All leader portraits

[Eagle Pursuit]

I suspect you're right. Cleo's pic seems to be a photo of a bust (I posted a different photo of it way back in the first dozen pages of this thread somewhere.) It could be a reference book in Firaxis's offices with copyrighted images that haven't been digitized and spread over the internet.

I was thinking the same thing for C5.

 

[True_Candyman]

I have no idea what you are getting at; Napoleon should lead French, not Italians, and Tamerlane should rule Timurids not Golden-Horde, even though both of these conquered those other territories. The comparison you were responding to makes perfect sense.

Well my lovely pedantic point was that Napoleon was King of Italy for a brief period, so technically it would not be incorrect to make him the leader of Italy. Maybe not the best decision, but he was actually King, should didn't come into my point, it was about could.

While that other poster I imagine just got his Mongol hordes confused, since Tamerlane was the leader of the timirids not the Golden Horde.

 

[sukritact]

Thing is, this 'choosing the biggest personalities' thing is ultimately a little silly; not only are some choices here (e.g. Trajan) not generally seen as being the 'biggest personalities' of their retrospective Civs, but obsession with this asserts that history is made of boring leaders and interesting ones.

Really makes me wish for Claudius. Everyone was like 'WHY IS A STUTTERING FOOL THE ROMAN EMPEROR!?' Then he conquered Britain. And actually was awesome at administration. Then there was the whole fiasco with his wife getting married to another guy behind his back.

 

[retrocity5]

Who's your avatar sukritact? From a new mod or upcoming perhaps?

 

[j51]

Strangely, the picture presumably for Cleo (B1), matches the picture of the diplomacy advisor really well:

 

[retrocity5]

Polynesia should be split this time around. It was an amalgamation, and the name is a very broad term, like another Civ from a previous game *Cough* Native Americans - Civ IV *Cough*.

Polynesia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia

 

[hkenneth]

Personally, if we were to pick someone other than Qin I would like to see Qianlong in the game most- would be nice for variety if anything. He was also a very significant ruler; not only was China at its largest during his reign (which was the second longest in the history of China, and longest in terms of the length of time he was de facto- ruler), but many of China's neighbors were tributary states at this time (Bhutan, Nepal, Dzungars, Thailand, Vietnam, Burma, Laos)- he would be the perfect leader for a Chinese Civ which used its military and economic strength to bend City states to its will.

I don't really consider Qin Dynasty a good representation of China. They were Manchurians who annihilated China (Ming Dynasty) in 1644 (similar to how Mongols annihilated South Song). They ruled China for 300 years but Manchurian culture was very different than Chinese. They also had their own language and writing system, all different than Chinese. The infamous Manchu pigtail hair style was also unique to Manchurian culture.

 

[SMcM]

Really makes me wish for Claudius. Everyone was like 'WHY IS A STUTTERING FOOL THE ROMAN EMPEROR!?' Then he conquered Britain. And actually was awesome at administration. Then there was the whole fiasco with his wife getting married to another guy behind his back.

I certainly feel Claudius would also be a good choice. I don't have a problem with Trajan though, and there was likely more to his character than most know, but I am sceptical he is the "biggest personality" Rome has to offer. Again, him not fitting that criteria doesn't bother me, because I prefer successfull leaders to loopy hyperactive ones (I would not appreciate having Elagabalus in the game because he had a distinct personality, for example). But by not keeping to this criteria Firaxis seems to be contradicting itself.

I don't really consider Qin Dynasty a good representation of China. They were Manchurians who annihilated China (Ming Dynasty) in 1644 (similar to how Mongols annihilated South Song). They ruled China for 300 years but Manchurian culture was very different than Chinese. They also had their own language and writing system, all different than Chinese. The infamous Manchu pigtail hair style was also unique to Manchurian culture.

Yeah, but today Manchuria is just an intergrated part of China, with no interest in independence/ Manchu nationalism. That is like saying Napoleon should not lead France because he is Corsican, even though Corsica is now part of France.

 

[j51]

So that's a no-go on the foreign advisor being B1? Just wondering what people think.

 

[Thorburne]

I certainly feel Claudius would also be a good choice. I don't have a problem with Trajan though, and there was likely more to his character than most know, but I am sceptical he is the "biggest personality" Rome has to offer. Again, him not fitting that criteria doesn't bother me, because I prefer successfull leaders to loopy hyperactive ones (I would not appreciate having Elagabalus in the game because he had a distinct personality, for example). But by not keeping to this criteria Firaxis seems to be contradicting itself.

I'm sure this has been posted before in response to Trajan, but I figured I'd add it here in relevance to the conversation.

