 |
|
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
|
|
Turku, Finland
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mister Hand
|
|
How about Caligula for the Romans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xard
|
|
Atlanta
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kekkonen
|
|
Turku, Finland
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
america: ulysses s grant wasn't as corrupt as he was inept. he always put his friends in high positions and they awere corrupt.
i'd pick jackson for what he did to the indians
english: any of the monarchs that screwed ireland over so often
zulu, chinese fine
russia: ivan the terrible
aztecs fine too
french----i'm sure they have a meant somewhere
romans: nero
germans: hitler, of course
don't know about the american indian/iro whatever firaxis wants to call them
babyl, egypt, and persia i don't know anything on
my 2cents
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
U.S. Grant wasn't corrupt, there was just corruption during his administration. Not saying he was a very stellar president, but I'd never put him on the same footing as bastards like Andrew Johnson or ones too stupid to brush their own teeth like Bush Jr.
His generalship and his writing speak for themselves of an impressive man, and reputable biographies - there was one terrible one recently - agree that his drunkard days ended a long time before the Civil War.
Sorry to adopt the hagiographical tone, but U.S. Grant is a very popularly unappreciated person. Reading his memoirs, available online at http://www.bartleby.com/1011/
quote:
Considered among the greatest of military memoirs, these two volumes were an immediate bestseller. With the help of his publisher, Mark Twain, Grant wrote to the last month of his life to leave a legacy for his family after being defrauded a year earlier of his estate. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
History Guy
|
 |
Reads too many books...
Oct 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Please excuse me for being the author of this long, boring, dull, dry post, and I am sure I shall receive some nasty little comments because of it, but I hope some of you find it just a little remotely interesting.  Firstly, I should like to say that to say a leader is a bad leader because of brutality to enemies is simply ridiculous. I use Isabella for example. She has been given a brutal review by a lot of people because she was so darn cruel to her enemies, but hey, they were invaders. She was a great leader herself (although she hurt her country's economy pretty bad). You could just as easily badmouth Spain's other greatest leader, Phil the 2nd for his idea of sending the Spanish Aramada off to England. For the Americans: I must say that Nixon was a pretty good president, and that it is only due to Watergate that he is so badmouthed. Had it not been for WWII, FDR would not be very well remembered, he would be as obscure as Chester Arthur or Hebert Hoover. FDR was a Commie, let's face it. Andrew Jackson was certainly not a bad President. He was, however, an Imperialist and a true man of the age. If you want corrupt presidents, look at Polk or Clinton. Andrew Johnson is another good pick. U.S. Grant, though a rather poor tactician and an "o.k." general, was not an inept president. The corruption was caused by monstrous men such as Vanderbilt or Gould. And I am downright sick of George W. bashing!! As for the Russians: Nicholas II, as sympathetic as I am to him, was not a good Tsar, nor did he ever had any delusions that he was one. Alexander II, his grandaddy, wasn't such a stellar Tsar either. And Ivan the Terrible was undoubtedly the worst. He didn't get the name 'Terrible' for nothing. For the French: They had a lot. Just about every monarch during the 100 Years War was a complete cad, and entirely incompetent. I can't think of any of the Napoleons that were particularly great at leading a country either. As brilliant a general Napoleon I was, he was not a great leader, and Louis Napoleon (III) was completely incompetent. For the English: As bad as Ollie Cromwell was, Charles I was worse. As sympathetic as I am to the guy, he could have done alot more to keep his country from civil war, and it was his head on the block for it. However, I think there were worse British leaders over time. Neville Chamberlain, of course. Henry VIII was not great either. The reason he is so famous is because of his wives and his daughter. Had it not been for his wives, there would have been no split with the Church, and Henry probably wouldn't be very famous. Edward I was one of England's best, despite the cruelity of his troops in his campaigns to conquer the Isles. He was a fairly good leader at home and on the battlefield, but everyone hates poor Longshanks simply because of his wars in Scotland and Wales. For Babylon, how's about Belshazar or Nebuchadennezzar II, who (according to Daniel) went nuts and proceeded to devour the grass. For Egypt, we know so little about the Pharoahs other than the 3000 year old propaganda. Of the Ptoleymies, Cleopatra was a poor leader, and a monstrous lady. Absolutely horrid. For the Persians, they are fine with Xerxes. He was a total idiot. For Greece, they are perfect with Al the Great, who was a total reprobate. Philip II would be a good choice as well. Lastly, for the Romans, the 4 worst were: Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and Commodus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
I am amazed that so many of you have forgotten that Stalin was the Russian leader for original Civ and that Mao has always been the chinese leader. Really, how many of the leaders in this game did nothing terrible, questionable, or deadly? I am thinking Ghandi, Joan, and Abe- though some guy in a forum called Abe a tyrannt anyway. Please, what's you definition of great? A good (moral) leader or an effective (got things done to increase the power and/or standing of the civ in the long term, no matter the number of bodies) leader? If the first, Mao and Stalin are right out. If the later. then they fit, but not Hitler, since his contribution to german power was a smaller, divided, destroyed german reich.
