I think the two English leaders should be Elizabeth I and Churchill. Why does the leader need to be the monarch? Winnie was the true leader of England at that time. The monarchy has been only a figure head for a long time (thanks to Prince John, the git).
2 leaders for every civ
- Thread starter Xen
- Start date
JBearIt
Ard Ri
If there are 18 civs and 28 leaders, we know that only 10 of the civs will have 2 leaders. Of those it has been confirmed that the US, France, China, India, and England will have 2 leaders. Which 5 Civs do you think will have the other dual-leader representation?
I'd guess:
Russia - Catherine and either Peter the Great or Stalin (I know really USSR)
Egypt - Hasheput (already confirmed) and Ramses
Rome - Julius Caesar (already confirmed) and either Constantine or Hadrian
Spain - Isabella (developers are going to want a female leader) and Ferdinand or Carlos (who was also King Charles of the Austrian empire)
Persia - Two of Cyrus, Darius, or Xerxes
I'd guess:
Russia - Catherine and either Peter the Great or Stalin (I know really USSR)
Egypt - Hasheput (already confirmed) and Ramses
Rome - Julius Caesar (already confirmed) and either Constantine or Hadrian
Spain - Isabella (developers are going to want a female leader) and Ferdinand or Carlos (who was also King Charles of the Austrian empire)
Persia - Two of Cyrus, Darius, or Xerxes
Insane_Panda
Deity
Contray to popular belief, Bismarck was not militaristic. He wanted a balance of power on Europe with Germany being at the lead. Those three wars were fought to ensure German supremacy on the continent, and it worked.
Bismarck also had a treaty in which Russia would not support France in the event that Germany would go to war with her (this was after the Franco-Prussian War) Wilhelm II, however, let it lapse. Another interesting thing to note is that Wilhelm II fired Bismarck because Bismarck didnt agree with Wilhelm's expansionistic and antagonising policies.
Bismarck would do good as (Scientific, Industrious)
JBearIt said:
COnstantine is a HORRIBLE choice; he is the man who is responsibel for destroying the restoration of the Roman empire that Diocletian worked so hard to achieve, particuraley intiateing civil wars that depelted the empires only recentlly rebuilt militarilly, and then ruinign what was left of the military after his bloody civil wars in ill thought reforms that woudl lead to military disaster for the empire; combined with his ruious economic policy (a faulty continuation fo what had worked for Diocletian) and he's one of Romes WORST rulers, not fit at all to even be relaistically considered for the role fo representing Rome's finest.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
JBearIt said:
It would be fun If Spain has the couple Isabella and Ferdinand as one leader. Instead of a single leader, you can choose the happy couple to rule the nation.
Adso de Fimnu
Prince
Arabs:
Haroun al-Rashid [scientific, commercial] & Abu Bakr [religious, expansionist]
Aztecs:
(Moctezuma already chosen) & Tlacaelel - a Cardinal Richelieu-type figure
Egypt:
(Hatshepsut chosen) & Ramses II [militaristic, expansionist]
Germany:
Bismarck [industrious...] & Frederick the Great (Yes, I know he's technically Prussian, but that's German enough.)
Inca:
Pachacuti [expansionist] & Manco Capac (He's semi-mythical, but oh well.)
Mali:
Mansa Musa [commercial, agricultural] & Sudiata Keita (Really, those are the only two options, I think.)
Mongolia:
(Genghis, of course) & Tamerlane
Russia:
Peter the Great [some sort of modernizing bonus, perhaps?] & Stalin
Spain:
Isabel I & Philip II [both of these monarchs could have a sort of bonus to removing non-state religion - think Spanish Inquisition...]
Haroun al-Rashid [scientific, commercial] & Abu Bakr [religious, expansionist]
Aztecs:
(Moctezuma already chosen) & Tlacaelel - a Cardinal Richelieu-type figure
Egypt:
(Hatshepsut chosen) & Ramses II [militaristic, expansionist]
Germany:
Bismarck [industrious...] & Frederick the Great (Yes, I know he's technically Prussian, but that's German enough.)
Inca:
Pachacuti [expansionist] & Manco Capac (He's semi-mythical, but oh well.)
Mali:
Mansa Musa [commercial, agricultural] & Sudiata Keita (Really, those are the only two options, I think.)
Mongolia:
(Genghis, of course) & Tamerlane
Russia:
Peter the Great [some sort of modernizing bonus, perhaps?] & Stalin
Spain:
Isabel I & Philip II [both of these monarchs could have a sort of bonus to removing non-state religion - think Spanish Inquisition...]
