Besides George Washington, who has already been confirmed, which iconic, prominent, or otherwise notable figures from American history would you like to see become the civilization’s leaders in the upcoming game?
Note: I will be making a similar poll for Germany and any additional civilizations when they become officially confirmed.
I chose Reagan (cause he's amazing), and "other" because I wanted to say George Washington, but read your comment after I voted..sorry lol
Civ V is going to keep the American hero Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt(FDR) they were in office when the biggest events in America happen and help get use through them why would the be replaced now adding a new. leaders different
I know this may not be a popular choice for other but I think Bill Clinton would add some humor to the game with a witty one liner every time you contact him.
Huh… difficult choice
Jefferson? Nah, big influence but mainly in America.
Lincoln? Nah, another great leader but not bigger influence outside U.S.A
Grant? Same story
Rest of those who are on list are individuals with significant influence on whole world, so it is very difficult to choose who is the best from them. Hmm… ok my choice is Franklin Delano Roosvelt
and FDR heck no. He expanded government enormously and extended the great depression by years by keeping wages high which delayed the decrease of the unemployment rate. also there was a depression in 1921 that only lasted a little over a year and here's the kicker there was NO government "help". None whatsoever. and it was in some ways worse than the great depression. Wilson NO NO NO NO a million times no. He created the progressive income tax which started at only including the upper 1% of americans then after WWII it included 75% of americans! If my memory serves me correctly he helped create The Fed. I don't hear many people singing praises about The Fed. The Fed is the root problem behind our uncontrollable debt. Oh oh doesn't sound like great american leaders do they...
Last edited by B-29 Bomber; 03-01-2010 at 10:08 AM. Reason: telling why FDR and Wilson shouldn't be American leaders in CivV
Originally Posted by Archacus
Jefferson helped found this nation mate. that's rather important to AMERICA they don't have to be important to the rest of the world. Are you insinuating that lincoln should not have been in the other games! also what did washington do to the rest of the world. Don't link jefferson and lincoln with grant. I agree that grant was not a great president. A great general but as an administrator he was weak. sort of like Alexander the great. But who else can lead the greeks: he was famous mate. look up your history dude.
That may be so but he is widely recognized internationally and his ideals of the place of the federal government is as about as far from Washington you could get: so he would make a good leader for Civ V just for the contrast.
It should be FDR. I would be very disappointed if it was Reagan.
For everyone that's suggesting Hitler for Germany, I thought I would try to make the point why he isn't in.
How about George W. Bush for America? Not quite bad enough? Some random plantation owning slaver? or King George the III? I know he isn't American but Hitler was Austrian.
We've already had America's Hitler in past games: Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In all recent polling of US citizens, Ronald Reagan is consistently ranked as either the greatest or second greatest American president, usually in contention with Lincoln and Washington.
It's high time he was put in the game. The only reasons I can think of that he's not included are either bias on the part of the people who choose leaders or the fact that his presidency was recent and so suffers from what I like to call "Historian's bias," which is when we history buffs tend to discount the accomplishments of current or recent leaders as less than those of leaders long gone.
Well no, i'm not insulting anybody. But America on it's first steps wasn't treated like something with high importance. Just one of rebelions far far away. Yes, they are important for America...
As an East European, I cannot forget FDR's weakness in the negotiations with Stalin, and all his concessions towards the Russians, which has scarred most countries in the region forever and allowed Stalin to do mass deportations and executions which led to more lives being lost than Hitler's holocaust. If he had a backbone, he should have dealt with Stalin same as he dealt with the nazis and the japs. I don't much care that he was old and sick. The fact that he wasn't able to do something effective against a man who's responsible for the loss of millions of lives, does not make him that great of a leader.
The average US citizen is not a good measure for historical perspective. Lets wait 50 years and see if anyone still remembers Ronnie's "accomplishments".
Reagan averages MUCH lower than first or second place on almost all polls over the last 10 years.
Siena 2000: 16th place
ABC 2000: 5th place
Washington College 2005: 2nd place
Wall Street 2005: 6th place
Rasmussen 2007: 9th place
Gallup 2007: 2nd place
C SPAN 2009: 10th place
Oh, and the Quinnipiac 2007 poll asking who is the WORST president in the history of the US has Reagan in 8th place, being slightly better than H.W. Bush but worse than Ford.
