I mean, all historical writing is subjective, but I think there's a difference between "this is what happened as I perceived it" and deliberate falsification or fabrication--and what we know of Alexander and Cyrus definitely falls into the latter category. In Alexander's case, they were trying to make him into a Homeric hero, and in Cyrus's Darius I was desperately trying to legitimize his rule that probably began with an assassination of the legitimate shah.
And not even favourable propaganda, either: his successors very much wanted to downplay a lot of what they didn't like about Alexander even as they literally propped him up as a spiritual figurehead. Not to mention the other, older Macedonian nobles and officers who thought Alexander was a ponce and wanted to return to the gilded Phillipian age. I'm curious to read Goldsworthy's new biography of the two and see how skillfully he teases out Alexander's character compared to Robin Lane Fox.
To wrangle this right back around: if Macedon is intended (as it seems to me to be) as a sort-of catch-all civilisation for the Hellenistic kings more broadly, it might have some real merit in future games by opening up the pool of leaders to all the Diadochi. If not, then it risks becoming pigeonholed into being essentially "Alexander's own civilisation" much like Mongolia has become Temujin's own civilisation. Which, of course, does neither justice.
I'm still kind of shocked that hasn't been made into a Hollywood blockbuster yet. Even just ignoring Herodotus and going with Behistun it's still a crazy story.
To wrangle this right back around: if Macedon is intended (as it seems to me to be) as a sort-of catch-all civilisation for the Hellenistic kings more broadly, it might have some real merit in future games by opening up the pool of leaders to all the Diadochi.
I'm still kind of shocked that hasn't been made into a Hollywood blockbuster yet. Even just ignoring Herodotus and going with Behistun it's still a crazy story.
I'm still kind of shocked that hasn't been made into a Hollywood blockbuster yet. Even just ignoring Herodotus and going with Behistun it's still a crazy story.
To wrangle this right back around: if Macedon is intended (as it seems to me to be) as a sort-of catch-all civilisation for the Hellenistic kings more broadly, it might have some real merit in future games by opening up the pool of leaders to all the Diadochi. If not, then it risks becoming pigeonholed into being essentially "Alexander's own civilisation" much like Mongolia has become Temujin's own civilisation. Which, of course, does neither justice.
I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing. If not Alexander it would be his father, Phillip II, but that's not much different.
I'd argue that England was very much the Elizabeth civ until Civ 6 this time around, as well as Gandhi has always been India, but nobody really complained about her. At least Kublai is a nice change, if not at least an additional twist on Mongolia.
I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing. If not Alexander it would be his father, Phillip II, but that's not much different.
I'd argue that England was very much the Elizabeth civ until Civ 6 this time around, as well as Gandhi has always been India, but nobody really complained about her. At least Kublai is a nice change, if not at least an additional twist on Mongolia.
As long as civ has leaders, I think we will always be subject to a few staple cults of personality like Alexander. I do appreciate how much VI attempted to branch out from that model and instead choose leaders who personified their cultures and gameplay, but even still it's clear that the model could only be stretched so much. Under that model, we were always more likely to get Simon-Bolivar-the-civ over Mexico or Argentina. If we were ever going to get a Pashtunstan civ, it would almost certainly be the Timurids because no other civs had leaders that come close to the noteriety of Tamerlane. It's also probably why we weren't getting an Omani or Swahili civ, nor a Zimbabwean civ over the Zulu. There are certain design limitations to the leader model.
As long as civ has leaders, I think we will always be subject to a few staple cults of personality like Alexander. I do appreciate how much VI attempted to branch out from that model and instead choose leaders who personified their cultures and gameplay, but even still it's clear that the model could only be stretched so much. Under that model, we were always more likely to get Simon-Bolivar-the-civ over Mexico or Argentina. If we were ever going to get a Pashtunstan civ, it would almost certainly be the Timurids because no other civs had leaders that come close to the noteriety of Tamerlane. It's also probably why we weren't getting an Omani or Swahili civ, nor a Zimbabwean civ over the Zulu. There are certain design limitations to the leader model.
Argentina has Eva Peron, though she might be controversial, and possibly Jose de San Martin, but I agree that Simon Bolivar and Gran Colombia would probably happen first. At least they fall under the same criteria as Ba Treiu leading Vietnam or Gandhi perpetually leading India.
For that reason I can also see a separate Frankish civ with Charlemagne split off from both Germany and France, or a Romania/Transylvania civ with Vlad Tepes, for Civ7 for Europe especially if Alexander goes back to being a leader for Greece.
