Russians would have called foul over Stalin for sure. Everyone wants a fair a good leader from the past to represent there nation. It would be like making Hitler Germany's leader

Frederick for Germany was a terrific choice

And he represents the version of Germany that was awesome all-round: Prussia.

http://www.upi.com/Stalins-popularity-comeback-in-Russia/27941256050649/

Third place in "greatest Russian in history".

Huh, Russians are apparently a bit more forgetful then I thought....

More like they have different cultural values than what we have in the US. Many russians believe that they need to have a strong leader.

So do Americans. Russia and America are actually quite alike today in home policy.

Also, again, bring out the most bloodthirsty tyrions for each country. hitler for Germany, Ivan IIII for Russia, Suleiman I for Turkey, so on.

I think we need a leader with self esteem and confidence for the nation and himself. People are constantly d*cking around with America, we just need a guy to draw a line and say that they've had it up to here with the BS. Not world cops, just defending ourselves from the stupid crap people give.

People are constantly d*cking around with America

If you flip the two subjects around, it's actually a truthful statement.

Well the reverse statement is true, but it's just as true as the statement "all governments d*ck with people". It's just a matter of how much d*ck you're willing to take before you decide to pull out. In all honesty, you would be to not spit and instead swallow; as bad as it is now, at least you're now getting flat-out murdered. Or tortured. The chaos caused by trying to stop the d*cking, you'd quickly fall on your face when the new Gouvernance takes up. Such is the Social Contract.

It's just a matter of how much d*ck you're willing to take before you decide to pull out

That's not how things entering you work

The chaos caused by trying to stop the d*cking, you'd quickly fall on your face when the new Gouvernance takes up. Such is the Social Contract.

Peaceful transitions are necessary for a voluntaryist society to work in the long run, and it needs to be global.

Restraining government to a minarchist level always fails, because a government and the society it presides over is a ecosystem of interests, that conflict with each other when you present violence as the solution to one's problem. See the police and the imposition of violence on non-criminals (non-violent criminals). As soon as you set the precedent that you get more money for more arrests against non-criminals, more non-criminals will be arrested, and the police will support bigger government and more rules on non-crimes.

On the other hand, without police and governance in general you have Somalia, swaths of land across Southern Africa.

People look down on some tribal societies, but modern African tribes (that live wearing good clothes, with jobs (that get stolen by donation campaigns) and in small-town environments) live quite well in functioning societies that burst with economic opportunities with things like micro-loans. Compare that to warlords and i think it's clear which route is superior.

In aesop's fable, the free wolf and the well fed but collared wolf, they don't mention that the collared wolf will always out-compete the scrawny free. Brutality, power and government will always exist because if you try to destroy it, it will destroy you first and quickly. It is the dominant system, not the ideal, but the dominant.

On the other hand, without police and governance in general you have Somalia, swaths of land across Southern Africa

The majority of Somalis who lived under Biarre's regime would most likely say that semi-statelessness is better than his regime.

People look down on some tribal societies, but modern African tribes (that live wearing good clothes, with jobs (that get stolen by donation campaigns) and in small-town environments) live quite well in functioning societies that burst with economic opportunities with things like micro-loans. Compare that to warlords and i think it's clear which route is superior.

Tribes can often be voluntary. Then again, they can be the basic tribe that fights for what it wants, but either way, the tribe is a organism with interests composed of many other organisms with interests that are similar. If you give the tribe a violent way to solve it's problems, and make it more effective, it will use the violent path. What voluntaryists want to do, is to end the violent path as a easy way to achieve the goals, and to make folk stop believing in the violent path.

Brutality, power and government will always exist because if you try to destroy it, it will destroy you first and quickly

The free market has proved capable to outcompete the government, the organisms just have to see peaceful methods as the more effective solution(and it often is).

