Pretty much all of his dawn of man speech is about how much cool stuff Cyrus did. I don't think they attribute anything to Darius himself

Because of Alexander.

Why is Catherine the leader of Russia when the empire was at it's zenith under Nicholas I?

Why is Oda Nobunaga leader of Japan but not Meiji?

Darius is not the same one fought by Alexander.
This Darius wouldn't be called the Great.
After Darius the Great's rule, other kings were inferior

OrsonM, the Darius in all of the Civ games has always been Darius I (550-486 BCE), also known as Darius the Great. Darius III (380–330 BCE) was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The reason why Darius I is the Persian leader in Civ5 is because he was the emperor of the Persian Empire at its zenith. I don't want to write a long, boring, pointless history lesson. Suffice to say Darius I is the best choice for the Persian leader in the Civ games.

Why is Catherine the leader of Russia when the empire was at it's zenith under Nicholas I?

Why is Oda Nobunaga leader of Japan but not Meiji?

I believe there's multiple reasons for picking Catherine:
1. She's a woman, which would allow Firaxis to introduce another woman in this male dominated game
2. She was a pretty competent ruler, bringing Russia closer to the west in both geography (the conquest of Poland) and culture (she brought the Enlightenment to Russia).
3. She had an 'interesting' social life

As for Oda Nobunaga, he's pretty much the unifier of Japan (actually his suobordinates did that, but he was the brains behind the entire scheme). It's called Meji instead of Japan because this game spans all of human history, not just the period in which Oda was alive. If that were true, Germany would be in a very confusing situation (Germania ---> Holy Roman Empire ---> Prussia ---> Germany)

EDIT: Yeah, as everybody said Civ V's Darius is Darius I, not Darius III. The same is basically going on with the Aztecs: they're led by the very competent Montezuma I, not Montezuma II who was beaten by the Spaniards.

It's called Meji instead of Japan because this game spans all of human history, not just the period in which Oda was alive.

I think he actually wondered why they chose Oda Nobunaga over Mutsuhito, who was also called Emperor Meiji ("enlightened rule"), as Japanese leader. (Every Emperor has his special posthumous name and era, e.g. Hirohito was called Emperor Shōwa, "period of enlightened peace/harmony".)

Imho, this would have been a little funny since the samurai are Japan's UU and the samurai lost their special status during the Meiji era (1886 - 1912).

There's a reason it's Cyrus the Conqueror, but Darius the Great. Cyrus took over a lot of land. Darius turned it into a great, powerful state. He was better in securing control over the empire, making it run better, creating an effective civil service. I think he created the Satrapies, but I'm probably wrong there. Meaning there's more to being an effective ruler than just conquering. Darius did all the other stuff (although he did finish conquests in Asia, taking the Empire to the Aegean).

You mean Cyrus the Great?

Is he normally thought of as Cyrus the Great? I usually think of him as conqueror. Even if I'm wrong, that completely undercuts my point, so I'm just going to cover my ears and sing loudly :p

My point stands that Darius was a better consolidator of the Emperor, while Cyrus was a conqueror.

I stand by my earlier brief statement: because of Alexander.

I stand by my earlier brief statement: because of Alexander.

Then you're still wrong because Civ5 explicitly states that the Persian leader is Darius I, and not Darius III, who was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The first time was possibly excusable because they had the same name and perhaps you were confused. But the second time is inexcusable because you didn't even bother to check your facts; despite that you defiantly reiterated your wrong opinion, which only demonstrates your stubborness and willful ignorance.

Sticking to your guns and doubling down on something that you were wrong about doesn't suddenly make you right, OrsonM.

Please do not attack other members.

@ Louis: I think you are right - Cyrus II. the Great enlarged the Persian empire by far.
Dareios I. the Great however did introduce satrapies for administration and matters of warfare according to Herodot. This administration is supposed to have influenced the later structure of the Roman Empire as well. Cyrus AND Dareios are referenced to as the two great(est) leaders of the Persian Empire. Imo, Dareios and the golden age trait fit very well - Cyrus would have been a better warmonger though.

@Soryn: obvious troll is obvious.

Please report posts you think are rule-breaking, rather than responding to them. Calling another member a troll is considered trolling in itself.

The game doesn't hold a civilization to one period of time.
Why does Germany have a Landschnekt UU when Bismarck is leader?
Obvious answer.

EDIT: More leaders is another solution.
I'll post the link when I find it...

Then you're still wrong because Civ5 explicitly states that the Persian leader is Darius I, and not Darius III, who was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The first time was possibly excusable because they had the same name and perhaps you were confused. But the second time is inexcusable because you didn't even bother to check your facts; despite that you defiantly reiterated your wrong opinion, which only demonstrates your stubborness and willful ignorance.

Sticking to your guns and doubling down on something that you were wrong about doesn't suddenly make you right, OrsonM.

Please do not attack other members.

I think nobody would care at all about the Achaemenid Empire had it not had an important role in the History of Hellenic Civilisation. More particularly Alexander's history, he who was, in his own eyes, the last Achaemenid king. And whose eventual hagiographers saw fit to selectively focus their attention on specific subjects.

Why the Achaemenid Empire to begin with, why not the Parthian Empire or the Sassanid Empire? were they not equally as important?

My humble view is that it is because of western history's unhealthy fixation with all things Alexander. This is of course debatable and requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but is overall not an ignorant comment, at least in my view (cryptic perhaps, but certainly not deserving of such insults on my person).

^ The Achaeminid Empire was the greatest Middle Eastern Empire until the various Arab Caliphates (and then the Ottoman Empire). It was part of a line of Empires, but it was the greatest. It lasted longer than Alexander's Empire and certainly did not have the problems the Seleucids had.

The game doesn't hold a civilization to one period of time.
Why does Germany have a Landschnekt UU when Bismarck is leader?
Obvious answer.

EDIT: More leaders is another solution.
I'll post the link when I find it...

The reason is they don't want to. They don't want to tie a Civ to a specific era since you have to play them for the whole game. Plus, inclusiveness isn't a bad thing. That way nobody can complain that the Holy Roman Empire isn't in the game, since it's represented by Germany. Nobody has batted an eye in previous games with Gandhi and War Elephants representing India.

There's a reason it's Cyrus the Conqueror, but Darius the Great. Cyrus took over a lot of land. Darius turned it into a great, powerful state. He was better in securing control over the empire, making it run better, creating an effective civil service. I think he created the Satrapies, but I'm probably wrong there. Meaning there's more to being an effective ruler than just conquering. Darius did all the other stuff (although he did finish conquests in Asia, taking the Empire to the Aegean).

Ah, alright, that does make sense. I think I phrased the original question a bit poorly; I was mostly just wondering why the DoM speech was all about Cyrus when he's not the guy we're playing as.

Cheers for all the responses :)

The reason is they don't want to. They don't want to tie a Civ to a specific era since you have to play them for the whole game. Plus, inclusiveness isn't a bad thing. That way nobody can complain that the Holy Roman Empire isn't in the game, since it's represented by Germany. Nobody has batted an eye in previous games with Gandhi and War Elephants representing India.

My point exactly.
And I hate that Gandhi is the leader for India.
He never even held political office, and gives the country a weak image.
Why not Akbar or Asoka?

That's a bit beside the point. How about France having the Musketeers, even though the leader only represents post-Revolution France. How about England having Longbows even though Elizabeth didn't (nor Ship of the Lines). They want to represent more than just a narrow time period.

That's a bit beside the point. How about France having the Musketeers, even though the leader only represents post-Revolution France. How about England having Longbows even though Elizabeth didn't (nor Ship of the Lines). They want to represent more than just a narrow time period.

No, I agree with you.
the civ should represent the country's entire history, not a small time period.

OK, I just wanted to make sure we didn't get bogged down with Gandhi. He probably wouldn't be my first choice, but Civ games aren't made in a vacuum and he's always been there.

No, I agree with you.
the civ should represent the country's entire history, not a small time period.

True, though IMHO it would be cool if each civ had multiple leaders each with their own UU, UA and UB. For example, Louis XIV of France would have musketeers and the ancien regime, while Charles de Gaulle would have the foreign legion and some unique power related to the Free French.

It really is neat that I can learn so much on these boards, since CivFanatics tend to be history buffs. I really don't know that much about Middle Eastern history.

True, though IMHO it would be cool if each civ had multiple leaders each with their own UU, UA and UB. For example, Louis XIV of France would have musketeers and the ancien regime, while Charles de Gaulle would have the foreign legion and some unique power related to the Free French.

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

It really is neat that I can learn so much on these boards, since CivFanatics tend to be history buffs. I really don't know that much about Middle Eastern history.

Meh, most of the time it's probably the result of a google search, quick readthrough of wikipedia...and then passed off as original knowledge...

While there's probably a history buff or two lurking on these forums, I doubt it's everyone who acts like they're one, I am as guilty of it as the next guy :lol:

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

Go play Europa. I'll meet you there!

True, though IMHO it would be cool if each civ had multiple leaders each with their own UU, UA and UB. For example, Louis XIV of France would have musketeers and the ancien regime, while Charles de Gaulle would have the foreign legion and some unique power related to the Free French.

Agreed, this would still represent the entire history of the civ, but you can play slightly differently with different leaders.

Meh, most of the time it's probably the result of a google search, quick readthrough of wikipedia...and then passed off as original knowledge...

While there's probably a history buff or two lurking on these forums, I doubt it's everyone who acts like they're one, I am as guilty of it as the next guy :lol:

Hey, it's your knowledge, whether you learned it off a wiki page or in a class for a history degree, or in HS. Your never required to cite wikipedia in an essay (as all encyclopedias are, by definition, "common knowledge"), so why should you have to in an online post?

for what it's worth, the historical facts I post are divided about equally between what I've learned (and am learning) for my history degree, and quick google searches, though I make sure any info I'm giving is backed up by some sort of legit cite, either a reference on wiki I can check, or a website sponsored by a big org.

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.

That would be impracticable for most civs - even European civs. After all, who would lead England in the ancient era? I suppose you could say Boudicca, but what if they add the Celts? Same with the Iroquois for a modern era. Even something like the Aztecs, where you could have leaders of Modern Mexico, would get really complicated if they add the Inca to the game.

for what it's worth, the historical facts I post are divided about equally between what I've learned (and am learning) for my history degree, and quick google searches, though I make sure any info I'm giving is backed up by some sort of legit cite, either a reference on wiki I can check, or a website sponsored by a big org.

lol, I'm about the same way. I have a history degree, so some of my knowledge is due to that. I also have general interest in many areas of history. But I've certainly supplemented by knowledge with internet sites if I need to discuss something history-related here.

That would be impracticable for most civs - even European civs. After all, who would lead England in the ancient era? I suppose you could say Boudicca, but what if they add the Celts? Same with the Iroquois for a modern era. Even something like the Aztecs, where you could have leaders of Modern Mexico, would get really complicated if they add the Inca to the game.


And I thought the Inca were already in the game (albeit as DLC).

The problems you talk about are a consequence of the game's spanning thousands of years and the decision to associate the game civs with real nations. This leads to the need to pretend that nations are permanent. In reality no nation has lasted 5,000 years or anything close. It's futile to try to discern which native tribe was the "real" Mexico in say 1400. It's equally fallacious to equate modern Germany, Prussia (one germanic state of many), the HRE (not a nation), and ancient Germania (a geographical region).

That's a bit beside the point. How about France having the Musketeers, even though the leader only represents post-Revolution France. How about England having Longbows even though Elizabeth didn't (nor Ship of the Lines). They want to represent more than just a narrow time period.

Yeah, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have known what to do with a B-17, for example.

And I thought the Inca were already in the game (albeit as DLC).

Sorry, I meant the Maya. At least the Inca can point to modern day Peru.

Who cares about whose leading the Persians...just be glad that they finally got the damn Immortal right! :cry:

Prussia ---> Germany)

this is true.


And my Persian friend is fine with Darius. Greatest persian king and all that stuff.

Why Ramkhamhaeng is the leader of Siam when Naresuan's Elephant was in 15th century while Ramkhamhaeng was in 13th.

King Naresuan is better fit for Siam more, we even make an epic film of him containing 4 epic episodes...

Also, the face of King Ramkhamhaeng really remind me of the bad exe.

Why Ramkhamhaeng is the leader of Siam when Naresuan's Elephant was in 15th century while Ramkhamhaeng was in 13th.

King Naresuan is better fit for Siam more, we even make an epic film of him containing 4 epic episodes...

Also, the face of King Ramkhamhaeng really remind me of the bad exe.

He reminds me of something I saw when I went down the wrong soi in the Patpong area. Ramkhamhaeng is probably a 19th century fabrication, anyway.

Ok, we can only speculate choices made in the game. I would like to see many things otherwise too.
I think Darius I is a good choise for the leader of Persians but why Gandhi is always headman of Indians, why not Asoka or Chandragupta II? Why is Wu Zetian and not Qin Shi Huang or Yongle (ok, she is a woman but still)? Why is Bismarck and not Wilhelm II or much less Hitler (perhaps many players see him more as a devil than a historic leader but still)? Why Alexander is always Greek and not Macedonian? Well, he led also Greece but kingdom was Macedonia.
I just say that I prefer see many things otherwise, but in this thread we can speculate...

Ok, we can only speculate choices made in the game. I would like to see many things otherwise too.
I think Darius I is a good choise for the leader of Persians but why Gandhi is always headman of Indians, why not Asoka or Chandragupta II? Why is Wu Zetian and not Qin Shi Huang or Yongle (ok, she is a woman but still)? Why is Bismarck and not Wilhelm II or much less Hitler (perhaps many players see him more as a devil than a historic leader but still)? Why Alexander is always Greek and not Macedonian? Well, he led also Greece but kingdom was Macedonia.
I just say that I prefer see many things otherwise, but in this thread we can speculate...

We all know those are the historically correct choices.
But it all depends on what the fans like.

Why is Bismarck and not Wilhelm II or much less Hitler (perhaps many players see him more as a devil than a historic leader but still)?

Not to rehash this topic, but, since you mentioned Wilhelm, it's a bit easier to illustrate. Think about where Germany was when both Wilhelm and Hitler's time in rule ended. Bismark unified Germany and left it in a place of relative stability.

Why Alexander is always Greek and not Macedonian? Well, he led also Greece but kingdom was Macedonia.

I used to make this same mistake. Macedonia had some ties to Thrace, but they were mostly a Greek culture speaking a Greek dialect. The reason the idea that they aren't Greek has been maintained is because of Southern Greek bias. Essentially, the argument was they aren't Greek because they didn't have a Poleis with some kind of collaborative rule. But that doesn't affect whether they were actually "Greek." Alexander was Macedonian, Perciles was Athenian, Leonidas was Spartan, and Demosthenes was Theban, Dyonesius was Syracusan. All were Greek.

What if a civ's UA, UU, and/or UB's changed based on era, along with their leader? so your if your France, you'd have Louis XIV during the... maybe early industrial (you'd have to pick a tech or something to make it change) with your ancien regime and musketeers, but then your de Gaulle with foreign legions and the power to surrender to everyone that declares war on you.

Obviously it wouldn't work very well for some civs (America b/c it's such a late civ, other native americans b/c they were destroyed) but it could be fun to do with the European/Asian civs.
That's a great idea!
But it has some difficulties for some countries as they don't have "ancient" or "medieval"
leaders.
PS:I want to get rid of that Gandhi!Please,another Indian leader,everyone but NOT Gandhi.He was NOT a leader.
Sure,he achieved the independence of India,but why always Gandh?He is in every Civilization game.
Why?I think Wu Zetian is a good choice for China,sure she was cruel,but she was a great woman.

My point exactly.
And I hate that Gandhi is the leader for India.
He never even held political office, and gives the country a weak image.
Why not Akbar or Asoka?

Well Gandhi deserves some props for basically giving India it's independence after thousands of years of foreign domination. Sort of a 'father of his nation' type thing. I think if you explore Gandhi's life and beliefs you would quickly change your view on seeing him as weak however, there's a strength in that little man that can defy several Montezuma sixpacks.

Well Gandhi deserves some props for basically giving India it's independence after thousands of years of foreign domination. Sort of a 'father of his nation' type thing. I think if you explore Gandhi's life and beliefs you would quickly change your view on seeing him as weak however, there's a strength in that little man that can defy several Montezuma sixpacks.

Yes, the fasting was brave and all.
But the stereotypical image of him is a pacifist one.
Nothing wrong with that, but we could use Asoka instead.

Anyway, I don't care if the leader of Persia is Darius or Cyrus.
They were both good, and none of the leaders were perfect.
Queen Isabella started the Spanish Inquisition, she was as bad as Hitler in a way.
That isn't what we are looking for, after all, it IS just a game. Although we do need a little historical accuracy.

I can't think of many historical figures with more courage and integrity than Gandhi. Gandhi could go up to some thug muscle heads threatening him and say go ahead and hit me, I am this weak scrawny little guy, I love you, if you want to hit me I will still love you, you can't take anything away from me, this body means nothing to me, by hitting me you are only providing me with a gift, the gift of practicing divine love for even those who wish to harm me. Such power there. Osho called him 'the most cunning politician to ever live'.

Ashoka was a very motivated Buddhist which might not play well with the predominantly Hindu majority of Indians.

I can't think of many historical figures with more courage and integrity than Gandhi. Gandhi could go up to some thug muscle heads threatening him and say go ahead and hit me, I am this weak scrawny little guy, I love you, if you want to hit me I will still love you, you can't take anything away from me, this body means nothing to me, by hitting me you are only providing me with a gift, the gift of practicing divine love for even those who wish to harm me. Such power there. Osho called him 'the most cunning politician to ever live'.

Ashoka was a very motivated Buddhist which might not play well with the predominantly Hindu majority of Indians.

In my opinion, most of the better Indian rulers were not Hindu.
How about Akbar?

In my opinion, most of the better Indian rulers were not Hindu.
How about Akbar?

How about the Earl of Lytton?

And I thought the Inca were already in the game (albeit as DLC).

The problems you talk about are a consequence of the game's spanning thousands of years and the decision to associate the game civs with real nations. This leads to the need to pretend that nations are permanent. In reality no nation has lasted 5,000 years or anything close. It's futile to try to discern which native tribe was the "real" Mexico in say 1400. It's equally fallacious to equate modern Germany, Prussia (one germanic state of many), the HRE (not a nation), and ancient Germania (a geographical region).

I think he meant Maya. The Inca were nowhere near Mexico, so wouldn't cause any trouble for the Aztecs.

You also, of course, having changing naming conventions to worry about - this is particularly complicated with Rome (at what point does the civ represented actually become Italy? 19th Century consolidation? It certainly ceased being 'Rome' centuries before that), but there are other cases such as Persia becoming Iran once it enters the modern era etc.

King Naresuan is better fit for Siam more, we even make an epic film of him containing 4 epic episodes...

No idea if it was one of those episodes, but when I was in Thailand I caught part of a historical movie which looked very well done (although I couldn't follow the dialogue).

Also, the face of King Ramkhamhaeng really remind me of the bad exe.

Thaksin? Yes, there's a resemblance - I believe it's deliberate.

Sure,he achieved the independence of India,but why always Gandh?He is in every Civilization game.

You just answered your own question. Same reason the Zulus were in four incarnations of Civilization without, in any meaningful sense, ever having been a civilization - because they always have been.

Phil

With the Rome/Italy divide, I think it's more fruitful to pick someone like Venice instead more or less for the reason mentioned (drawing lines). Plus, Venice as a state is better than Italy once united (although, culturally, the Italian City-States were quite good).

The thing to keep in mind either way is not every Civ can ever be in the game. So, if it's possible to have one Civ represent the entire history of a people, it's better to do that. I don't think India will ever be sub-divided, for example. Likewise, Germany is supposed to represent Germanic tribes, the Empire, Prussia, and modern Germany (maybe Austria too).

Wasn't Asoka in Civ IV? :confused:

He was, representing India. However, the Mughals have never been a separate Civ, for example in spite of their tremendous accomplishments.

Likewise, Frederich the Great was a leader of Germany, not Prussia. Alexander was a leader of Greece, not Macedonia, Pericles was also a leader of Greece, not Athens, Attica, or the Delian League. Civ4 had more leaders to represent different eras. Civ5 seems to limit it to more narrow things (different UUs, UAs, or UBs along with leaders). Civ5 doesn't have Asoka, but it does have War Elephants, for example.

I'm sure it's been covered before as this topic (Why isn't this leader represented?) has been brought up before but I think the CiV team simply choses leaders that most people/players will have heard of or that presided over the Civ in question during popular or great eras in the Civ's history.

I have an interest in history and read a lot about it, I've visited Egypt and stood in awe of the ancient monoliths and been able to actually touch graffiti left on walls from Roman times. But I don't know everything about each of the Civ's in these games.

Seeing Augustus leading the Romans is someone I've heard of and know a little about so I'm fine with it, if it were Julius I'd be just as happy.

My point is while you can squabble that one leader would be a better representation in your opinion in the end it really doesn't matter.

I'm sure it's been covered before as this topic (Why isn't this leader represented?) has been brought up before but I think the CiV team simply choses leaders that most people/players will have heard of or that presided over the Civ in question during popular or great eras in the Civ's history.

I have an interest in history and read a lot about it, I've visited Egypt and stood in awe of the ancient monoliths and been able to actually touch graffiti left on walls from Roman times. But I don't know everything about each of the Civ's in these games.

Seeing Augustus leading the Romans is someone I've heard of and know a little about so I'm fine with it, if it were Julius I'd be just as happy.

My point is while you can squabble that one leader would be a better representation in your opinion in the end it really doesn't matter.

I'd query whether Askia is a major figure in the popular consciousness of Civ players. That's why the earlier games went with Shaka and his Zulus rather than one of the genuine African civilizations such as Mali, Songhai, or the Swahili or Merina Kingdoms - granted the Zulus were essentially a warband which as a 'nation' lasted for the lifetime of a single ruler, had no structured government and, in the absence of major permanent settlements, their Civ city names were mostly derived from battlefields - but the general Civ-going public have heard of both the Zulus and Shaka, despite the fact that they'd have been more accurately represented in the game as a named tribal village or barbarian encampment (since Civ III and IV took to naming those).

I'd query whether Askia is a major figure in the popular consciousness of Civ players.

I'll admit before CiV came out I had never heard of Askia or the Songhai, since reading the writeup in the Civolopedia I've taken a small interest and read up more about him and his people. While I'm sure I don't know the whole history it did make me question the use of the backdrop in the game for him. From what I read he was actually more of a foreward thinking leader than just a warmonger which his backdrop kind of hints to.

I'll admit before CiV came out I had never heard of Askia or the Songhai, since reading the writeup in the Civolopedia I've taken a small interest and read up more about him and his people. While I'm sure I don't know the whole history it did make me question the use of the backdrop in the game for him. From what I read he was actually more of a foreward thinking leader than just a warmonger which his backdrop kind of hints to.

I'd agree - I think he should have some kind of trade-related UA.

Yes, the fasting was brave and all.
But the stereotypical image of him is a pacifist one.
Nothing wrong with that, but we could use Asoka instead.

Anyway, I don't care if the leader of Persia is Darius or Cyrus.
They were both good, and none of the leaders were perfect.
Queen Isabella started the Spanish Inquisition, she was as bad as Hitler in a way.
That isn't what we are looking for, after all, it IS just a game. Although we do need a little historical accuracy.

In what way? The Inquisitions were around long before Issie set the precedent of an Inquistion under secular, royal command. It was far from a nice institution, but it was no Holocaust, even after the Protestant Reformation caused a knee-jerk reaction against humanist philosophies, and it did do a lot of good in repressing witch hunts, which you tend to see more of in the Germanies. Issie herself wasn't that nice either, with things like the Alhambra Decree, expulsion of the moriscos, and such-like, but she was hardly a Hitler.

In my opinion, most of the better Indian rulers were not Hindu.
How about Akbar?

Well, if we want a Hindu ruler, Chandragupta II might be a decent pick. Plus, the idea of a warlike India would be absolutely hilarious to players used to good ol' Gandhi.

What annoys me most about the choice of Gandhi as a leader is the background text it gives him, where it refers to him as "president". He was never the actual leader of India, and didn't even spend much time as leader of the Indian National Congress. That was Jawaharlal Nehru, though granted, he's a much lesser known leader, and basically Gandhi's puppet during a good bit of the nationalist movement.

Personally, however, I think that the Indian civilization should be replaced with the Mughal, under the leadership of either Babur, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, or Akbar. My personal preference is for shah Jahan... from what I've learned in class, he seems to be the most well rounded of the great Mughal emperors. Both of India's unique units are Mughal in origin (while elephants were used both before and after, the Mughal's really took it to it's height, introducing armor for the elephants), and their ability could fit for any of the empires really.

Manmohan Singh should just have been made Leader of India, it would make news gaming and non, and would make sense. Look at all the things he has done. So far.

Personally, however, I think that the Indian civilization should be replaced with the Mughal, under the leadership of either Babur, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, or Akbar. My personal preference is for shah Jahan... from what I've learned in class, he seems to be the most well rounded of the great Mughal emperors. Both of India's unique units are Mughal in origin (while elephants were used both before and after, the Mughal's really took it to it's height, introducing armor for the elephants), and their ability could fit for any of the empires really.

Mughal civilization instead of Indian? Seriously? Mughals were an important, but ultimately, only one portion of the long-lasting Indian civilization. Indian history does not begin and end with the Mauryas, Mughals and Gandhi. There have been many other great kingdoms and kings; they just didn't rule over as much of India as Ashoka or Akbar did.

Also, why would you prefer Shah Jahan over Akbar? Shah Jahan isn't comparable to Akbar in stature.

Mughal civilization instead of Indian? Seriously? Mughals were an important, but ultimately, only one portion of the long-lasting Indian civilization. Indian history does not begin and end with the Mauryas, Mughals and Gandhi. There have been many other great kingdoms and kings; they just didn't rule over as much of India as Ashoka or Akbar did.

Also, why would you prefer Shah Jahan over Akbar? Shah Jahan isn't comparable to Akbar in stature.

Why should it be the Mughals in all civ games:
For the same reason that it's Rome, and not Italy.
The Mughals are the best known, and one of the largest and most influential of Indians various nations. While the Maurya and Gupta could also make a run for the position, outside of India,how many people could tell you where those civilizations were, or even that they were Indian? Then find out how many of them can name a leader (besides Ashoka) of either of those two civs. Rather than using the name that we know the area as now, they should use the name of the actual great civilizations that have sprung up there. India, like Italy, spent the vast majority of history being only a geographical term for a spit of land, not the name of a nation.
Modern India is even worse. It's major accomplishments include: tying in war against a country several times smaller than it; and creating a spin-off of Hollywood.

Why shoud it be the Mughals in Civ5 specifically?
because both the Mughal Fort, and the Mughal Elephant are the unique units. Why not just go ahead and make the civilization the same one you took it's UU and UB from?

Why Shah Jehan?
I like him better personally. He's got a cool name. I personally don't care which Mughal Emperor was used, as long as they were to finally stop putting someone who NEVER LED INDIA in charge of India. Personally, given the strong advantage given to warfare in Civ5, it should probably be Aurangzeb that leads. If they went with the biggest and best leaders, Hadrian would probably lead Rome (he died shortly before what is thought of as the "high point" of the Roman Empire, in AD 150, and is much better known than Antoninus Pius, who was the actual emperor at that point)

TL;DR: I could care less if it was a Mauryan, Guptan, or Mughal civilization in Civ, as long as they stop pretending that the nation of "India" is or has ever been, anything more than a regional power, and as long as they stop claiming that Gandhi was a president of India. I choose the Mughals as my choice based on the UU and UB in Civ5, and my choice of leader for the Mughals was a simple matter of thinking Shah Jahan was the coolest of the emperors.

Why should it be the Mughals in all civ games:
For the same reason that it's Rome, and not Italy.
The Mughals are the best known, and one of the largest and most influential of Indians various nations. While the Maurya and Gupta could also make a run for the position, outside of India,how many people could tell you where those civilizations were, or even that they were Indian?


There is some value in something called education, you know.


Then find out how many of them can name a leader (besides Ashoka) of either of those two civs. Rather than using the name that we know the area as now, they should use the name of the actual great civilizations that have sprung up there. India, like Italy, spent the vast majority of history being only a geographical term for a spit of land, not the name of a nation.


Yes, but if crowd appeal is what you want then you have to appease the Hindutva. The Mughal empire would just annoy them.


Modern India is even worse. It's major accomplishments include: tying in war against a country several times smaller than it; and creating a spin-off of Hollywood.

Well that's ahead of the USA on both counts. The USA lost a war to a nation much smaller than itself and created the original Hollywood.

There is some value in something called education, you know.


Yes I do. Now tell me, how many people are going to be studying the history of India? Not a whole lot of marketable skill in being able to tell people who the Mauryans or Guptans were. I'm a history major, and I've only had one class on it, and that was only looking at the history of British India.

While I'm sure that in India, plenty of people know who all those are. However, in the rest of the world, I doubt it. It'd be like if I wanted to base a game on the Congaree. In SC, you might know that they were a small tribe of Native Americans. Good look knowing it anywhere else without a google search (and I'm calling BS if you claim to have heard of them)


Yes, but if crowd appeal is what you want then you have to appease the Hindutva. The Mughal empire would just annoy them.


If you want a civ representing India, then put Nehru in charge, and find something from modern India to be its UU and UB. Quit stealing from a civilization they've never given credit too. OR, you can admit that the Mughal Fort, and Mughal Elephants, belong (strangely) in the MUGHAL empire!


Well that's ahead of the USA on both counts. The USA lost a war to a nation much smaller than itself and created the original Hollywood.

Are you seriously trying to say the US has never been a world power? maybe your forgetting that the US has won more wars than India has BEEN IN (I believe they've fought 4 wars with Pakistan, and a border war with China Revolution none of which had a true "victor", and their revolution, which was supposed to be non-violent) The US wins, by the way, include: The Revolution War, The Barbary Wars, The Mexican-American War, The Spanish American War, The Philippine-American War, WWI, WWII, The Korean War, and Desert Storm. Or are you forgetting that until recently we had the largest economy on the planet, and are still sitting in second place? Or how about the fact that we're probably right behind France in our contributions to world culture? Or how we can build anything bigger and better than anywhere else (save China, but the difference there is that the one built in the US is safe).

You need to just go somewhere, cry that your country isn't as good as the US, get yourself back together, and come back when you know what the hell your talking about.

Why should it be the Mughals in all civ games:
For the same reason that it's Rome, and not Italy.

On the other hand, India without the Mughals accomplished more than Italy, imo.

On the other hand, India without the Mughals accomplished more than Italy, imo.

Yes, but when all of your unique abilities perfectly fit one specific empire, you should use it. The Mughal fort and Elephant, as has been explain, are obviously Mughal. The UA also fits incredibly, since the Mughal Empire, at it's hight, had almost 30% of the worlds pop in it's borders. While yes, the Maurya had a slightly larger percentage, the fact that they've also taken both their units from the same empire really says something about the importance that the creators put on that part of it's history. There were other major parts of Italian history too. The Papal States, for instance, were a major power, especially during the Middle Ages. Hell, the city-states of Genoa, Venice, Milan, Pisa, Almafi, etc, were as powerful during the Renaissance as some of the true nations of Europe. However, the unique units are the ballista and legion, not the Swiss pikeman, or condottieri, and so the civ is called Rome. India should either represent all of india, and therefor get some of it's units and whatnot from other eras (like France, England, Germany, and even the US do), or pick one specific empire and try to be as accurate as possible.

Well, for Elephants, I think of King Porus that Alexander fought against, which is pre-Mughals. The UA is almost certainly supposed to be modern India.

Feel free to continue the discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=433030) or, where appropriate, in the History forum. :)