Male leader for England

[Laurana Kanan]

CIVITAS Normandy
CIVITAS William

 

[Patine]

George III - the third longest-reigning British Monarch and longest-reigning King, the symbolic face of the War Against Napoleon, the British Monarch during the world's first use of a global-scale navy to attack a major world power in numerous parts of the world at once, the Monarch whom the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, General Charles Cornwallis, and General George Prevost (as well as a younger Colonel George Washington, for that matter) were in military service under, and (I believe) the first British Monarch under whose reign the term "the Sun Never Sets on the British Empire," was first used.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

CIVITAS Normandy
CIVITAS William

Thank You! And they are, apparently, now compatible with GS

George III - the third longest-reigning British Monarch and longest-reigning King, the symbolic face of the War Against Napoleon, the British Monarch during the world's first use of a global-scale navy to attack a major world power in numerous parts of the world at once, the Monarch whom the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, General Charles Cornwallis, and General George Prevost (as well as a younger Colonel George Washington, for that matter) were in military service under, and (I believe) the first British Monarch under whose reign the term "the Sun Never Sets on the British Empire," was first used.

And don't forget, the only monarch (that we know of) who had a tree for an advisor.
I can see his Agenda now:

"Only slightly crazier than most Monarchs, but honest about it!"

 

[Zaarin]

George III - the third longest-reigning British Monarch and longest-reigning King, the symbolic face of the War Against Napoleon, the British Monarch during the world's first use of a global-scale navy to attack a major world power in numerous parts of the world at once, the Monarch whom the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, General Charles Cornwallis, and General George Prevost (as well as a younger Colonel George Washington, for that matter) were in military service under, and (I believe) the first British Monarch under whose reign the term "the Sun Never Sets on the British Empire," was first used.

He can come, but only if he brings the King of Prussia with him.

 

[The Disciple]

If we were to have a male figurehead for England it should be Winston Churchill. Although not a king, he was perhaps one of the best wartime prime ministers and carried that country through it's darkest hour. No one epitomises the fighting spirit of this culture better than the 'British Bulldog' himself. I feel that Cromwell, Charles I, and most of your other options are pale by comparison.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If we were to have a male figurehead for England it should be Winston Churchill. Although not a king, he was perhaps one of the best wartime prime ministers and carried that country through it's darkest hour. No one epitomises the fighting spirit of this culture better than the 'British Bulldog' himself. I feel that Cromwell, Charles I, and most of your other options are pale by comparison.

Having included consorts and legends, I see no reason Civ VI (or, more likely, Civ VII) couldn't also include Prime Ministers, Great Ministers, and other 'semi-official' leaders of a country.
In the case of England, that opens up such interesting (and controversial) figures as Pitt the Elder, Palmerston, Disraeli, Lloyd George, and, of course, Winston Churchill.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’d pick either Churchill or Alfred the Great but not for Civ 6 as England doesn’t need another leader.
Though for the next iteration at least let us have Elizabeth first before you throw out a male leader.

 

[Patine]

Having included consorts and legends, I see no reason Civ VI (or, more likely, Civ VII) couldn't also include Prime Ministers, Great Ministers, and other 'semi-official' leaders of a country.
In the case of England, that opens up such interesting (and controversial) figures as Pitt the Elder, Palmerston, Disraeli, Lloyd George, and, of course, Winston Churchill.

What's this "semi-official" stuff? Other than obsolete statements on paper, the men you list there WERE the leaders of Britain in their day and age, had all executive power, commanded the government, and Royal Assent for all of their actions was guaranteed by a Monarch who did have any power or authority, in truth. And there was absolutely NO public illusion of any sincerity otherwise. We are not talking about "whispered advice in the ear" consorts, regents to child monarchs, or legendary figures here at all. The analogy is very clumsy and not at all accurate.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What's this "semi-official" stuff? Other than obsolete statements on paper, the men you list there WERE the leaders of Britain in their day and age, had all executive power, commanded the government, and Royal Assent for all of their actions was guaranteed by a Monarch who did have any power or authority, in truth. And there was absolutely NO public illusion of any sincerity otherwise. We are not talking about "whispered advice in the ear" consorts, regents to child monarchs, or legendary figures here at all. The analogy is very clumsy and not at all accurate.

