Americas

[Zaarin]

Do you thing Sitting Bull isn't also a good name to be a Civ leader? I remeber him as Great General in Civ 5.

I don't think the Sioux are a great choice for a civ for the same reason as the Shawnee, namely their highly mobile lifestyle. If they were included, however, I agree with @Boris Gudenuf that Red Cloud is a better choice for leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Many particularly famous Native Americans are famous because they suit late 19th century American narratives that God intended the entire North American continent to belong to the USA. (There were secular versions of the argument, too, but they amount to the same thing.) The idea is that by valiantly trying and failing to resist American expansion, these Native Americans "proved" that it was "God's will" that America expand. Tecumseh and Sitting Bull are the most prominent examples, but Pocahontas, the Seminole Wars, Geronimo, Metacom, and others tie into this. Essentially, Americans admired them precisely because they became symbols of American Exceptionalism.

I mean it's really hard to find a lot of compelling leaders of Native Americans that were not affected in some way by American expansion. Even Poundmaker for the Cree is in the same boat, but was up against Canada. On personality alone, Tecumseh would be a fine choice for the Shawnee, though I agree with you that his brother would be just as good.

Do you thing Sitting Bull isn't also a good name to be a Civ leader? I remeber him as Great General in Civ 5.

Sitting Bull was already a leader in two games. He should sit out for a while.

 

[Zaarin]

I mean it's really hard to find a lot of compelling leaders of Native Americans that were not affected in some way by American expansion.

All post-Columbian Native Americans were affected by American expansion. However, not all were equally written into Manifest Destiny narratives like the Frontier thesis. Also to be clear I'm not saying that a Native American civ or leader should be excluded because of how they've been presented by the Frederick Jackson Turner school; I simply think they should be approached with caution and thoughtfulness. (I still think the Shawnee and Sioux are poor choices, however, simply because of how mobile their societies were; they'd likely become Sumeria-style civs centered solely on the personality of their leaders.)

 

[Henri Christophe]

I mean it's really hard to find a lot of compelling leaders of Native Americans that were not affected in some way by American expansion.

If the intention is avoid American expansion we should pick again Hiawatha as leaders of Iroquois, he lived years before the arrival of Europeans in America, and Iroquois was a great Empire in colonial age.
But, for other Native American nations is hard to pick leaders before Europeans arrive because our lack of knowledge about their history before. Even when we know something, it will be very debated if is true or not.

 

[awesome]

If the intention is avoid American expansion we should pick again Hiawatha as leaders of Iroquois, he lived years before the arrival of Europeans in America, and Iroquois was a great Empire in colonial age.
But, for other Native American nations is hard to pick leaders before Europeans arrive because our lack of knowledge about their history before. Even when we know something, it will be very debated if is true or not.

I mean, there are already several leaders that have been used in the Civ series that people debate whether or not they were real people. I don’t think we should try having gods ruling civilizations, but great mythological kings and queens should be okay.
So, if Dido and Gilgamesh are fine, King Arthur probably is, too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

All post-Columbian Native Americans were affected by American expansion. However, not all were equally written into Manifest Destiny narratives like the Frontier thesis. Also to be clear I'm not saying that a Native American civ or leader should be excluded because of how they've been presented by the Frederick Jackson Turner school; I simply think they should be approached with caution and thoughtfulness.

I'm not aware of the tribes specifically chosen to represent the Manifest Destiny narrative. Even so, I figure that those were the most notable examples and none of them shouldn't just be excluded because of that.

(I still think the Shawnee and Sioux are poor choices, however, simply because of how mobile their societies were; they'd likely become Sumeria-style civs centered solely on the personality of their leaders.)

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the Sioux either, and would rather the Comanche if we were to get a Plains/mobile tribe. Shawnee I don't mind as much but they aren't at the top of my list either.

If the intention is avoid American expansion we should pick again Hiawatha as leaders of Iroquois, he lived years before the arrival of Europeans in America, and Iroquois was a great Empire in colonial age.
But, for other Native American nations is hard to pick leaders before Europeans arrive because our lack of knowledge about their history before. Even when we know something, it will be very debated if is true or not.

There's also Jigonhsasee, who supposedly lived around the same time and together with Hiawatha and the Peacemaker formed the Iroquois confederacy. She's also one of the few women leaders in North America that could be used.

I mean, there are already several leaders that have been used in the Civ series that people debate whether or not they were real people. I don’t think we should try having gods ruling civilizations, but great mythological kings and queens should be okay.
So, if Dido and Gilgamesh are fine, King Arthur probably is, too.

As much as I like the King Arthur stories, I don't see any compelling reason to pick him over Elizabeth, or any other real leader of England. Dido and Gilgamesh are more historically known to really exist. At the same time trying to find leaders for Sumeria and Phoenicia are way harder than England.

 

[Henri Christophe]

There's also Jigonhsasee, who supposedly lived around the same time and together with Hiawatha and the Peacemaker formed the Iroquois confederacy. She's also one of the few women leaders in North America that could be used.

I like the idea of Jigonhsasee as leader of Iroquois, first because is someone different of Hiawatha who was already in Civ 5, and second because we need more womens in this game too.

Speaking about Womens, other option can be Xochitl from Toltec Empire

 

[awesome]

As much as I like the King Arthur stories, I don't see any compelling reason to pick him over Elizabeth, or any other real leader of England. Dido and Gilgamesh are more historically known to really exist. At the same time trying to find leaders for Sumeria and Phoenicia are way harder than England.

