BEST Female Leaders for Civ VII?

[Boris Gudenuf]

Hell, I'm a historian and I don't think that for the purposes of the game, strict legal Rulers should be the only representation allowed.
For one thing, many popular polities in the game never had a single Ruler of any kind: the Greek city states and the Mayans for two obvious examples, but also the many states in which the 'king or 'anointed ruler' was only First Among Equals and had severe limits on his actual ability to get people to do things (i.e., run the state the way the gamer does, or even a fraction of the way the gamer does)

Then there's the more pervasive 'problem' of groups that had multiple centers of power. At various times the Civ franchise has taken a stab at representing the more modern government types that split power - constituional monarchies, republics and representative democracies - but increasingly researchers are finding more and more examples of this kind of Division of Authority in all kinds of polities. That includes groups as different as the original 'Indo-European' speakers who formed the basis for Greek, Roman, and Indian early polities and the Native North Americans. At this moment, in fact, I suspect that the majority of people actually studying them would hesitate to say that most North American Native people had a single 'ruler' with the kind of over-reaching authority that any European Divine Right Monarch had. And especially (touching on the specific sexism debate) several such groups had a strict division of authority between men's and women's groups or councils. Famously, among the Haudenosenee any decision that could affect the home, families and food supply had to be approved by both the men's and women's council, with unanimous approval required from both to make any decision.
Most of the famous native leaders were actually either war, religious, or diplomatic 'leaders', but very rarely all three and almost never with very much influence on domestic/social policy decisions. The exceptions were men of exceptional personal authority (Tecumseh, Red Cloud, Siting Bull, etc), not men who occupied some institutional position that granted any such authority.

So, at the very least, there is ample scope for a wide(r) range of both graphic representational 'Leaders' who were not 'legal' Rulers, and also much wider scope for variations in the structure and effectiveness by which those Leaders could actually Get Things Done in their Civ and under their form of government - from the Start of the Game to the very end.

 

[queenpea]

Hell, I'm a historian and I don't think that for the purposes of the game, strict legal Rulers should be the only representation allowed.
For one thing, many popular polities in the game never had a single Ruler of any kind: the Greek city states and the Mayans for two obvious examples, but also the many states in which the 'king or 'anointed ruler' was only First Among Equals and had severe limits on his actual ability to get people to do things (i.e., run the state the way the gamer does, or even a fraction of the way the gamer does)

Sure, this might be true of the Greeks and the Mayans, but in the example of renaissance France, a highly-centralized, absolute monarchy where women were strictly forbidden from leadership and could only gain and exercise power due to their proximity or relationship to men. Catherine de Medici as leader of France was a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

In a parallel universe, if CdM had killed her sons, assumed power in a coup d'état, and had been coronated the first Queen regnant of France, I would have a different opinion.

 

[pineappledan]

For one thing, many popular polities in the game never had a single Ruler of any kind: the Greek city states and the Mayans for two obvious examples

wrt The Mayans, we know of at least a handful of multi-city empires/kingdoms in the Mayan world. The two most famous being Tikal and Calakmul/Kaan. It’s a simple matter of tweaking the city list for either of them to only include cities that they had hegemony over.

Also the Delian League was just an Athenian empire in a trench coat. There’s also other ways to depict a single Greek empire, like the ever-present Alexander.

 

[Evie]

Or we can continue to play civilizations, not polities, with leaders, not rulers.

Sure, in the majority of cases, the two will overlap, but that should not be ground to erase the cases where they don't.

 

[pineappledan]

Or we can continue to play civilizations, not polities, with leaders, not rulers.

Sure, in the majority of cases, the two will overlap, but that should not be ground to erase the cases where they don't.

That’s why I wish the franchise would taken that civilization/leader component split seriously and build it out more. You could Have your cake and eat it too if there were multiple components at both levels.

 

[Evie]

I'm curious what you mean by that. It sounds like it could be really good, but also really unnecessarily complicated, and I'm curious which (or both)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

wrt The Mayans, we know of at least a handful of multi-city empires/kingdoms in the Mayan world. The two most famous being Tikal and Calakmul/Kaan. It’s a simple matter of tweaking the city list for either of them to only include cities that they had hegemony over.

Also the Delian League was just an Athenian empire in a trench coat. There’s also other ways to depict a single Greek empire, like the ever-present Alexander.

