How do you feel about your country's leader?

[Morningcalm]

It's hard to explain, to be honest. Short answer, it feels wrong. Yes, because of her marriage with Jagiello there was union with Lithuania. She was also very pious and generous, she founded Jaggielonnian University (not sure of its name in English).

But she was also very young. Also... tbh, it's not like she had any power in country. Unless some historian can correct me.

And I feel like there are simply better choices, like mentioned Jagiello, Jan III Sobieski, damn, even Józef Piłsudski, even if he would be controversial as well.

Ah, I see. Wikipedia notes she was mostly involved in Polish cultural and political life, but she did the following as well:

In 1387, she led two successful military expeditions to Red Ruthenia, recovered lands her father Louis I of Hungary had transferred from Poland to Hungary, and secured the homage of Petru I, Voivode of Moldavia. In 1390, she also personally opened negotiations with the Teutonic Order. Most political responsibilities, however, fell to Jagiello, with Jadwiga attending to the cultural and charitable activities for which she is still revered.

 

[SMcM]

I'm very excited we're getting Poland early, but I'm not very happy with Jadwiga.

Her greatest accomplishment, the union of Poland and Lithuania... wasn't really hers, as she was 12 and nobles did all the ruling. After the marriage with much older Jogalia she proceeded to being a great saint/first lady, while her husband was the actual leader.

And there were so many great choices!
Jan III Sobieski, Stefan Batory, Bolesław I Chrobry, Józef Piłsudski, even Jadwiga's husband Władysław II Jagiełło...

If it's true that Jadwiga will be Polish leader, then I'm more that disappointed...

Wysłane z mojego Lenovo TAB 2 A7-30D przy użyciu Tapatalka

Well, the write up on Jadwiga on wikipedia is extremely positive:

Two leading historians, Oscar Halecki and S. Harrison Thomson, agreed that Jadwiga was one of the greatest rulers of Poland, comparable to Bolesław the Brave and Casimir the Great.[155] Her marriage to Władysław-Jogaila enabled the union of Poland and Lithuania, establishing a large state in East Central Europe.[155] Jadwiga's decision to marry the elderly Władysław-Jogaila instead of her beloved fiancé, William of Habsburg has often been described as a sacrifice for her country in Polish historiography.[10] Her biographers emphasize Jadwiga's efforts to preserve the peace with the Teutonic Order, which enabled Poland to make preparations for a decisive war against the Knights.[156] Jadwiga's childless death weakened Władysław-Jogaila's position, because his claim to Poland was based on their marriage.[157] Six days after her funeral, Władysław-Jogaila left Poland for Ruthenia, stating that he was to return to Lithuania after his wife's death.[151] The Polish lords sent their envoys to Lviv to open negotiations with him.[151] The delegates took new oaths of loyalty to him, confirming his position as king.[151] On the lords' demand, he agreed to marry Anna of Cilli.[151] Their wedding was celebrated on 29 January 1402.[158]

Jadwiga's cultural and charitable activities were of exceptional value.[156] She established new hospitals, schools and churches, and restored older ones.[156] Jadwiga promoted the use of vernacular in church services, especially the singing of hymns in Polish.[156] The Scriptures were translated into Polish on her order.[156]

Casimir the Great had already in 1364 established the University of Kraków, but it did not survive his death.[159] Władysław-Jogaila and Jadwiga jointly asked Pope Boniface IX to sanction the establishment of a faculty of theology in Kraków.[160] The pope granted their request on 11 January 1397.[161][162] Jadwiga bought houses along a central street of Kraków for the university.[162] However, the faculty was only set up a year after Jadwiga's death: Władysław-Jogaila issued the charter for the reestablished university on 26 July 1400.[159][161][162] In accordance with Jadwiga's last will, the restoration of the university was partially financed through the sale of her jewelry.[160]

Why is this written up so positively if she in fact did very little? Is opinion divided on her, or is this Wikipedia written with a large degree of bias?

Anyway, from Wikipedia browsing, my top choice is Stephen Bathory; if Hojo Tokimune gets included for Japan because he beat the mongols, then this guy should get props for beating Ivan the terrible. Also, he clearly ruled Poland at a time when it was a very large and powerful state.

 

[AntoineS]

4 years of reign for a nation with 1200+ years of history. No Great war, No Wonder, No decisive political agenda, nothing...
I'm sorry for Women but we didn't have any great woman leader like Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine. History isn't fair and our greatest leaders are all men.

Louis XIV, Saint Louis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Jules Mazarin, even Francois I would have been a better choice.

I like most of the choices for revealed civs thus far (Teddy Roosevelt, Victoria, Qin Shi Huang, Hojo... Cleopatra more or less but as a "big personality" it´s alright) and I am excited for gameplay possibilities.