Up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the King's Displeasure could force or contribute to a change of government, making the tenure of a Prime Minister dicey compared to elected officials with a set term, like the American President, or a reigning Monarch. Even later the Prime Minister had not only to placate the electorate and their representatives to get anything done, but just to stay in office long enough to get anything done - every example I gave, including Churchill, got sent packing at one time or the other. Compared to the other Leaders in the game, I'd modify "semi-official" to "transient", but that's as far as I'll go.

Which does not in Game Terms make them any less effective as potential Leaders for a Civ, since in the game ALL Leaders are Immortal, and the only "election" is in the selection of a Leader and Civ at the start of the game.

 

[Liufeng]

In a history dominated by male figures, it's quite exceptional to have a civilization that has more than one choice for a female leader, and quite capable ones ! I'd leave it as it is, especially when I think that if it was the contrary (a civ led by 2 men), it wouldn't shock anyone.

 

[Phrozen]

Having included consorts and legends, I see no reason Civ VI (or, more likely, Civ VII) couldn't also include Prime Ministers, Great Ministers, and other 'semi-official' leaders of a country.
In the case of England, that opens up such interesting (and controversial) figures as Pitt the Elder, Palmerston, Disraeli, Lloyd George, and, of course, Winston Churchill.

How about a right hand man, very powerful noble, and eventually regent like William the Marshal?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

How about a right hand man, very powerful noble, and eventually regent like William the Marshal?

Or Cromwell, Henry VIII's 'fixer', or Cardinals Mazarin and Richelieu of France, or, for a real twist, J. P. Morgan of the USA.

 

[Patine]

J. P. Morgan of the USA.

Please, don't start down the path of powerful and influential, non-officeholding plutocrats. You don't know where - or how well - that will end...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Please, don't start down the path of powerful and influential, non-officeholding plutocrats. You don't know where - or how well - that will end...

J. P. Morgan at least knew what he was doing, unlike Others We Could Name. Also, he has the advantage of being somewhat multi-dimensional: in addition to undoubted potential Gold/Commerce bonuses, his private art collection formed the basis for the incomparable Metropolitan Museum of Art, so he could conceivably have a Culture/Great Works bonus as well.

 

[Phrozen]

Or Cromwell, Henry VIII's 'fixer', or Cardinals Mazarin and Richelieu of France, or, for a real twist, J. P. Morgan of the USA.

I think William the Marshal is probably the best leader for the Angevin Empire era of England. The right hand man of Henry II tutoring his heir and helping crush Richard's rebellion. He was named by Richard to the ruling body of England when Richard went on crusade. He had a turbulent relationship with John but eventually convinced him that ending the civil war and signing Magna Carta was a good idea. He was regent of Henry III and led successful campaigns for the young king against the French. Not bad for a man who started off as the spare and inherited no lands or title.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think William the Marshal is probably the best leader for the Angevin Empire era of England. The right hand man of Henry II tutoring his heir and helping crush Richard's rebellion. He was named by Richard to the ruling body of England when Richard went on crusade. He had a turbulent relationship with John but eventually convinced him that ending the civil war and signing Magna Carta was a good idea. He was regent of Henry III and led successful campaigns for the young king against the French. Not bad for a man who started off as the spare and inherited no lands or title.

Excellent! I should have included him alongside Richelieu and Cromwell, because he is another example of a 'Non-Official Leader" who did as much or more to actually guide the Civ than the 'real' Monarch did!

 

[Patine]

Excellent! I should have included him alongside Richelieu and Cromwell, because he is another example of a 'Non-Official Leader" who did as much or more to actually guide the Civ than the 'real' Monarch did!

In this statement, are you writing off all Prime Ministers because you view them as paling in comparison to Cromwell or William the Marshal, one and all, in your opinion, or are you just accepting that, from the end of the Napoleonic Era onward, they effectively were the "Official Leaders" of Britain, and not the Monarchs, and excluding them from that comment's reckoning for that purpose? Your position on this is not entirely clear.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In this statement, are you writing off all Prime Ministers because you view them as paling in comparison to Cromwell or William the Marshal, one and all, in your opinion, or are you just accepting that, from the end of the Napoleonic Era onward, they effectively were the "Official Leaders" of Britain, and not the Monarchs, and excluding them from that comment's reckoning for that purpose? Your position on this is not entirely clear.

My general position is that since on the one hand Civ insists that 'Leaders' are Immortal, and that Civ VI specifically includes Leaders that never led the entire Civ (Gorgo, Pericles and Tomyris), never officially led the Civ (Catherine, Eleanor), or were probably all or in part fictional (Tomyris, Gilgamesh, Kupe), that we can nominate any damn thing at all as a Leader.