From Wikipedia intro on Trajan

Trajan (; Latin: Imperator Caesar Nerva Traianus Divi Nervae filius Augustus;[1] 18 September 53 – August 8, 117 AD) was Roman emperor from 98 AD until his death in 117 AD. Officially declared by the Senateoptimus princeps ("the best ruler"), Trajan is remembered as a successful soldier-emperor who presided over the greatest military expansion in Roman history, leading the empire to attain its maximum territorial extent by the time of his death. He is also known for his philanthropic rule, overseeing extensive public building programs and implementing social welfare policies, which earned him his enduring reputation as the second of the Five Good Emperors who presided over an era of peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean world

I find it interesting that he expanded Rome to its furthest extent and was responsible for the great public works.

 

[SMcM]

Polynesia should be split this time around. It was an amalgamation, and the name is a very broad term, like another Civ from a previous game *Cough* Native Americans - Civ IV *Cough*.

Polynesia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia

The Polynesian leaders I would most like to see are Roy Mata of Vanuatu, Cakobau of Fiji, Kamehamaha of Hawaii, Hotu Matu'a of Easter Island, Salamasina of Samoa, ʻAhoʻeitu of Tonga, Purea of Tahiti and Jean-Marie Tjibaou of New Caledonia.

Who's your avatar sukritact? From a new mod or upcoming perhaps?

I was wondering whether it was a character from the actual game, like and advisor or something, or a mod character. If the latter, my top guess is a Roman emperor due to Roman looking cloak and armour. But one with a beard. Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Servius, Maximilian, and many others could fit the bill. Roman generals, commanders and politicians also possible. Could also be Greek also though. Maybe Phillip II of Macedon?

I'm sure this has been posted before in response to Trajan, but I figured I'd add it here in relevance to the conversation.

From Wikipedia intro on Trajan


I find it interesting that he expanded Rome to its furthest extent and was responsible for the great public works.

Yes, yes, I understand all of this. But none of this is relevant to personality. I get he did great things, but unless you claim he is Rome's biggest personality, then I have no disagreement with you. And anyway, like I said, I am not bothered by choosing 'big personalities'. The success of a leader is more important to me, and so Trajan is fine.

 

[Xyth]

The Polynesian leaders I would most like to see are Roy Mata of Vanuatu, Cakobau of Fiji, Kamehamaha of Hawaii, Hotu Matu'a of Easter Island, Salamasina of Samoa, ʻAhoʻeitu of Tonga, Purea of Tahiti and Jean-Marie Tjibaou of New Caledonia.

Fiji, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia are Melanesian, not Polynesian.

 

[retrocity5]

The Polynesian leaders I would most like to see are Roy Mata of Vanuatu, Cakobau of Fiji, Kamehamaha of Hawaii, Hotu Matu'a of Easter Island, Salamasina of Samoa, ʻAhoʻeitu of Tonga, Purea of Tahiti and Jean-Marie Tjibaou of New Caledonia.

I dunno about Vanuatu nor New Caledonia, but the rest I can agree with, except Tahiti's leader, Pōmare I! Additionally I'd suggest The Maori with Te Rauparaha and the Kingdom of Bora Bora with Puni (Teihotu Matarua) but, I'd be fine with just Hawaii, Rapa Nui, Tonga, Samoa, and The Maori. Also, Fiji, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia are Melanesian.

Civ V Mods FTW!
MC's Polynesian Spilt: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=323041325
CL and senshidenshi's Samoa: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=690434307

 

[Krajzen]

Polynesia should be split this time around. It was an amalgamation, and the name is a very broad term, like another Civ from a previous game *Cough* Native Americans - Civ IV *Cough*.

Polynesia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesia

Polynesia is very tough subject for me because I simultaneously hold three positions on that civ that kinda contradict each other
1) Oceanian people as a broad whole were the best navigators and sailors in human history (relatively speaking - regarding very poor technology they had in comparision with their nautical achievements) so it'd be cool to see them in some form
2) Polynesia of civ5 was horrible amalgamate of cultures separated by thousands of miles that shared nothing with each other except maybe common ancestors, so such Polynesia shouldn't return
3) On the other hand, each culture of Oceania, when taken separately, seems too... unrefined and unimpressive to me to not seem weird when standing next to Rome and India. Because what empires we get? Disunited Maori tribes on neolithic tech level, living in the villages and practicing cannibalism (and btw I find their culture cool, but that's not civilization)? Disunited Polynesian islands with population of each local 'empire' size of a single medium Eurasian city? Disunited Hawaiian tribes on neolithic tech level that finally managed to unite... In the 19th century and right before becoming protectorate? Eastern Island with population estimate of 15 000?

So here we go. All those cultures thrown to one basket is ignorant and insulting; any of them divided is very poor basis for civilization; not including them is sad.

