Civ Leaders

[nationalist]

I am a history buff and, as such, I was very interested in seeing which Civilizations would be included and who would be selected as the leader of their civilization. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

Concerning the Civilizations, I was disappointed to see that the Vikings, Celts, Carthaginians, Mongols, and especially, the Spanish were excluded. These were very influential cultures, (the Vikings and Spanish were especially important to the formation of modern Western society) and all deserve to be included. I would have liked to have seen the addition of the Portugese, Arabs, Mayans, Poles, because all are unique and significant cultures.

One area that I think is interesting that everyone seems to ignore is the leader. It doesan't make that much difference in the game, but I enjoy "speaking" with histories greatest leaders. I agrred with most of the selections, but I think some should have been different. Here are my thoughts on the leaders:

Americans: Lincoln is a good choice, but I would have liked to have seen George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt more than Honest Abe.

Egyptians: The choice of Cleopatra disappointed me. She was a Ptolemaic Egyptian, which means she ruled thousands of years after the glory days of ancient Egypt. Should have been Ramses II, the greatest of the Pharoahs

French: This was by far the biggest disappointment for me. Joan of Arc was an important inspirational figure during the Hundred Year's War, but she wasn't the leader of France. Choosing her is the same as choosing Patton to be the leader of the Americans. Either Napoleon or Louis XIV should have been the French leader. Napoleon was one of the most influential leaders in History. His leadership of France has shaped modern history, including being one of the key reasons for the emergence of German Nationalism and the subsequent unification of Germany. Louis XIV would also be a good choice, representing the height of Imperial France. Even Charlemagne or Charles DeGaulle would have made better leaders than Joan of Arc. That choice bothered me.

Japanese: Could have been Hirohito, representing Japanese Nationalism.

Russians: Catherine the Great was an important leader, but she was born a German and was not the most important Russian. Ivan the Terrible would have been a better choice, as would Peter the Great. Good modern leaders would have been Lenin and Stalin.

I feel that the only reason that Catherine the Great, and especially Cleopatra and Joan of Arc, were picked to be leaders s to be Politically Correct and included more women. Women make excellent leaders ( Look at the English), but I think that the game experience is enhanced by having the best leader of their respective Civilization to be the representative.

As a side note, I was greatly pleased to see that the German leader was Otto von Bismarck. He was the greatest German political leader and, in the opinion of many historians, the greatest statesman of all time. Frederick the Great pales in comparison to Bismarck. The only other German qualified to be a representative is Hitler, but he is too despicable to ever receive the honor.

Sorry about the long post, but I was just curious as to what other people think about these topics. Please post follow up ideas if you have anything to share. Thanks for reading my ramble

[David Floyd]

The only other German qualified to be a representative is Hitler, but he is too despicable to ever receive the honor.

Yeah, but so is Abe Lincoln...

OK, obvious off-topic troll

[Rasbelin]

The reason for the current leaders in Civ III is that the same leaders were used in all the earlier Civ games. I suppose it has to do with the matter that people are used to these leaders as leaders of civs in Civ games. It's also easier to the same persons from sequel to sequel, because by doing so, you don't have to invent new ones. I totally agree that George Washington would have been a better alternative as the American leader. The same counts for Tokugawa; Hirohito would have been better.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
The reason for the current leaders in Civ III is that the same leaders were used in all the earlier Civ games.

Nope.

France = Napolean in Civ 1, Joan of Arc in Civ 3
Germany = Frederick in Civ 1, Bismark in Civ 3
Egypt = Rameses 2 in Civ 1, Cleopatra in Civ 3

There are probably other differences as well.

[El hidalgo]

I agree about the French -- Joan of Arc was a poor choice -- but not the others. However, I would really like to see new leaders, whether the mod community or Firaxis puts them out. That way you can pick and if you don't like a particular leader, or you just get tired of playing against the usual motely crew, just plug in a different one. I would like to see all the leaders you mention become available. I would prefer that people concentrate on real leaders, though, not the likes of Joan of Arc.

[Footie Mad]

Stalin in civ 1 instead of Catherine.
Frederick the Great in civ 1 instead of Bismarck.
There are probably more but I cant think of them right now.

[Maur]

Hey, leave Joan alone, i, hrmphf, like her

[Deathray]

Originally posted by Wille
Stalin in civ 1 instead of Catherine.
Frederick the Great in civ 1 instead of Bismarck.
There are probably more but I cant think of them right now.

He said previous Civ games, not just Civ 1. Civ 2 was also a previous Civ game ;-)

I totally agree with the Joan d'Arc thing. She was just some random smelly French peasant/saint, not like she actually ruled anything. Respect to Napolean.

[Wolfshanze]

Originally posted by Deathray


He said previous Civ games, not just Civ 1. Civ 2 was also a previous Civ game ;-)

I totally agree with the Joan d'Arc thing. She was just some random smelly French peasant/saint, not like she actually ruled anything. Respect to Napolean.

