Choices of Civ leaders

[Belcarius]

The choice of which leaders will represent each Civ is an interesting one. I'm sure I'll enjoy whatever combinations Firaxis pick to put in, but here's some ideas for what leaders should be put in charge this time around.

For the record, I think the best way to go about it is to aim for three things: 1. To have a reasonable distribution of males and females (where possible one in each Civ). 2. To have both ancient leaders and more contemporary leaders where suitable (obviously not for Aztecs etc). 3. To put in reasonably well-documented people.

America - Washington is a good one, what about Eisenhower as the other? He has the added credit of being a general as well as president (for the record Roosevelt is also a good choice)
Arabs - Saladin is already in there, not sure how many others could claim to be leaders of the 'arabs'
Aztecs - my aztec history isn't that good
China - It'd be nicer if they were to find a contemporary replacement for Mao, given he is a bit of a nasty bloke who some people (in China) prefer to forge
Egypt - Thank god someone realised Cleopatra is not the most important Egyptian Pharoah. The other option should be someone special; Ramesses II and Amenhotep III are both rulers from fairly propserous times
England - Rather than have two females, why not replace one of them with Winston Churchill (voted the greatest Britain)
France - Good to see the return of Napolean. But as his counterpart: Loius the XIV? Frankly I don't mind seeing Joan 'too much nuclear testing' D'Arc gone but there are some others who have made fair contribution (Charlemagne, Du Gaulle)
Germany - Keep Bismarck, being as he is responsible for the unification of Germany. Also perhaps add the Holy Roman leader Fredrick Barbarossa
Greece - You know, I'm sure Macedonian does not equal Greek. But whatever, I guess Alexander just has to be in there. To go with him they should have Themistocles who was a really important figure in Athenian history
Inca - Once again I have no real knowledge of Incan history
India - Ghandi should remain as long as they get his speech right this time! No more 'my bad's!
Japan - Tokogawa is commonly chosen but he actually finished the work begun by Nobunaga and Hideyoshi, so either of them could be suitable. Asa modern leader Hirohito comes to mind but I don't know if people would have issues with him or not...
Mali - Not even sure who these guys were...
Mongolia - Hmmm history really doesn't focus on anyone other than the Khans does it?
Persia - As well as Cyrus, I'd like to see Darius rather than his twit of a son Xerxes
Rome - As always Caeser is in there. Maybe they should also have Agrippana, who was the sister, wife/niece and mother of three consecutive Roman Emperors and was very powerful
Russia - As well as keeping Catherine the Great, a nice contemporary addition would be Mikhail Gorbachev
Spain - I can't see what's wrong with having General Franco, but I'm sure someone will provide some evidence as to why he's too controversial to go in.

Add your own suggestions if you want.

 

[brennan]

I can hardly agree with your 'equal male and female' suggestion. I think that you will find the overwhelming majority of leaders of all countries, throughout history, have been male.

China - why oh why do we keep having to put up with that sour-puss Mao, lets have someone historical instead of a 20th Century communist.

India - I'm fed up of being attacked by one of historys greatest peaceniks. Lets have someone else, pretty please.

England - Elizabeth I and Churchill, no argument.

France - Was Joan d'Arc ever Dauphin? Don't think so. But damn she's cute Charlemagne is a good thought. Napoleon definitely.

Egypt - I've said it before, Rameses II.

Russia - Peter the Great, or Ivan the Terrible.

On various other Civs, I generally prefer more historical figures, Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire for Germany ok, but Franco for Spain?! Eugh. Phillip II would be more like it (Spain had an Empire then for starters...) To have more than 1 Leader a Civ really should have distinct eras, such as Elizabeth and Churchill for the English. Having both Cyrus and Darius for Persia seems a little too close to make sense.

 

[Ded Moroz]

Gorbachev for Russia? No!!! How can a leader who invoked the empire to fall apart be called a great leader (regardless of any political or ideological judgements)?
Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great.
I personally would prefer to see there Ryurik or Svyatoslav, but they sure loose from market attractiveness point.

