Which leaders you'd change

[Jon Shafer]

Vondrack, you seem to be very well-informed on this period.

Yes, Hitler played a role in the rebuilding of Germany. He himself did not do it, but he allowed it to happen. A weaker leader would have yielded under the pressure, but Hitler forged ahead.

That was Hitler's greatest asset and major flaw. He believed he was always right, and could do anything. Early on, this worked when his opponents were weaker. Later, from 1941 onwards, his aggressiveness and arrogance cost Germany dearly.

[Samudragupt]

I see some people claim ignorance of alternative Indian leaders (in the true sense) . Here are my personal favourites
Samudragupt
Chandragupt Maurya
Ashok
Vikramaditya

in case you need more info about them do a google search

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Anguille2


i do not agree...
When you meet an other country in CIV, you should be neutral...if i was facing Hitler, my only goal would be to destroy him...i just couldn't be neutral.

I agree. I have a hard enough time with Bismark's Germans.

[Thomas Paine]

A lot of well-informed arguments made concerning Herr Hitler.

I always felt, however, that the oddest leader choice was Ghandi, who, as others have observed, was a pacifistic religious leader. Ghandi transcended state politics. The notion of the Mahatma directing tank divisions and scrutininzing infantry positions just makes me chuckle every time.

One might as well make Jesus a civ leader! Can you imagine the cartoony, bobing head of the Messiah curling his lip and angrily demanding that you, "Remove your troops from my territory or DECLARE WAR!" Including Ghandi is equally obnoxious.

Of course, Firaxis chose Ghandi, as well as all the others, based on their Recognizability Quotient (TM,) not on any sense of historical accuracy. Look at the baffooned style of the animation and realize that their choices were whimsical, tongue-and-cheek selections made for a fifteen-year-old target audience.

Which makes me...what? An immature adult, playing a kiddie game. (shrug)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Thomas Paine
Of course, Firaxis chose Ghandi, as well as all the others, based on their Recognizability Quotient (TM,) not on any sense of historical accuracy. Look at the baffooned style of the animation and realize that their choices were whimsical, tongue-and-cheek selections made for a fifteen-year-old target audience.

You hit the nail on the head right here.

Which makes me particularly impressed with Firaxis for including Bismarck in, rather than anyone else, though that decision may have been impacted by the potential issues with including Hitler.

Ghandi was chosen simply because he's the most recognizable Indian that the western world knows of. The same thing will probably happen with whoever the Viking leader is in PtW (Erik the Red or Leif Eriksson).

[Lord Merciless]

I voted against Mao, Ghandi, Catherine, Cleopatra, and Joan of Arc.

Mao is certainly the most recognized Chinese leader, but he is too recent to qualify as the greatest leader. There were several Chinese emperors who could be worthier candidates:
- First Emperor of China (Shi-Huang-Di), Ying Zheng, who unified China for the first time ever, founded a government and society structure that remained competitive for 2000+ years(221BC - 1840AD).
- Emperor Wu of Han(Han-Wu-Di), Liu Xie, who ended the Hun threats and firmly established Confucianism as the state philosphie.
- The second emperor of Tang Dynasty(Tang Tai-Zong), Li Shimin, led to China to this biggest glory. Chinese culture spread to many surrounding nations, including Japan and Korea, under his rule. Actually, the Chinese version of Civilization 3 has him listed as Chinese Leader.
I would go with Li Shimin here since he is viewed by most Chinese as the best ruler in their history and also picked by Firaxis and Infogrames. The first 2, though they may have greater influences in history, were not undisputed and no less tyrannical than Mao.

Catherine is called "the Great", but her accomplishment paled in comparison to that of Peter the Great's and Lenin's. I would pick Peter here.

Joan of Arc would make a good GL, but leader of France? That's what Napoleon, Charlemagne, and Louis XIV are for.

Cleopatra is the most ridiculous choice of all. First, she was not an Egyptian; second, she ruled over a dying Egyptian kindom that had lost all kind of its earlier dynamics. Picking her is like picking Empress Dowager Cixi as the leader of China. Even the first Ptolemy would be a better choice. I would pick Ramses II for Egypt.

