Isles.

[mrbilll]

Edward I, William Wallace, and Robert the Bruce-

Actually, by our lights, they were ALL pretty brutal basturds, not people you'd want to meet. Edward wasn't called the "Scourge of Scotland" for nothing. William Wallace was basically a Scottish nationalist who made a hobby out of killing English. And Robert the Bruce switched sides so many times, no one trusted him any further than they could throw him.

That's the trouble with this thread- there are so MANY bad people to choose from!

BTW- Braveheart was a fantastic movie. But it's historical fiction, at best. Just enjoy it as a movie, not a documentary.

[Deathwalker]

How about Cromwell for the English?

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by mrbilll
Technicalities. You don't hear much about, "Stalin, leader of the Georgians", or "Hitler the Austrian".

In the case of Hitler, yeah, it's a technicality. He *was* a leader of the Germans, and even though he wasn't born in the country, he could pass for a German among natives. The reason you don't hear about "Stalin, the leader of the Georgians" is that he never was a leader of the Georgians. But he wasn't a leader of the Russians, he wasn't Russian, and he could never pass for a Russian. Soviet, yeah. It's not the same. If you'd have the Scottish civilization in the game, you wouldn't put an English king/queen in as their leader.

Poor clueless Neville's heart was in the right place, and unlike many a king, he wasn't a brutal monster. Cut him a little slack.

Well, yeah. It's just that gullibility is one of the properties you *don't* want your leader to have, no matter how fine a person (s)he is otherwise. But I admit picking him because of the easy wisecrack.

The Egyptian Monotheist would be Akhanatan, though I'm sure I just butchered the spelling. He was king Tut's father, BTW. Knowing the matrimonial practices of ancient Egyptian royalty, he was probably Tut's uncle at the same time, if you follow.

Eewww... I'd say that qualifies just about ANY Pharoah.

C'mon. Are you suggesting that their divine blood should have been mixed with that of the common mortal? Blasphemer!

[MarshalN]

If we go by how incompetent you are, Charles I wins hands down for the English. At least Cromwell won the war. Charles I was so thick he couldn't keep his throne and his head on his neck.

As for the Russians, I'd say Nicolas II. Another poor idiot who had no idea what to do with his throne. Stalin at least did something good (even though he far outdid his good by his evil). Nicolas II was just stupid.

For the French, there are lots of candidates. Louis XVI, you say? How about Louis XVIII? Or, maybe, just maybe Napoleon III who thinks he's 10% as good as his uncle?

Roman....well, like everyone said, so many to choose from, so little time.

Americans, US Grant is a good choice. He was definitely incompetent, and people might actually think he's picked because he was a good general.... but he was actually picked because he's just about the worst president there ever was.

For Germany, I'd say someone like von Papen who gave away the state to Hitler. Another fool who thinks he knows what he's doing.

[Fresno]

originally posted by Mrbill
For starters, I'm thinking Nixon for the Americans, Hitler for the Germans, and Stalin for the Russians.

Caesar (Romans): massacred whole tribes in France.
Genghis Kahn (Mongols): murdered throughout Asia.
Alexander (Greece): the same.
Isabella (Spanish): First the Spanish Jews, then the American natives.

It seems to me bad leaders make their civ mighty.

Bush is known as a dumb man. A dumb man should be considered a bad leader.

Bush is going to make America even mightier!

[Evil_Eric_4]

Edward wasn't called the "Scourge of Scotland" for nothing. William Wallace was basically a Scottish nationalist who made a hobby out of killing English.

mrbill

Ive heard him called theHammer of the Scots too.
Hell all he was trying to do was bring his whole "continent" under one rule---A valid strategy that we all use in the game

Sheesh one of these days ill figure out how to quote people
sigh