2 leaders for every civ

[Xen]

I'm willing to bet that such a list could very easilly be made with the assorted pooled knowledge of the historian running about this site, and i for one woudl love to see each civ fleshed out; thus, the purpose of thsi thread is to give a list of of the nations in civ4, with two leaders, and two descriptive traits based onthe civ3 traits to help describe them; hopefully, a developer will pass along this way, or one of our moderators (as I'm quite sure some of them are likelly beta testers, based on previous knowldge of the subject) will pass the existence of this thread onto them.

I'll start off.

-The Incans: Manco Capac(religious, industrious) Pachacuti (Militaristic, Expansionist)
-The Mali: Mansa Musa (Commercial, Agricultural), Sundiata (Commercial, Expansionist)
-The Mongols: Genghis Khan (Militaristic, expansionist), Kublai Khan (Commercial, Industrious)
-The Persians: Cyrus (Militaristic, Religious ) Darius (Expansionist, Industrious)
-The Romans: Julius Caesar (Militaristic, Expansionist), Marcus Aurelius (Militaristic, but looking mainlly for defence, Industrious)
---------------------
-Greeks: ALexander (Milaristic, expansionist), Pericles (Culureal/Religious, scientific)
-Babylon: Hammurabi: (Religious, Expansionist) Nebuchadenezzar: (Agricultural, Religious)

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

hmmmm are we guessing or do we know?
well i cant think of any right now but thats a good start xen

 

[Xen]

what do you mean? for every civilization thier are at least two (real) possible leaders.

 

[rbis4rbb]

America

F.D.Roosevelt (Militaristic, Industrious) and Teddy Rossevelt (Commercial, Expansionist)

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

what do you mean? for every civilization thier are at least two (real) possible leaders.

i mean are you guessing what they will be for civ4 or are these proven?

 

[Ciceronian]

France: Napoleon (Militaristic, Expansionist) and de Gaulle (Commercial, Industrious)
Germany: Bismarck (Scientific, Industrious) and Hitler (Militaristic, Industrious)

 

[Xen]

France: Napoleon (Militaristic, Expansionist) and de Gaulle (Commercial, Industrious)
Germany: Bismarck (Scientific, Industrious) and Hitler (Militaristic, Industrious)

1)Frances leaders are already chosen. the thread is based primarilly to cover the natiosn not yet known, and more obviouslly I think, natiosn such as mali whos secondary choices are so obvious ot the layman.

2)Hitler ran germany intot he ground; that he was leader at a "prime point" (if your stupid enough to call it such) of German history is due to him getting lucky by having an able support staff of military leaders and scientists, not because of him himself. he was a good politician I'll given him that, but when he began direct supervising anything, its promptlly fell apart.

 

[Louis XXIV]

America

F.D.Roosevelt (Militaristic, Industrious) and Teddy Rossevelt (Commercial, Expansionist)

I think they said it would be FDR and Washington

France: Napoleon (Militaristic, Expansionist) and de Gaulle (Commercial, Industrious)

I believe they said it would be Napoleon and Louis XIV

How about Spain?

Would they consider putting in someone like Franco?

BTW, as far as I know, not every civ will get two leaders (I wouldn't be suprised if someone like Mongolia only gets Ghengis Khan).

 

[Xen]

I know every civ wont get two leaders, and its probabley because the developers dont have any real historians on the team (if they do, then I apologize; but they need to start doing some more research) and thus they just dont have a pool of known leaders to choose from to give every civ 2 leaders.

However, the internet is a fantastic place, filled with amy a verity of people whom know a great deal fo things, and considering a nice sized chunk visti CFC, one woudl expect that thier woudl be more then enough knowledge to give every singel civilization two leaders; hell, i already covered soem fo the hardest; Mongolia, Mali, and the Inca with satisfactory leaders whom offer a much different perspective of those empires then one might expect normally.

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.) and the Aztecs

 

[mitsho]

Well I would have Hadrian instead of Marcus Aurelius for the Romans, but we have probably a lot of great leaders there and we could dispute forever I suppose.

