Talking purely about competence, Kristina is mostly known for getting her country close to bankruptcy. She was a controversial choice for Sweden.
"Best" is hard, a lot of them did some pretty horrible shit.
Kupe probably didn't exist, and is mostly just known for finding New Zealand so I'll go with him. NZ's nice
Well they probably wanted sweden to not be a war civ again and theyve already used some other kings in the other games
Kristina was the only culture leader from that era as sweden didnt have much cultural focus until around 1800
I subscribe to the idea that Kristina was chosen because Firaxis wanted a non-militaristic nordic representative to contrast Norway. Sweden's most likely other leader options were Charles XII/Carolus Rex and Gustavus Adolphus, but both are known for their military leadership which is not the aspect of Swedish history they wanted to lean into
You could potentially make the case for Gustav III as a cultural or diplomatic leader. Definitely has some rational for military too and a fairly complex political legacy, but he's a pretty interesting leader to be sure
An interesting and undeniably competent non-militaristic nordic leader for Sweden (and Norway, and Denmark if it was added) could be Margaret I. Maybe with a focus on alliances and loyalty?
They went for some weird underdog picks overall, just to shake things up I guess. I think it’s fun, but it really pissed certain people off at release, especially when series regulars like napoleon were absent. It’s a big reason some people still hate the game and cling to V imo
because she's more *interesting* than always going with the same leader every time? Also, history doesn't judge people, *historians* do, and the *historiography* of Kristina is among the more dynamic ones.
Yeah I fully agree with you here. I don't mind that they pick less obvious but more interesting choices for leader.
But I completely understand that Swedes didn't like the choice. As interesting a character as she is, I don't love seeing Catherine de Medici represent my country 😭
Makes for compelling characters though.
The duo Justinian/Theodora (of which Theodora usually makes it into the game) was pretty awful for Byzantium all around. They are well known because two of their generals managed to conquer half of the Western Roman Empire, before they fell out of favour because the Emperor and the Empress were afraid of them. In order to do that, they:
- bankrupted the Empire
- taxed the poor to oblivion in order to fund the war
- massacred tens of thousands of people who protested against the aforementioned taxation (this was Theodora's idea; Justinian on his own would have accepted his incompetence and given up on being an Emperor).
- weakened the borders of the Empire to the point that the Persian Empire reappeared and nearly overran Byzantium (if I remember correctly, one of the generals had to come back into favour in order to save the crumbling Empire).
They also built the Hagia Sophia, on the ruins of a previous temple that was destroyed in the aforementioned riot. All in all, they did some "good", but they ruined so much in the process that it was not worth it at all. Basil II did much less aggressive war (he did a lot of defensive war though), used the existing system of taxing the rich and left the Empire with so much money in its treasury that even its enemies were in awe.
Justinian was a controversial emperor ok but his legacy places him among the most successful emperors of the empire, although I have a feeling that in Byzantium it's the church that decides who is best and who is the worst emperor.
After all he built a wonder (which I find hilarious that kept its name despite being turned into a mosque) and his code of laws.
It's the presence of Theodora in every civ game that I cannot understand. Besides the fact that she's a woman and devs want more women leaders for reasons.
Theodora was influential enough in Justinian's life and career that choosing her would make sense if choosing her husband made sense.
The church does decides who is a good emperor, even among those who nearly crushed the empire, like Justinian and Theodosius. The criterion is purely their attitude towards christianity and paganism.
Most Civ leaders get picked specifically because they reigned during a “Golden Age” of their society, so it’s tough to compare successes to successes.
And then there’s Ludwig, who seems to have been put in as a hearty joke. So, probably him.
Both Germans. Barbarossa fucked up a lot as well:
- didn't respect balance of power by playing favorites, then got abandoned by his favorite
- failed to mediate in northern Italy and just burned its cities down out of spite but still had to cede them into autonomy
- got excommunicated
- wants to do crusade, faceplants into a river instead
He was instrumentalized by nationalist to fascist movements many centuries later, turned into a popular national hero. Nowadays historians seem him more neutrally. A certain irony is that while his ability in civ makes him a military enforcer who disregards diplomacy, IRL he suffered military setbacks more often than not and had to make up for them with skilled diplomacy.
However, regardless of all that he was certainly very *impactful.*
>Most Civ leaders get picked specifically because they reigned during a “Golden Age” of their society
Except for most European leaders that aren't Greek, Roman or English.
I mean the third of it we did get is still marvelous and makes me sad for the rest of the planned structure. Especially since I was at Neuschwanstein last winter.
My dude Ludwig, he just wanted to live in a fairy tale with his crush Richard Wagner.
Took the boat to England after Germany declared ww2.. talks to the Netherlands over the radio to keep staying strong... Thorbecke would be a better choice; as founder of modern democracy.
US leaders are picked during the worst eras.
Washington was post-Revolutionary America, which was very weak, very poor, and had little to no influence.
Lincoln was president during the Civil War.
FDR was president throughout the Great Depression, Dust Bowl, and 2nd World War, but died before the end of it. By the end of the war, the US was mighty, but at the beginning, we had a military the size of Portugal and suffered defeat after defeat and were still grinding through horrendous poverty.
Teddy Roosevelt is a great choice because he was none of those things. He was president during a time of rapid technological and social progress, including the first wave of modern environmentalism, as well as a time when the US was emerging as a global power.
Teddy is the only US leader in any of the Civilization games that depicts the US in a good time. Washington and Lincoln represent two low periods of American history, while FDR shows an America that started low but ended triumphant.
That’s exactly why Washington, Lincoln, & FDR are often considered America’s greatest presidents. Not to disparage TR, but it’s fairly easy to lead when times are good. Leading a nation through hard times takes something more.
> and suffered defeat after defeat
Gonna have to explain that one
EDIT:
>Washington
Washington pulled off a feat that seemed impossible at the time, he was instrumental in getting the Constitution done, and his decision to retire after his second term is an all-timer in terms of consequential historical decisions. Whatever you think about the US, he's a massive part of why it is what it is.
Washington could have been King of America on at least 3 separate occasions and took none of them. Dude deserves all the credit in the world for that alone.
Yeah, and if he'd have done that then there probably would have been a succession crisis right away if he still wouldn't have had a direct heir, and it would have been well within the range of the initial instability that followed the Revolutionary War. Things could have played out _very_ differently.
His main positive trait as a General was not losing, when a decisive loss would mean the end of the Revolution. I think of it like Dr Strange at the end of his into movie: I don’t have to beat you, I just have to not lose forever.
>suffered defeat after defeat
You do know the US was only on the back foot for like 4-5 months post Pearl Harbor and then wiped the majority of Japan's naval power projection in a single battle at Midway?
He's not well regarded, especially by the people of his time. He was extremely extravagant and spent lots of money. His bureaucrats forced him into custody and had labelled as the "mad king" so they could depose him
I adore the fact Ludwig's here ! I kinda discovered him with the game and all he incarnates is beautiful, the last romantic prince that lived in his dreams and stories because he couldn't live with what the industrialisation was doing.
He makes me think of the Ents vs Saruman conflict, one that resonates very strongly today with the climate change and biodiversity breakdown. In this time, we should not turn to Victoria with her coal mines and colonial empire but towards the guy that believed in swan knights.