I even changed my mind on the art style, that I found scary cartoonish at first but that I start to like now. However, as far as leader choice is concerned, there is one thing I won´t change my mind on: Catherine de Medicis would be a major disppointment, have to agree with Gokudo01... I hope at least that France won´t be as bad in 6 as it was in 5...

 

[eMeM]

Hm. So why are Polish players so disappointed with Jadwiga? Was it because of the perception she didn't accomplish much? Isn't she a figure of national renown in Poland? O_o

No, we respect her sacrifice for the country and she was undoubtely a remarkable person (she's a saint, literally), her young death was a nation wide tragedy.

The problem is that this sacrifice - marriage with much older Jogalia meant that she basically gave up any real power - and it was after two years of her rule... when she was 12.
Technically she and her husband were equal, as Poland became diarchy for a bit - but it didn't work that way, she was an advisor and a first lady for the real ruler, Władysław II Jagiełło.

Keep in mind that in 1387 she was 13 years old.

EDIT

Why is this written up so positively if she in fact did very little? Is opinion divided on her, or is this Wikipedia written with a large degree of bias?

No idea. But note that the main point of this paragraph was the union of Poland and Lithuania - it was indeed a turning point in our history, but was it really her accomplishment? She was a child, it was the nobility doing all the planning, negotiations etc. According to XV century chronicler Jan Długosz, when she learned that she won't marry Wilhelm Habsburg she tried to hack trough the door with a hatchet, although that might be him colouring things up a bit.

I think the grand duke of lithuania, Jogalia (later Władysław II Jagiełło) was much more involved in shaping this union, he was also the peron actually ruling after marrying Jadwiga, I think most of Jadwiga's achievements could be also credited to him, as they shared the throne, and he outlived her byover three decades, after her death beating the Teutonic Order in the largest battle of the medieval era and starting the Jagiellonian dynasty ruling Poland for the next 200 years, among other things.

 

[AntoineS]

If Catherine de Medicis is confirmed, then I'm unhappy.
It's putting a woman there because of her sex, and he wouldn't show in the 10 or 20 most influential politicians/rulers of France (I think all of the following would be more appropriate because at least they left a mark on the country:
Clovis Pepin-le-bref Charles-Martel Charlemagne Hugues-Capet Philippe-Auguste Louis-IX Louis-XI François-I Henri-IV Louis-XIII Louis-XIV Louis-XVI Robespierre Napoleon Napoleon-III Clemenceau Petain de-Gaulle Mitterand Mazarin Richelieu).
The only thing she's associated with in popular culture/memory is the slaughter of the St Barthelemy, which she was unable to prevent. She was a woman of influence, but not enough influence that she actually had any effect on the country.
So, definitely, she should not be ruler of France in civ.

I totally disagree with Robespierre and Clemenceau, and even stronger with Mitterand and Petain.

I agree with everything else however, she was a women of influence and is no obscure leader by any stretch of the imagination, but her place in history stops there.

She should not be in the game when you have at least 10 other leaders that should go before her, because they actually ruled, have accomplished much more, and have gigantic personalities as well.

If you want a Catherine de Medicis type leader in terms of gameplay possibilities and era represented, go for Henri-IV, as that, is a great choice

 

[Zaarin]

I totally disagree with Robespierre, and even stronger with Mitterand. I agree with evrything else however, she was a women a influence, but should not be in the game when you have at least 10 other leaders that actually ruled, have accomplished much more, and have gigantic personalities as well, and that all should go before her

Agreed. I'd understand choosing her if she were a fascinating person and the alternatives all had the personality of a rock. But France has so many rulers with huge personalities that there's absolutely no justification for resorting to Catherine De Medicis, especially since there are other civs with more interesting and more significant female rulers.

 

[SMcM]

I think the grand duke of lithuania, Jogalia (later Władysław II Jagiełło) was much more involved in shaping this union, he was also the peron actually ruling after marrying Jadwiga, I think most of Jadwiga's achievements could be also credited to him, as they shared the throne, and he outlived her by over three decades, after her death beating the Teutonic Order in the largest battle of the medieval era and starting the Jagiellonian dynasty ruling Poland for the next 200 years, among other things.

Your argument is pretty persuasive. Sounds like she is a great person, but not a sensible choice for a leader. So, who would you top choice for a Polish leader be?

 

[m15a]

I'm very happy with Theodore Roosevelt as the American leader. I think he was actually a good representation of US history (as much as one person could represent everything that makes up a civilization's history) and is a good representation of some American ideals, but I don't think those factors are required to make the leader a good choice - no one person can completely reflect the "essence" of a civilization and the definition of what that essence is (or whether it's even valid to say a civilization has an essence) is a matter of perspective. But what makes TR a good leader is that he had a strong political agenda (small "a"), which affected domestic and international policy. Making internal decisions (government, research, etc.) and external decisions (diplomacy, war) is what a player deals with, so I think a civ leader should also reflect some agenda/personality that will influence what the AI does.

