Worst Leader choice

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

I don't know why people seem to think the Aztecs are deserving to represent South American culture... The much older civilizations of the Olmecs, Chavin and Mayans were around much, much longer and produced many magnificent achievements. How exactly these civilizations disapeared and why is a mystery.

The Aztecs represent Meso-American culture, not South American. I suspect the reason is this: they are the best known, and they are the civilization that the Spanish conquistadores destroyed. Similarly with the Incas. What survives of Aztec civilization (and the civilizations/peoples they conquered) is still impressive in its own right- after all, Tenochtitlan was the largest and most impressive city the Spanish had ever seen, according to their own testimony. Equally, with the Incas, their absolutist monarchy with aspects of communism, the far flung nature of the empire, the extreme terrains encompassed, their quipu, metalworking and stoneworking skills, are all sufficient to make them remarkable in their own right.

I suspect the same approach was taken with the Zulu- the creation of an African Sparta, from the ground up in a relatively short timespan, makes them of interest. Gameplay may well dictate that a southern African civilization was chosen over an East African (Ethiopian/Somali) or West African (Songhai/Benin/Dahomey/Mali/Ghana) or North African civilization (Moors/Almohad/Almoravid/Berber), so as not to eliminate Egypt or Carthage too early, although putting the Celts and the English in the same game in Civ II did seem rather pointless, given the closeness of their starting positions in real world games.

Given that Turks (whether Ottoman, Seljuk or a pan-steppe representative Turkish civ) were left out, along with Arabs, and also any South East Asian civilization (no Srivijaya, Khmer) and the Spanish (!), it is difficult to see why more thought could not have been taken with the civilizations and the leaders that were included. The William Wallace hero generated for the 'English' civ being a real case in point.

I agree with you concerning the Joan of Arc choice for leader; better as a great hero. Due to France's Salic law, France managed to effectively not have any female rulers in their own right, although a good case could be made for say, Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Catherine de Medici, as a 'French' woman leader.
I usually opt out of playing the leaders assigned anyway; its much more interesting to have Trotsky conquering Western Europe, or Sun Yat Sen invading America, or Emma Goldman and her anarchist/communist hordes planting the American hammer and pitchfork (think Grant Wood and 'American Gothic') across the globe....

[johncmcleod]

I don't know what I was thinking... of course Napoleon should be the leader. And yes, Hitler was a bad person but was a good leader. He united the Germans and turned them into a super power, though he was one of the worst men ever to live. I forgot to add something else though. Elizabeth was a great leader, but how about Winston Churchill? Yeah, I know I'm too 20th century... but still. And I agree with most people about Lincoln. I think it should've been Washington, or maybe, though he isn't our country's greatest pres, it would be interesting to have Bush because he's our president now. Also, though I do not know much about Iroqouis history, I don't think Chief Hiawatha was a good choice. I think Chief Sageyowatha (though most people call him Chief Red Jacket) would've been a better choice. I also think there should be a Cherokee civ. They developed the own alphabet, nation, government, constitution, and even a capital city before the Trail of Tears. Most Cherokee began to live kind of like Englishmen. They lived in cities and did business. And besides that, I think someone should make an Incan, a Mayan, a Dutch, or a Spanish civ. They'd be fun to play with.

[Mr. President]

Joan of Arc for sure. She's not the person I think of when I think of France; for me French history is generates images of William the Conqueror, Napoleon, and Charles de Gaulle. Yet they seem to have avoided the modern era, with the exception of Gandhi.

[dunk]

I dislike....

Joan of Arc
Montezuma
Cleopatra
Catherine the Great

I think some good replacements are....

Napolean, Louis XIV, or DeGualle
Can't think of one now, but Montezuma is not a good choice (just popular)
Ramses II
Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great

[Herr David]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I don't know what I was thinking... of course Napoleon should be the leader. And yes, Hitler was a bad person but was a good leader. He united the Germans and turned them into a super power, though he was one of the worst men ever to live. [...]

AAAAAARGH
He did what exactly??? Unite the German people? Eh? You mean, he annexed Austria which made a lot of people happy for a very short time... before they changed their mind again and were very happy when the two nations were separated again after 1945. Of course it might have worked out under a different system and then there would be no Republic of Austria today. But in fact, if you ask an Austrian today he'll probably tell you (in his funny accent ) that he's quite happy about it.

