Different capital hypothesis

[Menzies]

One thing that is quite interesting about the choices of leaders in Civilization VI is that they, unlike in Civ V, have the leaders capital, rather than one given for the whole civilisation. Consider what we've seen:

Greece:
- Pericles: Athens
- Gorgo: Sparta

Russia:
- Peter the Great: St. Petersburg

Arabia:
- Saladin: Cairo

Sumer:
- Gilgamesh: Uruk

Rome:
- Trajan: Rome

Norway:
- Harald Hadrada: Nidaros

Kongo:
- Mvemba a Nzinga: Mbanza Kongo

India:
- Gandhi: Delhi

Spain:
- Philip II: Madrid

German:
- Frederick Barbarossa: Aachen

Scythia:
- Tomyris: Pokrovka

Brazil:
- Pedro II: Rio de Janeiro

France:
- Catherine de Medici: Paris

Aztec:
- Montezuma I: Tenochtitlan

China:
- Qin Shi Huang: Xi'an

Japan:
- Hojo Tokimune: Kyoto

Egypt:
- Cleopatra: Ra-kedet

England:
- Victoria: London

America:
- Theodore Roosevelt: Washington

Of these, some of the more interesting include Aachen for Frederick Barbarossa, Cairo for Saladin and Sparta for Gorgo. These wouldn't be a surprise of course thinking about the leaders themselves, but are surprises for the civilisations. There's been a lot of interesting information given since Gorgo was released, not least of which was that both Gorgo and Pericles would be able to play on the same game (seemingly as default), with them being assigned different capitals, colours, but the same civilisation. Them using the same large list of city names, which randomised with weighting towards the more well known, is also an interesting way of doing it.

One thought that occurs seeing this is that we also know that Isabella of Spain is on her way, and much like Gorgo, her traditional capital is not the same as the other leader for the civ. Philip II was assigned Madrid as his capital (which is less surprising for Spain as a whole), the city that he himself moved the capital to. Isabella of course had her capital as Toledo.

So, what if for her reveal we see the same pattern, a different set of colours (possibly her colours from Civ V), a different capital (Toledo)? It may well suggest that each leader added to the game is chosen in such a way that they could be given this, that is, new leaders would be ones that had a different capital to the ones already seen in the game. For example, Lenin could lead Russia with Moscow as their capital, and some version of red and yellow as their colours, or Alexander could lead Greece from his capital of Pella.

The choices of colours for civilisations also remains largely unchanged from previous versions, except in a few distinct cases, e.g. Philip's Spain. This is another area that may direct us to other possible new leaders.

Should this be the case, it would open up a lot of different possibilities, such as representing civilisations that went through a lot of changes (e.g. various German leaders, Byzantium could be Rome with a different leader, doubt they'd do that though), while it would also limit a lot of cases (je ne suis pas Napoléon).

At this time there isn't enough information to either strongly suggest, nor deny, that this is actually the case, just thought it was interesting. Seeing how they reveal Isabella though will be quite insightful.

Edit: Fixed Egypt's capital.

 

[Siptah]

Cleopatra has not Thebes as capitol but Ra-Khedet. Which allows Waset (Thebes), Pi-Ramesses or Inbu Hedj (Memphis) for other leaders.

I like your reasoning, and I hope we'll see it come true. Shame for Rome and France though.

 

[Menzies]

Cleopatra has not Thebes as capitol but Ra-Khedet. Which allows Waset (Thebes), Pi-Ramesses or Inbu Hedj (Memphis) for other leaders.

I like your reasoning, and I hope we'll see it come true. Shame for Rome and France though.

Thanks, fixed it now.

France did have some kings with their capital at Versailles, notably Louis XIV and XV.

Rome wasn't always the capital of Rome either, which opens up some interesting possibilities.

This seems to fit well with going for more interesting choices.

 

[Siptah]

Right, forgot about Versailles, probably because it's too close to Paris ;-)

 

[Uberfrog]

It is interesting and a nice change, but ultimately I feel they'll choose the leader first and the capital second. In the rare case you have both leaders in the same game, they can probably be handled by just picking the best available city.