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
India: Ashoka started as a conqueror first, and then went Buddhist, IIRC.
England: Churchill (Diplomatic, Militaristic, Industrious), Elizabeth (religious, militaristic) (King Henry VIII's daughter).
Germany: Bismarck (militaristic, industrious) and Charlemagne (militaristic, religious)? Charlemagne might be better for France.
Then Frederick the Great (militaristic, scientific).
France: Napoleon (militaristic, scientific) and I think Charles I (Charlemagne) (militaristic, religious).
America (so many tough choices): Teddy Roosevelt (militaristic, industrious), and Ronald Reagan (militaristic, commercial).
Teddy for the world emergence of US, and Ronnie, because the Cold War still stands out.
England: Churchill (Diplomatic, Militaristic, Industrious), Elizabeth (religious, militaristic) (King Henry VIII's daughter).
Germany: Bismarck (militaristic, industrious) and Charlemagne (militaristic, religious)? Charlemagne might be better for France.
Then Frederick the Great (militaristic, scientific).
France: Napoleon (militaristic, scientific) and I think Charles I (Charlemagne) (militaristic, religious).
America (so many tough choices): Teddy Roosevelt (militaristic, industrious), and Ronald Reagan (militaristic, commercial).
Teddy for the world emergence of US, and Ronnie, because the Cold War still stands out.
Mad Hab
Warlord
For the Romans, Caesar and Augustus. The Empire lasted a few centuries more because of the relative stability of the (long) Augustus mandate, so he really deserves to be in the game...
Cheers,
Mad Hab
Cheers,
Mad Hab
mitsho
Deity
Taking Caesar and Augustus for Rome would be like taking Reagan and Bush I. for America (for the sake of the argument only), they are just too near to each other and their civilization is practically the same. If you take however George Washington and Reagan, there are about 200 years between and you can represent America in two ways.
The same with Caesar and augustus, although they come from completely different ages (Pax Romana and Civil War), they are nevertheless one generation apart only. It would be much better to chose one of them and either one of the early republic, Marius or Scipio OR one of the later Roman Empire (like Marc Aurel, Hadrian or Diocletian, ...).
Germany: Frederick is more prussian, although he would be acceptable, we have plenty of other candidates throughout the Middle Ages, from the Ottons to the Salians and Welfs, there are many 'German Emperors'. (I translated these names into English based on my knowledge, it is possible that they have other names...) The biggest name screaming out is Friedrich Barbarossa, but nobody seems to answer my clam!
France: As I have said before, Charlemagne represents the Frankish or Carolingian civilization imo. He is one historical figure with lots of myths and as you say, could represent Germany as well (imo!). That's why the frenchest of all French rulers has to be there first, Louis "l'état, c'est moi" XIV.
mfG m
The same with Caesar and augustus, although they come from completely different ages (Pax Romana and Civil War), they are nevertheless one generation apart only. It would be much better to chose one of them and either one of the early republic, Marius or Scipio OR one of the later Roman Empire (like Marc Aurel, Hadrian or Diocletian, ...).
Germany: Frederick is more prussian, although he would be acceptable, we have plenty of other candidates throughout the Middle Ages, from the Ottons to the Salians and Welfs, there are many 'German Emperors'. (I translated these names into English based on my knowledge, it is possible that they have other names...) The biggest name screaming out is Friedrich Barbarossa, but nobody seems to answer my clam!
France: As I have said before, Charlemagne represents the Frankish or Carolingian civilization imo. He is one historical figure with lots of myths and as you say, could represent Germany as well (imo!). That's why the frenchest of all French rulers has to be there first, Louis "l'état, c'est moi" XIV.
mfG m
Akka
Moody old mage.
The two French leaders are, actually, the best ones that could possibly be chosen. No need to change them.
For Roman empire, I wonder how can anyone choose someone else than Ceaser and Augustus. These two are the founders of the Roman Empire.
For Roman empire, I wonder how can anyone choose someone else than Ceaser and Augustus. These two are the founders of the Roman Empire.
Mad Hab said:
I always find it a bit funny when people say "a few centuries longer" because of either Caesar or Agustus; its not liek the republic was in danger of falling aprat, of keeling over dead; its structuing just wasnt fit for being an empire that big in its traditional form; quite honestlly, while I dont see the republic being an effective form of govenrment in the state it was in by its end, I see niether Caesar nor augustus as clear cut saviors of Rome; AUgustus was a great leader, but he had his own share of mistakes.