For Germany: Bismarck (obvious choice; industrial, expansionistic) and Friedrich Barbarossa (religious, militaristic)

Barbarossa may not really have led the 'German' people (was not for a long time in Germany, and therefore is one of the steps to the breaking up of Germany into many small 'states', principalities, etc. but he stands for a time when Germany was the hegemonial nation in Europe, and he is a somehow popular figure)

for the aztecs, you have to ask someone else (or wikipedia), but I'm sure we could find someone...
France and Britain have already been treated, with spain it is the question if they want to take someone of the 'habsburgs', philip II. could be a choice, but I'm not really an expert in spanish history.

The other problem case is India, cause it has such a long history, and what do we chose, because some/most could be a civ of their own?

hope I could help m

 

[Xen]

Well I would have Hadrian instead of Marcus Aurelius for the Romans, but we have probably a lot of great leaders there and we could dispute forever I suppose.

Anyone directlly responsible for intiateing a major rebellion (in this case either the second or third "Jewish war") shouldnt be elligible for being a full leader; Julius caesar is the exception tot he revolt rule, because of the cricumstances the rebellions occurd under; hadria however, is solelly resposnible for that rebllion.

Diocletian is actually my favorite choice for a second Roman leader, but he isnt likelly to go down well because of his harsh treatment fo chrisitians.

 

[mitsho]

as I said it, we could discuss forever, but I'd rather use my short free time this day for playing

m

 

[Xen]

we could discuss it until most emperors are weeded out due to assorted things, leaving an interesting pool, more or less comprised of only Trajan, Vespasian (another preffered emperor of mine), and Augustus

 

[Urederra]

1)Frances leaders are already chosen. the thread is based primarilly to cover the nations not yet known, and more obviouslly I think, nations such as mali whos secondary choices are so obvious ot the layman.

Patriotism is very high in this forum. You can tell by reading certain threads, like the ones about 18 civilizations, the one about Napoleon, or about Hitler, or about the 2 english leaders. I also have the same disease So, even if the thread is not about my country, I have to introduce it. When the patriotism is worsening, it is called Chauvinism.

Long standing civs which have been monarchies have a lot of good leaders (The kings and queens), some bad ones as well. So, what it is difficult in these civs is to pick only two of so many options.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm not sure but I doubt they have kept the same traitconcept - militaristic + expansionist, etc. - as in civ3. They've just talked about giving Napoleon somekind of military bonus while giving Louis a cultural.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

Hitler ran germany intot he ground

hitler did bring germany's economy back up until he started the war...

 

[Urederra]

How about Spain?

Would they consider putting in someone like Franco?

I wouldn't mind it. Although some people might dislike it. History is still too fresh, and there is some people who tried to picture him worse than he really was, mainly the red wing spanish parties, who tried to establish a communist dictatorship. They killed, or at least, tried to kill the main right wing leaders when they reached the power in 1936 and then Franco revolted.

Some people try to picture him worse than he really was to justify or cover the really bad things the left wing parties did during the 1934-1936 period (several revolts, which the lefties always call them "revolutions"

And, by looking at the economic development of Spain during the Franco dictatorship, and comparing it to the "development" of the countries under communist dictatorships, I have to say that Franco's was waaaaay better. And, yes, A democracy might be much better, but when the left wing parties started to kill the main right wing leaders, It wasn't other real option.

But, anyway, Spain has a veeeeeery long History, with more lows than highs, and you can find really good leaders, such as Isabella, Phillip II, Charles I, and even military ones, such as Blas de Lezo, or even the Conquerors. I am not going to be picky about that.

 

[Xen]

hitler did bring germany's economy back up until he started the war...

and then he ran it into the ground.

end result? he ran it intot he ground case closed, leader dimissed.

 

[North King]

India: Ashoka (Peaceful, Industrious, Commericial), Harsha (Militaristic, Industrious) would do well, methinks.

 

[MrMahk]

Germany: Bismarck (Scientific, Industrious)

Bismarck scientific not militaristic???? do you not know that he fought 3 wars (war with denmark, 7 weeks war, franco-prussian war) to unite Germany??? thats the most wars ive ever seen a leader win for his country!