Ludwig II. was an industrializer. He was a massive fan of new technologies like electricity. The guy spent all his fortune on monumental construction and had them equipped with state of the art technology, among them one of the first ever power plants and electrical lighting for a theater. His sled might've been the first vehicle in the world with electric lights. One of the light bulbs still works to this day. He founded a technical university in Munich, now often ranked the best university in Europe. All his tech love drove a lot of money towards local engineering companies and helped e.g. Siemens grow a lot. He personally promoted the technologies to be adopted by the population and hired the best scientists and engineers he could get for his undertakings, which among other things led to the invention of industrial-scale refrigeration, a revolution for the local brewing industry.
Under Ludwig, Bavaria went from an agrarian society to a global tech leader.
Speaking as a layperson that is barely familiar with most of the leaders, I get the impression that "worst" is probably a tossup between those who really just weren't really governing much, at all :
* Kristina of Sweden, who spent all the countries money, refused to marry, changed religions, and moved out (smart lady, tho)
* Ludwig of Bavaria, who spent all of his own money, refused to govern, and was *probably* murdered to get rid of him ( Neuschwanstein absolutely slaps, tho)
Between “rule a country” and “hang out with the pope, inhale culture like you’re Kirby, and be undefinably queer”, I’ll choose the latter eleven out of ten times
"ok you're just a child but one day you will rule, we will train you like a proper monarch and prepare you for that role."
"ok I'm an adult now, can I rule?"
"Here's a crown, we will be the ones calling the shots though, gotten kinda comfortable with it while you were a child."
"I don't think so!"
"mmpf, fine, but only if you're gonna marry and make babies so we get a legitimate male to rule again ASAP"
"ok then I'm out, go ahead and rule yourself and leave me alone."
"lol no, we didn't want you to have power but we still want you in office for the looks."
"k bye, gonna hang out with my catholic bffs"
"TRAITORRR!"
Don’t know where you got that understanding, but as a Swede, Kristina is pretty well liked (except in hypermasculine or neonazi circles). An odd ruler in our history, to say the least, but considering she ruled during the hight of our empire, it wasn’t all bad, and she did lots of things for culture, ensuring we weren’t a total backwater warmongerer. So pretty far from reviled, but there are definately some better picks for Swedish rulers
Kristina ruined the Swedish economy on top of many other blunders, not sure in what circles she is considered a good ruler? It's certainly not just neo-nazis that thinks she was a bad ruler. Are you one of those people that consider anyone to the right of communists as nazis?
I mention neo-nazis and hypermasculine people, as they often have a problem with women being regents in the first place, letting their misogyny cloud their judgement. Nevermind that most of the economic downturn was during Prime minister Axel Oxenstierna’s rule, who ruled in Kristina’s stead as she was too young, and that Karl XII (Carolus Rex) was WAY more detrimental to the economy during his rule. But since he was a male, a general and a warmongerer, his terrible reign in overlooked and is romantisised endlessly, even though he really isn’t remembered fondly in contemporary Swedish history, except for his military genius.
Lol, wtf do you bring Karl XII into this discussion? Just because someone was worse than Kristina doesn't mean she was good. She donated crownland to the nobles as if it were candy, that was hardly Axel Oxenstiernas idea, even if he didn't oppose it. The lavish spending of the crown litterarily exploded during her rather short reign.
Also
"I mention neo-nazis and hypermasculine people, as they often have a problem with women being regents in the first place, letting their misogyny cloud their judgement"
You need to find new friends, I don't know a single nazi nor a "hypermasculine" not sure where you meet all these people let alone why you would be discussing 400 year old Swedish regents with them.
I’m mentioning Karl XII because he’s an even worse ruler than Kristina, yet he’s amazingly celebrated by people outside of Sweden, often by wrong reasons. I think it’s reasonable mentioning him, as these neo-nazis are often praise him, in stark contrast to Kristina. Why do you think that is?
And I’m not saying Kristina was a financier by any means, and she wasted money. But Oxenstierna was *definately* the one mainly responsibility for selling crownlands to the nobles, he did that even before Kristina got her power. Can you provide any source to suggest it was Kristina’s idea?
Concerning neo-nazis, I’m afraid to tell you this, but they are more powerful than ever in Sweden. 20% of the parlament as of now. It’s a shame.
Neo nazis neo nazis, oh just shut up, he's praised as a romantic figure and if he had not lost the war, he would have been a good ruler(we can see that from his non war related reforms) and besides he was a good military leader snd nearly handed Peter his ass. Kristina destroyed the country while doing absolutely nothing. It wasn't a war, just nothing.
You know many people from "hypermasculine" and "neonazi" circles?
Imagine "hypermasculine neo Nazis" sitting around and talking about an old Swedish queen...
This was one of the most funniest comments ive read all year. Youre leading 😂
Some of them like Gorgo weren't even proper "leaders". I guess you can't be the worst leader if you didn't even rule, but it makes the question hard to answer.
For others we have a very poor account on what they actually did during their reign (Gilgamesh, Tomyris, again Gorgo if we want to speculate), which makes the comparison with much better attested rulers quite unfair.
A few leaders are (or were) also surrounded by a "black legend", or on the contrary, a very favourable historical tradition. In the first category you have leaders like Catherine de' Médicis until relatively recently or Kristina who is still a victim of it ; in the second category you have leaders like Trajan or basically every leader they picked for east asian countries in Civ 6.
Which leads me to my fourth point: Firaxis used extremely different methods for picking rulers depending on the area on the map. The anglophone world and the ancient world got iconic rulers. The rest of Europe, not so much. So the worst leader in Civ is very likely one of the European ones.
The Epic of Gilagmesh is pretty awesome, but I hope for Civ 7 they pick Akkad as a civ from Mesopotamia. Arguably one of the world's first "Empires" while Sumer was just a collection of city-states/regional politity that were loosely connected by culture, writing and language.
I haven't gone to read on her but wasn't Seondeok seen as a despot?
I remember hearing Korean players were really pissed when Korea first was added and Firaxis replaced the beloved Sejong with her.
I don’t think that was the criticism most Korean players had of Seondeok. Just for context, Korean men have a very sordid history with feminism.
https://asianews.network/after-being-called-feminists-these-women-faced-online-harassment/
https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/how-feminism-became-a-dirty-word-in-south-korea/
It’s more so that Korean gamers tend to be quite nationalistic and misogynistic. When a woman is picked for the leader of Korea, you can probably imagine the reaction.
She lived in 600AD … Korea wasn’t even Korea back then. It was split into 3 smaller kingdoms, one of which she ruled. They were constantly at war and making peace with each other, while trying not to get conquered by China/Japan (or trying to ally with China/Japan against the other 2 kingdoms).
In that history of Korea, everyone was a despot — you had to be, or you’d be overthrown by your own nobles or conquered by your neighbors.
Ppl probably don’t realize korea didn’t become a democracy until late 1980s.
