BEST Female Leaders for Civ VII?

[Henri Christophe]

She also kickstarted the first colonies of german immigrants in southern brazil, if civ VII comes with an immigration mechanic she would be a cool pick, with an ability to attract more immigrants in some way.

There are others game who have this kind of mechanic.
On Black & White 2 I remember to have 4 ethinicitys, the greeks, the norse, the japanese and the aztecs
And you can clearly look at each person on your empire and distingui of what ethinicity it was.
I just don't know how this mechanic can works in a game as civilization, where the "population" is a number who range from 1 to 20 I guess.
Just if we have some statics in the city.

 

[Evie]

Had Louis XIV reigned that short a tome, someone else would likely have taken the throne and still ruled from a position of immense strength cultivated by a series of excellent ministers before he even took the throne. Which incidentally is another reason why I'm against the rulers only viewpoint: France was built off the back of Richelieu, Mazarrin and Colbert, not Louis XIII or XIV, and hiding their immense work behind "But they didn't rule formally" is a tremendous misreading of history,

The legend is the one that says Louis was a great king, rather than the relatively average to mediocre trust fund baby dillapidating the works of the ministers that preceded him, which he really was.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Part of me thinks that for Civ 7 they'll give Mbande Nzinga her own civ, though that might change since we just got her as an alternate to Kongo.

I hope that's happens too. Nzinga don't make sense as leader of the Kongo, is a historical error.
The right should she leads N'dongo. She also were lead of Matamba but it's even less famous then N'dongo.
She also could lead a civ called Angola, since Majahapit is Indonesia also. But I rly hope it wasn't Kongo again.

If not, I'd love for Idia of Benin/Edo to get that role.

Benin is also a nice shot to Africa.
Benin have the most beautyfull artcraft of Africa, and also the biggest walls, bigger then the great wall of China, but was destroyed after the British invasion
And have the option to have a women leader make it's even better.

 

[queenpea]

Had Louis XIV reigned that short a tome, someone else would likely have taken the throne and still ruled from a position of immense strength cultivated by a series of excellent ministers before he even took the throne. Which incidentally is another reason why I'm against the rulers only viewpoint: France was built off the back of Richelieu, Mazarrin and Colbert, not Louis XIII or XIV, and hiding their immense work behind "But they didn't rule formally" is a tremendous misreading of history,

The legend is the one that says Louis was a great king, rather than the relatively average to mediocre trust fund baby dillapidating the works of the ministers that preceded him, which he really was.

It’s cool you’re not a fan of Louis XIV. That’s fine.

My point is that it is not correct to state that in a monarchical system, the length of a monarch’s reign, in years, is of no consequence.

 

[queenpea]

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.

I guess my point here is as follows:

If you’re going to force Catherine de Médicis into the game, perhaps don’t rely on sexist tropes in executing her character and leader abilities.

Instead of being tied to espionage, she could have portrayed in a number of different ways.

 

[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.

It's not the length of the tenure, it's what you do and accomplish with it. Many leaders who were deposed or assassinated in office, or voted out after one term, and who ended up serving short tenures, but nonetheless have made historical legacies because they still accomplished important things (sometimes, in fact, the reasons they lost power, were due to the machinations of those who were displeased with what they were accomplishing). So, no, to say that the length of an individual's tenure in power must be significantly long to make them relevant is a ridiculous statement.

 

[Patine]

I guess my point here is as follows:

If you’re going to force Catherine de Médicis into the game, perhaps don’t rely on sexist tropes in executing her character and leader abilities.

Instead of being tied to espionage, she could have portrayed in a number of different ways.

I agree, actually, and have never said I support caricatures like those at all, because I don't.

 

[Evie]

I mean, the espionnage is....actually historical? She notoriously had her whole squadron of ladies in waiting who gathered information on court and kept her up to date on happenings.

Like, part of moving away from sexism is also moving away from "we can't depict that very real thing that a very real woman did because it's been used as a sexist trope in media."