Uh... everyone is talking about Civ1, probably because there weren't ANY LEADERS in Civ2 that you could talk to! You always dealt with those silly heralds!
As for Bismarck... I agree he was a great politician, but like Joan of Arc, or Patton, he was NEVER THE LEADER of Germany! Kaiser Wilhelm II was the leader of Germany in Bismarck's time... Bismarck resigned, and was never the leader of Germany, anymore than Joan of Arc was the leader of France.

Bismarck was indeed very smart, but he was no head of state!
As for debating controversial leaders, I see no reason why Hitler couldn't be in Civilization if Stalin was in Civ1. Stalin was as much a murderer if not more than Hitler ever was. Still, I would rather see Hitler, Frederick the Great or Kaiser Wilhelm II as the leader of Germany instead of Bismarck, as they were indeed "Heads of State", Bismarck never was.

I do agree that Peter the Great or Stalin would be a much better choice than Catherine, cuz frankly, she's just dull!

[Stromprophet]

Originally posted by Sikander


Nope.

France = Napolean in Civ 1, Joan of Arc in Civ 3
Germany = Frederick in Civ 1, Bismark in Civ 3
Egypt = Rameses 2 in Civ 1, Cleopatra in Civ 3

There are probably other differences as well.

Well yeah, I mean Russia. Was not always Catherine the Great.

I disagree about Catherine the Great. Peter and Ivan are fine sure. But Ivan was not the national leader depicted, more like lucky. And just the start of Muscovy as the power instead of Kiev.

Catherine Expanded their empire greatly, won every war they fought, also pushed for the win against Freddy, which no one had been able to challenge him much.

Ottovon is fine. Fredrick was good, but he wasn't a leader, more of a military showboat.

Otto was a leader, he manipulated the government while remaining untouchable by anyone. He made treaties, united Germany. If you ask me Otto is the right choice for the leader of Germany, never Fredrick.

I don't care much for who lead Egypt, I mean neither Ramsees, nor Cleopatra exactly led Egypt to prosperity.

Leaders are fine. I mean it's fine to see different faces, and such. If you really don't like it, change the names, of course that won't change the face. But hey.

[nationalist]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wolfshanze
As for Bismarck... I agree he was a great politician, but like Joan of Arc, or Patton, he was NEVER THE LEADER of Germany! Kaiser Wilhelm II was the leader of Germany in Bismarck's time... Bismarck resigned, and was never the leader of Germany, anymore than Joan of Arc was the leader of France.

Bismarck was indeed very smart, but he was no head of state!
As for debating controversial leaders, I see no reason why Hitler couldn't be in Civilization if Stalin was in Civ1. Stalin was as much a murderer if not more than Hitler ever was. Still, I would rather see Hitler, Frederick the Great or Kaiser Wilhelm II as the leader of Germany instead of Bismarck, as they were indeed "Heads of State", Bismarck never was.

Bismarck certainly was the leader of Germany! From 1862 until 1888 Bismarck was the power behind Germany ( he was head of Prussia from 1862 until unification in 1871) There is no debate in this. Bismarck was the head of state! Wilhelm I was the kaiser, but he merely rubber stamped Bismarck's decisions. Bismarck was both Chancellor and (effectively) Foreign Minister of the Reich for roughly the first 20 years of its exsistance. Unquestionably HE ruled Germany, wielding much more power than the Kaiser, following Chancellors, or the Reichstag. Wilhelm II was much more of a figure- head than a ruler ( albiet he was a loud, belligerent, sometimes embarasing figure- head) .

Imperial Germany was a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Kaiser didn't have the power to control the government. Furthermore, Bismarck was the man who designed the constitution, and he designed it so he could retain as much power as possible. To say Bismarck wasn't the head of state is the same as saying that Winston Churchill wasn't the head of England during the Second World War. Both were prime ministers of constitutional monarchies, meaining that they, not the monarch, had the real power.

I agree with you that if Stalin is a leader, than Hitler could also be a leader. Both men were equally monstrous.

[Stromprophet]

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Bismark was the man. THE MAN.

He united Germany. Effectively Joining the Southern states with the rest in the Franco-Prussian war. Thus creeating the powerful state that would fight WWI and WWII.

[Wolfshanze]

I never said Bismarck wasn't smart, or Bismarck didn't weild great power... the only thing I stated was a TRUE FACT, that no-one can state otherwise.

He was NEVER the HEAD OF STATE.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Wolfshanze
I never said Bismarck wasn't smart, or Bismarck didn't weild great power... the only thing I stated was a TRUE FACT, that no-one can state otherwise.

He was NEVER the HEAD OF STATE.

