Any ideas of other Eleanor-style double leaders?

[PhoenicianGold]

Do we know of anyone who was a regent/consort of two SEPARATE polities during two distinct periods, like Eleanor? As opposed to simply acquiring more titles?

The only one I can think of is Margaret I, who was consort of Norway, then regent of Denmark. And then swiftly reacquired Norway and Sweden. So she was technically "of Norway" and "of Denmark" without being of both for some time.

I think Kublai Khan could just barely work as well because he up and moved to China after conquering it and basically "became" Chinese. So we could argue that he was no longer "Mongolian" after the switch.

I'm coming up short on others, though. I think Charlemagne could comfortably lead from both Aachen and Rome, even if he ruled both at the same time, because they actually were different polities before the formation of the HRE. But everyone else I'm coming up short justifying why they should lead countries that they only incidentally inherited or conquered by force, and as a consequence aren't really associated that strongly with as a national figure.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Do we know of anyone who was a regent/consort of two SEPARATE polities during two distinct periods, like Eleanor? As opposed to simply acquiring more titles?

The only one I can think of is Margaret I, who was consort of Norway, then regent of Denmark. And then swiftly reacquired Norway and Sweden.

I think Kublai Khan could just barely work as well because he up and moved to China after conquering it and basically "became" Chinese.

I'm coming up short on others, though. I think Charlemagne could comfortably lead from both Aachen and Rome, even if he ruled both at the same time, because they actually were different polities before the formation of the HRE. But everyone else I'm coming up short justifying why they should lead countries that they only incidentally inherited or conquered by force, and as a consequence aren't really associated that strongly with as a national figure.

Matilda/Maud, Holy Roman Empress and Lady of the English. She was only consort of the HRE but was apparently so popular there they begged her not to leave after her husband, Henry V, died (which is hard to believe given her arrogant, bad tempered and vengeful nature). She came close to becoming Queen of England and managed to secure the throne for her son after Stephen, her opponent in the civil war died.

 

[JamesFaith]

Do we know of anyone who was a regent/consort of two SEPARATE polities during two distinct periods, like Eleanor? As opposed to simply acquiring more titles?
.

What about Maxmilian I. of Mexico?

He was shortly regent of Austria and viceroy of Lombardia-Venetia but then lost all his previous titles and become emperor of Mexico.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Do we know of anyone who was a regent/consort of two SEPARATE polities during two distinct periods, like Eleanor? As opposed to simply acquiring more titles?

The only one I can think of is Margaret I, who was consort of Norway, then regent of Denmark. And then swiftly reacquired Norway and Sweden. So she was technically "of Norway" and "of Denmark" without being of both for some time.

I think Kublai Khan could just barely work as well because he up and moved to China after conquering it and basically "became" Chinese. So we could argue that he was no longer "Mongolian" after the switch.

I'm coming up short on others, though. I think Charlemagne could comfortably lead from both Aachen and Rome, even if he ruled both at the same time, because they actually were different polities before the formation of the HRE. But everyone else I'm coming up short justifying why they should lead countries that they only incidentally inherited or conquered by force, and as a consequence aren't really associated that strongly with as a national figure.

Arsinoe II was first the queen of Thrace, Asia Minor and Macedon before she became the co-ruler of Egypt.

 

[Morningcalm]

Do we know of anyone who was a regent/consort of two SEPARATE polities during two distinct periods, like Eleanor? As opposed to simply acquiring more titles?

The only one I can think of is Margaret I, who was consort of Norway, then regent of Denmark. And then swiftly reacquired Norway and Sweden. So she was technically "of Norway" and "of Denmark" without being of both for some time.

I think Kublai Khan could just barely work as well because he up and moved to China after conquering it and basically "became" Chinese. So we could argue that he was no longer "Mongolian" after the switch.

I'm coming up short on others, though. I think Charlemagne could comfortably lead from both Aachen and Rome, even if he ruled both at the same time, because they actually were different polities before the formation of the HRE. But everyone else I'm coming up short justifying why they should lead countries that they only incidentally inherited or conquered by force, and as a consequence aren't really associated that strongly with as a national figure.

Piye (who ruled Nubia, then conquered and ruled Egypt as a pharaoh rather than simply a Nubian leader) counts, and arguably so does Taharqa, even if he initially ruled both Nubia and Egypt before his defeat by the Assyrians (he put up quite a fight and inflicted several defeats on them though!). Taharqa was a golden age ruler also known for his massive architectural works so there's that. Both Piye and Taharqa could bring faith and combat bonuses.