 

[queenpea]

It's not the length of the tenure, it's what you do and accomplish with it. Many leaders who were deposed or assassinated in office, or voted out after one term, and who ended up serving short tenures, but nonetheless have made historical legacies because they still accomplished important things (sometimes, in fact, the reasons they lost power, were due to the machinations of those who were displeased with what they were accomplishing). So, no, to say that the length of an individual's tenure in power must be significantly long to make them relevant is a ridiculous statement.

That's not what I said. I said that to purposefully divorce time in power from historical significance is a mistake.

 

[Patine]

My point is that it is not correct to state that in a monarchical system, the length of a monarch’s reign, in years, is of no consequence.

As I said, the length of reign is not significant it's what is accomplished and what is remembered. Some very influential, historically-significant, and often referred to Monarchs I often assumed, in school, must have been as long-reigning as Victoria or Louis XIV. When I actually looked up many of their lengths of reign, I was amazed at how short some of them were.

 

[queenpea]

I mean, the espionnage is....actually historical? She notoriously had her whole squadron of ladies in waiting who gathered information on court and kept her up to date on happenings.

Like, part of moving away from sexism is also moving away from "we can't depict that very real thing that a very real woman did because it's been used as a sexist trope in media."

I know that she had spies...it's actually kind of rad. But historically, Catherine de Médicis, as you know, was slandered as some kind of criminal mastermind and this is perpetuated in game by one persona. The second persona was added after the fact, in a kind of apologetic manner to fill out her personhood a bit.

Powerful women, throughout history, are treated as dubious while their male counterparts are generally celebrated for exhibiting the same qualities and ambition.

 

[queenpea]

As I said, the length of reign is not significant it's what is accomplished and what is remembered. Some very influential, historically-significant, and often referred to Monarchs I often assumed, in school, must have been as long-reigning as Victoria or Louis XIV. When I actually looked up many of their lengths of reign, I was amazed at how short some of them were.

We are going in circles. I'm not saying it's the ONLY important determining factor in a ruler's success or the power of their memory. I am saying, however, that it certainly helps not to die two years after coronation.

The fact that Louis XIV is the longest serving monarch in recorded human history is not something that you can just ignore or even diminish.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Had Louis XIV reigned that short a tome, someone else would likely have taken the throne and still ruled from a position of immense strength cultivated by a series of excellent ministers before he even took the throne. Which incidentally is another reason why I'm against the rulers only viewpoint: France was built off the back of Richelieu, Mazarrin and Colbert, not Louis XIII or XIV, and hiding their immense work behind "But they didn't rule formally" is a tremendous misreading of history,

The legend is the one that says Louis was a great king, rather than the relatively average to mediocre trust fund baby dillapidating the works of the ministers that preceded him, which he really was.

And, if I may interject, Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban, who virtually rebuilt half the cities in France as well as ports, harbors, canals, and other civic works and still defines an entire era of fortification-building all over the world (well, wherever in the world Europeans were building fortifications, which was most of it). He also 'systemized' the sieging of cities so completely that he could predict to the day when a city would surrender. I have him as one of the possible Duplicate Great People: a Great General or a Great Engineer. Another of the long list of Talents that 'made' Louis.

Now, I am most decidedly NOT arguing for Louis XIV's Great Qualities as a Leader, but he does have some advantage: like relatively few of the Leader candidates, he has potential Wonders associated indeliably with his reign: the Chateau de Versailles and Les Invalides in Paris, the latter of which has potentially two very different potentials: it was one of the first institutions caring for military veterans as both a hospital and home, and later (1905) it became and still is one of the premier military museums in the world.
Luckily, neither requires Louis as Leader to be included in Civ VII . . .