 

[Socrates99]

Awesome! I'm American though so it's pretty easy to be happy with Teddy.

Wish I could weigh in on my European ancestral homeland but I'm a mutt. My great grandpa said my family came from Tennessee...

 

[AntoineS]

To broaden the Catherine de Medicis theme, I´d like to point out that from the posts I´ve read recently, and correct me if I´m wrong, it appears that disappointments from the community revolve mostly (not only, but for the most part), around female leader choices that are judged to be controversial at best, as other leaders would have been better suited to lead the corresponding civilization (female alternatives or not).

I am thinking Cleopatra, Wu Zetian (Civ 5), Isabella of Portugal, Catherine de Medicis, Jadwiga etc...

I am sure that if for some politically correct reason, which is what it appears to be, Firaxis wants to absolutely establish a female leader quota, they could easily find 6 to 9 female leaders that deserve to be in the game at launch. There are enough great Queens in World History to not have to come up with these odd, controversial, pop culture related, or inapropriate choices. I have a lot of respect for the work Ed Beach has done since taking over as Lead Designer, and as he says he spends a lot of time on forums, I hope he, or someone from his team, will get to read this post

 

[j51]

As a Yank I'm pumped for Teddy. Totally fascinating figure.

As person of French descent, I'm disappointed they didn't go with Louis XIV (or Henri IV: a personal preference). Louis is just such a huge personality. That said, I can see why (if they actually have) chosen Catherine. She is really scheming! As a person of German descent, I'm happy they went with a Medieval emperor.

PS: I do hope we get alternative leaders though too. For variety's sake.

 

[True_Candyman]

If i'm honest i think Catherine de Medici is actually a really good choice. Given that we will likely get multiple leaders for many civs i don't see the problem here. First expansion i bet a Louis will be added, and i can see Napoleon popping up in DLC, so there's a good chance most of you can just ignore her sooner or later.

But i'm confident you'll learn to love her before you can discard her. She's a pretty cool character to have in game, and regardless of what you may think, she WAS a leader of France in a very important part of its history, and really shaped its future.

 

[Opera]

Is there really any basis on linking leaders to sales? I'm skeptical about de Medicis decreasing the sales of Civ6 in France.

 

[Socrates99]

Trying to get a perspective on people's feelings about Catherine and Jadwiga by imagining the closest situation they could pick for the U.S. Would it be Eleanor Roosevelt? It was rumored she made a lot of political decisions during FDR's final term while he was ill. People have joked that Hillary wouldn't be the first female president because Eleanor beat her to the punch.

Honestly I wouldn't be upset if they chose her but I'm curious what other Americans think. Would there be a lot of people upset about Eleanor Roosevelt being chosen to help keep the leader pool from being too much of a sausage-fest? Might help illustrate Polish and French displeasure.

 

[evanaurora]

To broaden the Catherine de Medicis theme, I´d like to point out that from the posts I´ve read recently, and correct me if I´m wrong, it appears that disappointments from the community revolve mostly (not only, but for the most part), around female leader choices that are judged to be controversial at best, as other leaders would have been better suited to lead the corresponding civilization (female alternatives or not).

I am thinking Cleopatra, Wu Zetian (Civ 5), Isabella of Portugal, Catherine de Medicis, Jadwiga etc...

I am sure that if for some politically correct reason, which is what it appears to be, Firaxis wants to absolutely establish a female leader quota, they could easily find 6 to 9 female leaders that deserve to be in the game at launch. There are enough great Queens in World History to not have to come up with these odd, controversial, pop culture related, or inapropriate choices. I have a lot of respect for the work Ed Beach has done since taking over as Lead Designer, and as he says he spends a lot of time on forums, I hope he, or someone from his team, will get to read this post

/headdesk

ok. this is ridiculous.

diverse representation is important, but if you are in 2016 talking about Politically Correct Quotas i'm not going to convince you in a forum comment. i just have no idea why this is coalescing around Catherine???!?!?!? France had tons of personable leaders, sure, but Catherine was no slouch. She led France during a time of political and religious turmoil, had a huge impact on the Protestant/Catholic conflict which was shaping and would continue to shape Europe, had a distinct and interesting personality and agenda. All of these would seem to point to her being an interesting and appropriate leader, but?????? apparently not????

this isn't directed by any means solely at the person i'm quoting, but it seems tremendously hypocritical for the forum to in one breath be cheering for Teddy (what about Lincoln?!?!? He was SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, Teddy's a RIDICULOUS CHOICE, what are the devs DOING! men with mustache quotas!!!!) and then turn around and be angry about Catherine.

i'm sorry, this is probably more sarcastic than is called for, but I'm really quite baffled.