I mostly used King Arthur as an example, because he was the first legendary king I could think of who we’re not sure if he existed, which you alluded to. What I actually meant, though, was that, if we can’t find a ruler who we know existed 100%, then a legendary ruler is better than just not having that civilization in the game if we have enough other information and it would make for interesting gameplay.
Besides, Arthur wouldn’t make sense as an English king anyway, but maybe as a Welsh/Celt ruler (at least, as much sense as Brennus did, since that was probably just a title).

 

[Zaarin]

If the intention is avoid American expansion we should pick again Hiawatha as leaders of Iroquois, he lived years before the arrival of Europeans in America, and Iroquois was a great Empire in colonial age.

Not entirely correct. We don't know for sure when the League was founded, with most estimates somewhere between 1400 and 1600, but increasingly scholarship points to the creation of the League as a direct response to encounters with the French in the 16th century.

At the same time trying to find leaders for Sumeria and Phoenicia are way harder than England.

True for Phoenicia--at least if you want a personality and not just a name--but not true for Sumer. Sumer has plenty of good, solidly attested, big personality choices. Gudea is my personal favorite, but there are plenty of others like Ur-Nammu, Sargon, and Kuĝbau (probably the only good choice for a female leader from Mesopotamia).

 

[Henri Christophe]

Not entirely correct. We don't know for sure when the League was founded, with most estimates somewhere between 1400 and 1600, but increasingly scholarship points to the creation of the League as a direct response to encounters with the French in the 16th century.

There is a legend about an eclipse when the Iroquois was founded, that give us two option of dates. 1142 or 1451.
Since the Iroquois was very well stablish when Europeans arrived, is hard to believe it happens in 1451, just few years before Europeans arrival.
So, I like to believe the Iroquois confederation was founded in 1142.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True for Phoenicia--at least if you want a personality and not just a name--but not true for Sumer. Sumer has plenty of good, solidly attested, big personality choices. Gudea is my personal favorite, but there are plenty of others like Ur-Nammu, Sargon, and Kuĝbau (probably the only good choice for a female leader from Mesopotamia).

Well in comparison to England, it is harder.
I do consider the Akkadian Empire could be separate from Sumer though under Sargon.

 

[Zaarin]

There is a legend about an eclipse when the Iroquois was founded, that give us two option of dates. 1142 or 1451.
Since the Iroquois was very well stablish when Europeans arrived, is hard to believe it happens in 1451, just few years before Europeans arrival.
So, I like to believe the Iroquois confederation was founded in 1142.

There is no archaeological evidence that Iroquoian peoples even lived in the Great Lakes region until about a century after 1142. There is also good historical evidence that the Iroquois Confederacy was founded after the Huron Confederacy (which was formed in the 15th century). Also your claim that the League was well-established is difficult to verify; that the people were well-established isn't relevant as they had lived in the same region long before the League. The eclipse narrative may have been embellishment--or borrowed from the Huron, for whom 1451 is a much more plausible date. At any rate, modern historical scholarship strongly supports that the Iroquois Confederacy was a deliberate response to encounters with the French and other Europeans; it is not as old as was once believed.

I do consider the Akkadian Empire could be separate from Sumer though under Sargon.

I don't. The people of Agade were culturally Sumerian, even if they spoke Akkadian. Worth noting that Agade was gone entirely by the time power shifted to Babylon, and its traditions were only preserved by the Assyrians (who were kind of obsessed with Sargon--one notes several Assyrian kings and an entire Assyrian dynasty bears his name, plus one of their capitals was called "Sargon's Fortress"). At any rate, the people of Agade were Akkadian-speaking Sumerians. Sargon certainly saw himself as such.

 

[awesome]

Maybe somebody from the west coast, like Chumash, or something

 

[Henri Christophe]

Maybe somebody from the west coast, like Chumash, or something

I never heard about Chumash before, I do a little search in the internet and found something linked with the bible.
I believe US have a lot of better names to be a Civ then Chumash. From West Coast I should pick the Tlingit or Haida.

 

[awesome]

I never heard about Chumash before, I do a little search in the internet and found something linked with the Bible.
I believe US have a lot of better names to be a Civ then Chumash. From West Coast I should pick the Tlingit or Haida.

I’ve been pushing for Haida for a few years; but I’ve resigned myself to them being better off as a city-state (war canoe unique unit).
Unfortunately, that’s the case for a lot of native tribes.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Communist Cuba would be so dope

 

[Henri Christophe]

Communist Cuba would be so dope

I would like to see a Cuban civ lead by Fidel Castro or Che Guevara, but I believe Fireaxis wants to avoid this kind of leaders.
So, other option can be Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, who leads the first try of the island to be indenpendent from 1868 to 1878.

 

[awesome]

Fidel died less than a decade ago.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Communist Cuba would be so dope

Civ ability: Cuban Literacy Campaign:
Farms provide science equal to the usual food output instead of yielding food.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Fidel died less than a decade ago.

That's rise the question, how long after the death of someone he can be choiced to be a Civ leader?
Despite the fact we can use Carlos Manuel de Céspedes as Cuban leader, is undeniable that Fidel Castro is more well know than Céspedes.
This game made before some comunist leaders, as Stalin for Russia and Mao TseTung for China. I believe China and Russia have better leaders than Stalin and Mao. But Cuba don't, their best leader possible is from Comunism.

Maybe Cuba can appear with Fidel Castro as leader and Che Guevara as Unique Unit.