BenkoLenko wrote:

Also, apparently the colossal statue of himself seemed to somehow work and restore his popularity. I still scratch my head at that.

After you build the monument, it says something along the lines that wealth becomes better distributed amongst the populace (on the industrialist path, it is mentionned that poverty and lack of wealth redistribution is a big reason why people dislike him).

The monument apparently solves that. I am not sure how exactly, but it could be that:

a. building the monument created a lot of well paid job

b. the monument generates some sort of revenue which is distributed straight to the poor

The ambiguity of the mechanics of wealth redistribution aside, it is an interesting development on the industrialist path - the Empire by the end tries to be more diplomtically inclined and more egalitarian (to a limited extent I am sure).

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

Indeed. Furthermore Zelevas is actually a more interesting character than Mengsk (esp SC2 incarnation, little more than a mustache twirling villain in a generic revenge plot)

[This thread just won't die!]

That is one thing I like about Zelevas. Even if he is a meglomaniac who had his grand admiral executed for percieved dissent and eventually builds a colossal statue of himself commermorating the moment he snubbed his own designated successor, on a certain level he truly does seem to care about being a "good" ruler (according to his values). In his first quest he consciously stops himself from going all Stalin/Great-Purge on everyone after the failed coup*, and at multiple points he seems to express genuine concern as to whether his subjects like him or not.

Also, apparently the colossal statue of himself seemed to somehow work and restore his popularity. I still scratch my head at that.

*This is why I don't think Zelevas=Stalin.

gigabytemon wrote:

Not really a historical one, but he reminds me of Arcturus Mengsk from Starcraft, right down to the beard. :D

That is an interesting comparison! Yes, I see your point. One issue I do have to say, though, is that overall I think Zelevas had a better grip on power than Mengsk.

For me, I am going to have to say either Otto Von Bismark or Augustus Caesar. While he was not king himself, Bismark's "blood-and-iron" approach to statesmanship and overseeing of the birth of an industrial germany definately reminds me of Zelevas, while Augustus Caesar was not only Rome's first true emperor, but he became it via a civil war and strategic application of brutal violence against his enemies. Also like Zelevas, he spent a great deal of time thinking about succeession (although he didn't have Zelevas's ultimate option of technological immortality)

Anyway, all men were in a way visionary but ruthless nation-builders.

Hail Humanity/Raia.

Hadn't thought about the Andrew Jackson one, but it is certainly an interesting comparison. I would also add that  Jackson greatly expanded the presidency's power, and some did in fact compare him to a monarch.

So far, it seems like Augustus Caesar is the best comparison, and not without good reason. Just as a note, also like Zelevas, most of the violence of Augustus's rule occurred early in his rise to power, back when he was still "Octavian".

 It's a shame Rome was pre-industrial, because the image of Augustus building up great factory sized workshops full of slaves/unemployed plebs churning out goods and war equipment would have made the analogy complete.

Yes. Even in old age, Zelevas has dem muscles. No need for airbrushes or photoshop to make this ruler look tough and macho.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:

...

Despite the Soviet style imagery and some totalitarian ideas (Zelevas Incarnate), he certainly isn't like Stalin. 

He is if anything more akin to the empires of colonialism, since the functioning of the empire is reliant on large companies privately held by specific families, the Dukes and Counts we hear so much about. His whole style is very colonial-nationalist, and obviously it's a monarchy, not to mention that their concern with resources can result in situations where you decide to conquer a system just for its tea/luxuries.

The Soviet imagery is mostly because it's very boxy, and Soviet propaganda was kind of the last hurrah for a style of bombastic propaganda that was historically nationalist in tone... and also because bright red coloring.

Him telling you about '' Realpolitik'' in diplomatic interactions also give a Bismarck vibe (although real life Bismarck was more of a bully than a smooth political operator). 

I definitely agree that the family and succession drama is much more reminiscent of Augustus and it appears that the transformation of the Raian Republics into the Empire occured at the end of the war, which as you mention mirrors the birth of the Roman Principate / Empire.  In addition, despite strong implications of caculated ruthlessness, overall Zelevas is not a bloodthirsty tyrant (for example, he releases his niece who was in the plot because he deemed her as not the source of the problem and there was no point in killing her or even keeping her imprisonned), which is also similar to Augustus who by all accounts appears to have been a chill guy.

At the same time, Zelevas is definitely the faction leader that we could role-play the most (and with that, determine the course of the Empire).  We could more or less make him into a militaristic fascist, or a diplomatically inclined leader who by the end starts enacting bettter redistribution of wealth, to a progressive technophile and anything in between.  So it is a bit difficult to pinpoint him.

Despite the Soviet style imagery and some totalitarian ideas (Zelevas Incarnate), he certainly isn't like Stalin. 

(also, Zelevas is hotter than most historical figures)