All leader portraits

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Given that women was not allowed to rule France, it is pretty impressive. Maybe more so then Louise and Napoleon.

 

[BornInTheLoo]

I see it too [an animal pelt headdress], but I can't find a suitable civ that resembles that, so I've reverted to assuming it is an Ottoman leader wearing a turban.

Well, there is of course this painting of Alaric the Goth. But no picture resembling C5.

Spoiler :

 

[DeutschDachs]

Given that women was not allowed to rule France, it is pretty impressive. Maybe more so then Louise and Napoleon.

Hyperbole at its finest

 

[SMcM]

Historical importance be damned. She has Big Personality and will probably have interesting mechanics. That's what counts. And that's why I like the choice.

Big personality isn't quite accurate; she was probably not exactly the most charismatic or personable character. However, she was clearly ambitious and scheming, so as you say, she will have unique behavior. However, having discovered that there were Ottoman women who achieved similar power at a time when the Ottomans were at their most powerful, particularly Kösem Sultan, who was regent twice for a total of about 12 years (whilst Catherine De Medicis was regent of France for only 4), and who had her own son strangled to death, I feel that France could have been given a more significant leader like Louis XIV, with the Ottomans being lead by Kösem Sultan, which seems more fitting as she was a genuinely powerful leader.

 

[King William I]

But leaders in 6 aren't chosen for significance. They're chosen for who would be interesting to play against. And de Medici as the the conniving backstabber fits the bill

 

[Zaarin]

But leaders in 6 aren't chosen for significance. They're chosen for who would be interesting to play against. And de Medici as the the conniving backstabber fits the bill

But so does big personality "L'état, c'est moi" Louis XIV.

 

[niewolos]

Next ( and hopefully last ) try at "B5" :






Obviously you had to look at it a bit different than apparently most people do.
Compare the shadow areas. The black "slits" (eyes ) the shadow under and right of the nose and under the chin.
Then compare the brightest ( less yellowish ) areas on both. Given that the blurry one is already much enlarged and not a very exact copy of the original picture in the video it is quite a nice match in my opinion.

There is another picture of this guy that can be compared against the smalller original of "B5" , just look a the shape ( not background/lightting effects ):




If you are still not completely satisfied, I found several dozen pictures of him in several positions, different lighting,(so he appears in bright yellow to almost purple !),different backgrounds etc. , just google it yourself. Would`t be surprised if someone could come up with an even closer match. Also the Harappan culture would fit alphabetically if ,as already suggested by some, Perikles is the leader of the Hellenistic League and not Greece. So maybe " India will have friends this time".

 

[True_Candyman]

Next ( and hopefully ) last try at "B5" :



View attachment 410038 View attachment 410039


Obviously you had to look at it a bit different than apparently most people do.
Compare the shadow areas. The black "slits" (eyes ) the shadow under and right of the nose and under the chin.
Then compare the brightest ( less yellowish ) areas on both. Given that the blurry one is already much enlarged and not a very exact copy of the original picture in the video it is quite a nice match in my opinion.

There is another picture of this guy that can be compared against the smalller original of "B5" , just look a the shape ( not background/lightting effects ):


View attachment 410042 View attachment 410041

If you are still not completely satisfied, I found several dozen pictures of him in several positions, different lighting,(so he appears in bright yellow to almost purple !),different backgrounds etc. , just google it yourself. Would`t be surprised if someone could come up with an even closer match. Also the Harappan culture would fit alphabetically if ,as already suggested by some, Perikles is the leader of the Hellenistic League and not Greece. So maybe " India will have friends this time".

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Those are metaphorical straws. That's how many we're now clutching

But i want to believe the Harrappans will make it so bad, so since nothing more convincing has been shown i'll buy it

 

[SMcM]

Given that women was not allowed to rule France, it is pretty impressive. Maybe more so then Louise and Napoleon.

Hyperbole at its finest

Very true!

 

[SMcM]

But leaders in 6 aren't chosen for significance. They're chosen for who would be interesting to play against. And de Medici as the the conniving backstabber fits the bill

But so does big personality "L'état, c'est moi" Louis XIV.

This; Louis is a big personality. And, in my view, if they want a conniving woman leader, they could use Kösem Sultan; she ruled the Ottomans when they were very powerful, as opposed to Catherine de Medicis ruling France at a point when it was very insignificant, and Turkey is a much smaller video game market than France, so they can more easily afford to choose a leader who isn't the most popular. This situation is win win; they get a conniving woman leader, and they get Louis XIV!

 

[mitsho]

Stop it! If you are looking at a female leader for France, there is other choice than Catherine. Would you have preferred Joan of Arc? Surely not. Catherine did achieve a whole lot, but of course she is not a big popular leader. The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is just too much of a burden for that. But then again compare that to Ghengis Khan... Having finished, there is no point in further guessing what could be possible, all that could be said, has been said (but of course not by everyone).