 

[Cerilis]

I can see Bismarck/Fritz with Berlin (or Potsdam for Fritz, if they are both in) for Germany or Edo/Tokio for a Tokugawa leader for Japan.
I like the idea of different capitals for each leader, though it might be awkward for some. I am looking at you, America! Well, maybe you could do uh Philadelphia for Washington...?

 

[anandus]

Interesting point!

It both gives possibilites for other leaders by the capital not named, but also what leaders we can not expect based on the capitals used.

For instance, Bismarck is in with Berlin, but Charlemagne is out (although he'd rather fit with the Franks or the Holy Roman Empire).
Or Catherine is out (St. Petersburg) and Ivan the Terrible is in (with Moscow).

Of course this'd only be the case if there wouldn't be double capitals

I'd guess Washington would've Boston as it's capital (was Boston the capital of the early US, I don't know?).

 

[Menzies]

I can see Bismarck/Fritz with Berlin (or Potsdam for Fritz, if they are both in) for Germany or Edo/Tokio for a Tokugawa leader for Japan.
I like the idea of different capitals for each leader, though it might be awkward for some. I am looking at you, America! Well, maybe you could do uh Philadelphia for Washington...?

Phildelphia for Washington is pretty fitting to be honest, and I'd actually be surprised if they gave him Washington as a capital even if this hypothesis turns out to be false. I'd say he's quite likely in any case.

 

[ales_]

Cleopatra has not Thebes as capitol but Ra-Khedet.

Where have you seen Ra-Kedet? It's clearly Thebes in the First Look.

 

[Menzies]

Where have you seen Ra-Kedet? It's clearly Thebes in the First Look.

In the let's plays it's Ra-Kedet. This in and of itself could be telling. We know that they changed City States to include them as Civs in Civ V. It could be that something has changed in development and they decided to go with Ra-Kedet as her capital for one reason or another. This could suggest that the decision to go with one capital per leader was a late decision, it could be that they hadn't decided on a capital for her. We'll see I guess.

 

[ales_]

Can you post a link of one of these LPs?

 

[Menzies]

Can you post a link of one of these LPs?

This is a German one, haven't found an English one though. Ra-Kedet makes sense though as it was actually her capital.

Edit: Here is one in English showing that her capital is indeed Ra-Kedet.

If nothing else, it shows that some thought went into making sure that each leader had their capital.

 

[skyclad]

Yes I really like the flexibility this gives, will be interesting! For romans for example, I believe some emperors, or consuls or whatever it might have been, ruled from Ravenna? Otherwise, we could have Constantine with Constantinopel as a second roman leader
Berlin for Germany, Versailles for France, Philadelphia or (doubt this but as a foreigner I don't care) Richmond for America, Moscow for Russia... Many opportunities!

 

[nzcamel]

I like this...unless it knocks out good 'big personality' contenders.

 

[anandus]

Yes I really like the flexibility this gives, will be interesting! For romans for example, I believe some emperors, or consuls or whatever it might have been, ruled from Ravenna? Otherwise, we could have Constantine with Constantinopel as a second roman leader

Mostly the weak puppet-emperors ruled from Ravenna.
Other possibilites are Byzantium/Constantinople, Mediolanum/Milan, Augusta Treverorum/Trier, Sirmium, Nicomedia. Gotta love that tetrachy

 

[demidyad]

This may be another reason why they decided to have a randomised choice from the next 10 city names when you found a city. I imagine if you have Pericles and Gorgo in the same game, after the capital they will have to pick city names from the same list of Greek cities. So using the linear system of city naming you'd be able to tell how far along this other Greek civ was before you'd even met them, if you went to found your second city, expecting Corinth but instead got Argos - you would know that Gorgo had already founded Corinth. This way means you never know how far along your rival Greece is

 

[Homusubi]

Is there any actual evidence of variable capitals? I'm rather sceptical because Hojo Tokimune ruled from Kamakura, not Kyoto.

 

[MistyRonin]

One thought that occurs seeing this is that we also know that Isabella of Spain is on her way, and much like Gorgo, her traditional capital is not the same as the other leader for the civ. Philip II was assigned Madrid as his capital (which is less surprising for Spain as a whole), the city that he himself moved the capital to. Isabella of course had her capital as Toledo.