The classical Greek city states were in fact, moving towards larger political entities. Athens had its Delian League, Sparta its Peloponnesian League, a little later the Aetolian, Arcadian, Hellenic (League of Corinth) and League of Epirus, which went on to become the Kingdom of Epirus. All of these were multi-city organizations and unlike Alexander and his Successors, based on native Greek institutions and not Foreign Conquest. The fact remains that short of foreign conquest, no League or other political entity ever controlled all of the Greek cities, even in 'mainland' Greece, let alone the overseas Greek colonial cities like Syracusa, Neapolis (in Italy, North Africa and Russia) or Marsallis.
Similar situation with the Maya. As far as we know now, no Mayan political entity ever controlled all the Mayan cities, or even a large majority of them.
That shouldn't stop us - 'France' and 'Germany' neither represented all the French and Germans until late in their history, but we have had or proposed Leaders for both from their fragmented past (Hermannos/Arminius, Otto, Friederich II of Prussia, Charlemagne, Clovis, etc), so my personal solution would be bring on the graphic figurehead and provide more differentiation of capabilities in the various government types and more specifically on the map: City State, Less-Than-City entities that share your cultural/social/linguistic roots and so are easier to accomodate or assimilate into your Civ than a group without those reinforcing factors. Make it sufficiently difficult to absorb them permanently without those factors, and this also puts a much-needed brake on unlimited Expansion throughout the game.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm curious what you mean by that. It sounds like it could be really good, but also really unnecessarily complicated, and I'm curious which (or both)

civ 6 already introduced leader traits separate from civ traits, and some of them have leader units too. I would build that out so that all civs have a unit and a building/improvement, and all leaders also have a building/improvement. Increase the load out of all civs from 2 traits/1-2 units/1 infrastructure to 2 traits/2 units/2 infrastructure. Go from 4-5 components per civ to a uniform 6: 3 tied to the culture and 3 tied to the leader or to the specific empire within that culture.

In addition, actually have a text field indicating the precise name of the state/dynasty that leader comes from. So in the case of Frederick Barbarossa, actually have a thing that says “Frederick leads the Holy Roman Empire and German civilization”

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Or we can continue to play civilizations, not polities, with leaders, not rulers.

Sure, in the majority of cases, the two will overlap, but that should not be ground to erase the cases where they don't.

I was not arguing that should be the case, simply pointing out why people think so.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sure, this might be true of the Greeks and the Mayans, but in the example of renaissance France, a highly-centralized, absolute monarchy where women were strictly forbidden from leadership and could only gain and exercise power due to their proximity or relationship to men. Catherine de Medici as leader of France was a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

In a parallel universe, if CdM had killed her sons, assumed power in a coup d'état, and had been coronated the first Queen regnant of France, I would have a different opinion.

Glad you mentioned the Greeks, because (and I've posted this before) Cleopatra of Epirus (Alexander's sister) was married to the king of Epirus (the Kingdom that grew out of the League). When her husband was killed in battle in Italy, she became Queen-Regent of Epirus and by Epiriote Law Ruler of the country until her sons grew up (call it the Anti-Salic Law if you will). She was recognized as Ruler by the other Greek polities, including Athens, and also was religious head/leader in the Epiriote state.
She was eventually assassinated by Antigonus, one of Alexander's Successors, "because she represented too much power to remain alive" - I maintain that anybody who can put that kind of a scare into one of Alexander's Successors and Generals deserves representation in the game, and she is also the only Legal classical Greek female ruler I know of, so at least as deserving of a place in the game as Pericles or Leonidas, who led only single cities and their hinterlands, not the entire western part of the Greek peninsula!

 

[queenpea]

Glad you mentioned the Greeks, because (and I've posted this before) Cleopatra of Epirus (Alexander's sister) was married to the king of Epirus (the Kingdom that grew out of the League). When her husband was killed in battle in Italy, she became Queen-Regent of Epirus and by Epiriote Law Ruler of the country until her sons grew up (call it the Anti-Salic Law if you will). She was recognized as Ruler by the other Greek polities, including Athens, and also was religious head/leader in the Epiriote state.
She was eventually assassinated by Antigonus, one of Alexander's Successors, "because she represented too much power to remain alive" - I maintain that anybody who can put that kind of a scare into one of Alexander's Successors and Generals deserves representation in the game, and she is also the only Legal classical Greek female ruler I know of, so at least as deserving of a place in the game as Pericles or Leonidas, who led only single cities and their hinterlands, not the entire western part of the Greek peninsula!

Hello, you mentioned the Greeks. I was only replying. Again, I have only been focused on CdM's role in the game, which I find problematic.

 

[Evie]

Of course, "Cleopatra leads Greece" is *all* kinds of cans of worms because of the *other* Greek (but Egyptian) Cleopatra...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Of course, "Cleopatra leads Greece" is *all* kinds of cans of worms because of the *other* Greek (but Egyptian) Cleopatra...

Never said I honestly thought it was ever going to happen outside of a Mod: Financial Returns From Sales are a reality in the game far more than any depiction of Leaders or Units or Civilizations.

 

[Patine]

Potentially controversial opinion, but I would prefer only to include female leaders if they were head of state/head of government/or equivalent.

I am a feminist, and while it is important to recognize the contributions of women leaders in history, it is also, in my view, important to recognize the role that sexism has played in denying women access to power.