The 25th dynasty pharaohs are interesting because they were both distinctly Nubian and distinctly Egyptian (and Civ VI has an achievement alluding to this, as well as a scenario). More on that (as in Taharqa's case) in this BBC podcast about Taharqa's (Egyptian, but black African) sphinx: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qm8z8 (also has some textual information below the image). Transcript of the podcast here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/ar...isode-transcript-episode-22-sphinx-of-taharqo

Other textual information on the above is also here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/ImJ-d4-oR8a7_Vw-Ty0j1g

 

[Phrozen]

Matilda/Maud, Holy Roman Empress and Lady of the English. She was only consort of the HRE but was apparently so popular there they begged her not to leave after her husband, Henry V, died (which is hard to believe given her arrogant, bad tempered and vengeful nature). She came close to becoming Queen of England and managed to secure the throne for her son after Stephen, her opponent in the civil war died.

She was named Regent of Italy and from all accounts was good at it, so it seems she had some modicum of official power within the HRE. Being a main player in a long drawn out civil war probably doesn't show your best side.

 

[AmazonQueen]

She was named Regent of Italy and from all accounts was good at it, so it seems she had some modicum of official power within the HRE. Being a main player in a long drawn out civil war probably doesn't show your best side.

I can agree with that.
What would her special abilities be? I was thinking about her halfbrother, Robert of Gloucester, as a special governor given his importance to her during the Anarchy but that isn't relevant to her time as HR Empress.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Do we know of anyone who was a regent/consort of two SEPARATE polities during two distinct periods, like Eleanor? As opposed to simply acquiring more titles?

William the Conqueror and Robert Guiscard are both very good and interesting options, albeit one of them is associated with England and we already have 2 leaders there and they're both Normans which I wouldn't necessarily consider a good civ candidate.

The most fitting choice is Nurgaci for both the Manchu and China. He unified the Manchu tribes and then became the founder of the Qing dynasty in China.

 

[The Kingmaker]

There are several options that would only take a little Civ name change. The city lists, icons and traits could all stay the same. Just a new color scheme, different leader ability and a different capital.

Sargon leads Akkad (Sumer)
Askia leads Songhai (Mali)
Hannibal leads Carthage (Phoenicia)

Minimal effort for extra civs. I wonder if they’ve considered that.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

There are several options that would only take a little Civ name change. The city lists, icons and traits could all stay the same. Just a new color scheme, different leader ability and a different capital.

Sargon leads Akkad (Sumer)
Askia leads Songhai (Mali)
Hannibal leads Carthage (Phoenicia)

Minimal effort for extra civs. I wonder if they’ve considered that.

I mean since the civs are sorted separate by leader, and the instances of "civ name" all probably cite to a few fields, this could theoretically be very easy.

The problem is whether or not these leaders have personalities distinct enough from the rest of the cast to justify animating. I would argue they probably are not, even if I would not mind additional polities being represented in this manner. Gilgabro is basically uber-Sargon. No one is asking for Songhai and a hypermilitaristic leader is unlikely in VI unless they have that Disney charm. And Hannibal is just another general, sorry not sorry.

But as for leaders who could do this and it would please the pedants:

* Olga could lead Kievan Rus' instead of Russia (even though the Rus' were, de facto, Rus'ian)
* Theodora could lead Byzantium instead of Rome (even, though for early Byzantium under Theodora, does the difference matter at all?)
* Isabella could lead Portugal instead of Spain (really, a lot of the Spanish uniques could work for Portugal if necessary, and now that we have Aquitaine leading France, spinoff concepts like Portugal and Austria are starting to feel really weird if they don't have strong, resonant gimmicks like the Netherlands and Scotland)

I don't see this happening, honestly. Because then we would have to back and call other alternate leaders "Maurya" and "Sparta" and the whole thing gets even more nitpicky, and players complain even more about why X is not in the game.

I'm happy with just Sumeria. I'm happy with Mali and not Songhai. I'm happy with no overbearing personalities like Hannibal allowing for a level playing field. I'm happy with Olga leading Russia and Theodora leading Rome. I don't really have any feelings about Portugal. The design so far is neat, and elegant, and consistent, and unless this sort of change were accompanied by a hard promise of 100+ civs, I would probably just give up on VI.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I wouldn’t say no to 100 civs. We’re almost halfway there. But let’s try to get to 50-60 first.

