Any ideas of other Eleanor-style double leaders?

[Krajzen]

I am trying to think of other historical leaders who could lead two civs and work the same way as her. I guess the most probable would be dynastical rulers od Europe. Do you have any ideas?

*If Poland and Lithuania were both in a game, several Jagiellonian dynasty rulers could lead both of them
*I may be wrong but couldn't Charles V lead both Spain and Austria?

 

[Siptah]

*I may be wrong but couldn't Charles V lead both Spain and Austria?

He could, and the Netherlands and Germany as well - I'm not quite sure for the whole of the Netherlands, but the other countries see him as "one of theirs". Does it make sense though? He ruled all of them at the same time, so why should he rule *only* the Netherlands for example? He would be a very fine choice for Spain or Austria though.

A similar case would be Charlemagne.

Margaret I comes to mind as well.

 

[Phrozen]

William II/III for Netherlands and England. Military bonus against those following another religion and/or the French.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm really not feeling any other proposed dual leaders. Charlemagne feels a little too blobby to be neatly compartmentalized into France and Germany. Although a political case could be made for Italy and France/Germany, the question still becomes which should he lead, France or Germany? Nothing feels right and all solutions are to some degree messy.

I don't believe ideas like James of Scotland, William of Orange, Louis of Hungary are especially likely either, since they lead one or more DLC civs and making DLC a mandatary buy to support further DLC is going down a slippery slope of exploitation. Same goes for Kublai Khan.

And then we have Margaret of Denmark, who although being far more powerful than Eleanor had quite a bit of her thunder stolen today. Margaret could represent Norway and Denmark (the DLC problem is lessened by the fact that her second country was already in the base game). But I just don't see the devs adding a second dual female leader without attempting to pander to the male playerbase first. And since I don't see any obvious male leaders I suspect Eleanor may be all we get.

Edit: actually, on principle I believe the Carolingian Empire would be best represented as France, i.e. the Franks and Italy i.e. the Lombards. Rome was a second capital to Aachen. And it mirrors the Angevin dynasty better than merely trying to separate the Franks into France and Germany. Inelegant, but adequate.

 

[Phrozen]

If you don't like William than Empress Matilda also fits for Germany & England. She helped rule the HRE with her husband including being regent of Italy. Then she was named successor to the crown of England by her father. She fought a civil war for the crown with her side winning and her son, Henry II, being crowned king. Even during his reign she was the duchess of Normandy and ran it till her death.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Philip II... (err... I mean Philip I...) leads Portugal in Sid Meier’s Civilization VI!

 

[Lord Lakely]

Charles V of Habsburg (Philip's dad). Became King of Spain before being elected Holy Roman Emperor, which gives him the legitimacy to lead Germany (or Austria) in the game.

There's also potential for two models (left for Spain and right for Germany/Austria)

I'm racking my brain for anyone else who would fit the Eleanor paradigm who hasn't been mentioned yet, but there isn't rly. You'd have to look at some obscure 18th century monarchs for another viable pick, unless one of the already existing leaders is retroactively fit as a duel leader instead (in which case Philip II is the prime choice, for Spain and Portugal, which each get another leader in their own right (Isabella and John?))

 

[Xandinho]

Pedro I can lead Brazil or Portugal. It would be funny to have him in the same match against his son, Pedro II.

 

[TheSheriff]

It would also be nice to have a French leader who actually lead France. I'm all for more female leaders, but Catherine d' Medici was an awful choice. I'd like to add Louis the Fat, the Sun King, Napoleon or even someone like Charles Martel.

On the subject of double leaders, I could imagine Charlemagne fitting in as both a German and French leader.

 

[Aurelesk]

Charlemagne wasn't the King of France nor Germany. He was King of Franks that the territory was on actual France and actual Germany. Then, the territory split into 2 (well 3) and give us France and Germany. Kind of anachronic, Charlemagne will make more sense as King of Europe Union than France or Germany. Leaders that have ruled over 2 countries that happens to be 2 differents Kingdom / others are tricky to find and not from Domination are hard to find, and those who did aren't that good/memorable.


Let's take an example: Henri III, one of the son of Catherine de' Medici was elected King of Poland and, when the King of France died (his brother), he abdicted and became King of France.

Henri III was not a memorable leader. His life was... well. Let's say he could be a good king if he was born in a better era, and died poorly, assassinated by a zealous monk and saying that famous stupid sentence: "Naughty! You killed me!"

Nothing to say more around his reign. He relanctly go to Poland to reign, and when he was crowned (took almost a year), abdicted like 4 months later. In France, he was kind of good leader, giving more credit to loyalty and value than nobility and prestige. Due to this, infamous rumor said that he was gay (and also a well known womanizer). He's probably the worst king of Poland, not sure that polish nor french want to be represented by this feminine guy (feminine because he disliked go hunting, and focus too much on hygiene, so not manly for the standard I think?).

He could have an ability around Governors, like gaining title more easily and get more powerfull, like full Loyalty or some bonus yield à la Hwarang (Seondeok's ability).

@Krajzen It's an insult to both France and Poland. But France had Catherine de' Medici, so they're already in that position. Jadwiga, which I found a good pick, was hated. She was a good leader that did everything for Poland and... died too early. I just wanted to show that dual-country leaders are hard to find, and those that fit, few of them are "good".

 

[Krajzen]

Henry III leading Poland is probably the most insulting choice possible (of its actual crowned/sworn leaders)

Agree with Charlemagne. He was leader of Franks, precursor state of France and Germany, not leader of France and Germany. Although now that I think of it, it is not that implausible for Firaxis to make him such leader seeing their courage to put unconventional civs and leaders in. Personally I'd like him come with his own civ, "Carolingians" (because Franks and Goly Roman Empire are very awkward names in civ context, next to France and Rome), but many people would probably think this is abomination as well.