And of course maybe Toussaint Louverture for Haiti.
Argentina has Eva Peron, though she might be controversial, and possibly Jose de San Martin, but I agree that Simon Bolivar and Gran Colombia would probably happen first. At least they fall under the same criteria as Ba Treiu leading Vietnam or Gandhi perpetually leading India.
Eva is kinda baity. And yeah, she might do and seems the most likely choice for an Argentinian leader if we ever get one, I always see a Bolivar type winning out if we are looking for big personality leaders. Particularly since Gran Colombia feels more like an empire than Argentina ever did.
For that reason I can also see a separate Frankish civ with Charlemagne split off from both Germany and France, or a Romania/Transylvania civ with Vlad Tepes, for Civ7 for Europe especially if Alexander goes back to being a leader for Greece.
And of course maybe Toussaint Louverture for Haiti.
Yes, I could easily see a HRE/Franks civ being made solely for Charlemagne in the same vein as Alexander (in fact, I would possibly be okay with it in VI now that we have nonsense like Scotland, Gaul, and Macedon--though I still would prefer we add civs from literally anywhere else on the planet).
I think if we are sticking to an "expansionist" model for civs that the Nassau Republic is probably a better mechanical fit for a Caribbean civ than Haiti, but that's an entirely different discussion. As far as big cult of personality goes, Louverture has it and I would be okay with it. Of course, so does Castro...
Argentina has Eva Peron, though she might be controversial, and possibly Jose de San Martin, but I agree that Simon Bolivar and Gran Colombia would probably happen first. At least they fall under the same criteria as Ba Treiu leading Vietnam or Gandhi perpetually leading India.
For that reason I can also see a separate Frankish civ with Charlemagne split off from both Germany and France, or a Romania/Transylvania civ with Vlad Tepes, for Civ7 for Europe especially if Alexander goes back to being a leader for Greece.
And of course maybe Toussaint Louverture for Haiti.
I'm still kind of shocked that hasn't been made into a Hollywood blockbuster yet. Even just ignoring Herodotus and going with Behistun it's still a crazy story.
Eva is kinda baity. And yeah, she might do and seems the most likely choice for an Argentinian leader if we ever get one, I always see a Bolivar type winning out if we are looking for big personality leaders. Particularly since Gran Colombia feels more like an empire than Argentina ever did.
I think we're kind of past the every civ should be a big "empire" stage. At least I feel that way after R&F when they gave us Scotland and Georgia.
Argentina seems like the most obvious choice for another post-colonial civ, at least Spanish speaking.
Yes, I could easily see a HRE/Franks civ being made solely for Charlemagne in the same vein as Alexander (in fact, I would possibly be okay with it in VI now that we have nonsense like Scotland, Gaul, and Macedon--though I still would prefer we add civs from literally anywhere else on the planet).
They tried it before with HRE in Civ 4, but the city-list being a weird combination of German, Austrian, and Italian cities, would probably have to change.
Still I only see that happening if they design Germany to be more modern/Prussian.
I think if we are sticking to an "expansionist" model for civs that the Nassau Republic is probably a better mechanical fit for a Caribbean civ than Haiti, but that's an entirely different discussion. As far as big cult of personality goes, Louverture has it and I would be okay with it. Of course, so does Castro...
I don't really see a pirate civ in the Caribbean ever being playable, maybe coming as a city-state. I think other than an indigenous civ such as the Taino/Arawak, Haiti has the biggest chance. At least it would give us another Francophone nation to where we wouldn't need Canada.
Fidel Castro is definitely too recent and controversial.
Long and short of it is that Darius probably killed the legitimate ruler of the Persian Empire, Bardiya, and made up a story that claimed that an honest-to-god wizard had replaced Bardiya and then stormed the palace to kill the imposter and got appointed as the new ruler by the highest ranking nobles. He had this carved at Behistun and was so good at suppressing the truth that his propaganda is the only thing that remains.
Herodotus's version has two wizards for extra flavor.
Long and short of it is that Darius probably killed the legitimate ruler of the Persian Empire, Bardiya, and made up a story that claimed that an honest-to-god wizard had replaced Bardiya and then stormed the palace to kill the imposter and got appointed as the new ruler by the highest ranking nobles. He had this carved at Behistun and was so good at suppressing the truth that his propaganda is the only thing that remains.
Herodotus's version has two wizards for extra flavor.
I feel as if using Wizard instead of Magus kind of discounts the story unnecessarily. Magi weren't like modern wizards of our imagination, but they were astronomers, priests, and etc.