 

[Zaarin]

Would you have preferred Joan of Arc?

Honestly, yes, I would have. But why does France need a female leader? There are plenty of other civilizations with more legitimate and interesting female leaders without searching the dregs of history to conjure up Catherine De Medicis, for a civilization that has had a ton of big personality rulers.

 

[Bast]

I anticipate that Catherine de Medici will be a quarrelsome scheming fiend. She will probably have an espionage bonus and an agenda to do with rumors. I like all of this.

Historical importance be damned. She has Big Personality and will probably have interesting mechanics. That's what counts. And that's why I like the choice.

I think her special ability would be to poison other leaders

 

[Opera]

I care more about interesting choices, and new ones, than who was the best leader at which time. I don't think it matters if the leader corresponds to when the civilization was at its height. Civilizations are usually designed around multiple points of their existence: so France might have some imperialist UA, a culture UB and musketeers while de Medicis has a spying UA.

I don't understand why it's so important who the leader is; it's more important what they do with their choices.

 

[Zaarin]

I care more about interesting choices

Yes, but France has many more interesting options than De Medicis. The French monarchy has produced numerous kings with big personalities; Louis XIV may be the most bombastic, but there are plenty of other options for all sorts of interesting personalities. If they were so desperate for a female leader of France, Jeanne d'Arc and Eleanor of Aquitaine would both have been more interesting than Catherine--but as I said before, there are other civilizations with better options for female leaders than France has.

 

[evanaurora]

I care more about interesting choices, and new ones, than who was the best leader at which time. I don't think it matters if the leader corresponds to when the civilization was at its height. Civilizations are usually designed around multiple points of their existence: so France might have some imperialist UA, a culture UB and musketeers while de Medicis has a spying UA.

I don't understand why it's so important who the leader is; it's more important what they do with their choices.

Agreed. Civ can't exist choosing only The Most Important Leaders, Paragons of their Time, because you could never come to a consensus. It's about finding a way to make the game interesting and immersive. Seeing how we've seen zero about Catherine besides a blurry picture, I feel like people are jumping ahead about twenty outrage levels.

 

[Zaarin]

Seeing how we've seen zero about Catherine besides a blurry picture, I feel like people are jumping ahead about twenty outrage levels.

We all have civilizations and portions of history we feel strongly about. As someone who has absolutely no interest in Greek history, I don't care who they choose as the Greek leader as long as their choice isn't egregious. As someone with a very strong interest in Medieval and Renaissance history, of which France is a major player, I have very strong feelings about who they choose for France, and Catherine is a horrible choice--not just for historical significance, but out of a long list of rulers with huge personalities.

 

[SMcM]

Stop it! If you are looking at a female leader for France, there is other choice than Catherine. Would you have preferred Joan of Arc? Surely not. Catherine did achieve a whole lot, but of course she is not a big popular leader. The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is just too much of a burden for that. But then again compare that to Ghengis Khan... Having finished, there is no point in further guessing what could be possible, all that could be said, has been said (but of course not by everyone).

But, what if I don't want to give France a female leader? Why would I when a female leader does not fit as well as a male leader? History is sexist, deal with it. It is not that I want it to be, or anyone wants it to be, but it is what it is. I don't object to female leaders where they fit (For example Victoria for the British, Catherine for Russia, Hatsheput for Egypt, Tomyris for Scythia, arguably Theodora for Byzantium as well), but in many cases they do not. Gokudo put it well:

4 years of reign for a nation with 1200+ years of history. No Great war, No Wonder, No decisive political agenda, nothing...
I'm sorry for Women but we didn't have any great woman leader like Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine. History isn't fair and our greatest leaders are all men.

Louis XIV, Saint Louis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Jules Mazarin, even Francois I would have been a better choice.

I know American's firms love to travesty our history (there is no french in battlefield one, strange, I believed we lost 3 millions people in this war ) but they could try to hide it ...

Though I can't say that I agree De Gaulle is a better choice

 

[DarkAlabaster]

She will be a caricature of the real Catherine. And not in a cartoony or fun way; they will make something she was not and never tried to be. She was happy with one castle after the death of her husband and that's it. But oh, she was so cunning and so scheming; oh ruling four years for three sons, oh! Like they chose an half french, who never really ruled, and even if she did it, it was during one of the worst time for France. Why not Tamar of Georgia (or Kösem Sultan) if you need more women?

 

[King Jason]

Anyone who makes the claim that she only reigned for 4 years isn't paying attention. Even good king Henry acquiesced to the fact that she was pretty much the only reason house valois lasted another 30 years after the death of Henry II. The only one of her sons that showed a modicum of interest and capability as a leader was the last one and even then she was left with the heavy lifting half of the time.

That said, nobody that likes her is going to change their minds - and nobody that dislikes her is going to change their minds. So really the debate about Catherine de'Medici may as well be going in circles.