Xen said:
Yeah, the thing that makes Germany difficult is that it really has been a nation state for roughly a century and a half. But if you go back to earlier Germanic territories like the Holy Roman Empire, then you have some historically powerful rulers like Charlemange or Frederick the Great.
IMO, making Hitler a Civ IV leader is just a bad idea all around.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
Rome: Caeasar (confirmed) and then who else? Really, there are loads. Here are my picks, arranged in vaguely chronological order:
Camillus: Warhorse. Expanded Roman influence through Italy. Built Temple to Concord. "Second Father of his Country".
Sicinius: Rebel who led the first organized plebean revolt. As a result, the office of Tribune was created, with Sicinius as one of the first five.
Sextus and Licinius (two as one):Tribunes. Opened all state offices to plebeans; granted debt relief. Opened the way for the abolition of enslavement for debt. Contemporaries of Camillus who did more for Rome and Concord than Camillus ever did.
Tiberius or Gaius Gracchus (one or the other): Brothers who were tribunes in the second century BC. They tried to get land for Roman veterans; both were killed at the behest of the Senate (with furniture fragments!) for trying to give land Senators wanted to expand their estates to the Roman people.
Sulla: Warhorse who expanded Roman territory; also an arch-conservative who reversed every pro-plebean reform for the past two hundred years; he ruled as dictator for a very long time indeed; he retired, and then died before he saw his lieutenants Crassus and Pompey redo everything he had undone thanks to Spartacus' revolt.
Augustus: Well? Personally I don't like it, he's too much like his Uncle Julius (except that he was a bit more controlled when it came to women).
Vespasian: Conqueror of Britain and Judea, brought stability during his rule.
Trajan: Ruled the Empire at its height. He brought peace, art, and the Antonine Dynasty, which ruled for an unprecedented one hundred years.
Hadrian: Son of Trajan. More of the same.
And now for some which might be bad choices, but they're fun to spit out:
Lucius Septimus Severus: was the one bright spot in the string of assassinated emperors of the third century AD.
Diocletian: Got the empire on the move again. Split the empire east and west, taking the east for himself. A forceful emperor, he ended the miserable period of continuous assasinations that followed the fall of the Antonines. He invented serfdom, and initiated the last persecution of the Christians.
Constantine probably isn't that great of a choice, is he? That's why he's on this list.
Julian was Diocletianesque. Had he not died in a campaign in Persia, things may have turned out somewhat differently.
Camillus: Warhorse. Expanded Roman influence through Italy. Built Temple to Concord. "Second Father of his Country".
Sicinius: Rebel who led the first organized plebean revolt. As a result, the office of Tribune was created, with Sicinius as one of the first five.
Sextus and Licinius (two as one):Tribunes. Opened all state offices to plebeans; granted debt relief. Opened the way for the abolition of enslavement for debt. Contemporaries of Camillus who did more for Rome and Concord than Camillus ever did.
Tiberius or Gaius Gracchus (one or the other): Brothers who were tribunes in the second century BC. They tried to get land for Roman veterans; both were killed at the behest of the Senate (with furniture fragments!) for trying to give land Senators wanted to expand their estates to the Roman people.
Sulla: Warhorse who expanded Roman territory; also an arch-conservative who reversed every pro-plebean reform for the past two hundred years; he ruled as dictator for a very long time indeed; he retired, and then died before he saw his lieutenants Crassus and Pompey redo everything he had undone thanks to Spartacus' revolt.
Augustus: Well? Personally I don't like it, he's too much like his Uncle Julius (except that he was a bit more controlled when it came to women).
Vespasian: Conqueror of Britain and Judea, brought stability during his rule.
Trajan: Ruled the Empire at its height. He brought peace, art, and the Antonine Dynasty, which ruled for an unprecedented one hundred years.
Hadrian: Son of Trajan. More of the same.
And now for some which might be bad choices, but they're fun to spit out:
Lucius Septimus Severus: was the one bright spot in the string of assassinated emperors of the third century AD.
Diocletian: Got the empire on the move again. Split the empire east and west, taking the east for himself. A forceful emperor, he ended the miserable period of continuous assasinations that followed the fall of the Antonines. He invented serfdom, and initiated the last persecution of the Christians.
Constantine probably isn't that great of a choice, is he? That's why he's on this list.
Julian was Diocletianesque. Had he not died in a campaign in Persia, things may have turned out somewhat differently.
