2 leaders for every civ

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

the only other hards ones woudl be Germany, belive it or not (they have bismark, otherwise german history is filled with a long, long line of dismal leaders whom seem to have driven germany stright into the ground at every oppertunity, or other such activities as to not to deserve a place of honour.)

Actually, the real problem is not the lack of convincing leaders. Otto the Great or Frederic II of Hohenstauffen (the emperor, not the Prussian king; my personnal favorite) would make excellent choices. Barbaross, overrated; I agree.
The real problem is the fact those are almost completely unknown outside Germany and Italy...

Bismarck was a militarists as much as he could be. He just was smart enough to only wage wars he was sure to win, not heroic suicidial missions. And technically, he ran Prussia as military dictatorship, until Wilhelm II gave him the boot (most likely the only wise decision he ever made, but for nothing else he is as badmouthed today ).

I for one would accept Bismarck, and Great Duchess Amalie of Weimar (Goethe!) would make a great choice for the second spot.

Arabs and Aztecs are really tough. Actually, I'm not sure of any Arab leader who couldn't case problems (even Abu did...).

The known ones for France are convincing, Greece seems obvious (Alex+Peri), Persia (you can't go wrong with a Dareus and a Kyros ), England sounds good as well.

 

[mitsho]

ok, I agree, doc, Otto or Friedrich II. would also be good choices for Germany, but with Barbarossa I always have to think of the AoE II (age of Kings)-campaign dedicated to him!

To Arabs:
Why would Salah al-Din cause problems? Because of his kurdish origin (not totally sure on that point)? Well, he did lead the Arabs, and it would be the same 'problem' as with Napoleon, Stalin or Queen Victoria.
Why would Harun al-Raschid be a problem? He's not an important ruler, but famous because of the 1001 nights stories. His choice would not be historical, but popular...
I agree that other rulers besides Abu could create problems (such as Othman, etc.) because they contributed something to the split into sunni and schia.

But I think with the two leaders above we have a militaristic and a more peaceful variant. And besides, there are far more less known, but nevertheless fine leaders.

m

 

[Holistic]

(first post, but eh, whatever)

Regarding the Germans, and bearing in mind that both Vienna/Austria and Berlin/Prussia have been the centre of 'German' culture/civilization, it might be an idea to have one Prussian leader (Bismarck) -- and one Austrian (say, Maria Theresa?).

Also, it'd be like getting two civilizations in one...

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The Arabs- Mohammed & Abu Bakr

SACRILEGE!

You see, it is forbidden in Islam to show the face of a prophet or his companions. Muhammad (S) was the Prophet, so no, and Abu Bakr was his best friend, so no. For the Arabs Salah-ad-Din (Saladin) is a must (militaristic, some sort of learning or cultural bonus) and one of these:

Muawiya: The founder of the Umayyads, he ruled the Arab empire after Ali's assasination (by his own followers!). A talented and shrewd ruler.

Abu Al-Abbas or the next Abbasid

Harun-al-Rashid would probably not be a good choice, in spite of his art.

Abdul Rahman III was the Umayyad Khalifa (Caliph) of Cordoba; he ruled Cordoba at the height of its power, tolerance, and beauty. His de facto prime minister was Hasdai ibn Shapirut, a Jewish doctor and scholar.

I personally favor Abdul Rahman for this.


And I don't like the choices of Chinese leaders...Mao was great, but he's also not what the Chinese are proud of. They should have had Deng Xiaoping instead. And while there is no doubt that Qin Shi Huang was a great emperor, the greatest emperor, in the opinion of many historians, was Tang Taizong (Li Shimin), who at the age of sixteen (my age!) convinced his father, Tang Gaozu (Li Yuan) to rebel against the emperor even though Li Yuan had been a loyal Imperial servant. Taizong reformed the empire, increased the strength of the emperor at the expense of the warlords, invited his Turkish relatives (his mother was a Turk) into the army, which he sent to defend the borders, and intitiated land reform, keeping the population happy for 150+ years. Other possibilities include Empress Wu, the only officially-recognized female ruler of China, who kept the empire steady and encouraged arts and culture, and Ming Huang, who was at first a good emperor, then relaxed to party full-time, allowing a rebellion to occur. All ruled multicultural empires with an even hand, and poetry flourished throughout the dynasty's rule. Some of China's greatest poets--does the name "Li Bo" (or Li Po, or Li Tai Po, same guy) ring any bells?