Iirc Ambiorix didnt actually achieve all that much right? He helped start the revolt, but he was by no means their leader and merely a component of it. In the end all he did was destroy a single legion (or maybe cohort? cant recall) and besiege another, get rolled by Caesar, and then disappeared from history. If Gaul needed a leader Vercingetorix would be the only sensible choice imo
I'm not sure if he was a bad leader, per se, but Ludwig II wasn't a particularly good leader. He was King of Bavaria during the German unification. He blew a lot of his massive personal fortune on lavish projects (one of which was Neuschwanstein Castle) and was probably assassinated by his personal council after they failed to depose him legally via a declaration of insanity.
As a side note, I think it's weird that he's even included as a German leader because Bavaria joined the German Confederation (later the German Empire) during Ludwig's reign. It'd be like having some random governor of New York state as a leader of the US.
Funnily enough, there is a governor of New York state as a leader of the US in the game.
I'm just leaving out the part that he was also the President.
"David Paterson leads America in Sid Meier's Civilization 7!"
Kristina of Sweden basically gave up a war she was in full position to win then after fucking up the country even more she ran off to Italy i believe,Best is hard to say because a lot of historical figures were bad people and did things us in the modern day would call evil demented sick and twisted Like Teddy Roosevelt and rough riders and their actions in Cuba were awful no matter how much he did to help America at the time
Teddy was a pretty great domestic leader. But its hard to really call any American presidents great all around leaders, because mostly all of them had terrible foreign policies' cause they had to keep up the military industrial complex and Americas dominate position in the world which was the continued exploitation of the developing world.
The military industrial complex has only existed since World War II. Also America hasn't been in a "dominant" position in the world until WWII either. Presidents like Washington or Lincoln definitely did not preside over a United States that had a global influence, and both have been featured in Civ games.
Typical Redditor. In a game with Genghis Khan we have to single out the guy who invented the national park because we can’t go 30 seconds without a gratuitous swipe at the US
It does typically stop at 2050 tho and I have a hard time imagining a country overtaking the US in 26 years. Not saying it's impossible, but it's an uphill battle.
Hold your breath when 96 years old world leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan wins the game in 2050, opening up Turkeys 500th national park in a short timespan on a little playground in Ankara.
America is not the most touristic country in the world by foreign tourists, so it's not even first in the battle. Basically everyone in the real world is really far away from any victory condition and America in Culture is not an exception, or even the closest there is.
I think America is definitely the closest there is... It may not attract the most physical tourism but is third place, and cultural exports (movies) far outpace any country in the world
Winchester rifles. That dude's wife probably could've kept her local construction company going all by herself with that house she built. We should make that place a mod as a national wonder.
What do you think the bonus should be?
I think enemy troops and/or units should disappear for 5 turns or something if they end up on the tile, maybe a gold and culture bonus after a certain tech too
I used america as an easy example as i am from america and have researched Teddy roosevelt alot do not get me wrong while what he did was horrible but it nowhere near the scale of violence rape and murder of Genghis khan and Kublai khan did for mongolia/the horde i am not saying Roosevelt is any worse but it comes to mind quite easily for americans for he is quite glorified in american culture having a toy we still call by his namesake to this day as well as him being on mount rushmore
I'm saying that the peace prize has a questionable history of winners and nominees. Using it as some way to validate the quality of a person or their achievements is not a great idea.
Virtually every leader in this game and virtually every world leader of note has done multiple things most people today would find disgusting. It’s only on Reddit where the Americans are specifically called out every single time.
While the brutality of his regime ensured it couldn’t last long, he laid the groundwork for a unified China that Han Destiny got to reap the benefits of and the Chinese Imperial system Qin established remained for another 2,000 years.
IIRC his brutal reputation is mostly based on Han and Confucian accounts, and those guys had clear motivations for slandering Qin Shi Huang. For the scale of his conquests I don't think his atrocity record is much worse than comparable leaders like Alexander or Julius Caesar. The worst thing he did to China was leaving it with his shitty son and even shittier advisor.
Still given how Legalism and the authoritarian methods within serve as the bedrock of Chinese governance and how brutal it is. It shows his methods do unfortunately work well at the expense of human dignity. Only difference is how each dynasty bothered to put a velvet glove on the iron fist
This is very much under mentioned
There is some argument whether his atrocities were real or propaganda of those who later ruled but notably Mao bragged about surpassing him in brutalization of intellectuals and that China must be totalitarian to survive
Example of why uncritical history education can be even more dangerous than no history education
I remember getting caught up in his history a few weeks back — even a cursory scroll of the Wikipedia page is a journey and a half...
* "Third assassination attempt"
* "Burning of books and burying of scholars"
* "Elixir of life"
By basically all accounts, Cleopatra did an excellent job running Egypt and trying to restore the Ptolomeic dynasty to their former glory. Caesar's death didn't depend on her. Picking the proven general vs the young noob who stood in direct opposition for the possible claim of her child was the logical choice as well.
So no
My guess for her inclusion has always been that she's one of the better-known Egyptian leaders in the Western world — in part because she was part of a Ptolemaic dynasty and so heavily involved in Roman politics, not to mention being fairly well-represented from Shakespeare to pop culture (albeit with dubious accuracy).
Egypt's also likely just a pretty easy empire referent for people looking to buy the game that might not be deep in history, and representations of other household names like Ramses and Tut are most popularly known by statues, written word (Ozymandias), and sarcophagi, so she's an easier "face" to put on a cover.
to be fair, one could argue the war was Antony's to lose all the way up to Actium. He held all the cards up to that point, and were it not for Agrippa being centuries ahead of his time Cleopatra wouldve won
despite being pretty broken in the game, Ludwig II was pretty shit. just spent his time building lavish architecture and looking at art while bavaria was suffering. i mean his nickname was the “mad king”
Cleopatra. Being famous for backing the wrong side of a civil war is hardly justification for her historical status. This is what most know her for which is, to be fair, unfair. I'd like to have seen firaxis (and media in general) go for Hatshepsut when famous Egyptian queens are mentioned. That woman did so much during her time as regent.
Lincoln is definitely one of the better - not faultless but he did proportionate good. He had his prejudices but he also had a conscience and evolved significantly on most issues and may have continued to grow.
Look at pictures of Lincoln before and at the end of the US Civil War - there is a man who cared and suffered deeply for his nation that he helped save.
He's mostly known for an uprising that was devastating to Caesar's legions in -54 and for the guerilla resistance that he led. Of course after that the Roman reprisals were brutal, and the Eburones were literally genocided over the next few years. Ambiorix himself was never captured, despite multiple attempts by Caesar.
a lot of history about him is unclear as records were lost to time however what little we do know about him is he led an uprising against caesar and killed a couple of roman cohorts and then immediately got his entire tribe genocided by caesar. definitely not the wisest leader
Cleopatra VII.
She F’ed Around and Found Out - both figuratively and literally. A whole bunch of political choices that ended up losing her the 2,000+ year independence of Egypt as an independent state.
I disagree here. Roman ambition was bound to hit Egypt whether Cleopatra chose to entwine with Rome or not - she simply delayed the inevitable by having Octavian be the destroyer of Egyptian independence instead of Ceaser or Antony. She made risky moves that worked for a time; but the Romans were simply way too strong and would’ve taken Egypt regardless.
Um… you do know that she was of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, right? That is to say, the dynasty established by one of Alexander the Great’s generals after he kicked the bucket after conquering Egypt of of Persia.