You are right, Bismarck was not the head of state. That was the Kaiser. However, Bismarck was undisputably the head of government. The difference between the two is that a Head of State is the state's public face ( i.e. Queen Elizabeth II of England), while the head of government is in charge of the government ( i.e. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England) In my opinion, Bismarck as head of government served a far more important purpose than Kaiser Wilhelm I or Kaiser Wilhelm II, the heads of state during his tenure in office. Bismarck did lead the German government, meaning he was the Leader of the Germans for a period of time. Wilhelm II could legitametly be chosen the Leader of the German Civilization ( and probably should be if the game is a WW I scenarion), but I feel that Bismarck time in control was far more influential than any other German leader ( including Hitler)

Sorry for being so picky, but I have an avid interest in German History ( and am tkaing a course on Imperial Germany right now.)

[Wolfshanze]

The Kaiser of Germany held a TON more power than Queen Elizabeth II.

The Kaiser still made the FINAL decision on ANYTHING of importance, while Queen Elizabeth II has no power over anything fancier than a tea party.

There is considerable differance from England of today to Imperial Germany of WWI era, and the Kaisers definately ruled and had the final say.

Sorry, but as great as Bismarck was (and indeed, he was a great man), Bismarck still did not have the final word over the Kaiser and indeed did not maintain his job precisely because the Kaiser held more power than Bismarck liked.

You can take all the classes you like, it does not change the fact that the Kaiser, unlike Queen Elizabeth II, held REAL power. The Kaiser was an idiot, and Bismarck was the smarter, but this does not change the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II was Bismarcks BOSS, and had the final say on everything!

[Gaius Marius]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Yeah, but so is Abe Lincoln...

OK, obvious off-topic troll

Just whistlin' Dixie...

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Wolfshanze
The Kaiser of Germany held a TON more power than Queen Elizabeth II.

The Kaiser still made the FINAL decision on ANYTHING of importance, while Queen Elizabeth II has no power over anything fancier than a tea party.

There is considerable differance from England of today to Imperial Germany of WWI era, and the Kaisers definately ruled and had the final say.

Sorry, but as great as Bismarck was (and indeed, he was a great man), Bismarck still did not have the final word over the Kaiser and indeed did not maintain his job precisely because the Kaiser held more power than Bismarck liked.

You can take all the classes you like, it does not change the fact that the Kaiser, unlike Queen Elizabeth II, held REAL power. The Kaiser was an idiot, and Bismarck was the smarter, but this does not change the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II was Bismarcks BOSS, and had the final say on everything!

Sorry Guys, this has nothing to do with Civ 3

You are correct in theory in some of the things that you say. The Imperial Kaiser did have more power than a modern English Monarch. The Kaiser did have the power to appoint the Chancellor and other Ministers, had to approve legislation, and had the allegiance of the military, but his word was far from being law. "If the chancellor was determined enough, and the ministry unified enough, his orders could be countermanded."(Christopher Clark, Kaiser Wilhelm II: Profiles in Power) He could do nothing without the Reichstag's approval " No legislation was possible without the Reichstag and legislation was an increasing necessity in any modern state." ( Edgar Feuchtwanger, Imperial Germany 1850-1918) Therefore, Kaiser Wilhelm II had to take legislature into consideration before he did anything.

If you are familiar with the "Koller Crises", German ministers under the leadership of Chancellor Hohenloe forced the resignation of interior minister Ernst von Koller over the objections of Wilhelm II, then blocked the consequent selections of ministers until Wilhelm chose a minister who was acceptable to the ministry. When the ministry united, they could limit Wilhelm's power. Wilhelm did want to exercise any power that he could, but he could not introduce proposals directly to parliament. The proposals had to be discussed and approved by the ministry before they could be introduced into the Reichstag for enactment. Wilhelm could not act on his own, and did not really have the power to overrule any act of the Reichstag. In other words "There was and could be no personal rule in the Germany of Wilhelm II: his personality militated against it, as did the constitutional and political realities of the Prusso- German Reich." (Geoff Eley, The View form the Throne: the Personal Rule of Kaiser Wilhelm II ). Furthermore, "The Kaiser was not concerned with what appeared to be mere administration." (Micheal Balfour,The Kaiser and His Times). His 1908 interview with the Daily Telegraph, in which he basically blamed his lied about the German position on the Boer War brought down the Bulow government and discredited the monarchy by showing its inherit weakness. "The interview showed that one of the pillars of the German political system, a strong and popular monarchy, was seriously weakened." (Feuchtwanger). After 1908, the Kaiser basically faded into the background of Germany's politics during the most critical years of the 2nd Reich, the years leading into WW I. Kaiser Wilhelm was the boss in theory and theory only. The Reichstag and the ministry was where the power was located, and the Chancellor was the main power in those realms. For the first twenty years of the second Reich, that Chancellor was Bismarck.