 

[antonio]

For the Aztecs Montezuma I he conquered new lands outside the valley of Mexico gainin acess to many goods.He also built an aquaduct to Tenochtitlan.BY far the greatest Aztec leader.For the second one either Tencoh the founder of Tenochtitlan or Acamapichtli who held the nation together after Tenochs death although he wasn't an Aztec himself.

 

[ByzantineGreek]

Sorry Lockesdonkey for not knowing about Muhammed. I believe I did know that, it's just not something I remind myself of.

 

[Polietileno]

The Inca seems easy for me. Pachakutek and Huayna Capac are my choses. Forget about Athahualpa and Manco Capac

 

[Poseidon_55]

second aztec leader could be qualtemo(not sure about spelling) he fought against the spainish invasion while montezuma did nothing but let them in

 

[DonStamos]

America: FDR, Washington
-Fine by me, though I would have rather had Teddy instead of Washington

Arabs: Abu Bakr, Saladin
-Islamic beliefs about showing prophets and company weren't paid attention in CivIII, what makes people think they'll change their minds now

Aztecs: Montezuma, Tenoch
-Might as well have the leader who founded the capital, besides, Montezuma's there because he's the only leader most people will recognize

China: Mao Tse-Tung, Qin Shihangdi
-No problems here

Egypt: Ramses, Hatshepsut
-I'd rather not have Hatshepsut, seems like they were desperate for female leaders, but I can't think of any good Egyptian Pharaohs off the top of my head

England(should be Britain): Elizabeth, Winston Churchill
-Other than my argument that the height of English power was actually British power, Churchill is a much better leader option IMO than Victoria

France: Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis XIV
-The best choices for the nation, and I certainly hope they didn't even think about the egotist de Gaulle, he was just as megalomanic as Hitler....

Germany: Bismarck, Adolf Hitler
-If Hitler isn't in, I will mod him in, but likeable or not he was a very important figure in German history, even if it were for the worse. I don't see how Hitler should be ignored, it's already obvious that the Civ developers don't take EVERYONE'S religious feelings into account (Shinto and Abu Bakr anyone?), not to mention several leaders included are certain to induce some sort of hatred from somebody in the world, it's inevitable. Besides, with the modability of the game, what'd stop people from making an Israelite Civ and beating the living crap out of him? Besides, there aren't very many good Germanic leaders to choose from, even the Holy Roman Emperors were subpar for the most part.

Greece: Pericles, Alexander
-I still hate putting Alexander as a Greek, but I can't object, since I would like to see Hitler as a leader and he's not German...

Inca: Pachacuti, ???
-I'm not terribly familiar with Incan history

India: Gandhi, Ashoka
-I'd rather see Gupta or Maurya as a leader (unless I'm mistaken and Ashoka is one of them) since they led the two large, ancient Indian empires

Japan: Tokugawa, Hirohito
-I'll admit I'm not familiar with Meiji, but I'd rather see Hirohito anyway even if only for the novelty value of annihilating him in remembrance of Pearl Harbor:-x

Mali: Mansa Musa, ???
-Glad to see the Zulu out and one of the other three African empires (Mali, Songhai, Ghana) in, but I don't know enough about any of them for leader opinons

Mongolia: Temujin, Kublai Khan
-As good a pair as any to me, plus I can't honestly name any other Mongol leaders (except Ogadai)

Persia: Cyrus, Xerxes
-IIRC, Cyrus was responsible for the solidation of the Persian Empire before the Greek wars, while Xerxes was more military minded, would give two viable options for a Persian leader

Rome: Julius Caesar, Diocletian
-Funny, Julius was against the formation of the Empire, remember, he did turn down the crown three times

Russia: Josef Stalin, Peter the Great
-Peter for his modernizing Russia to match the West, Stalin for his military prowess. Besides, we all know Ivan the Terrible would also go down Hitler Road too, eh?