So, terrible leaders:
germans: Hitler
Russians: Nicholas 2 or Stalin
English: William 4
French: Louis XVI
Zulu or Aztec : who would recognize anyone besides the current two?
Japanese: Tojo
Romans: Caligula
Greeks: There has to be plenty of candidates I don't know...
Chinese: Mao, or any of the old emperors who through war or mismanegement killed millions
Americans: Buchanan
Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians: Can't think of any. probably obscure
Indians: Rajij (misspelled probably) Gandhi (Indira's Son), or perhaps any old, bad king.
Iriqious: There must be some bad chief out there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrbilll
|
|
In a pure history forum, I'd agree with Molly. one of the fascinating things about history is that you have to take people in the context of their times. Judged by 2001 standards, Abe Lincoln was a racist, Thomas Jefferson was a sexist, duelists were serial killers, knights were gangsters with swords, and Joan of Arc was a raving lunatic.
But that wasn't really what I meant by Inappropriate leaders. I was trying for a list of the most humorous, inept, or notorious leaders-
I'd agree, Genghis Khan and Chairman Mao are fine as they are- notorious for their brutality, not famous for their achievements.
Hitler- Obvious.
Stalin- Obvious, though Ivan the terrible IS a good runner up.
Nixon- yeah we've had worse presidents, but it would be so much FUN to be negotiating with Tricky D**k himself.
Alexander- I agree. He was a military genius, and he has his defenders. But IMHO, he was nothing but a brutal opportunist, and whatever good he did for the march of civilization was incidental, a happy accident.
Ceasar- He was brutal, but competent and popular in some quarters. Caligula was notorious and perverse, Nero was inept and perverse, and they were both despised.
France- Louis XVI, with Marie Antoinette in the background, eating cake and being chased by peasants with a guillotine.
Okay, enough for now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Grant wasn't "ok," IMO, he was actually the best. Arguably the US had a dearth of good generals period, and it was a difficult transitional time in warfare, but I'd say there was noone better on either side. There's sort of an official line that all the North needed was determination and the war would sort of win itself, and Grant had that and not much else. Not very true. The western campaigns, certainly Vicksburg especially, show a lot of daring and creativity. And even though the Wilderness-Spotsylvania-Cold Harbor campaign involved a lot of casualties, it wasn't a simple war of attrition; it was one, massive operational flanking maneuver which simply got frustrated a bunch of times. You can quibble about how many assaults needed to be launched in certain engagements, but the overall movement is quite correct.
As well, the crossing of the James, the dislocation of Richmond, the appomatox campaign itself... Guy was a good general. I mean, when did Lee ever show operational skill? The plea that the southerners had nothing to work with disguises the lack of any real operational plan, let alone strategic. The south had no Grant figure, and suffered for it.
Regarding Johnson, I'm not inclined to be forgiving. I know there's a conservative historiography out there that used to be very popular that blames reconstruction on the radical republicans, but it just isn't credible.
Even from a totally non-moralistic standpoint, ignoring the fact that he did his level best to reinstate slavery by other means, etc, his approach to rehabilitating confederates was totally ridiculous, taking a hard line and then suddenly handing out pardons indiscriminately in truckloads, without securing appropriate concessions in return. One of the biggest missed opportunities in American history, even from a point of view totally indifferent to what happened to the ex-slaves.
He's the anti-Lincoln, from my perspective anyway. Including Clinton is pointless. His judicial and sexual escapades are historically insignificant - I don't want to get into a debate on U.S. politics under any circumstances, it's like debating theology, but ranking him (or Nixon to be truthful) with the kind of "whoops" presidents like Buchanan or Johnson just comes from a lack of historical perspective. 9th rate political bungling and inappropriate blowjob depositions don't really rank with causing century long social problems or allowing the country to unravel.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-11-2001 17:26
It seems to me bad leaders make their civ mighty.
Bush is going to make America even mightier!
|