And as a result of his attempt at grand unification, 12 million Germans were driven from their homes in Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia, never to return. Then add another three million ethnic German who were expelled from the rest of eastern Europe where they had been living as minorities more than two hundred years and you start to realize exactly why Germany is oh so united (ethnically!) today.

A leader is a person whose job, profession, talent, destiny or whatever is to lead people. Good leaders lead people towards good things, bad leaders lead people towards bad things, whether intentionally or not. And IMHO ol'Adolf qualifies for the latter one.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by atfxkmk
Germany - Fine as it is..
Greece - Alexander is fine...although(not a ruler) Socratese would be funny...at least be an adviser LOL!
Russia - Lenin(hate Stalin), or Trotsky...i rather be Trotsky(again, not a real ruler) than Stalin
England - Dont care
France - Charlemagne
Rome - Romulus, Reemus, Ceaser, Mark Antony, That Augustus dude, hehe, or if Gladiator was actualy based on a real story(like i know it aint), Marcus Aeurilius.
Persia - Cyrus or Xerxes is fine...i actualy like Xerxes name better, but i kinda forgot which one did which for Persia...BUT i'd say Cyrus did a better job hehe..

Russia- i hate stalin too, but the best choice would definitely be peter or MAYBE stalin (big maybe)
France-He wasn't french...see hundreds of other posts...louis XIV or napoleon would be better
Rome-Gladiator IS based on a real story, FYI. Marcus Aurelius was the last of the "Good Emperors" and Commodus was unpouplar and ended the Pax Romanus...though he really got killed by a wrestler, then a general named maximus (like in the movie) took power for a couple years...BUt back to the subject, augustus would be best...
Persia-Xerxes may be the worst choice, maybe even worse than joan of arc...all he did was attack athens...an excellent example of dumb Grecocentrism...The ONLY choices for Persia at all should be Cyrus or maybe Darius

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by dunk999
I dislike....

Joan of Arc
Montezuma
Cleopatra
Catherine the Great

I think some good replacements are....

Napolean, Louis XIV, or DeGualle
Can't think of one now, but Montezuma is not a good choice (just popular)
Ramses II
Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great

For a replacement for Montezuma- it would be a good idea, but I don't think that many people known many famous Aztec Leaders.

Catherine has some merit- but yes, Peter,Ivan, Stalin and Lenin are also good choices.

Cleopatra is horrid. Ramses or someone else would be better!

But remember- unless they have both a Queen AND a King, they have to include "Some" Women Or the Sufregettes will riot

[Alinestra Covelia]

Part of this entire "why aren't there/why are there that many female leaders in the game" question could have been avoided if Firaxis had just included a male and female leader for each civ.

Of course, this would have made the face animations more difficult, but as I see it, I'd be willing to live without a showy 3D animation and just have a functional picture, like in Civ2. What game mechanics do the 3d faces add that the 2d pics couldn't? None.

Also, from a modder's viewpoint, 2d pictures are easier to replace and mod for than 3d heads. Both have been done, but I'm no 3d animator

[Beren]

Persia-Xerxes may be the worst choice, maybe even worse than joan of arc...all he did was attack athens...an excellent example of dumb Grecocentrism...The ONLY choices for Persia at all should be Cyrus or maybe Darius

Agreed. Go Cyrus II

[civman2000]

cyrus II????? cyrus I did all the conquering!

[Beren]

Most people don't know, but when we talk about Cyrus (the one that defeated the Elamites, Medians and Babylonians) we're talking about Cyrus II. I don't know who Cyrus I was, but I don't think he was important.

[civman2000]

oops didnt know that

[molly bloom]

This site has some good information on Achaemenid monarchs and battles:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/

[dunk]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I also think the American leader should have been FDR. He is hands down the best president the US ever had.

Please, ick. Give me Lincoln over FDR. Thomas Jefferson would be a great choice for American ruler.

I don't think Montezuma was a good choice for the Aztecs. There were many more successful rulers, but Montezuma is the only one most people know about. I can't name a good replacement though, my memory is foggy at best.

Cleopatra is another choice I would like to see been made differently. I like Ramses II.

Joan of Arc is another bad choice. How about Charlemagne?

I don't like Mao as the Chinese leader. Although, I do like his hat.

I think you should be able to choose from a list of rulers. Although that would have been a lot of uneeded fluff to add to the game, it would have been cool.

[Beren]

I don't like Mao as the Chinese leader. Although, I do like his hat.

Talking about hats: Lincoln loocks just like a devil in the Middle Ages.