Liufeng
A man of his time
Well, I was thinking to myself these last days (without turmoiling myself).
Am I the only one who thinks that, for instance, Montezuma is a bit ... "stereotyped". I mean, I read some books about the aztecs, and sure, they practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism for their rituals. But at the same time, they were a very refined people, and sacrifices were not the person which would appear : it had to be someone culturally close to the aztecs. If he was too close to their society, he was considered as a citizen, and could not be sacrificed, as they did could not sacrifice their own people. Same for people too far from their culture, they weren't apparently not good to the taste of their gods. And, yet, the sacrifices had a great ceremony before their demise. I'm not defending, of course, human sacrifice, but I think Moctezuma is depected a bit like ... a raging bloodthirsty killer who who every sacrifice he can. I mean, he codified the aztec law, expanded the empire, and the emperors were rather refined and, above all, known to be prodigious rhetoricians, which is a side I have some trouble to in him (Die ! Die ! Die ! ..., that sentence is profound).
The second part od what I thought, is about the ratio man/woman leaders. I mean, don't stone me to death, I'm not against adding female leaders : Isabella is and shall forever be the ruler of Spain in any game, as Elizabeth or Victoria for england, Catherine II for Russia (although it leaves me a bit sad for Peter the Great), or Maria-Theresa for Austria. But that will to add female for the sake adding female leaders is a bit problematic, as it shadows leaders who were far more important for that nation. For instance, Theodora. I'm not neglecting her role, I'm sure she did a lot for women of her time, and she came from nothing to become empress of the Byzantine empire. But let's be honest, as good as she is, Justinian is just too far important to be left out just because of that ratio question. Same for Maria I, how can she be included, with leaders such as John II, Manuel I, or the Marquis of Pombal ? Or Wu Zetian, while we have Liu Bang or Emperor Qin ? But the worse case of that ratio question is Dido, which is a legendary figure. I mean, they had Hannibal Barca, or Hanno II.
Of course, if they add Argentina, for instance, the first leader which comes through my mind is Eva Peron, and I would find that totally normal. Also, I'd find totally cool to add for Denmark, instead of Harald, Margaret I. I was also a bit disappointed that Gajah Mada was chosen as the indonesian leader instead of Tribhuwana, his queen.
But i don't like the fact of adding female leaders just for the sake of adding female leaders.
Also, why choose Darius for Persia, who is most known to have lost Marathon against the greek ? Why not Cyrus II ?
Am I the only one who thinks that, for instance, Montezuma is a bit ... "stereotyped". I mean, I read some books about the aztecs, and sure, they practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism for their rituals. But at the same time, they were a very refined people, and sacrifices were not the person which would appear : it had to be someone culturally close to the aztecs. If he was too close to their society, he was considered as a citizen, and could not be sacrificed, as they did could not sacrifice their own people. Same for people too far from their culture, they weren't apparently not good to the taste of their gods. And, yet, the sacrifices had a great ceremony before their demise. I'm not defending, of course, human sacrifice, but I think Moctezuma is depected a bit like ... a raging bloodthirsty killer who who every sacrifice he can. I mean, he codified the aztec law, expanded the empire, and the emperors were rather refined and, above all, known to be prodigious rhetoricians, which is a side I have some trouble to in him (Die ! Die ! Die ! ..., that sentence is profound).
The second part od what I thought, is about the ratio man/woman leaders. I mean, don't stone me to death, I'm not against adding female leaders : Isabella is and shall forever be the ruler of Spain in any game, as Elizabeth or Victoria for england, Catherine II for Russia (although it leaves me a bit sad for Peter the Great), or Maria-Theresa for Austria. But that will to add female for the sake adding female leaders is a bit problematic, as it shadows leaders who were far more important for that nation. For instance, Theodora. I'm not neglecting her role, I'm sure she did a lot for women of her time, and she came from nothing to become empress of the Byzantine empire. But let's be honest, as good as she is, Justinian is just too far important to be left out just because of that ratio question. Same for Maria I, how can she be included, with leaders such as John II, Manuel I, or the Marquis of Pombal ? Or Wu Zetian, while we have Liu Bang or Emperor Qin ? But the worse case of that ratio question is Dido, which is a legendary figure. I mean, they had Hannibal Barca, or Hanno II.
Of course, if they add Argentina, for instance, the first leader which comes through my mind is Eva Peron, and I would find that totally normal. Also, I'd find totally cool to add for Denmark, instead of Harald, Margaret I. I was also a bit disappointed that Gajah Mada was chosen as the indonesian leader instead of Tribhuwana, his queen.
But i don't like the fact of adding female leaders just for the sake of adding female leaders.
Also, why choose Darius for Persia, who is most known to have lost Marathon against the greek ? Why not Cyrus II ?