 

[evanaurora]

Trying to get a perspective on people's feelings about Catherine and Jadwiga by imagining the closest situation they could pick for the U.S. Would it be Eleanor Roosevelt? It was rumored she made a lot of political decisions during FDR's final term while he was I'll. People have joked that Hillary wouldn't be the first female president because Eleanor beat her to the punch.

Honestly I wouldn't be upset if they chose her but I'm curious what other Americans think. Would there be a lot of people upset about Eleanor Roosevelt being chosen to help keep the leader pool from being too much of a sausage-fest? Might help illustrate Polish and French displeasure.

I wouldn't care at all- Eleanor was friggin' amazing!- but I'm not particularly patriotic, either.

EDIT: also, it's not really that analogous, because in pre-democratic eras, who held power non-theoretically was important, if that makes sense? Whereas Eleanor had a lot of impact, but she didn't come CLOSE to Catherine's impact.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm not a huge fan of Teddy as a president (though he's the far superior of the two Roosevelts), but as a leader for America in Civilization he's serviceable. I'd still have preferred Jefferson, however.

 

[True_Candyman]

/headdesk

ok. this is ridiculous.

diverse representation is important, but if you are in 2016 talking about Politically Correct Quotas i'm not going to convince you in a forum comment. i just have no idea why this is coalescing around Catherine???!?!?!? France had tons of personable leaders, sure, but Catherine was no slouch. She led France during a time of political and religious turmoil, had a huge impact on the Protestant/Catholic conflict which was shaping and would continue to shape Europe, had a distinct and interesting personality and agenda. All of these would seem to point to her being an interesting and appropriate leader, but?????? apparently not????

this isn't directed by any means solely at the person i'm quoting, but it seems tremendously hypocritical for the forum to in one breath be cheering for Teddy (what about Lincoln?!?!? He was SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, Teddy's a RIDICULOUS CHOICE, what are the devs DOING! men with mustache quotas!!!!) and then turn around and be angry about Catherine.

i'm sorry, this is probably more sarcastic than is called for, but I'm really quite baffled.

I think the biggest element in the way of Catherine acceptance is the fact that she was really only a regent. I say only a regent, but that does mean she made all the decisions and actually ran the country. She wasn't however the figurehead. Victoria was on the other hand, a figurehead who had no ruling power but she's thoroughly accepted.

That's also to do with the period and power of their respective countries when they were ruling. Catherine managed France pretty well in a period of decline. Vicky sat on a throne in a zenith of British influence.

Then of course there's the fact that she's Italian. But then Vicky is the product of a German dynasty and was raised primarily by a German-born mother, it's just how monarchy worked in Europe.

Basically, Catherine hasn't got the same flashy prestige as some more prominent and already featured female leaders. But that doesn't make her a bad choice. The fact that France has a rich history of big successful leaders also doesn't discredit Catherine but credits French history.

I'm more upset that Brazil is coming back tbh, i think it's a pretty uninspired choice with largely disappointing justification for inclusion that mostly involves phrases like 'increasing market share', 'targeting global audiences' and 'profit margins'.

 

[eMeM]

Your argument is pretty persuasive. Sounds like she is a great person, but not a sensible choice for a leader. So, who would you top choice for a Polish leader be?

I'm torn.

Casimir III is out, for the sake of diversity.

The obvious choice would be Jan III Sobieski, he is basically a symbol of POLAND STRONK

Władysław II Jagiełło is a solid choice as well for the reasons I outlined before.

And there is Bolesław I Chrobry, the first crowned king of Poland, unlike the more warmongering kings abowe, he was more defensively focused and a very skilled diplomat.

But who I think I would choose Stefan Batory. He is just too badass - not only for deafeating Ivan the Terrible, but also how he handled the Danzig rebellion - the city of Danzig didn't want to accept him as a king, he decided to show it its place. This city was always a very delicate matter, wealthy, important for Poland and with with a net of connections with the most powerful European players, so the nobility wanted to settle things peacefully, and because of all the privileges they had they could just refuse to support war effort. Batory got pissed, took his 2000 loyal men, massacred five times more numerous forces of Danzig in the battle of Lubiszewo and besieged the city, until they reached an agreement.
He also modernized the army, founded the Vilnius University, created the jurisdictional system separate from the king, continiued the uniuque policy of tolerance for all religions and he was the king of Poland during its true golden age, while in the times of Jagiełło it wasn't there yet and when Sobieski got the crown the country was already going downhill.

 

[Socrates99]

I wouldn't care at all- Eleanor was friggin' amazing!- but I'm not particularly patriotic, either.

EDIT: also, it's not really that analogous, because in pre-democratic eras, who held power non-theoretically was important, if that makes sense? Whereas Eleanor had a lot of impact, but she didn't come CLOSE to Catherine's impact.

Yeah, close as I could get though.