Spain: Philip, Isabella
-Isabella was directly responsible in the early formation of the Spanish Empire by allowing the exploration of the New World, while Philip solidified Spanish claims militarily, not to mention the formation of the late Armada

I can honestly say I'll probably end up adding several Civilizations to the game until the first expansion comes out, but I don't know just who yet....

 

[shahreevar]

well i hope all civs have 2 leaders. it would be unfair to have 2 only for some.

and as for Iran, or persia......... Cyrus (Kurosh) is a fine choice. he was a nice guy relative to his time, (and ours time too!) he allowed people to keep their cultures, helped the jews to go back to Israel to rebuild their temples, respected the different religions, wrote the first HUMAN RIGHT proclamtion, etc. he should be religious, and maybe militaristic (since he created the empire)

as for the second one, there are lot of choices,SHAH ABBAS I, Khosrow, Shahpur I, Nader, Dariush, etc.
but since Cyrus is pre-islamic, i would go for one after Islam.
and of all the Iranian King after Islam Shah Abbas (shah Abbas-e Safavi) is the most important one. he made Iran into a modern nation, revitalized the military, the culture, and stood the up to the mighty Ottomans. he made lot of money via the silk trade, and put that money into produciong massive amount of art, and architecture. although like all leaders he had his flaws (at the end he went mad paranoid, and blinded his son!!! ) he was still good enough to be called THE GREAT.

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree that Pericles and Alexander are by far the best choices, moreso because of the hugely different leader abilities

 

[Xen]

Rome: Julius Caesar, Diocletian
-Funny, Julius was against the formation of the Empire, remember, he did turn down the crown three times

I'd LOVE to see diocletian as Romes econd choice, but hes likelly too controversial to get in (fervant chritians are likelly to bring up the fact that his junior emperor, galerius, was a mass persecutor of christians, though this usually blamed on Diocletian himself)

marcus Aurelisu amkes a very suitible counter point for Caesar, if what they ar elooking for is broaden the possibilities of game play with leaders, and has popular appeal because of the the movie Gladiator to boot

 

[Dark Khan]

cyrus is awesome he is the best king in history maybe he is a great choice also darius can be a good perhaps abbas in

 

[Crayton]

Vicente Fox for the Aztecs?
The founder of the First Reich was either Otto or Charlemagne. Either way, Charlemagne could wrap up German history from the near beginning to (Bismarck) the near present. Come to think of it, any of Moravians would be great for France or Germany (Charles the Hammer!).
Vercingetorix for the Celts, oh wait!
I like Saladin.
Mansa Musa, I'm sure, was already chosen for Mali; but, who else?
Charles the V of Austria, aka Charles the I of Spain, aka Holy Roman Emperor, aka King of the Netherlands. This guy ruled Europe, and at the age of nineteen. I just don't know what civilization he would command: Germany most likely.
Mauryan (or is that the adjective!), Gupta, Babur, and Shiva are other options for the Indian Civilization.

 

[Atrebates]

England- Victoria (economic, expansionist/militaristic)

-Victoria oversaw Britain becoming the largest empire on Earth, ever. It's a no-brainer

IMO Elizabeth I is overrated as a leader, her achievements were most impressive in the fact that she came to power at all and held out against the Barons, her impression on the world (directly due to her) was far less than other English/British leaders (before people go nuts on this pronouncement remember that Henry VIII was responsible for the majority of the military power that England had at this point and that individuals such as Francis Drake performed the acts of privateering that bolstered the economy, yes Elizabeth was great in her commandment of what was at her disposal but other leaders are worthy of consideration)

-Richard the Lionheart (religious, militaristic) is a possibility and fits well with the new religous aspect of civ. In terms of personal achievment he won a series of remarkable battles whilst leading the 2nd Crusade

-Churchill (militaristic, ?) again not a bad choice, my personal grievance here is the proximity to Victoria (who is a must-have) both chronologically and in terms of likely abilities

-Henry VII (Commercial, Agricultural/Industrious) Not as well known as the others but I think he was responsible for more financial security for England than any other leader (I invite any corrections to this) without major warmongering and as such offers a nice counterbalance to other potential leaders.