 

[retrocity5]

Polynesia is very tough subject for me because I simultaneously hold three positions on that civ that kinda contradict each other
1) Oceanian people as a broad whole were the best navigators and sailors in human history (relatively speaking - regarding very poor technology they had in comparision with their nautical achievements) so it'd be cool to see them in some form
2) Polynesia of civ5 was horrible amalgamate of cultures separated by thousands of miles that shared nothing with each other except maybe common ancestors, so such Polynesia shouldn't return
3) On the other hand, each culture of Oceania, when taken separately, seems too... unrefined and unimpressive to me to not seem weird when standing next to Rome and India. Because what empires we get? Disunited Maori tribes on neolithic tech level, living in the villages and practicing cannibalism (and btw I find their culture cool, but that's not civilization)? Disunited Polynesian islands with population of each local 'empire' size of a single medium Eurasian city? Disunited Hawaiian tribes on neolithic tech level that finally managed to unite... In the 19th century and right before becoming protectorate? Eastern Island with population estimate of 15 000?

So here we go. All those cultures thrown to one basket is ignorant and insulting; any of them divided is very poor basis for civilization; not including them is sad.

Great Civilizations don't have be be the size of Canada or America. Look at Venice, look at so many other prime examples in the Civ V Mod community or Workshop. Btw, The Mayans were never united as well as the Shoshone, but they were included none the less. Quit being Sizeist to great civilizations.

 

[Krajzen]

Look at Venice, look at so many other prime examples in the Civ V Mod community or Workshop. Btw, The Mayans were never united as well as the Shoshone, but they were included none the less. Quit being Sizeist to great civilizations.

The difference is, Venice and Mayans had very developed, sophisticated and influential economy and/or culture and/or technology - what really matters is not size but

Spoiler :

A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite. Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labor, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming as an agricultural practice, and expansionism.

[Please especially note how every civilization is a form of society, but no every society means a civilization. I really hate the derogatory, racist use of the word 'uncivilized' which caused people to call every human group 'civilization' because of fear of being called racist.]

Yeah I know that civ franchise is led by the rule of cool, not rule of realism, but if we throw all definitions out of the window we may as well turn every ethnic group of the world into the playable faction, and that'd be highly suboptimal method if we want to focus on biggest players first

 

[retrocity5]

The difference is, Venice and Mayans had very developed, sophisticated and influential economy and/or culture and/or technology - what really matters is not size but

Spoiler :

A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite. Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labor, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming as an agricultural practice, and expansionism.

Yeah I know that civ franchise is led by the rule of cool, not rule of realism, but if we throw all definitions out of the window we may as well turn every ethnic group of the world into the playable faction, and that'd be highly suboptimal method

Actually, Firaxis' ideas are based on ethnicity in a way. (Almost) any group that were to speak it own language or have it's own culture, and have effected the world or it's continent/region has a chance to be in the game. Look at it, The Huns, the most infamous nomads to attack Rome. Rome gave civilization to all of Europe. (Classical Era) Greece created western civilization. Germany, France, England, The Ottomans, Russia, Austria, The Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal constantly at war over territory. Denmark and Sweden fighting and uniting (Kalmar Union). Poland "Invasion, occupation, partition, rebellion and rebirth - that cycle has characterized the tragic and triumphant history of Poland for the past millennium," - Civ V Civilopedia, Poland-Lithuania and fighting the State of the Teutonic Order. And that's just in Europe (sadly the other continents are poorly to very little represented)!

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread is about the portraits on the wall at Firaxis and what civs and leaders they may represent. We have had to remind you guys multiple times to please stay on topic. If you cannot, then this awesome thread will be closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MinnesotaNation]

I don't really consider Qin Dynasty a good representation of China. They were Manchurians who annihilated China (Ming Dynasty) in 1644 (similar to how Mongols annihilated South Song). They ruled China for 300 years but Manchurian culture was very different than Chinese. They also had their own language and writing system, all different than Chinese. The infamous Manchu pigtail hair style was also unique to Manchurian culture.

I believe you're confusing Qin for Qing (which, as far as I know in English, is pronounced the same way. Pinyin is weird that way). Two totally different dynasties.

 

[hkenneth]

Yeah, but today Manchuria is just an intergrated part of China, with no interest in independence/ Manchu nationalism. That is like saying Napoleon should not lead France because he is Corsican, even though Corsica is now part of France.

They did in a very short time choose independence in the beginning of the 20th century (well, as a puppet state of Japan Empire in WWII). I am not sure about Corsican but the fact that Manchurians have a distinctive ethnic background that is different from our recognition as Chinese makes them not a very good representation of China. On the other hand, Manchurian civilization (or Jurchens) existed long before Qing Dynasty. They also established Jin Dynasty in the 12th century which ended North Song and coexisted with Mongols and South Song Dynasty. Their ancestors Xianbei also coexisted with Han Dynasty and Huns. They could well be their own civ similar to Mongols and Huns.