 

[Che Guava]

My 2 cents:

America - I would vote for Lincoln and FDR. I think Washington gets a lot of credit for bing the first, but others may be more deserving...

Aztecs - Moctezuma is a must. Iztcoatl probably also deserves a spot: he formed several important alliances and led an offensive that carved out what would become the Aztec empire...

China - I don't think anyone in china is going to be forgetting Mao anytime soon, but I do agree that China has been blessed with thousands of years of history with many great and interesting leaders that might make better candidates than he (not that I know too may of them..!)

England - Tough call on England: Churchill and Elizabeth I would certainly get no complaints from me, but I do have to admit that Henry VIII certainly left an impression by creating the Church of England ("I'm the ****ing pope now!")

France - I like Napolean, of course, and it's tough to argue with the Sun King. I always thought Jeanne D'Arc was a poor choice, and although I like Charlemange, I hear that Germany claims him as a founder as well...correct me if I'm wrong...

Germany - Bismarck for sure. I would have though Frederick would have made a good second, but again, my German history is sketchy at best....

Greece - Alexander, ok. how about Pericles? Besides biuilding the parthenon and acropolis, he created the world's first (somehwat) democratic society!

Inca - I read somewhere that all Incan emperors were given the same name (Cusco), so I guess that name is as good as any..!

India -Like China, I think India has enough great leaders of the past (that I'm not familiar with) to pick more than a few great leaders. I still think Ghandi should be in, his mark on modern india is kind of hard to ignore...

Japan - I don't know what exactly Hirohito did besides creating an empire that lasted less than a decade. Besides, from what I know he was more of a ceremonial leader who left conquests to his generals. I'm sure a country with a history as rich as Japan's has more to offer...

Mali - Birmindana is my vote here, because he was the first king of Mali to convert to Islam, an act that had profound effects on the empire..other than that, I have no idea....

Mongolia - Ghengis and Kublai..no diggity, no doubt...

Persia - Xerxes, heh heh, wasn't he the one that ordered that the sea be given 40 lashes after he fleet was defeated trying to invade greece? Darius and Cyrus for sure!

Russia - Mikhail Gorbachev? I would cast my vote for Peter the Great, or possibly Lenin...

Spain - I'm not sure exactly who I would pick for Spain, but Franco just seems to irrelevant to Spanish history as a whole...correct me if I'm wrong, pease!

 

[Truronian]

England: I think Elizabeth and Victoria are good choices (Churchill was no good in peace)

India: What about Indira Gandhi. Would be a change

Russia: Peter

Egypt: I think Hashtetmnut (sp.) is a good choice

Japan: Nobunaga

Germany: Barbarossa

Greece: (I know he's not techniquly Greek) Aggemennon

China: Liu Shang? too many to choose

Spain: El Cid (I know this is horrifically innaccurate)

 

[Urederra]

For Spain I would choose Isabella, like in Civ III, or better Isabella and Ferdinand (The couple as a leader, sounds cool, doesn`t it?), Phillip the second (Born in Valladolid (Spain)). or Alfonso X the wise, just to have different traits, although Alfonso was king of Castille, not king of Spain.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

Belcarius and Trurorian be a bit careful with Greece (i.e Aggamemnon was not techically a Greek, and Alexander was Macedon), or you will be upsetting many people.

Aggamemnon was from Myceane, Pericles from Athens, and Alexander from Macedon. This does not mean in any way that they were not Greek. All three were Greek, saw themselves as Greek, and all three cultures were Greek. Remember the Greek city-states lesson at school? There was no single state, but in terms of language, religion, science, arts, medidicine (you name it), they were all Greek and although fought with one another would unite against the common enemy (namely the Persians).