Anyway, a couple more ideas.
- Introducing Manchu civilization whose leader, conqueror of China, is also added as alternate leader of China (Qing or Jin)
- Kubilai Khan as alternate ruler of both Mongolia and China
- If Indonesia and Malaysia ever sinultaneously get in, they could have some overlap
- If India finally has split civilization, such as Mughals, Delhi, Chola or Bengal, its ruler could also be alternate for India
- Kievan Rus introduced as representation for Belarus and Ukraine, with ruler who is also alternate ruler of Russia
- Normans under William the Conqueror who is also alternate ruler for England
- Constantine for both Rome and Byzantium

What do you think?

Also, in the end one crazy idea
- Alternate leader for Arabia and... Egypt! To represent Islamic Egypt (my eternal problem). Actually, Saladin could work for this, as primary leader of Arabia and secondary of Egypt. When leading Arabia he'd just have capital in Cairo. When leading Egypt he'd also change their city name list, mixed themes of both civs and renamed Egyptian civ ability (its mechanical focus would work anyway).
Even crazier idea: Sphinx and Chariot would be actually buildable as Egypt under Saladin, but with the condition "unless you found religion" - when you do that, your uniques switch to Mamluk and Medresa. You cannot build pagan idols Sphinxes anymore but they remain in your territory, providing culture and tourism.

 

[dagriggstar]

I would say Cnut could rule Denmark and England, but Norway already has all the Viking stuff.

Hulagu Khan or perhaps Timur as Mongol/Persia?

Jayavarman II may have been a govenor for an Indonesian empire before establishing the khmer. Could be a ruler for one civ unique govenor for a second lol.

 

[AriochIV]

There must be hundreds of European queens who moved from one country to another to take the crown, but never actually ruled either, like Eleanor.

 

[TheSheriff]

There must be hundreds of European queens who moved from one country to another to take the crown, but never actually ruled either, like Eleanor.

Not many wielded the INDEPENDENT power of Eleanor however. She didn't just go from France to England, but controlled nearly half of France directly. If they add Byzantium, Constantine could be a leader of both it and Rome. You might be able to do something cool with a religious focused Rome as well, different than how it's usually played as more domination focused. Also, seeing as we have Canada, England and Australia in the game, it wouldn't be ridiculous to have Victoria as a leader for all three. Maybe culture focused?

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

- Constantine for both Rome and Byzantium

I disagree with this choice (or for any dual Byzantine/Roman leader). The latter sentiment stems from the fact that Byzantium only exists as a civ because Civ's scope and design limit the range and variety of the Roman civ as a whole. Dual leaders as I understand them from Eleanor's choice are supposed to be leaders who concurrently or consecutively ruled 2 distinct entities. Making any Roman emperor a Byzantine one and vice versa is like acknowledging the fact the 2 civs are one and the same with just a time disparity distinction, but still blob them together leader-wise.

Now, as for Constantine in particular, Constantine cannot be considered a Byzantine emperor, even with the generally hazy and inconsistent rules lots of people apply on how to categorize them. Not only did Constantine rule Rome when Byzantium was not distinct enough to qualify it for the separate "civ" it's portrayed in the game, but he ruled over a unified Roman empire without any split. The first part would still be counterweighted by the west-east administrative split for, let's say, Zeno, but for Constantine, there was no distinction between east and west after defeating Licinius.

I think the general reason Constantine is associated with Byzantium despite the obvious disparities is the fact he was the first Christian emperor and founded Constantinople, both of which I wouldn't consider valid criteria. If one is to make the most out of Byzantium's "uniqueness", the ruler is preferable to be a much later ruler. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why the compulsive insistence of Firaxis on Justinian and Theodora ultimately doesn't capitalize on Byzantium's reputation.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If you don't like William than Empress Matilda also fits for Germany & England. She helped rule the HRE with her husband including being regent of Italy. Then she was named successor to the crown of England by her father. She fought a civil war for the crown with her side winning and her son, Henry II, being crowned king. Even during his reign she was the duchess of Normandy and ran it till her death.

I think Matilda would be a better choice than most because like Eleanor she held power (even if she didn't rule) in both the countries in question but not at the same time. Like Eleanor she suffers a little from never being the undisputed ruler of either civ in question but this doesn't seem to be a barrier in Civ VI.

 

[Naktis]

Jogaila/Władysław II Jagiełło was ruler of Lithuania and Poland , but both civs arent popular enough for alternate leader release.

Napoleon emperor of France and King of Italy , and I actually think Firaxis are gonna add him like that , and thats how we get Italian civ with its cities.

 

[Zatsukino]

Oh that's the right topic.

I was thinking about the legendary Queen of Sheba, Balkis/Makeda as both an alternate leader for Arabia and also Ethiopia.

 

[Morningcalm]

Taharqa can lead both Nubia and Egypt. He fought Assyria after taking the Egyptian throne, and had some initial successes. Though he lost in the end, he reigned over a golden age and had a truly interesting life.

 

[JamesFaith]

Wenceslaus II. was king of Bohemia (1278 - 1305) and king of Poland (1300 - 1305).

Wenceslaus III was king of Bohemia (1305 - 1306), king of Poland (1305 - 1306) and king of Hungary (1305 - 1306) but problem is obvious from dates.

Sigismund was king of Hungary (1387 - 1437), king of Germany (1411 - 1437) and king of Bohemia (1419 - 1437) but because Hussittes wars he actually ruled over Bohemia only last year of his life.

Vladislaus II. was king of Bohemia (1471 - 1516) and king of Hungary (1490 - 1516) but he was also one of the worst and weakest king of Bohemia.