-Henry VIII (militaristic, scientific) Famous for lots of wives and success militarily, he blew most of his treasury and the financial security Henry VII built. Probably only worth including for being well known IMO not a great leader

With the exception of Elizabeth these are ranked in order of who is the best choice, what's the general consensus on this list? I would choice Victoria + Richard the Lionheart

 

[Alo]

Mauryan (or is that the adjective!), Gupta, Babur, and Shiva are other options for the Indian Civilization.

Mauryan is not an adjective....it means of the Maurya dynasty....Ashoka was of this dynasty

i guess Gandhi(religious & commercial) and Ashoka(scientific & industrious) would b the best leader choice for India......eventhough Ashoka was a very clever and ruthless warrior n forged the largest empire the indian subcontinent has ever seen.....he converted to buddhism when he was still relatively young and spent the rest of his life peacefully, promoting buddhism by building magnificent structures and also encouraging mathematics and scientific research.

....and Shiva is a hindu god...not a past king of India.

 

[Urederra]

Charles the V of Austria, aka Charles the I of Spain, aka Holy Roman Emperor, aka King of the Netherlands. This guy ruled Europe, and at the age of nineteen. I just don't know what civilization he would command: Germany most likely.

Since the empire he ruled was mainly due to the Spanish expansion in americas, I would select him as leaderhead for Spain. The Netherlands were dominated by Spain at that time, I think.

 

[DAv2003]

For England I would have to say Winston Churchill with militaristic and perhaps a skill which makes your citizens happier. And then Richard the Lionheart for reason previously stated.
As for Russia I believe that Lenin would be a good choice with commercial and industrious as his skills.

 

[Xen]

A complete list of the currentlly estbalished leaders, as well as optimal choices for a second leader[/u]

Bold= Officially Confirmed leader that no amount fo whining or wishing is gonna change. so stop suggesting different leaders for these nations.

Itallic= Not confirmed, mere speculation/suggestion on what good candidates for secondary leaders would be

America-Washington--Franlin D. Roosevelt
Arabs-Saladin--Abd ar-Rahman (Cordoba Caliphate)
Aztecs-Moctezuma--Acamapichtli
China-Mao Zedong--Qin Shi Huang
Egypt-Hatshepsut--Ramsees II(the Great)
England-Queen Vicky--Queen Liz
France-Louy 14--ol' Nappy
Germany-Bismark--Conrad III(or)Frederik II
Greece-Alexander--Pericles
India-Gandhi--Ashoka
Inca-Manco Capac--Pachacuti
Japan-Tokugawa--Minamoto(Minamoto no Yoritomo)
Mali-Mansa Musa--Sundiata
Mongolia-Gengy K.--Kublai Kahn
Persia-Cyrus--Darius
Rome-J.C.--Marcus Aurelius
Russia-Catherin--Peter(or)Ivan the Terrible
Spain-Isabela[/i--Philip II

 

[Crayton]

Alo - Ashoka! Ah, my history is returning to me. Thanks. I guess, however, that India already has two confirmed leaders.

Urederra - You're right! I forgot that Spain owned half of the New World! Of course, I don't know if it would be fair to have two Renaissance leaders of Spain. Isabela or Charles and, maybe, El Cid. That Age of Empires II campaign went to my head.

Xen - Is that Jesus Christ of The Romans!? No, I see: Julius Caesar.
Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible sound great. Ivan's probably in because Peter and Catherine are contemporaries (Wasn't Catherine German!)