Vlad the Bad for Russia would make my year

My opinion on each:

America- T. Roosevelt (Roosevelt, really? Didn't you have a better pick? America had countless presidents and teddy is one of those nobody outside of america knows/cares.)
Arabia- Saladin (His empire didn't even rule Arabia... A small bit of it, the Sharifate of Mecca, was their vassal. Saladin let the Kurds, and the Egyptians.)
Aztec- Montezuma I (Eh, why? Montezuma is the emperor that got them killed. lul.)
Babylon- Hammurabi (Understandable, good pick; Nebuchadnezzar would be better, in my opinion.)
Brazil- Pedro II (...No. Just no. He wasn't a bad leader in anyway, but he was not great, couldn't handle pressure and was dethroned by his own friend saying "ey, grandpa, time to retire ain't it?")
The Celts- Grace O’Malley (Don't even know this slank...)
Chinese- Qin Shi Huang? (Another one I don't know.)
Danish- Ragnar Lodbrok (Well, it is a good pick; one of the few well-known danish kings.)
Egyptian- Cleopatra (...? So many pharaohs and they take goddamn Cleopatra.)
English- Elizabeth (Am I the only one who hopes for Cromwell every new Civ game?)
French- Napoleon (French surrenderbois shouldn't even be a pick)
German- Frederick the Great (Would give priority to Bismarck, or even the Führer because realistically Frederick didn't do much; his war effort was entirely led by Bismarck. And so was much of his country.)
Gran Colombian- Simón Bolívar (>Putting Stalin or Hitler is offensive >Putting Bolívar is not >gg sid meier, you done fecked up; Simon Bolívar is the biggest disaster in the history of Latin America.)
Greek- Alexander (Can't contest it; he's a great choice.)
Incan- Huayna Capac (>implying the incas are good enough for a Civilization game >implying the incas were actually a civilization)
Indian- GANDHI
Japanese- Toyotomi Hideyoshi (Don't know him; more names come to mind, but no one specifically)
Malinese- Musa I of Mali (Same as Huayna Capac, honestly.)
Mongol- Genghis Khan (Ok, while I can't deny their historical importance, the mongols were not a stable force in politics and it's not supposed to be there in a game about outlasting everyone. Furthermore, Khancer wasn't a good general; it's just that everything in his way was conveniently weak at the given time.)
Ottoman- Suleiman (Mehmet comes to mind before him; but a solid choice.)
Persian- Cyrus (Solid choice once again.)
Polish- Mieszko I (Who dis? And most importantly, how do I pronounce it?)
Roman- Julius Caesar (Mmm. Not too shabby.)
Russian- Catherine (Ivan Veliky and some other tsars come to mind way before Catherine, but not bad either.)
Sioux- Sitting Bull (Same as Huayna Capac.)
Spanish- Isabella I (Good pick.)
Venetian- Enrico Dandolo (TERRIBLE pick. He wasn't a good leader, he was one of history's biggest douches. Francesco Foscarini would be my pick.)
Zulu- Shaka (Same as Huayna goddamn Capac.)

Edited 6/6/2016 14:48:51

EDIT:Shit, I hit the submit button. Wait a minute or two. I'll have a nice long comment waiting.

America- T. Roosevelt (Roosevelt, really? Didn't you have a better pick? America had countless presidents and teddy is one of those nobody outside of america knows/cares.)

Teddy was one of our best Presidents. America did great under him, and he helped in the Spanish/American War, as well as started to really put us under the job of "World Police." So considering what we did with Columbia, and building the Panama Canal, as well as him just being a badass we carved into a mountain, he deserves to be here.

Arabia- Saladin (His empire didn't even rule Arabia... A small bit of it, the Sharifate of Mecca, was their vassal. Saladin let the Kurds, and the Egyptians.)

True enough, but I thought the remnants of his empire led to Arabia being united. I could be wrong, here.

Aztec- Montezuma I (Eh, why? Montezuma is the emperor that got them killed. lul.)

That would be Montezuma II.

Brazil- Pedro II (...No. Just no. He wasn't a bad leader in anyway, but he was not great, couldn't handle pressure and was dethroned by his own friend saying "ey, grandpa, time to retire ain't it?")

Does Brazil even have a significant leader?

The Celts- Grace O’Malley (Don't even know this slank...)

She was a badass. I didn't know the Irish or anyone still counted as Celts when she was alive, but she was a badass.

Chinese- Qin Shi Huang? (Another one I don't know.)

United all of China and became their first true Emperor. A nasty fellow who is a much better choice than f*cking Wu.