[Palleon]

Ok, a lot of people have been saying Hitler rebuilt the German army. He did, but there was a reason it wasn't there, because of World War I. And rebuilding that army was illegal, the only reason Hitler was able to do so much is that everyone was afraid of starting a World War again, so they all let him do it. And he just happened to be the leader in charge. Yes, he was a very charismatic leader, but he was a military disaster. Generals like Rommel are the only reason he was able to succeed, almost every early defeat the Germans suffered in the war was because he tried to direct the military himself, he finally let his generals take over. Regardless, Hitler is considered "The" posterchild for evil. There is no way in hell any video game would ever allow him to be "The" defined leader of a civilization. For every one of you bigots out there who try to glorify him, there are millions of people who consider him to be one of the most evil people in history along with Stalin. Yes, they were a big part of the history, but the Civ's leaders are supposed to be a representative of the culture as a whole, exposing their best qualities and attributes. Hilter has none of these, the only people who would ever consider him to be a great figurehead are the same people who still think that he didn't do anything wrong.

[Lord Merciless]

Many players's behavior in Civ3, including mine, would even put Stalin and Hitler to shame.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Palleon
For every one of you bigots out there who try to glorify him, there are millions of people who consider him to be one of the most evil people in history along with Stalin.
...
Hilter has none of these, the only people who would ever consider him to be a great figurehead are the same people who still think that he didn't do anything wrong.

So, if I desire to include him for entertainment purposes, I'm a bigot? Let's try to refrain from throwing around insults and closing this intersting thread. If some folks believe that Hitler is a suitible replacement for Bismark, the editor allows them to make it so. If you think that's a bunch of crap, keep it as Firaxis intended. Let's just keep it clean, is all. Statements like this start flamewars wherein both sides consider themselves justified to keep going and close good threads.

[Lord Merciless]

Ignoring good or evil, Hitler was indeed a great leader. The fact that he turned Germany into a mighty juggernaut and almost conquered Europe alone made him 'great'. The word 'great' in the sense doesn't imply good or bad, just the impact and consequences of his actions.

In the past, Ghengis Khan and Tamerlane had also carried out genocidal wars, Tamerlane especially enjoyed errecting pyramid of skulls of slain enemy civilians. Yet these people have been viewed as 'great leaders' in the history. So I don't think 'greatness' is derived from being nice.

[Boris Godunov]

All the back-and-forth aside, the fact is that Firaxis chose leaders who seemed (in Western eyes, at least) to represent their countries the best. There is also a good deal of the recognizeability and entertainment factors.

However, to include Hitler, in light of these factors, would be impossible. First, it would be a slap in the face to Germans to suggest Hitler somehow embodies their culture and civilization. "For America, we pick a great man of noble intent. For England, a famous queen who brought England into the forefront of European powers. For Germany, a genocidal maniac who thrust his country into ruin, taking millions along with it."

And while including Hitler may be "fun" for some, for most, it would not be so. While it may be historically naive to create a special place for Hitler among history's baddies, considering other leaders have indeed killed more people for just as bad of reasons, Firaxis is in no position to put aside the massive amount of popular sentiment that names Hitler as history's worst monster. They would be undeniably stupid to do so.

Mao was probably an unwise choice in this light, but that choice doesn't make it alright to put in Hitler. He just ingenders so many strong feelings that his exclusion is the only sane choice.

Now, as for Washington: I don't see him as nearly as influential as Lincoln. He was a mediocre general during the Revolution, and the most notable things about his presidency were the self-restrain he used, which did indeed influence the office and how it was used. He could have become virtual king, but made very wise decisions to only hold 2 terms and to reject monarchal trappings. His farewell address was his finest moment.

Lincoln, however, saved the country and, IMO, had a far more lasting impact on American culture and power than Washington did. It is to Lincoln we owe our superpower status of today moreso than any other U.S. President. He laid the foundation for today's America.

[Ribannah]

Who is Hiavata and who are the Iroquis??

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Many players's behavior in Civ3, including mine, would even put Stalin and Hitler to shame.

Rubbish! You're playing a game. Hitler and Stalin were murderous tyrants.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Who is Hiavata and who are the Iroquis??

What are a brand of snowmobile and a close relative of the Lakoti? ...Alex

[Jon Shafer]

Hitler was a political and diplomatic genius, but a military fool. He brought on the circumstances for a German build up, and nothing more. That is Hitler's role, aside from pretending to be a general and getting Germany beaten into the ground.