For nearly his entire time as Chancellor of Prussia and Germany, Bismarck's Kaiser was Wilhelm I, not Wilhelm II. Wilhelm I allowed Bismarck nearly total authority, authority which Bismarck used to the fullest extent. Wilhelm I and Bismarck had disputes over courses of action that the Reich should take " The support of Wilhelm I was never automatic, but for 26 years Bismarck won every contest he cared about." ( Fritz Stern Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichroder and the Building of the German Empire) Even though Wilhelm I was Bismarck's "boss" he could not do anything that the Chancellor did not want to do. Legislation may have required the Kaisers' signature, but it also required the Chancellor's. Bismarck was a legend in his own time " Bismarck was so overwhelming a figure, his standing with the public as the Reich founder so monumental, that almost unlimited means of manipulation were open to him." (Feuchtwanger)

It is true that Bismarck was dismissed by Wilhelm II, but the act does not represent the power of the Kaiser. Throughout his term as Chancellor, Bismarck retained power through playing opposing sides off of each other. With the coronation of the young and headstrong Wilhelm II, Bismarck's political enemies found a way to remove Bismarck from power. Bismarck enemies and even "Bismarck own entourage suddenly found an alternative to rally to, to idolize, to ingratiate themselves with." (Stern) They used Wilhelm to remove Bismarck. If Bismarck would have had the supportive colleagues instead of jealous opportunists the ministry would have not allowed Bismarck to be removed, impeding he Kaiser as the ministry did in the Koller Crises.

Bismarck was the ruler of Germany for 26 years. The Kaiser was the head of state, but Bismarck, as the head of Government, was the wielder of power. Any political power that was wielded by the Kaiser was only wielded with consent of the majority of his ministers and the Reichstag, as is demonstrated in cases such as the Koller Crises. The weakness of the Kaiser was illustrated in the reaction of the Daily Telegraph interview. Bismarck's true boss was the prevailing social-political conditions of Industrial Germany, not the personal whims of the Kaiser. If Bismarck retained the loyalty of the other important politicians, he could not have been removed from power. The Kaiser certainly did not have the final say on anything of importance. His ministry could force him into decisions. "Down at the bottom of his heart, the Kaiser knew perfectly well that he himself was not an absolute sovereign. When Germany made up its mind to go in a given direction, he could only stay at the head of affairs by scampering to take the lead in going in that direction." (Balfour). Granted, he did have more power than Elizabeth II has now ( that was a descriptive exaggeration on my part, designed to illustrate a point), but he reigned ( not ruled) during a time when the power and the very idea of a sovereign monarch was waning. He wasn't the boss. He didn't rule. He was a figurehead. Bismarck did rule. Bismarck the most influential man in Imperial Germany. He was the leader. That is why it is justified that he is the leader of the Germans in Civ 3.

[Rasbelin]

Just claryfying some points...

It's true that the same rulers didn't appear in all the previous Civ games, but at least many of them. Apparently some of you doesn't seem know that Joan has already been seen in Civ II as the female leader of the French. Touché! Catherine the Great and Cleopatra were also in Civ II as female leaders. Don't moan! It's also true that Otto von Bismark is an unseen Civ leader. Hiawatha is also a new person, because he replaces Sitting Bull. The rest of the leaders were in Civ or/and in Civ II too.

I hope this made things a bit more clear.

[History Guy]

Well, I agree with your post. It's excellent. I think Abe Lincoln did more to damage our country than to "re-unite" it. Teddy Roosevelt was probably our best president (of course I'm a little biased, considering he's my biggest hero) and he would have done much better. Either Roosevelt or George Washington would be much better. As for ze Russkies, Ivan the Terrible wouldn't have been a good choice, he was a throughly dispicable guy. Worse than Lenin. I prefer Stalin even as bad as he was. Peter the Great might not be such a great choice either, from what I've read he was something of a kooklet.

[nationalist]

Rasbelin, I know that the females that you listed were in Civ 2. However, I think that their male counterparts (Lenin, Louis XIV, Ramsees II, etc.) are better suited to be the leader if you don't have the choice between male and female. If you can have a choice, then Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, and Joan of Arc make good choices for a female leader.

[MustPost]

If Bismark wan't a ruler was Lincoln?
Lincoln could be overruled by a 3/4ths majority.

[Dr. Nick]

The main disappointment for me was finding that the leader for the Japanese was Tokugawa Ieyasu. Ok, so he DID end the Sengoku Wars, so he DID reunify Japan. But it was still an isolationist state with a senile government.

Meiji Mutsuhito ended the shogunate, he insituted a modern Japan and taking the German example modernised Japan from "sixth world hellhole" to "Imperialising regional power" in about 50 years. And his inertia went on into what Japan became after his death in 1912 and possibly into what Japan is today.

He made a modern and defiant state out of Japan that made the history of the XIX and XX century very interesting, much more than Tokugawa did...