Egyptian- Cleopatra (...? So many pharaohs and they take goddamn Cleopatra.)

I don't know, either.

English- Elizabeth (Am I the only one who hopes for Cromwell every new Civ game?)

Meh.

German- Frederick the Great (Would give priority to Bismarck, or even the Führer because realistically Frederick didn't do much; his war effort was entirely led by Bismarck. And so was much of his country.)

No.

Incan- Huayna Capac (>implying the incas are good enough for a Civilization game >implying the incas were actually a civilization)

Machu Picchu. The largest S. American civilization before the colonization era. Yes they deserve to be here. More than the Aztecs, anyway.

Indian- GANDHI

Who the fuck did Gandhi lead, again? There are many Indian kings that are a better choice for Gandhi.

Japanese- Toyotomi Hideyoshi (Don't know him; more names come to mind, but no one specifically)

Nobunaga's greatest general. Unofficial Emperor of Japan. Ended the Sengoku Period. Changed the culture of Samurai completely.

Mongol- Genghis Khan (Ok, while I can't deny their historical importance, the mongols were not a stable force in politics and it's not supposed to be there in a game about outlasting everyone. Furthermore, Khancer wasn't a good general; it's just that everything in his way was conveniently weak at the given time.)

Weren't a stable force in politics? Marco Polo would beg to differ.

Persian- Cyrus (Solid choice once again.)

CYRUS.

Polish- Mieszko I

Fuck yeah, POLAND.

Edited 6/6/2016 15:18:26

Federick the Great is Federick II, and Bismarck served as Chancellor through the reins of Wilhelm I and Federick William IV, I dunno where you got that Germany Idea zeph. It should be called Prussia though.

England should be Walpole, while Cromwell was interesting, I view if we are selecting a non-king/Queen for England, Walpole was a better leader.

Mongol- Genghis Khan (Ok, while I can't deny their historical importance, the mongols were not a stable force in politics and it's not supposed to be there in a game about outlasting everyone. Furthermore, Khancer wasn't a good general; it's just that everything in his way was conveniently weak at the given time.)
Ummm...I think the silk road disagrees. If you are talking about the division into Khanates, that is because Genghis Khan was not much of a leader for administration. Also, it is worth noting that the Mongols were an empire that accomplished a few unique things( Russia conquered in the winter, Successful use of slave soldiers, Religous tolerance, etc.) Basically before you diss the Mongols, go compare them with every single other empire before or after them, and you realize they did alot of Sh*t no one else has even tried or come close to succeeding at doing. Also, there enemies being weak is also an invalid statement, the Mongols successfully innovated the idea of promotion based on merit, and a few other ideas that gave them an advantage. It wasn't like anyone was weaker than usual, the Mongols were just decades ahead of everyone else.

Does Brazil even have a significant leader?

Pedro I was better and had a longer rein, almost 60 years, I believe. The first king of Brazil. And their leader in the Second World War, Getúlio Vargas. Very interesting bloke, a bit controversial, he ended his life while in office, as he realised he failed his country (they wanted him out); he was a true nationalist.

Who the fuck did Gandhi lead, again? There are many Indian kings that are a better choice for Gandhi.

+1, M. Gandhi wasn't a politician of any kind.

Mieszko I (Who dis?

Polish king who made Poland officially Christian and unified Poland. Miyeshko is how to pronounce (roughly).

Catherine (Ivan Veliky and some other tsars come to mind way before Catherine, but not bad either.)

No, it's an awful choice; the only one from the 1700s that should be a valid pick is Yemelyan Pugachöv, trying to take back Russia from the Germans. He was the foreman to later revolutions, but unluckily, he lost the war, and was put in a cage by Yekaterina "the Great" and shipped to Moskva in that cage, before being drawn and split into four in a public square. But these Germans and Frenchmen and Dutchmen in the court at 1700s, they truly ruined Russia for a long time, awful backstabbers.

Edited 6/6/2016 20:56:57

*Cough* Peter the Backstabber *Cough*

Aww, Poland is here. Got to love this. Maybe I'll even buy it.

Civ IV gets old after a while. And V is worse than IV.