I think you have to keep in mind that the concept capital is a bit diffuse before the late modern era. Basically it was the place where the monarch and his/her court and administration was at a certain moment. Some civilisations had a more "official" site and others no.

For instance, Isabella was queen of the Crown of Castile, where as in the countries ruled by her husby (Crown of Aragon), had an itinerant court, aka the "Capital" was the town where the monarch was in at that moment. There was no capital per se (not Toledo, not Seville, etc.).

On the other hand, Philip II established his residency in Madrid which became de facto the capital of all the countries he ruled (Crown of Castile and its American colonies, those in the Crown of Aragon, Portugal, etc.).

 

[Menzies]

I think you have to keep in mind that the concept capital is a bit diffuse before the late modern era. Basically it was the place where the monarch and his/her court and administration was at a certain moment. Some civilisations had a more "official" site and others no.

For instance, Isabella was queen of the Crown of Castile, where as in the countries ruled by her husby (Crown of Aragon), had an itinerant court, aka the "Capital" was the town where the monarch was in at that moment. There was no capital per se.

On the other hand, Philip II established himself in Madrid which become de facto the capital of all the countries he ruled (Crown of Castile and its American colonies, those in the Crown of Aragon, Portugal, etc.).

Yes, that is fairly standard knowledge. However game constructs within the Civilization series generally use a more abstract concept of a capital than the modern version. If we're going down the "that's a modern concept" route, then we also have all the issues that go along with that as well, for example, how we define an organised state and whether that is even an important consideration.

In this instance I note Toledo, as it was at the time what most people would have deemed the equivalent of the capital of Castile at that time. In this instance though ditching the concept of the capital all together isn't exactly a useful construct as each leader is being given a capital that way.

Is there any actual evidence of variable capitals? I'm rather sceptical because Hojo Tokimune ruled from Kamakura, not Kyoto.

That one had me thinking a bit as well. Japan is an interesting one to discuss though, as whilst his own Shogunate was based in Kamakura, he was in effect the ruler of all Japan. With the Emperor technically "ruling" from Japan (though essentially a powerless position), it does make sense to still call his capital Kyoto. It's an odd one though, as the Shogunate was most definitly based in Kamakura. As above, we saw that Cleopatra was given Thebes in that early first look, only for the final version to have her capital as Ra-kedet. Maybe it's something that's going to be changed, maybe it's as suggested there it's because of how power structures worked in Feudal Japan, or maybe this hypothesis is wrong. I wouldn't rule out a mistake from the devs, they had the wrong Ragusa in the Civpedia for a good year or so in Civ V, and mixed up Qin Shi Huang and Kublai Khan in Civ IV. We'll see when the DLC starts coming in.

The evidence that we have at this point is what is stated in the original post. Again, this is a hypothesis, and we can test it against the prediction that Isabella when revealed will have a different capital to Philip (likely Toledo) and different colouring. Equally, it is expected that this is true for all new leaders from then. It is falsified should we have a second leader revealed that shares a capital and colours with the other.

 

[MistyRonin]

Yes, that is fairly standard knowledge. However game constructs within the Civilization series generally use a more abstract concept of a capital than the modern version. If we're going down the "that's a modern concept" route, then we also have all the issues that go along with that as well, for example, how we define an organised state and whether that is even an important consideration.

Well, in former Civs you could switch which city was your capital by simply building a palace in a new one. It would really make a lot of sense that they brought it back.

BTW could I ask sources about Toledo deemed the equivalent of the capital of Castile at that time. I find it specially curious because I even lived for a couple years in a village of Toledo, Los Yébenes, while doing anthropological research and never heard of that fact.

Burgos was caput castellae, hence it had the rights to expose first when the Castilian courts meet, and in Valladolid there was the main judicial power of the Crown of Castile, the "Real Audiencia y chancillería de Valladolid". The courts used to meet nearby Madrid (Alcalá de Henares, Toro, Madrid itself etc.). And Isabella lived many years in Seville, from where the Castilian Armies were lead during the final stages of the "Reconquista" (this one is indeed considered by some historians as kind of the "capital" during her reign).