Catherine de Medici was an interesting, playful choice for France in Civ VI, but France (a huge, historical fan of Salic law--they essentially invented it, if you trace the line to Clovis, which many French people do) has a long history of sexism in the political sphere, and men have always had a monopoly on state power. That is an unfortunate fact of history, and I think it is important not to sweep this completely under the rug.

What is exciting about playing a civilization like England (or Russia, etc.) is that you have multiple choices for female leaders (Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.) who have sat on the throne, wielded actual political power, forged foreign.

In my opinion, this is what makes playing a game as a female leader all the more exciting.

Will this lead to fewer women leaders in the game? Yes, that is likely. However, I always think that Civ is strongest when it gets its history correct.

Catherine de Medici, de facto, was the ruler of France as Regent, by the legal traditions around Royal Household Management in the minority of a Monarch. She was not some shadowy advisor - she actually held power, at that time, legitimately, in her role as Regent, even if she ruling in the name of the child King. Cixi was much the same, though I'd see her as a bad choice for OTHER reasons. Then again, legally Prime Ministers in Constitutional Monarchies and Japanese Shoguns also rule in the name of the Monarch officially on the throne, and we all know they also have all the power, de facto.

 

[queenpea]

Catherine de Medici, de facto, was the ruler of France as Regent, by the legal traditions around Royal Household Management in the minority of a Monarch. She was not some shadowy advisor - she actually held power, at that time, legitimately, in her role as Regent, even if she ruling in the name of the child King. Cixi was much the same, though I'd see her as a bad choice for OTHER reasons. Then again, legally Prime Ministers in Constitutional Monarchies and Japanese Shoguns also rule in the name of the Monarch officially on the throne, and we all know they also have all the power, de facto.

Yes, I know all that. CdM held power temporarily, while the boys were away or too young. Then, they took it back when they were able.

 

[Patine]

Though I guess it’s the same as picking the 1 female leader for China over and over; they had a pretty strong male bias too.

Well, there is Wu Zetian for China.

 

[Patine]

Yes, I know all that. CdM held power temporarily, while the boys were away or too young. Then, they took it back when they were able.

That doesn't mean she didn't hold the power while she did. No one holds power forever, and there have been male Regents, as well as Caretaker Presidents and Prime Ministers of both genders, some of whom have done important things during there mandatorily short and limited tenures.

 

[queenpea]

That doesn't mean she didn't hold the power while she did. No one holds power forever, and there have been male Regents, as well as Caretaker Presidents and Prime Ministers of both genders, some of whom have done important things during there mandatorily short and limited tenures.

Yes, we are all mortal and we all die. We are not elves. I totally get that.

It's silly however, not to recognize that longevity was often the key feature in a dynastic power structure. Louis XIV would not have been remembered as a giant if he had lasted only a few years on the throne. His longevity and vitality are directly related to both his impact and his legend. Kings and Queens who rule for decades are, as a rule, considered more impactful and more memorable than those who spend a year or two on the throne before exiting.

To say that the length of an individual's tenure in power is of no consequence is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Patine]

She was more fun when she still had her little glass of wine...

Espionage-oriented France was fun. However, it didn't help that she was caricatured as a distrustful, plotting, gossiping, backstabbing murderess. Yes, sure, this is how she is represented in much of history, because: sexism. Half femme fatale, half Catholic zealot. Then, the Civ team throws her a bone, and in a very mea culpa way, we get the Good Time Girl Catherine persona.

To quote Sean Bean in another context: "...poison is a woman's weapon"

That's a character portrayal issue, not the leader. Biopics suffer that problem in the eyes of watchers and critics all the time. Actors and actresses of those movies often admit to being nervous about how well they'll be able to portray important historical figures, and the makers of such movies often distort them to push certain views of their own. There's a Cromwell pic (with Alex Guinness as Charles I), where Cromwell is made out to be a big, noble, charismatic (in positive way), and goodly man who only did what was right for England, and stood up to Charles' evil tyranny like it was Space Opera or Comic Book moral axioms. So, yes, character portrayal is a different issues, entirely than the inclusion of leaders.

 

[Patine]

Yes, we are all mortal and we all die. We are not elves. I totally get that.

It's silly however, not to recognize that longevity was often the key feature in a dynastic power structure. Louis XIV would not have been remembered as a giant if he had lasted only a few years on the throne. His longevity and vitality are directly related to both his impact and his legend. Kings and Queens who rule for decades are, as a rule, considered more impactful and more memorable than those who spend a year or two on the throne before exiting.

To say that the length of an individual's tenure in power is of no consequence is a ridiculous statement.

Henri V, also a French Monarch, has the verifiable Guinness Book of World Records nod for the shortest holding of a Head-of-State position of a sovereign nation (20 minutes).