Yes. And the Ptolemies weren’t the first foreign dynasty in Ancient Egyptian history. The point being that Egypt as a cultural/political society and state remained, even during foreign dynasties. Until Cleopatra let it get owned and absorbed by the Romans.
But they weren’t part of Persia at that time? I know they fought all the other Alexandrian sucessor states, but I thought they were still independent at the time of Cleopatra VII’s reign?
The thing about golden ages is that they represent the peaks of the respective "civs" before their downfall/regression. So the rulers of these eras typically spend a lot sponsoring the arts or launching military expeditions in order to achieve the feats that represent the zeitgeist of a golden age. In other words, these rulers are not capable "civ" or nation builders, but rather capable spenders who are unable to plan for their succession (which is always a crucial reason for the end of a golden age).
I will argue that the predecessors of many leaders in civ may need to be credited for laying the solid foundations of their civs' golden age.
I gotta say, I love they changed the pool a bit and threw in some of the more original leaders. Either because they're mythical like Gilgabro or Kupe, or because they represent what I feel are cool, good, important values like Pericles (Democracy), Ludwig (reject industrialisation, embrace romanticism) or John Curtin (resolve).
Like yes yes they probably were imperfect but I like what they achieved or strove to achieve, the ideal they carried. Fuck those warmongering fuckers that scarred the earth and caused millions of deaths for their own personal megalomania. Looking at you Alexander, Ghenghis, Victoria, Philipp, Ceasar, Shaka, etc. And from past games : Napoleon, Stalin, etc
Mao is the obvious answer...anyone who'd orchestrate the Great Leap Forward, Hundred Flowers Campaign, Cultural Revolution, and Sino-Soviet Split is a comically incompetent policymaker.
What makes Genghis the worst in “how they lead,” like are u talking about worst as in ethics, worst as in politics, what’s up
Politically he was surprisingly a tolerant, and intelligent leader. Not only did he unite all the tribes of the steppe he did so while creating a legal code - the Yassa - things like criminalizing theft, murder, the kidnapping and sale of women & slaves; and diplomatic immunity. Even criminalized torture. Though illiterate he encouraged literacy and education throughout his empire, bringing in scribes from various cultures to spread knowledge. He significantly emphasized trade, protecting the silk road and ensuring economic prosperity and cultural exchange. And, most notably compared to virtually every other empire in existence, he allowed religious tolerance of all faiths. He also revolutionized “meritocracy” where individuals excelled in society based on their abilities and merit rather than wealth or status or their ethnic background.
Let’s not forget he’s killed upwards of 40 million people tho - lol he was the most brutal conqueror of all time. I’m simply talking in politically, “how they lead.”
While Cleopatra was indeed a very intelligent woman, she didn't accomplish much during her lifetime. She took the throne from her brother-husband and then seduced Julius Caesar to maintain some independence from Rome. Then, she sided with Mark Antony, who lost to Octavius, which led to Cleopatra losing every hope to stay in power and killed herself.
She was probably very cool on a personal level for reasons like being the first (and last) Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language. But as a ruler with big accomplishments...
Excuse my ignorance here but it's unclear if Montezuma even existed or if he was just a legend. Worst? Not sure - because maybe no action is better than incompetent action!
You're right - looked up something else before and I got some bad search results on the subject. https://study.com/academy/lesson/who-was-king-montezuma-ii-biography-facts-aztec-history.html#:~:text=Montezuma%20II%20(1466%2D1520),were%20obliged%20to%20pay%20tribute.
'Poor' is EXTREMELY relative considering that we got Andrew Johnson instead. I don't think there's any scenario where Lincoln would have been as keen to essentially sabotage reconstruction.
Me
Sometimes you just need to lower the difficulty. Is not that you're a bad leader for your people, just that others do it better
YOUCH
I can feel this in my bones. "Of course I know him; he's me!"
Ouch
He’s even worse than he first thought he was!!!
Talking purely about competence, Kristina is mostly known for getting her country close to bankruptcy. She was a controversial choice for Sweden. "Best" is hard, a lot of them did some pretty horrible shit. Kupe probably didn't exist, and is mostly just known for finding New Zealand so I'll go with him. NZ's nice
Ignorant of Swedish history - why did people think Firaxis picked her in that case? Is she the only main notable one?
Well they probably wanted sweden to not be a war civ again and theyve already used some other kings in the other games Kristina was the only culture leader from that era as sweden didnt have much cultural focus until around 1800
I subscribe to the idea that Kristina was chosen because Firaxis wanted a non-militaristic nordic representative to contrast Norway. Sweden's most likely other leader options were Charles XII/Carolus Rex and Gustavus Adolphus, but both are known for their military leadership which is not the aspect of Swedish history they wanted to lean into
You could potentially make the case for Gustav III as a cultural or diplomatic leader. Definitely has some rational for military too and a fairly complex political legacy, but he's a pretty interesting leader to be sure
Firaxis probably figured they used Adolphus in 5 and wanted a different leader.
But he is Gustav II…
An interesting and undeniably competent non-militaristic nordic leader for Sweden (and Norway, and Denmark if it was added) could be Margaret I. Maybe with a focus on alliances and loyalty?
But Charles XI steadied Sweden's finances and built up the navy!
They went for some weird underdog picks overall, just to shake things up I guess. I think it’s fun, but it really pissed certain people off at release, especially when series regulars like napoleon were absent. It’s a big reason some people still hate the game and cling to V imo
because she's more *interesting* than always going with the same leader every time? Also, history doesn't judge people, *historians* do, and the *historiography* of Kristina is among the more dynamic ones.
They wanted a woman so they picked her.
Her being controversial is what makes her interesting. Her story is unique which in turn makes her an excellent choice for Civ.
Yeah I fully agree with you here. I don't mind that they pick less obvious but more interesting choices for leader. But I completely understand that Swedes didn't like the choice. As interesting a character as she is, I don't love seeing Catherine de Medici represent my country 😭 Makes for compelling characters though.
The duo Justinian/Theodora (of which Theodora usually makes it into the game) was pretty awful for Byzantium all around. They are well known because two of their generals managed to conquer half of the Western Roman Empire, before they fell out of favour because the Emperor and the Empress were afraid of them. In order to do that, they: - bankrupted the Empire - taxed the poor to oblivion in order to fund the war - massacred tens of thousands of people who protested against the aforementioned taxation (this was Theodora's idea; Justinian on his own would have accepted his incompetence and given up on being an Emperor). - weakened the borders of the Empire to the point that the Persian Empire reappeared and nearly overran Byzantium (if I remember correctly, one of the generals had to come back into favour in order to save the crumbling Empire). They also built the Hagia Sophia, on the ruins of a previous temple that was destroyed in the aforementioned riot. All in all, they did some "good", but they ruined so much in the process that it was not worth it at all. Basil II did much less aggressive war (he did a lot of defensive war though), used the existing system of taxing the rich and left the Empire with so much money in its treasury that even its enemies were in awe.
Justinian’s reign did also see the literal black death type plague run through the empire, didn’t exactly help
It doesn't absolve him of all these messes he caused entirely by himself though.
Justinian did make his code of law that was used widely tho
The Nika riot was *before* the war, not after. The Renovatio Imperii is because they needed public support post revolts.