Saw an interesting post on another forum. Essentially, the sentiment was that no one wanted to go back to an incomplete vanilla game (Civ7), just when Civ6 was getting good. The poster recommended that Firaxis continue to release more Civ6 content for 5 years before releasing Civ7. Now I don’t know what 2K has in mind, but I agree with the poster.

 

[Phrozen]

I can agree with that.
What would her special abilities be? I was thinking about her halfbrother, Robert of Gloucester, as a special governor given his importance to her during the Anarchy but that isn't relevant to her time as HR Empress.

Considering her experience in the HRE and England. Probably something to do with bonuses to capturing city states and rebel cities.

 

[megabearsfan]

If Byzantium were to show up as a full civ, then Constantine could go either as Roman or Byzantium. Alternatively, maybe part of his leader ability could be that he has the power to switch civs mid-game. He starts out as leading Rome, with Roman uniques, but at some point in the game (perhaps by triggering a Heroic Age), the Roman civ (with Constantine as leader) founds a new capital and becomes Byzantium (with all of Rome's former holdings) and has Byzantine uniques. Strategy-wise, you'd use Rome's abilities to rapidly expand, then convert to Byzantine Empire with some other ability that let you leverage all those holdings, but without bonuses towards further expansion. Maybe you even retain any Baths in your cities (the Roman UI), any Legions that you still have (Roman UU), and maybe even the Palace stays in Rome (so you now have 2 palaces).

With Byzantine being a separate civ, I would also propose the idea of having both Justinian and Theodora being the leaders of Byzantium at the same time. That is, they both show up in the leader screen. Not sure if there would be any gameplay function for that, but it would be nice to see a husband/wife pair being depicted as having equal power over their civ.

 

[megabearsfan]

Moving away from Byzantium, perhaps we could see Akbar as leader of Mughal Empire and India?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Moving away from Byzantium, perhaps we could see Akbar as leader of Mughal Empire and India?

Akbar is possible, but I don't think the devs would pass up on Nur Jahan. Either way, the Mughals are one of the civs I am most indecisive about how they best fit in the game. They could be an alt India leader, mechanically. They could also be their own thing, especially if we made their capital Lahore and really emphasized the Afghanistan/Pakistan region as their "zone."

We could also get a Gurkani/Timurid civ with two leaders, i.e. Tamerlane and Nur Jahan.

I really don't know. The Mughals are a civ that I would appreciate represented, but only in certain ways and certain contexts because although I want them to be non-Indian as possible, I do recognize that dev resources are limited and the third Indian leader option is an easy out.

All that said, I in no way expect a leader to lead both India and the Mughals. That is about as unnecessary as Constantine leading both Rome and Byzantium, given that the Mughals basically *were* "India" for some time.

 

[Morningcalm]

Nur Jahan would be a great Indian leader for Civ VII, and she could draw a rifle on you when DOWed. If we match her with Hatshepsut, Catherine the Great, Isabella, Jigonhsasee, Lady Six Sky, and Queen Idia, we will have quite the list of powerful female leaders also. But I doubt we would see many on that list as alternate leaders in Civ VI.

 

[Leucarum]

How about some of Alexander the Great's successors after they divided his empire. Ptolemy leading Egypt or Macedon for example... i guess none if them actually led macedon but had some claim to its legacy...

 

[Jkchart]

Here's a couple (can't remember. Trying to stick to the 2 separate at the same time principle.
-Mary, Queen of Scots (Scotland, France, though unlikely since France has 2 choices)
-James I/VI (England, Scotland, though unlikely, since England has 2 choices)
-Maria I (assuming Portugal is added; she was also the first monarch of Brazil when the Portuguese monarchy temporarily moved to Brazil and elevated the country to a separate Kingdom during Napoleon's reign)
-El Cid (assuming a Moorish civ is added; can also be a Spanish leader and rule from Valencia)
-I like the Empress Matilda Idea (Germany/England), but again unlikely since England has a second option.
-Kublai Khan (Mongolia/China, he founded the Yuan Dynasty through conquest)
-Louis I (Hungary/Poland)
-William/Mary (England/Netherlands)

 

[Socrates99]

This thread kinda makes me want to mod Vicki in as an alternate for Canada and Australia.

 

[Lord of War N02]

Byzantine Emperor could be leader for both Rome and Byzantium like Justinian I and Constantine I.
Also Byzantine leaders could be leader for both Rome and Greece(in term of cultural) like Byzantine leaders since Heraclius.

Other choice is Charlemagne, he can be leader of both France and Germany. I would have him in the game over Eleanor.
Qing Emperors could be leader for both China and Manchu civilization if the Manchu is added into third expansion.