 

[Evie]

I mean, most of the negative perception of her I've seen center more on the Wars of Religion, and the idea she was *ineffective* and unable to remain in control of France. To the extent I've seen mastermind used against her, it's specifically to accuse her of mastermindinf the St Bartolmew's day massacre and similar incidents, which is rather not related to her game portrayal.

Most of the people I've seen talk of her as a mastermind in recent years where the people *defending* her, arguing that she used limited resources and skillful information gathering and manipulation to remain in control in an incredibly difficult environment.

 

[Patine]

We are going in circles. I'm not saying it's the ONLY important determining factor in a ruler's success or the power of their memory. I am saying, however, that it certainly helps not to die two years after coronation.

The fact that Louis XIV is the longest serving monarch in recorded human history is not something that you can just ignore or even diminish.

Actually, no Sobuza II of Swaziland (Eswatini, officially, now) was. 1897-1982 - yes, if do the math, 85 years, or so). But who remembers him? You obviously didn't even know about him or astoundingly long reign. And, to be fair, I didn't say long reign were not significant or noteworthy - "ignoring and diminshing," such in fact - that's putting words in my mouth. I was just saying that long reigns or other tenures of power are not a MANDATORY PREQUISITE to be important or significant as a historical leader.

 

[queenpea]

Actually, no Sobuza II of Swaziland (Eswatini, officially, now) was. 1897-1982 - yes, if do the math, 85 years, or so). But who remembers him? You obviously didn't even know about him or astoundingly long reign. And, to be fair, I didn't say long reign were not significant or noteworthy - "ignoring and diminshing," such in fact - that's putting words in my mouth. I was just saying that long reigns or other tenures of power are not a MANDATORY PREQUISITE to be important or significant as a historical leader.

We're on the same page then, no worries then. It was not my intention to put any words into your mouth.

Again, however, I am not saying that years in power guarantees you a space in history. I am saying, however, that it is not inconsequential either.

 

[queenpea]

I mean, most of the negative perception of her I've seen center more on the Wars of Religion, and the idea she was *ineffective* and unable to remain in control of France. To the extent I've seen mastermind used against her, it's specifically to accuse her of mastermindinf the St Bartolmew's day massacre and similar incidents, which is rather not related to her game portrayal.

Most of the people I've seen talk of her as a mastermind in recent years where the people *defending* her, arguing that she used limited resources and skillful information gathering and manipulation to remain in control in an incredibly difficult environment.

It's become very fashionable to rehabilitate historical villains, that is certain.

However, earlier in history, she has been called everything from a whore to a witch. This is, of course, due to sex, her foreign birth, and her station.

Regarding the Flying Squadron -- these female courtiers were essentially focused on domestic politics, which at the time were consumed by the Wars of Religion. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre is certainly a chapter in that history. So I wouldn't say that they are altogether unrelated.

 

[Evie]

Altogether unrelated, no, but then most everything she did is related since most everything she did had an internal social policy component. There's no implication in the game that she caused, approved or in any way was involved in the SB Massacre.

 

[Patine]

However, earlier in history, she has been called everything from a whore to a witch. This is, of course, due to sex, her foreign birth, and her station.

Louis XIV was not without nasty monikers - though usually coming from the English, Dutch, Savoyards, and Austrians, whom he fought seven wars with (five of his own instigation), as opposed to anyone who'd dared commit lese-majeste within France. In fact, William, Duke of Orange and Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic (and later William III of England, Scotland, and Ireland in personal union) is reputed to have called him, "a pig fattened off ill-deserved riches he'd like to roast on a spit).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Louis XIV was not without nasty monikers - though usually coming from the English, Dutch, Savoyards, and Austrians, whom he fought seven wars with (five of his own instigation), as opposed to anyone who'd dared commit lese-majeste within France. In fact, William, Duke of Orange and Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic (and later William III of England, Scotland, and Ireland in personal union) is reputed to have called him, "a pig fattened off ill-deserved riches he'd like to roast on a spit).

Ah, Diplomacy - the Art of Inspired Invective . . .