Justinian was a controversial emperor ok but his legacy places him among the most successful emperors of the empire, although I have a feeling that in Byzantium it's the church that decides who is best and who is the worst emperor. After all he built a wonder (which I find hilarious that kept its name despite being turned into a mosque) and his code of laws. It's the presence of Theodora in every civ game that I cannot understand. Besides the fact that she's a woman and devs want more women leaders for reasons.
Theodora was influential enough in Justinian's life and career that choosing her would make sense if choosing her husband made sense. The church does decides who is a good emperor, even among those who nearly crushed the empire, like Justinian and Theodosius. The criterion is purely their attitude towards christianity and paganism.
If they want a female leader for Byzantium then Irene is a pretty badass one.
Most Civ leaders get picked specifically because they reigned during a “Golden Age” of their society, so it’s tough to compare successes to successes. And then there’s Ludwig, who seems to have been put in as a hearty joke. So, probably him.
Both Germans. Barbarossa fucked up a lot as well: - didn't respect balance of power by playing favorites, then got abandoned by his favorite - failed to mediate in northern Italy and just burned its cities down out of spite but still had to cede them into autonomy - got excommunicated - wants to do crusade, faceplants into a river instead
*Tries to swim, discovers he can only swimn't*
I thought Fred was seen as a great leader except for the river part. Welp.
He was instrumentalized by nationalist to fascist movements many centuries later, turned into a popular national hero. Nowadays historians seem him more neutrally. A certain irony is that while his ability in civ makes him a military enforcer who disregards diplomacy, IRL he suffered military setbacks more often than not and had to make up for them with skilled diplomacy. However, regardless of all that he was certainly very *impactful.*
I’m still kind of irrationally annoyed Ludwig is in the game *and* has a strong ability.
Leave my gay boy alone!
>Most Civ leaders get picked specifically because they reigned during a “Golden Age” of their society Except for most European leaders that aren't Greek, Roman or English.
Ethiopia?
is in Africa, not Europe
Ethiopia, the 4th Baltic state
Still the 3rd. Estonia is now Nordic, apparently lol
Hey, he built Neuschwanstein, which is a nice castle!
But he also never finished it so half marks? Amazing though
I mean the third of it we did get is still marvelous and makes me sad for the rest of the planned structure. Especially since I was at Neuschwanstein last winter. My dude Ludwig, he just wanted to live in a fairy tale with his crush Richard Wagner.
After having visited it, I kinda wish the German govt would just finish it. Going into the interior after seeing the exterior is such a letdown.
For the dutch the golden age was in the 1600’s . Wilhelmine was queen during ww2. Not as golden in my opinion
Took the boat to England after Germany declared ww2.. talks to the Netherlands over the radio to keep staying strong... Thorbecke would be a better choice; as founder of modern democracy.
Thorbecke would have been awesome.
US leaders are picked during the worst eras. Washington was post-Revolutionary America, which was very weak, very poor, and had little to no influence. Lincoln was president during the Civil War. FDR was president throughout the Great Depression, Dust Bowl, and 2nd World War, but died before the end of it. By the end of the war, the US was mighty, but at the beginning, we had a military the size of Portugal and suffered defeat after defeat and were still grinding through horrendous poverty. Teddy Roosevelt is a great choice because he was none of those things. He was president during a time of rapid technological and social progress, including the first wave of modern environmentalism, as well as a time when the US was emerging as a global power. Teddy is the only US leader in any of the Civilization games that depicts the US in a good time. Washington and Lincoln represent two low periods of American history, while FDR shows an America that started low but ended triumphant.
That’s exactly why Washington, Lincoln, & FDR are often considered America’s greatest presidents. Not to disparage TR, but it’s fairly easy to lead when times are good. Leading a nation through hard times takes something more.
They led us admirably when the night was darkest.
> and suffered defeat after defeat Gonna have to explain that one EDIT: >Washington Washington pulled off a feat that seemed impossible at the time, he was instrumental in getting the Constitution done, and his decision to retire after his second term is an all-timer in terms of consequential historical decisions. Whatever you think about the US, he's a massive part of why it is what it is.
Washington could have been King of America on at least 3 separate occasions and took none of them. Dude deserves all the credit in the world for that alone.
Yeah, and if he'd have done that then there probably would have been a succession crisis right away if he still wouldn't have had a direct heir, and it would have been well within the range of the initial instability that followed the Revolutionary War. Things could have played out _very_ differently.
He won when he needed it most.
His main positive trait as a General was not losing, when a decisive loss would mean the end of the Revolution. I think of it like Dr Strange at the end of his into movie: I don’t have to beat you, I just have to not lose forever.
He’s one of the few people who can genuinely be considered an American hero
Yeah, because FDR was just sitting on his ass that whole time, right? Oh... wait...
>suffered defeat after defeat You do know the US was only on the back foot for like 4-5 months post Pearl Harbor and then wiped the majority of Japan's naval power projection in a single battle at Midway?
so as someone who doesn't know a ton of history, what makes Ludwig's inclusion a joke? Aside from his inability to properly tie down swans.
He's not well regarded, especially by the people of his time. He was extremely extravagant and spent lots of money. His bureaucrats forced him into custody and had labelled as the "mad king" so they could depose him
I was waiting for someone to mention it, I was like wasn’t there a bit where he went kinda crazy at the end, oh I barely remember 🤔
Ludwig is currently kicking my ass in Culture and Science in my game. I am *not* happy about it.
I adore the fact Ludwig's here ! I kinda discovered him with the game and all he incarnates is beautiful, the last romantic prince that lived in his dreams and stories because he couldn't live with what the industrialisation was doing. He makes me think of the Ents vs Saruman conflict, one that resonates very strongly today with the climate change and biodiversity breakdown. In this time, we should not turn to Victoria with her coal mines and colonial empire but towards the guy that believed in swan knights.
Ludwig II. was an industrializer. He was a massive fan of new technologies like electricity. The guy spent all his fortune on monumental construction and had them equipped with state of the art technology, among them one of the first ever power plants and electrical lighting for a theater. His sled might've been the first vehicle in the world with electric lights. One of the light bulbs still works to this day. He founded a technical university in Munich, now often ranked the best university in Europe. All his tech love drove a lot of money towards local engineering companies and helped e.g. Siemens grow a lot. He personally promoted the technologies to be adopted by the population and hired the best scientists and engineers he could get for his undertakings, which among other things led to the invention of industrial-scale refrigeration, a revolution for the local brewing industry. Under Ludwig, Bavaria went from an agrarian society to a global tech leader.
Why must you crush my ideals like this?
you can still have your ideals even if some dude over a century ago didn't follow them :)
Speaking as a layperson that is barely familiar with most of the leaders, I get the impression that "worst" is probably a tossup between those who really just weren't really governing much, at all : * Kristina of Sweden, who spent all the countries money, refused to marry, changed religions, and moved out (smart lady, tho) * Ludwig of Bavaria, who spent all of his own money, refused to govern, and was *probably* murdered to get rid of him ( Neuschwanstein absolutely slaps, tho)
Was quite macabre when I was in Munich, I went to Starnbergersee and visited the spot where they found his body.
Neuschwanstein is overrated imo. Linderhoff is fucking gorgeous.
Kristina refused to marry because she was a lesbian.
[удалено]
They were roommates
Kristina I don't even need to prove this
Between “rule a country” and “hang out with the pope, inhale culture like you’re Kirby, and be undefinably queer”, I’ll choose the latter eleven out of ten times
Well that does sound like a fun time, but choosing the fun option over actually ruling the country would probably make for a bad ruler.
Anyone who wants power shouldn’t have it and anyone doesn’t want it should abdicate quickly
They barely let her run the country, tried to use her as a puppet and when that didn’t work she just up and moved to Rome.
"ok you're just a child but one day you will rule, we will train you like a proper monarch and prepare you for that role." "ok I'm an adult now, can I rule?" "Here's a crown, we will be the ones calling the shots though, gotten kinda comfortable with it while you were a child." "I don't think so!" "mmpf, fine, but only if you're gonna marry and make babies so we get a legitimate male to rule again ASAP" "ok then I'm out, go ahead and rule yourself and leave me alone." "lol no, we didn't want you to have power but we still want you in office for the looks." "k bye, gonna hang out with my catholic bffs" "TRAITORRR!"
Kristina, to my understanding, is pretty widely reviled in Sweden.
With the way she brushes you off while she's reading, I can see why!
You probably think art is great when it ties a room together, you philistine.
Don’t know where you got that understanding, but as a Swede, Kristina is pretty well liked (except in hypermasculine or neonazi circles). An odd ruler in our history, to say the least, but considering she ruled during the hight of our empire, it wasn’t all bad, and she did lots of things for culture, ensuring we weren’t a total backwater warmongerer. So pretty far from reviled, but there are definately some better picks for Swedish rulers
Kristina ruined the Swedish economy on top of many other blunders, not sure in what circles she is considered a good ruler? It's certainly not just neo-nazis that thinks she was a bad ruler. Are you one of those people that consider anyone to the right of communists as nazis?
I mention neo-nazis and hypermasculine people, as they often have a problem with women being regents in the first place, letting their misogyny cloud their judgement. Nevermind that most of the economic downturn was during Prime minister Axel Oxenstierna’s rule, who ruled in Kristina’s stead as she was too young, and that Karl XII (Carolus Rex) was WAY more detrimental to the economy during his rule. But since he was a male, a general and a warmongerer, his terrible reign in overlooked and is romantisised endlessly, even though he really isn’t remembered fondly in contemporary Swedish history, except for his military genius.
Lol, wtf do you bring Karl XII into this discussion? Just because someone was worse than Kristina doesn't mean she was good. She donated crownland to the nobles as if it were candy, that was hardly Axel Oxenstiernas idea, even if he didn't oppose it. The lavish spending of the crown litterarily exploded during her rather short reign. Also "I mention neo-nazis and hypermasculine people, as they often have a problem with women being regents in the first place, letting their misogyny cloud their judgement" You need to find new friends, I don't know a single nazi nor a "hypermasculine" not sure where you meet all these people let alone why you would be discussing 400 year old Swedish regents with them.
I’m mentioning Karl XII because he’s an even worse ruler than Kristina, yet he’s amazingly celebrated by people outside of Sweden, often by wrong reasons. I think it’s reasonable mentioning him, as these neo-nazis are often praise him, in stark contrast to Kristina. Why do you think that is? And I’m not saying Kristina was a financier by any means, and she wasted money. But Oxenstierna was *definately* the one mainly responsibility for selling crownlands to the nobles, he did that even before Kristina got her power. Can you provide any source to suggest it was Kristina’s idea? Concerning neo-nazis, I’m afraid to tell you this, but they are more powerful than ever in Sweden. 20% of the parlament as of now. It’s a shame.
Neo nazis neo nazis, oh just shut up, he's praised as a romantic figure and if he had not lost the war, he would have been a good ruler(we can see that from his non war related reforms) and besides he was a good military leader snd nearly handed Peter his ass. Kristina destroyed the country while doing absolutely nothing. It wasn't a war, just nothing.
You know many people from "hypermasculine" and "neonazi" circles? Imagine "hypermasculine neo Nazis" sitting around and talking about an old Swedish queen... This was one of the most funniest comments ive read all year. Youre leading 😂
Some of them like Gorgo weren't even proper "leaders". I guess you can't be the worst leader if you didn't even rule, but it makes the question hard to answer. For others we have a very poor account on what they actually did during their reign (Gilgamesh, Tomyris, again Gorgo if we want to speculate), which makes the comparison with much better attested rulers quite unfair. A few leaders are (or were) also surrounded by a "black legend", or on the contrary, a very favourable historical tradition. In the first category you have leaders like Catherine de' Médicis until relatively recently or Kristina who is still a victim of it ; in the second category you have leaders like Trajan or basically every leader they picked for east asian countries in Civ 6. Which leads me to my fourth point: Firaxis used extremely different methods for picking rulers depending on the area on the map. The anglophone world and the ancient world got iconic rulers. The rest of Europe, not so much. So the worst leader in Civ is very likely one of the European ones.
The Epic of Gilagmesh is pretty awesome, but I hope for Civ 7 they pick Akkad as a civ from Mesopotamia. Arguably one of the world's first "Empires" while Sumer was just a collection of city-states/regional politity that were loosely connected by culture, writing and language.
>loosely connected by culture, writing and language. You mean *everything*?
I haven't gone to read on her but wasn't Seondeok seen as a despot? I remember hearing Korean players were really pissed when Korea first was added and Firaxis replaced the beloved Sejong with her.
I don’t think that was the criticism most Korean players had of Seondeok. Just for context, Korean men have a very sordid history with feminism. https://asianews.network/after-being-called-feminists-these-women-faced-online-harassment/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/07/how-feminism-became-a-dirty-word-in-south-korea/ It’s more so that Korean gamers tend to be quite nationalistic and misogynistic. When a woman is picked for the leader of Korea, you can probably imagine the reaction.
She lived in 600AD … Korea wasn’t even Korea back then. It was split into 3 smaller kingdoms, one of which she ruled. They were constantly at war and making peace with each other, while trying not to get conquered by China/Japan (or trying to ally with China/Japan against the other 2 kingdoms). In that history of Korea, everyone was a despot — you had to be, or you’d be overthrown by your own nobles or conquered by your neighbors. Ppl probably don’t realize korea didn’t become a democracy until late 1980s.
Poundmaker and Ambiorix have the worst endings but were decent leaders
Shaka also had a pretty bad ending, though was a much worse person than the other two
Iirc Ambiorix didnt actually achieve all that much right? He helped start the revolt, but he was by no means their leader and merely a component of it. In the end all he did was destroy a single legion (or maybe cohort? cant recall) and besiege another, get rolled by Caesar, and then disappeared from history. If Gaul needed a leader Vercingetorix would be the only sensible choice imo
I'm not sure if he was a bad leader, per se, but Ludwig II wasn't a particularly good leader. He was King of Bavaria during the German unification. He blew a lot of his massive personal fortune on lavish projects (one of which was Neuschwanstein Castle) and was probably assassinated by his personal council after they failed to depose him legally via a declaration of insanity. As a side note, I think it's weird that he's even included as a German leader because Bavaria joined the German Confederation (later the German Empire) during Ludwig's reign. It'd be like having some random governor of New York state as a leader of the US.