 

[Superkrest]

Gorbachev for Russia? No!!! How can a leader who invoked the empire to fall apart be called a great leader (regardless of any political or ideological judgements)?
Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great.
I personally would prefer to see there Ryurik or Svyatoslav, but they sure loose from market attractiveness point.

my main man gorby didnt cause the collapse..it was already set in motion by decades of inefficiency...but i think hes to fresh in the sceane to be a civ leader ...i personaly miss stalin but he was a bugger...so id have to agree with ivan(just as bad though) or peter the great. i just really dont like catherine for some reason

 

[ForbiddenPalace]

Chairman Mao's leadership skill is undisputed in China history. Even though he does not always lead China to the good direction, but when he is in power, everyone just follows with no doubt, none whatsoever. The obediance and loyality he gets out from Chinese people is absolute and he is an unparallel leader in China history in this respect. Today, his portrait is still hang in front of the forbidden palace, and the influence (both good or bad) he has on Chinese people are unparallel in Chinese history.

 

[doronron]

Spain: El Cid (I know this is horrifically innaccurate)

This brings up a horrific little image of a three day old corpse being dragged from place to place and tossed around ala "Weekend at Bernies".

...I'm alive! See? Watch my lips move. Don't mind the weird little guy holding my head up.

 

[Che Guava]

Chairman Mao's leadership skill is undisputed in China history.

That's a pretty bold statement, given the long history of china and the many dynasties before him. I will give you that Mao did manage to unify the Chinese mainland, which is no small feat, and turn chinese society upside down, but I would hardly think that his role is unparalled

Even though he does not always lead China to the good direction, but when he is in power, everyone just follows with no doubt, none whatsoever. The obediance and loyality he gets out from Chinese people is absolute and he is an unparallel leader in China history in this respect

When he is in power? Is he still lurking around Beijing somewhere? I have to take issue with the "obediance and loyality" statement: his rise to power came during a bloody civil war when China was quite divided, and I'm sure those sentiments didn't change too much when he did come out the victor. There were countless chinese that didn't agree with his policies, and most of them ended up executed during some of the most brutal purges in modern history. It's pretty hard not to agree with a leader with the muzzle of a rifle poking you in the back of the head...

Today, his portrait is still hang in front of the forbidden palace, and the influence (both good or bad) he has on Chinese people are unparallel in Chinese history

Yes, his portrait is still hung all across China, but I think that has more to do with totalitarian hero-worship than anything real. The fact is, China has abondonned virtually all of Mao's policies since his death. The revolutionary, agrarian Maoism is gone, and Red Capitalism is what China is about today. Chinese leaders still sing high praises about Chairman Mao (much like Stalin praised Lenin after his death), but none of them are reading the little red book to solve thier country's problems.

Don't get me wrong, Mao is an incredibly important figure in modern chinese history, but in light of the long history of the chinese people, I think there are at very least some very strong contenders for greatest Chinese leader..

 

[ForbiddenPalace]

Leadership SKILL is the word, not role. When he is in power, that is between the 50's and 70's. Before that, communist does not control China, so he is not in power. There are indeed many people who has disagreed with his policies and are politically excuted. But compared to the number of people who actually follow him, it is safe to say EVERYONE follows him. I agree with your final assessment except that Mao's portrait is still hang as a symbol of the communist, not hero-worship.

 

[Xen]

a few notes

1)Agamemnon wasnt Greek; the etymology of his name isnt Greek, and for that matter the concept of "Greek" didnt exist yet; if real (which is questionable, but likelly) he woudl have though of himself as an Achean; the Acheans woudl become one of several peoples that woudl comprise the Greeks later on- but at the time, Greece was very highlly devided between peoples, and were not copnsidered one in the same at all; the classic example would be the Dorians, who would go on to found Sparta proper (its a fallacy that sparta existed at the time of the Trojan war, the country it was located in however, lakedamon, had already recieved its name, and this resulted in cofusion amoungst scholars) were not considered Achean at all (which of course, they werent)

2)most civlization have no suitabel female ruler; unfortunate, but to try to portray civlizations according to modern "sensibilities" is to mock most of them; for better or for worse, amny societies, unfortunatelly, had the opinion that women could not rule; to try to cover that up is absurd.

3)Barbarossa sucks, overrated in the extream as far as german kings go (but then considerign the slim picking Germany actually has for any sort of "good" leader...)

 

[Belcarius]

As I recall, Barbarossa extended the borders of the Holy Roman Empire more than any other leader. Why is he not a good choice?

As it's been pointed out having too many female rulers might give the wrong impression about women in history. Perhaps then England shouldn't have two female leaders. Still don't see what's wrong with Churchill, as he really is an iconic leader. The fact that he lost an election right after the war ended was just a reflection of a typical shift in favour when a population ends a war.

 

[wooga]

I think the goal should be to avoid any civ having two militaristic leaders. Each civ should have a fair shot at a non-violent victory (and Ghandi has to be fixed, he's way too big of a jerk in civ3, not to mention civ2). I think this could be done for all the civs except the Mongols, who should stick with Genghis and Kublai.

No more Lincoln for America, unless we get civil wars. Washington and FDR are my picks (even though I personally dislike FDR).

Arabs.... why Alec Guiness of course!

 

[Xen]

As I recall, Barbarossa extended the borders of the Holy Roman Empire more than any other leader. Why is he not a good choice?

well, I think of 5 fair reasons right now.

1)extended the borders of the HRE? well, you must remember, that counts for almost nothing, considering he was never successful in attempting to reign in the sheer indipenent mindedness of the nobility in the HRE

2)Had his arse handed to him on a platter multiple times by rebellious Itallian states, forever ending HRE power in Italy in anythign but name (of course, it handnt been much more then that before hand, but now thw HRE was truelly a lame mule in italy)

3)was ex-communicated once, and died shortlly after making peace with the Papacy and tring to launch a crusade which ended in the near total ahnilation of the german army, save a tiny contingent of 5,000 men

4)the aforementioned crusade had the ill-affect of stirring Islamic forces up so much, that the crusade rposition was worse off after he launched his crusade then if he handt launched it at all

5)weakend the HRE before hand by sponsoring what was, in effect, a miniature civil war over a bit of lost pride over Henry II Jasomirgott not supporting one of the latter Italian campiagns that was doomed to failerure before the start, and knockin goff one fo the brighter starts in the HRE, and otherwise embittered the British royalty (of whome Henry claimed connection of step-son to) agianst Frederick

 

[Trajan13]

America - Washington and FDR
Arabs - Saladin and Abu Bakr
Aztecs - Monteczuma and Itzcoatl
China - Qin Shui Huang Di and Mao
Egypt - Hatspetsut and Ramses the Great
England - Elizabeth and Vikki
France - Le Roi Soleil and Napoleon
Germany - Otto the Great(the First) and Bismark
Inca - Pachacuti and ?
India - Ashoka and Gandhi
Japan - Tokugawa and Meiji
Mali - Birmindana and Mansu Musa
Mongolia - Temujin and Kublai Khan
Persia - Cyrus and Darius
Rome - Caesar and Trajan or Marcus Aurelius
Russia - Peter/Catherine and Lenin
Spain - Isabella and Phillip II

 

[Che Guava]

...But compared to the number of people who actually follow him, it is safe to say EVERYONE follows him...

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Yes, by sheer numbers, he ruled more people than most other contemporary leaders, but what does that have to do with anything? He used charisma to get to the top spot, which I guess is something, but once there he ruled with an iron fist and a bloody sword. People followed him like they followed Stalin, Idi Amin, or Pol Pot. That isn't skill, just plain barbaric tyranny. And since communism is dead in all but name in China nowadays, I would say that his popularity is hero-worship.

 

[Marla_Singer]

England - Elizabeth and Vikki

Well, I must say that Churchill wouldn't be a bad choice for England either. Obviously however, it's been already fixed.

France - Le Roi Soleil and Napoleon

Well, I'll sound like a 20th century freak... but I must say I would like De Gaulle to represent France. I'm simply more comfortable with democratic leaders representing France (a bit like Churchill and Britain).

Spain - Isabella and Phillip II

What about Charles V ? After all he ruled on nearly all Europe !

 

[Belcarius]

And since communism is dead in all but name in China nowadays, I would say that his popularity is hero-worship.

China just banned all PvP games to minors... communism dead you say?