Saying that Reagan was considered the best or second best president in all recent polling is simply not true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States
American presidents make for such boring leaders. Trait wise that is.
Who cares about the face that doesn't affect the gameplay lol.
EDIT: Actually, Washington isn't too bad, because he has exp, but other than that...
There are exactly three popular opinion polls listed in that page and in 2 of 3 Reagan is ranked 2nd. Also, the Qunnipiac poll wasn't "in the history of the US," it was "in the last 61 years," which is a dramatically different question. Most of those surveys are of "scholars" or "historians," which, again, I'd say suffer from Historian's bias.
Historian's bias?
It's not called being biased it's called reading and knowing what the hell you're actually talking about.
I am one of those who profoundly disagrees with FDR's domestic policies, but I have no doubt that he was the most influential president of the 20th century. He was a strong leader on the world stage. It is quite possible that Hitler would have won in Europe or at least forced a draw that left Germany in power in most of the Western part of the continent if the U.S. hadn't entered that theater of war; and without a president of FDR's force of character and charisma, it is quite possible that the U.S. would have stayed out of Europe, especially if the isolationist sentiment in the country convinced the Japanese leadership it need not attack Hawaii.
It is doubtful that the Union would have prevailed during the Civil War if Lincoln had not been president. A splintered United States would have become a far weaker, less world-influential nation. On the other hand, if somebody like Douglas has occupied the White House, quite possibly the South, feeling its "peculiar institution" less threatened, would not have even attempted secession. The US would have continued for decades with its industrial progress hampered by the persistence of a vast agricultural section supported by slave labor. Any expansive energies probably would have been focused on Mexico and farther south. Greater resentment would have arisen in Europe, along with a greater reluctance among Europeans to emigrate.
The Civs in the game seem to be led by their strongest personalities, not necessarily their most virtuous. Truth is, if I thought the U.S. should be led by a president who reflects my conception of the proper role of the federal government, I'd vote for Calvin Coolidge; but let's face it, he wasn't somebody who would have led his civ to a resounding victory. Which, I suppose, says something about pursuing resounding victories, but then, Civilization is just a game.
Last edited by casualciv; 03-02-2010 at 01:49 PM.
Grant
Grant was one of the best US presidents of all time, I'd say top 5, and the best Republican we've had since Lincoln (Eisenhower is a close 3rd).
I'm saying that as a Southerner who was raised to hate his guts, taught that the man was a no-good drunk with a corrupt administration. Couldn't be further from the truth. He did more good for this country than people appreciate: read "Grant" by Jean Edward Smith (also a southerner).
I'd say he deserves his place in Civ, if not in this edition, then eventually. He let Lee and the other Confederate generals go without retributive trials - as many clamored for; Simon Bolivar Buckner and Joseph Johnston were his friends; he fixed corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs; he dealt more wisely and prudently with a market crises than most. He sent the army down south to effect reconstruction, making more progressive changes than any president before him or until the 1950s, and stopping lynchings in S. Carolina and N.O. At his funeral, confederates marched in step with yankees. 1.5 million peopled lined the streets - proportionately the largest turnout for any president ever. To say he was popular then is not even a beginning - the man was worshipped. He wrote his own excellent biography while dying of cancer. He was a paragon of honesty. His horse-riding skills were legendary and military skills -learning from the battlefield, going after armies, not holding towns - were on par with Lee's.
Just sayin'
Either of the Roosevelts, Lincoln, Jefferson, Ben Franklin...lots of possibilities.
Last edited by Greybriar; 03-02-2010 at 05:17 PM.
Four, not three of those were popular opinion polls. Average the results of the four and Reagan is between 4th and 5th place. Obviously not good enough for a spot as a Civ leader, even using ONLY popular opinion which is the most generous metric Reagan has. Reagan fares much worse when the question is asked to those who are actually educated and understand what his policies were, averaging in 10th place for polls over the last 10 years.
Arguing against "Historians bias" is arguing that the facts do not support your conclusion. It is like arguing that there is a "Doctor's bias" for medical facts or a "Scientist's bias" for chemistry.