My personal view is that I would prefer a 'Leader' who in some way characterizes aspects of the Civ that are generally recognized as peculiar to that Civ - even if only particular for a limited time.

Which means, Monarchs, even monarchs which are severely limited in their actual governing powers, are always acceptable because, like the Civ Leaders, they symbolize their Civ. Non-Monarchs with great political, military, diplomatic or just Symbolic power are also acceptable: like Willam Marshal, William Wallace, J. P. Morgan, Cardinal Richelieu, et al. as stated before.

As to the British Prime Ministers, after Walpole and certainly by the end of the 'reign' of George III they were the real political leaders, and in some cases the real 'face' of the English/British Civ: Pitt the Elder and Churchill certainly wielded a lot more influence over what the Civ did and how it interacted with the rest of the world (or game!) than the monarch did in either case.

But let's be real: when they used Gorgo, who was never a political or legitimate leader at all, as a leader for a Greece that was never a political entity with ANY native ruler ('United Greece', until the 19th century meant 'United by being conquered and ruled by Someone Else') and when they accept largely fictional characters like Gilgamesh and Kupe, then there are no real limits or rules for Leaders in Civ VI, just personal preferences.

 

[Patine]

My general position is that since on the one hand Civ insists that 'Leaders' are Immortal, and that Civ VI specifically includes Leaders that never led the entire Civ (Gorgo, Pericles and Tomyris), never officially led the Civ (Catherine, Eleanor), or were probably all or in part fictional (Tomyris, Gilgamesh, Kupe), that we can nominate any damn thing at all as a Leader.

My personal view is that I would prefer a 'Leader' who in some way characterizes aspects of the Civ that are generally recognized as peculiar to that Civ - even if only particular for a limited time.

Which means, Monarchs, even monarchs which are severely limited in their actual governing powers, are always acceptable because, like the Civ Leaders, they symbolize their Civ. Non-Monarchs with great political, military, diplomatic or just Symbolic power are also acceptable: like Willam Marshal, William Wallace, J. P. Morgan, Cardinal Richelieu, et al. as stated before.

As to the British Prime Ministers, after Walpole and certainly by the end of the 'reign' of George III they were the real political leaders, and in some cases the real 'face' of the English/British Civ: Pitt the Elder and Churchill certainly wielded a lot more influence over what the Civ did and how it interacted with the rest of the world (or game!) than the monarch did in either case.

But let's be real: when they used Gorgo, who was never a political or legitimate leader at all, as a leader for a Greece that was never a political entity with ANY native ruler ('United Greece', until the 19th century meant 'United by being conquered and ruled by Someone Else') and when they accept largely fictional characters like Gilgamesh and Kupe, then there are no real limits or rules for Leaders in Civ VI, just personal preferences.

Gilgamesh in game bugged me, and still bugs me. Sargon or Hammurabi would have been much better choices for that civilization continuum. Gorgo was also an inexplicable choice I'm not really on board with either.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Gilgamesh in game bugged me, and still bugs me. Sargon or Hammurabi would have been much better choices for that civilization continuum. Gorgo was also an inexplicable choice I'm not really on board with either.

Frankly, I think Sumer was always going to be a problem Civ because so much of what they did first was also done by almost everybody after and around them in the same region, and I would argue that Babylon, Assyria, and even the Hittites have probably more 'name recognition'.
Gorgo was and is a ridiculous choice. Period. For a civilization that was one of the most misogynistic in history, finding a female leader was going to be an exercise in Fantasy from the start. Remember, these are the people whose male philosophers ("lovers of wisdom", Hah!) couldn't even pay attention to the women around them - Aristotle famously wrote that women have fewer teeth than men: it didn't occur to him to have his wife open her mouth And Count Them!
If they thought Gorgo was a Greek Leader, I'd simply point out that Sappho and Aspasia were probably both better known and had more influence!
Compounding the wretchedness, of course, is that there are so many really intriguing leaders for a Greek Civ, since they were going to ignore the City State status of the Civ from the git-go: Polycrates, Solon, Cleisthenes, Epiminondas, Phyrrus, Jason of Thessaly - each bringing something different to the Civ, any of them a better choice than what we got. - And my list didn't even include the 'semi-mythical' (but apparently acceptable in Civ VI!) leaders like Theseus or Agamennon.