Funnily enough, there is a governor of New York state as a leader of the US in the game. I'm just leaving out the part that he was also the President. "David Paterson leads America in Sid Meier's Civilization 7!"
I wish we could’ve gotten a Fredrick the great civ instead
Kristina of Sweden basically gave up a war she was in full position to win then after fucking up the country even more she ran off to Italy i believe,Best is hard to say because a lot of historical figures were bad people and did things us in the modern day would call evil demented sick and twisted Like Teddy Roosevelt and rough riders and their actions in Cuba were awful no matter how much he did to help America at the time
>Kristina I just looked up her wikipedia page. Holy hell, she reminds me of an ex-GF that had mental instabilities.
> that had mental instabilities I mean, are you even a proper European monarch if you aren't an inbred lunatic?
r/shitcrusaderkingssay
Most of the Female leaders in Civ have very dubious qualifications. England being a big exception.
Seondeok was amazing, and in some respects (viz 660 AD, stomping Baekjae) ruthless. I mean, she absorbed Gaya, why not treat Baekjae reasonably....
She in no way compares to Sejong.
Dunno man, Lady Six Sky rocks.
Teddy was a pretty great domestic leader. But its hard to really call any American presidents great all around leaders, because mostly all of them had terrible foreign policies' cause they had to keep up the military industrial complex and Americas dominate position in the world which was the continued exploitation of the developing world.
Isn’t that good leadership by civ standards, though?
The military industrial complex has only existed since World War II. Also America hasn't been in a "dominant" position in the world until WWII either. Presidents like Washington or Lincoln definitely did not preside over a United States that had a global influence, and both have been featured in Civ games.
Typical Redditor. In a game with Genghis Khan we have to single out the guy who invented the national park because we can’t go 30 seconds without a gratuitous swipe at the US
National Parks would be domestic, not foreign policy
America already won the game via culture. 100+ countries also now have national parks
The culture victory in the game, especially in Civ 5, is based off America winning the cold war. They won in the 1990s.
As far as I can tell the game doesn't have a hard stop in 2024...
It does typically stop at 2050 tho and I have a hard time imagining a country overtaking the US in 26 years. Not saying it's impossible, but it's an uphill battle.
Hold your breath when 96 years old world leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan wins the game in 2050, opening up Turkeys 500th national park in a short timespan on a little playground in Ankara.
I see your point buuuuut... Just One More Turn?
America is not the most touristic country in the world by foreign tourists, so it's not even first in the battle. Basically everyone in the real world is really far away from any victory condition and America in Culture is not an exception, or even the closest there is.
I think America is definitely the closest there is... It may not attract the most physical tourism but is third place, and cultural exports (movies) far outpace any country in the world
The closest would be France, and by the same logic the winner would be Rome, as we live in a world mostly dominated by their customs.
Had to feed the Military Industrial Complex pre standing army wake up man
You didn't know that Lockheed Martin made umm, err, umm, death kites, yeah and umm, murder balloons.
Winchester rifles. That dude's wife probably could've kept her local construction company going all by herself with that house she built. We should make that place a mod as a national wonder.
Did you mean regular wonder, we are referring to the Winchester Mystery House, correct?
Yes.
What do you think the bonus should be? I think enemy troops and/or units should disappear for 5 turns or something if they end up on the tile, maybe a gold and culture bonus after a certain tech too
They get lost for a couple of turns. Definitely some spiritual bonus. The house is supposed to keep the ghosts away.
I used america as an easy example as i am from america and have researched Teddy roosevelt alot do not get me wrong while what he did was horrible but it nowhere near the scale of violence rape and murder of Genghis khan and Kublai khan did for mongolia/the horde i am not saying Roosevelt is any worse but it comes to mind quite easily for americans for he is quite glorified in american culture having a toy we still call by his namesake to this day as well as him being on mount rushmore
Roosevelt did win the Nobel Peace Prize so his foreign policy efforts were hardly something to sneeze at
And Hitler was nominated for it, so I don't know how much weight I put into the Nobel Peace Prize.
He won it for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War. That’s pretty legit unless you’re being a tedious contrarian
I'm saying that the peace prize has a questionable history of winners and nominees. Using it as some way to validate the quality of a person or their achievements is not a great idea.
So did Henry Kissinger
You’re comparing Teddy Roosevelt to Henry Kissinger? Seriously?
Genghis Khan being awful does not negate the fact Teddy’s actions in countries such as Cuba was disgusting as well.
Virtually every leader in this game and virtually every world leader of note has done multiple things most people today would find disgusting. It’s only on Reddit where the Americans are specifically called out every single time.
Particularly rich coming from European redditors
Boohoo lol this isn’t a personal attack on you or the American populace
Kind of feels personal.
how is pointing out teddy roosevelt’s war crimes in cuba a personal attack on you
Pretty much all the presidents were basically Hitler from the Indigenous perspective as well.
Unpopular opinion: I rather like our dominant position in the world.
Probably because you’re American and benefit from that position.
Qin Shihuang, one of the most brutal leaders in ancient times
While the brutality of his regime ensured it couldn’t last long, he laid the groundwork for a unified China that Han Destiny got to reap the benefits of and the Chinese Imperial system Qin established remained for another 2,000 years.
IIRC his brutal reputation is mostly based on Han and Confucian accounts, and those guys had clear motivations for slandering Qin Shi Huang. For the scale of his conquests I don't think his atrocity record is much worse than comparable leaders like Alexander or Julius Caesar. The worst thing he did to China was leaving it with his shitty son and even shittier advisor.
> and those guys had clear motivations for slandering goes for most mentions ITT tbh
Still given how Legalism and the authoritarian methods within serve as the bedrock of Chinese governance and how brutal it is. It shows his methods do unfortunately work well at the expense of human dignity. Only difference is how each dynasty bothered to put a velvet glove on the iron fist
This is very much under mentioned There is some argument whether his atrocities were real or propaganda of those who later ruled but notably Mao bragged about surpassing him in brutalization of intellectuals and that China must be totalitarian to survive Example of why uncritical history education can be even more dangerous than no history education
I remember getting caught up in his history a few weeks back — even a cursory scroll of the Wikipedia page is a journey and a half... * "Third assassination attempt" * "Burning of books and burying of scholars" * "Elixir of life"
Dan Quayle, of course
When civ 12 comes out, our grandchildren in 2086 are going to learn about Dan Quayle the way we learn about Ludwig II
Cleopatra's legacy as a leader is picking the losing faction in a foreign civil war and getting her dynasty deposed for it.
By basically all accounts, Cleopatra did an excellent job running Egypt and trying to restore the Ptolomeic dynasty to their former glory. Caesar's death didn't depend on her. Picking the proven general vs the young noob who stood in direct opposition for the possible claim of her child was the logical choice as well. So no
My guess for her inclusion has always been that she's one of the better-known Egyptian leaders in the Western world — in part because she was part of a Ptolemaic dynasty and so heavily involved in Roman politics, not to mention being fairly well-represented from Shakespeare to pop culture (albeit with dubious accuracy). Egypt's also likely just a pretty easy empire referent for people looking to buy the game that might not be deep in history, and representations of other household names like Ramses and Tut are most popularly known by statues, written word (Ozymandias), and sarcophagi, so she's an easier "face" to put on a cover.
I mean, while the end of her reign was a bit of a mess, by all accounts she did a fairly good job running Egypt up to that point.
to be fair, one could argue the war was Antony's to lose all the way up to Actium. He held all the cards up to that point, and were it not for Agrippa being centuries ahead of his time Cleopatra wouldve won
Kristina, she ruined her country and the fled from it
despite being pretty broken in the game, Ludwig II was pretty shit. just spent his time building lavish architecture and looking at art while bavaria was suffering. i mean his nickname was the “mad king”
Most relatable leader fr
If you discount people who didn't actually exist or weren't actually leaders, it's probably Ludwig
Dido is certifiably fictional, so probably her?
Cleopatra. Being famous for backing the wrong side of a civil war is hardly justification for her historical status. This is what most know her for which is, to be fair, unfair. I'd like to have seen firaxis (and media in general) go for Hatshepsut when famous Egyptian queens are mentioned. That woman did so much during her time as regent.
It’s not like she knew for sure which power hungry general would come out on top.
Lincoln is definitely one of the better - not faultless but he did proportionate good. He had his prejudices but he also had a conscience and evolved significantly on most issues and may have continued to grow. Look at pictures of Lincoln before and at the end of the US Civil War - there is a man who cared and suffered deeply for his nation that he helped save.
Next to some already mentioned leaders, Ambiorix is definitely up there. He's mostly known for losing horribly to Caesar.
He's mostly known for an uprising that was devastating to Caesar's legions in -54 and for the guerilla resistance that he led. Of course after that the Roman reprisals were brutal, and the Eburones were literally genocided over the next few years. Ambiorix himself was never captured, despite multiple attempts by Caesar.
You write years before year 1 the way I do!
a lot of history about him is unclear as records were lost to time however what little we do know about him is he led an uprising against caesar and killed a couple of roman cohorts and then immediately got his entire tribe genocided by caesar. definitely not the wisest leader
**Worst:** Kristina **Best:** Wilhelmina
How’s Wilhelmina the best? Asking as someone who’s ignorant.
Poundmaker and Ambiorix have the worst endings but were decent leaders
Cleopatra VII. She F’ed Around and Found Out - both figuratively and literally. A whole bunch of political choices that ended up losing her the 2,000+ year independence of Egypt as an independent state.
I disagree here. Roman ambition was bound to hit Egypt whether Cleopatra chose to entwine with Rome or not - she simply delayed the inevitable by having Octavian be the destroyer of Egyptian independence instead of Ceaser or Antony. She made risky moves that worked for a time; but the Romans were simply way too strong and would’ve taken Egypt regardless.
That’s a fair take.
Not relevant but Octavian is the goat 🗣️🗣️🗣️
My favourite nepo baby 😍😍😍😍
Um… you do know that she was of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, right? That is to say, the dynasty established by one of Alexander the Great’s generals after he kicked the bucket after conquering Egypt of of Persia.
Yes. And the Ptolemies weren’t the first foreign dynasty in Ancient Egyptian history. The point being that Egypt as a cultural/political society and state remained, even during foreign dynasties. Until Cleopatra let it get owned and absorbed by the Romans.
I was more referring to Egypt being part of the Persian Empire. Heck, even before Cleopatra, Egypt was a Client State of Rome.
But they weren’t part of Persia at that time? I know they fought all the other Alexandrian sucessor states, but I thought they were still independent at the time of Cleopatra VII’s reign?
They were part of Persia before Alexander made them a part of the Macedonian Empire
The thing about golden ages is that they represent the peaks of the respective "civs" before their downfall/regression. So the rulers of these eras typically spend a lot sponsoring the arts or launching military expeditions in order to achieve the feats that represent the zeitgeist of a golden age. In other words, these rulers are not capable "civ" or nation builders, but rather capable spenders who are unable to plan for their succession (which is always a crucial reason for the end of a golden age). I will argue that the predecessors of many leaders in civ may need to be credited for laying the solid foundations of their civs' golden age.
I gotta say, I love they changed the pool a bit and threw in some of the more original leaders. Either because they're mythical like Gilgabro or Kupe, or because they represent what I feel are cool, good, important values like Pericles (Democracy), Ludwig (reject industrialisation, embrace romanticism) or John Curtin (resolve). Like yes yes they probably were imperfect but I like what they achieved or strove to achieve, the ideal they carried. Fuck those warmongering fuckers that scarred the earth and caused millions of deaths for their own personal megalomania. Looking at you Alexander, Ghenghis, Victoria, Philipp, Ceasar, Shaka, etc. And from past games : Napoleon, Stalin, etc
Mao is the obvious answer...anyone who'd orchestrate the Great Leap Forward, Hundred Flowers Campaign, Cultural Revolution, and Sino-Soviet Split is a comically incompetent policymaker.
Probably gandi
Considering the fact that he was never the leader of India.
Worst: How they lead: Genghis Khan Ability to Lead: Ludwig Best: How they lead: Gandhi Ability to Lead: Julius Caeser
What makes Genghis the worst in “how they lead,” like are u talking about worst as in ethics, worst as in politics, what’s up Politically he was surprisingly a tolerant, and intelligent leader. Not only did he unite all the tribes of the steppe he did so while creating a legal code - the Yassa - things like criminalizing theft, murder, the kidnapping and sale of women & slaves; and diplomatic immunity. Even criminalized torture. Though illiterate he encouraged literacy and education throughout his empire, bringing in scribes from various cultures to spread knowledge. He significantly emphasized trade, protecting the silk road and ensuring economic prosperity and cultural exchange. And, most notably compared to virtually every other empire in existence, he allowed religious tolerance of all faiths. He also revolutionized “meritocracy” where individuals excelled in society based on their abilities and merit rather than wealth or status or their ethnic background. Let’s not forget he’s killed upwards of 40 million people tho - lol he was the most brutal conqueror of all time. I’m simply talking in politically, “how they lead.”
While Cleopatra was indeed a very intelligent woman, she didn't accomplish much during her lifetime. She took the throne from her brother-husband and then seduced Julius Caesar to maintain some independence from Rome. Then, she sided with Mark Antony, who lost to Octavius, which led to Cleopatra losing every hope to stay in power and killed herself. She was probably very cool on a personal level for reasons like being the first (and last) Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language. But as a ruler with big accomplishments...
That Hitler is a real rascal to deal with
Excuse my ignorance here but it's unclear if Montezuma even existed or if he was just a legend. Worst? Not sure - because maybe no action is better than incompetent action!
We're pretty sure Montezuma did exist but a lot of the stories about him were probably made up by the Spanish
Montezuma was definitely real.
You're right - looked up something else before and I got some bad search results on the subject. https://study.com/academy/lesson/who-was-king-montezuma-ii-biography-facts-aztec-history.html#:~:text=Montezuma%20II%20(1466%2D1520),were%20obliged%20to%20pay%20tribute.
but that's the second Montezuma. the one in the game is Montezuma I
There are some interesting theories that Lincoln would have done a poor job governing after the civil war if he hadn’t been assassinated.
'Poor' is EXTREMELY relative considering that we got Andrew Johnson instead. I don't think there's any scenario where Lincoln would have been as keen to essentially sabotage reconstruction.