I'm sorry that you have a strong bias in favor or Reagan, but he simply is not going to be seen as one of the finest presidents in US history. As a consolation prize, his "buy now, pay later" policies and economic thoughts on the deficit will likely be acutely remembered for some time.
I got a good chuckle out of seeing Ronald Regan on the list.
FDR would be the best after Washington. He was president during World War II, so plenty of people around the world who think of America can think of him in the office while sending our troops to Nazi Germany, talking to Churchill. No other modern president has that appeal.
I'd like to disagree at legnth with the criticisms of FDR, but this a game forum, not history class, so I'll bite my tounge and say that my first choice is Washington, second is Lincoln and 3rd is FDR.
But, just to be contrary, why not Andrew Jackson and or James K Polk? Jackson was a transforming leader (for good or bad) with proven military skills and the courage to stare down the early sessionists in South Carolina, to give the union a couple of decades more to try and sort out the slavery/states rights mess. How'd you like to see him and Sitting Bull go at it?!
All Polk did was win a war with Mexico, nearly double the size of the US (most everything west of the Lousiana Purchase came to the us directly or indirectly as a result of Polks's actions and policies.)He made some serious domestic economic policy initatives too which are boring a heck but important nonetheless. And he said he'd only serve one term, and he did. Think of what he did, and all in 4 years. Has there ever been a more productive president?
One last thought; I'm from Missourii. How about Truman?
America shouldnt be inthe game it is to young a nation to really be in the game. It will be tho despite this...so if its in I would like to see -older- leaders. I chose my poll responses based on this selecting the first 3 choices. I think an interesting option not suggested could be General Robert E. Lee for those of us who like alternative history. Jefferson Davis might be a more 'accurate' pick but I think Lee would be more familiar to those without a penchant fopr American History
America would be better represented as what happens to colonies that rebel...
Yes, America is young. Then again, the German state formed in the 1800's, the British Empire evolved from a plesant, damp little island to a patchwork of colonies that stretched around the globe, and then back to the plesant little island, all in about the same historical period as American history.
Truth is, I'm hard pressed to find a major nation that has a several thousand year history (Egypt I guess. Maybe Rome, but there is a huge difference between Rome, the Italian states and Italy today).
As for "President" Jeff Davis, he is even now contorversial. But he hardly showed the leadership skills necessary under extreme dures.
Hey, how about America takes Jeff Davis if Britain takes either Neville Chamberlin or Harold Earl of Wessex. Small world duel, one of them finally has to win something...
I don't think we'll be seeing multiple leaders for CivV civs for a long time but I'd like a Benjamin Franklin, or John D. Rockefeller just to get away from Presidents.
Also, I can't believe I had to read through another freaking round of big government Vs small government when coming to a game forum, you people disgust me.
Britain has existed as a coherant 'Nation' for about a 1000 years. You are correct that German modern state only recently came into being recently, but a coherant germanic culture existed long before then, but maybe ratehr thean Germany we need 'Prussia'. Modern Iranians still refer to themselves as Persian, Greek culture is quite old, you missed the obvious with China.
Your right that there is significant differance between rome and modern italy -of course there is but this is modelled in the game by technological and civic advances...
Point taken on Davis, which is why I favor Lee of Davis. I quite like the idea of an alternat History mod, with President Davis ,Tsar Nicholas, Richard III and other great historical losers.
There are three reasons that America will be in the game:
1.) Because it is an American game.
2.) Because although America is young, it has projected a great amount of power and influence over its short existence.
3.) Not all scenarios start from the ancient age. America is very important to the modern age.
That depends on who you ask. He does worse if you ask historians. He does better if you ask economists. That is to say, historians, who do indeed suffer from a bias that causes them to rate more recent figures lower than ones they haven't personally experienced; historians who don't know anything about economics and really don't understand how the markets work, rate the man lower than economists, who understand how well trickle-down economics works and recognize that Reagan's policies almost single-handedly brought us out of the second (maybe third soon) worst recession in American history.