@Lockes Donkey; it was actually Diocletian Junior emperor (Galerius, IIRC the name) whom was the real anti-christian; DIoceltian gets blamed because so many people forget the importance of Junior emperors in the scheme of DIocletian; to his credit, he did re-invigoratet he Roman army, and if it hadnt been for COnstantines destruction fo the re-invigorated army, we may well have a Roman state today.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
MrMahk said:
The balance of power refered to the 5 great powers of Europe(France, Britian, Prussia/Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia), in which all would be strong, but not strong enough to defeat the others by itself.
Trajan13
Warlord
I'd say there is little chance of us getting our two leaders for every civ... just because art is time consuming and they really will want the Holiday 2005 crowd.
That being said, let the picking begin!!!
USA - good as is
Arabs - Abu Bakr(or Muhammed) and Saladin
Aztecs - Monteczuma and I have no idea...
China - good as is
Egypt - Hatcheptsut(sp?) and Ramses the Great
England - Vikki and Elizabeth are great choices
France - couldn't do better myself
Germany - tough one... I'd say Otto I(the Great) and Bismark
Greece - Alexander and Pericles
Inca - I'm unsure..
India - Gandhi and Ashoka are good... though make Ashoka warlike, like when he was young
Japan - Tokugawa and Emperor Meiji
Mali - Mansu musu and ??
Mongolia - Temujin(duh) and Kublai Khan
Persia - Cyrus and Darius
Rome - Caesar and Diocletian or Trajan(trajan being my personal favorite emperor)
Russia - Peter the Great/Catherine and Lenin
Spain - Isabella and Phillip II
Those would be my picks. Before a true historian tears me to pieces let me disclaim that history is a hobby of mine, not a profession, and I am a little rustier than I would like to be.
That being said, let the picking begin!!!
USA - good as is
Arabs - Abu Bakr(or Muhammed) and Saladin
Aztecs - Monteczuma and I have no idea...
China - good as is
Egypt - Hatcheptsut(sp?) and Ramses the Great
England - Vikki and Elizabeth are great choices
France - couldn't do better myself
Germany - tough one... I'd say Otto I(the Great) and Bismark
Greece - Alexander and Pericles
Inca - I'm unsure..
India - Gandhi and Ashoka are good... though make Ashoka warlike, like when he was young
Japan - Tokugawa and Emperor Meiji
Mali - Mansu musu and ??
Mongolia - Temujin(duh) and Kublai Khan
Persia - Cyrus and Darius
Rome - Caesar and Diocletian or Trajan(trajan being my personal favorite emperor)
Russia - Peter the Great/Catherine and Lenin
Spain - Isabella and Phillip II
Those would be my picks. Before a true historian tears me to pieces let me disclaim that history is a hobby of mine, not a profession, and I am a little rustier than I would like to be.
ByzantineGreek
Chieftain
The Americans- Washington & FDR
The Arabs- Mohammed & Abu Bakr
The Aztecs- Montezuma & ???
The Chinese- Mao & Ming the Merciless
The Egyptians- Hatshepsut & Ramses II
The English- Elizabeth I & Winston Churchill
The French- Louis XIV & Napoleon
The Germans- Bismarck & Barbarossa
The Incans- Pacahuti & Althalupa
The Indians- Ghandi & I. Ghandi
The Japanese- Tokaguwa & Hirohito
The Mali- Mansa Musa & ???
The Mongols- Genghis Khan & Kublai Khan
The Persians- Xerxes & Darius (Nebechednezzur)
The Romans- Julius Caeser & Marcus Aurelius
The Russians- Catherine the Great & Peter
The Spanish- Isabella & Franco
The Greeks- Pericles & Alexander (if a female: Theodora) (Alexander isn't Greek anyway!)
The Arabs- Mohammed & Abu Bakr
The Aztecs- Montezuma & ???
The Chinese- Mao & Ming the Merciless
The Egyptians- Hatshepsut & Ramses II
The English- Elizabeth I & Winston Churchill
The French- Louis XIV & Napoleon
The Germans- Bismarck & Barbarossa
The Incans- Pacahuti & Althalupa
The Indians- Ghandi & I. Ghandi
The Japanese- Tokaguwa & Hirohito
The Mali- Mansa Musa & ???
The Mongols- Genghis Khan & Kublai Khan
The Persians- Xerxes & Darius (Nebechednezzur)
The Romans- Julius Caeser & Marcus Aurelius
The Russians- Catherine the Great & Peter
The Spanish- Isabella & Franco
The Greeks- Pericles & Alexander (if a female: Theodora) (Alexander isn't Greek anyway!)
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Mohammed will never be a leader in the game. IIRC, Muslims do not allow pictures of him.
Similar threads