I wholeheartidly disagree with Byzantines as a staple for me Byzantium should be represented as an alt leader for Rome. We already have the Greeks (same region), the Ottomans (same capital), Rome (same continuity), the relevancy of the Byzantines is clearly beyond my understanding... Especially if we consider China still as one single entity.
Maybe it's bc there was a two year span in my undergrad when I thought about becoming a Byzantinist, but I very much disagree with lumping clumping blobbing Medieval Byzantium with Classical Rome. The average person that knows about Byzantium thinks of it as an Orthodox Christian, Greek, Medieval civilization distinct from Ancient Rome and throughout Civ it's been portrayed that way. While the Byzantines considered themselves "Roman" it's better to have them as separate civs given the cultural and temporal differences, and if we were going to lump them with Rome all bc they consider themselves Roman then we we need to omit Russia and the Ottomans - both of whom also legitimized their empires as the true inheritors of the classical Roman Empire in various writings, art, etc. Also why is it with Civ 6 everyone is suddenly bringing up Constantinople and Istanbul being the same places as problem? This has literally never been an issue before until Civ 6 when I started seeing it pop up in the forums...
I obviously want more civs from different regions but I don't see why to do so means retroactively clumping old civs up, we just end up in the same situation of poor divisions and historical representation. Basil II leading Rome would feel just as disjointed and lazy as Changragupta and Gandhi both leading India, and it's been discussed just how much India needs to be split up.
Argentina has Eva Peron, though she might be controversial, and possibly Jose de San Martin, but I agree that Simon Bolivar and Gran Colombia would probably happen first. At least they fall under the same criteria as Ba Treiu leading Vietnam or Gandhi perpetually leading India.
Eva Peron might be an odd choice since she was around when Argentina wasn't exactly having a good time - Argentina's good days as one of the wealthiest and prosperous countries was the late 1800s (which is even more surprising given that the early 1800s Argentina was considered a failed state due to civil war). It was in the early 1900s that political instability started to really do in Argentina, and Eva Peron "led" the nation through the 40s and 50s, right when Argentina is ousted from that circle of wealthiest nations. Still I wouldn't mind Argentina, I actually like tango music and I can see them being commerce/cultural/industrial with an inclination towards music, which we don't really have but that's probably bc great music comes so late.
I feel as if using Wizard instead of Magus kind of discounts the story unnecessarily. Magi weren't like modern wizards of our imagination, but they were astronomers, priests, and etc.
The Magi were associated with magic from early on so I think calling him a wizard is fair. The word magic comes from Magus, and wizard originally had a similar connotation (wise man).
Maybe it's bc there was a two year span in my undergrad when I thought about becoming a Byzantinist, but I very much disagree with lumping clumping blobbing Medieval Byzantium with Classical Rome. The average person that knows about Byzantium thinks of it as an Orthodox Christian, Greek, Medieval civilization distinct from Ancient Rome and throughout Civ it's been portrayed that way. While the Byzantines considered themselves "Roman" it's better to have them as separate civs given the cultural and temporal differences, and if we were going to lump them with Rome all bc they consider themselves Roman then we we need to omit Russia and the Ottomans - both of whom also legitimized their empires as the true inheritors of the classical Roman Empire in various writings, art, etc. Also why is it with Civ 6 everyone is suddenly bringing up Constantinople and Istanbul being the same places as problem? This has literally never been an issue before until Civ 6 when I started seeing it pop up in the forums...
The Magi were associated with magic from early on so I think calling him a wizard is fair. The word magic comes from Magus, and wizard originally had a similar connotation (wise man).
I know that. What I mean is that saying a magus replaced Bardis doesn't discount the story, as implied by @InsidiousMage, although there are certainly flaws in it.
I feel as if using Wizard instead of Magus kind of discounts the story unnecessarily. Magi weren't like modern wizards of our imagination, but they were astronomers, priests, and etc.
Sure, but they essential function as wizards in the story, especially in Herodotus's version. I mean, the idea that someone was impersonating the second son of the king and no one noticed really does need some kind of magic to work. Unless, of course, there was an actual conspiracy to replace Bardiya by the noblitity with a pliant stand-in and pass him off as the real deal but Darius had is own plans.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I did leave videos that you can watch, though.
for me Byzantium should be represented as an alt leader for Rome. We already have the Greeks (same region), the Ottomans (same capital), Rome (same continuity), the relevancy of the Byzantines is clearly beyond my understanding... Especially if we consider China still as one single entity.