You're attempting to create a false comparison. Being a history expert does not free you from bias; it doesn't make you an economics expert or a social policy expert. Being a medical expert, on the other hand, does free you from bias; you know what procedures work and in what capacities. Same with scientists. Science and medicine only deal in indisputable facts. When it comes to ranking historical figures, you have a set of facts and a set of interpretations. I am a huge history buff, and I constantly have to fight the urge to elevate historical figures to a status greater than those of modern figures. It's extremely rare that someone is so great that they're recognized as great in their own lifetime. It's extremely unlikely that any given historian is going to be able to divorce his own personal political opinions from their opinions on historical political figures, especially polarizing ones like Reagan and FDR. I'd be willing to bet a hundred dollars that, in fifty or a hundred years' time, it will be a matter of great debate who the greatest president of the 20th century was: Teddy, FDR, or Reagan. It's just too soon for people to be able to let go of their biases about Reagan.Arguing against "Historians bias" is arguing that the facts do not support your conclusion. It is like arguing that there is a "Doctor's bias" for medical facts or a "Scientist's bias" for chemistry.
Wait, what? You're obviously not much of a history guy or you'd realize that "buy now, pay later" started about the time of the revolution, but only kicked into full gear under your guy, FDR.I'm sorry that you have a strong bias in favor or Reagan, but he simply is not going to be seen as one of the finest presidents in US history. As a consolation prize, his "buy now, pay later" policies and economic thoughts on the deficit will likely be acutely remembered for some time.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Do you have a source for this or are you just pull stuff out of your a--?
USA before and as The worldpower (atomic) in the world, more responsebilities for presidents after WW1
Lincoln has a sublime PR campaign but there are many things not common knowledge for most people. He was not like most people think he was.
The only actual poll of economists I've seen is a poll on McCain vs Obama during the election. The majority of the respondents were Democrats, but McCain still had excellent numbers even among Democrats. Independent economists favored McCain on foreign trade policy 63%-16%. Over-all, the economists polled liked Obama more, but the polling sample was disproportionately Democrat, and the majority of respondents cited issues that had nothing to do with the economy as a higher priority than economic issues. Based on the breakdown, it's pretty clear that economists favor the Reagan method on economics to at least the Obama method.
Every economist I have ever heard who is against trickle-down economics says "it works, but it's not fair;" not "it doesn't work."
Arguing that there is a "historian's bias" for history is like arguing that there is a "doctor's bias" for medicine or a "scientist's bias" for chemistry. It is not a false comparison just because their rankings do not support your preconceived notions. Argue all you want, but you can't escape that fact.
Another fact you cannot escape: Those who actually have a basic history education rank Reagan in an average of 10th place.
As far as FDR -vs- Reagan, those same polls show FDR averaging out between 2nd and 3rd place.
You said yourself: "It's just too soon for people to be able to let go of their biases about Reagan.", so I suggest you let go of your biases and see his policies for what they were. You're obviously not much of a history guy or you'd realize that Reagan was the first president to increase national debt since Truman, doing so massively, and without World War 2 as motivation.
nope. that's wrong. I will admit that reagan ranks highly, but the three presidents that are consistently in the top three in opinion polls are Washington, FDR, and Lincoln
anyway, I think that the best leader for the USA is FDR. I always pick FDR when I play as America in Civ IV. I think that Kennedy or Theodore Roosevelt would also be good contenders for an American leader in Civ V.
It interests me that so few people have taken an interest in Woodrow Wilson. I suspect that this is because of his attempted pacifism at the begining, which lent itself to a somewhat subdued role in history. He did however successfully lead his nation through the war and afterward was one of the three key figures in the entire reshaping of Europe. His influence created the Rhineland, demilitarized Germany, and had them pay reparations to the rest of Europe. In this regard he most certainly had an international influence, not to mention his 14 points defined the League of Nations which was the basis for our modern UN. I feel that Wilson would be a good candidate for Civ 5, maybe as a Peaceful and Philosophical leader, and can only see one reason that he may not be chosen for the game, that being his relatively low profile; few will know him unlike Lincoln or Washington.
I think that Wilson was a very influential and powerful president for his time, but I think other presidents have done more to shape the modern world. I also think that Wilson had a lot of good ideas, but he wasn't successful in all his endeavors, like with the League of Nations. A lot of his visions wouldn't be realized until WWII and after with FDR and the United Nations. Plus, I don't know why, but he's not as well known as other presidents.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote