[GS] Eleanor of Aquitaine - France, or England? Or both...

Which Civ will Eleanor lead?


  • Total voters
    138
  • Poll closed .
Leading both she's a somewhat disappointing choice; leading only one--either one--she's a downright bizarre choice. So I'm going to go with both.

She was only in Poiters when she was estranged from the King.
So most of the time, then? :mischief:
 
Leading both she's a somewhat disappointing choice; leading only one--either one--she's a downright bizarre choice. So I'm going to go with both.
Only if you have a somewhat limited idea of what a leader should be as opposed to an open idea of what a leader could be. :yeah:
 
Only if you have a somewhat limited idea of what a leader should be as opposed to an open idea of what a leader could be. :yeah:
I have a fairly broad notion of who could be a leader, but Eleanor still falls far outside it. Her cultural accomplishments are interesting, but her political accomplishments are virtually nonexistent--even compared to CdM, Gandhi, or Cleopatra. Not to mention that one female leader of France was strange enough. If they wanted a leader to lead two civs, they should have gone for Kublai Khan or Charlemagne.
 
Charlemagne would be pretty solid. Justinian too, if they add the Byzantines.

Neither would work in Civ 6. Charlemagne would share his capital with Frederick, while adding Byzantines with Justinian and having that same Justinian also double as the alt leader for Rome is way too extra, even for Civ6. Either add the Byzzies separately or have Justinian as an Alt for Rome, but not both.

There are only a handful of leaders who are eligible for leaderdom in the same vein Eleanor is (as an alt for two already present civs). Canute the Great is one, however he led Denmark, rather than Norway. Charles V is also eligible as leader of Spain and Austria, but that would require the latter to be added. Personally I find the mechanic of "one leader, two empires" fascinating, but in the context of Civ 6 only there are only three options, from the top of my head, that Firaxis could have chosen. The first option is any Steward monarch as leader of England and Scotland. The second is Empress Matilda as leader for Germany and England. The third is Eleanor of Aquitaine. [EDIT: I forgot about Kublai Khan!! Fingers crossed :)]

Of course one could add Portugal in the next XPac and make Philip II retroactively the leader of both Spain and Portugal (and add Isabella as the new regular leader of Spain, governing from the old Castillian capital of Toledo), but that's neither here nor there.
 
I have a fairly broad notion of who could be a leader, but Eleanor still falls far outside it. Her cultural accomplishments are interesting, but her political accomplishments are virtually nonexistent--even compared to CdM, Gandhi, or Cleopatra. Not to mention that one female leader of France was strange enough. If they wanted a leader to lead two civs, they should have gone for Kublai Khan or Charlemagne.
Famous, interesting, influential = a fine choice. The fact that there are hundreds of French figures that fit the criteria is irrelevant to me, Eleanor is an interesting historical figure and therefore fair game. You claim to have a fairly broad notion of who could be a leader and then proceed to name two extremely obvious choices in Kublai and Charlemagne. Your opinion is totally valid but I stand by my assertion.
 
Neither would work in Civ 6. Charlemagne would share his capital with Frederick, while adding Byzantines with Justinian and having that same Justinian also double as the alt leader for Rome is way too extra, even for Civ6. Either add the Byzzies separately or have Justinian as an Alt for Rome, but not both.

There are only a handful of leaders who are eligible for leaderdom in the same vein Eleanor is (as an alt for two already present civs). Canute the Great is one, however he led Denmark, rather than Norway. Charles V is also eligible as leader of Spain and Austria, but that would require the latter to be added. Personally I find the mechanic of "one leader, two empires" fascinating, but in the context of Civ 6 only there are only three options, from the top of my head, that Firaxis could have chosen. The first option is any Steward monarch as leader of England and Scotland. The second is Empress Matilda as leader for Germany and England. The third is Eleanor of Aquitaine. [EDIT: I forgot about Kublai Khan!! Fingers crossed :)]

Of course one could add Portugal in the next XPac and make Philip II retroactively the leader of both Spain and Portugal (and add Isabella as the new regular leader of Spain, governing from the old Castillian capital of Toledo), but that's neither here nor there.

You could also add in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth or Tsarist Russia, which had both Russia and Finland under its ruler ship. Part of Prussia was located outside control of the Holy Roman Empire and thus subject to Polish influence. The now defunct German state of East Prussia, was technically part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, along with the German populated city of Danzig.
 
George II.

America, England, Australia, India, Scotland, Germany, Canada....

George II only ruled part of Germany, mainly the Hannover area, but he did recruit a lot of Hessians to work as Soldiers on behalf of the British, which his son George III used extensively in fighting the American Revolutionary War.
 
William III could be the leader of England, Scotland, and the Netherlands. Which he was historically, when all three countries were sovereign states.
 
Oh yeah i didn't mention it in my post above but selecting a ruler for a country that they conquered or colonized is a pretty terrible choice. You might as well hand Eleanor's portfolio over to William the Conqueror if you do that. Alexander shouldn't lead Persia nor Egypt, even though he conquered both and was *technically* the Shah and Pharaoh for a brief while. Wilhelmina shouldn't be an Alt for Indonesia either, which was still a Dutch colony at that point. Would Americans accept George III as an alternative leader for the USA? Nuts.

Eleanor fits because she was *nominally* the Queen of France, then England and presumably spoke the languages (although, I'm sure the English court still spoke French at that time :p)

Oh and another thing I forgot to consider, but if you want an Alternative leader for two civs, they NEEDS to be two civs from the basegame. Gathering Storm can be installed without R&F or any of the DLCs. Imagine how awkward it would be to add an Alt leader for a Civ which doesn't even exist in your game version...
 
Famous, interesting, influential = a fine choice. The fact that there are hundreds of French figures that fit the criteria is irrelevant to me, Eleanor is an interesting historical figure and therefore fair game. You claim to have a fairly broad notion of who could be a leader and then proceed to name two extremely obvious choices in Kublai and Charlemagne. Your opinion is totally valid but I stand by my assertion.
I say I have a broad concept of who could be considered because I don't think we have to limit ourselves to simply the most famous leaders, but I do think a leader ought to have a certain amount of political influence. Eleanor had very little since she made a habit of making enemies of her husbands. As for the "obvious" choices I selected, I think that if a single leader of two civs is selected they should be obvious; I'm personally not a fan of the concept. (NB that before R&F came out, I'm the one who was championing the idea of Sorghaghtani Beki leading Mongolia. ;) )
 
Neither would work in Civ 6. Charlemagne would share his capital with Frederick, while adding Byzantines with Justinian and having that same Justinian also double as the alt leader for Rome is way too extra, even for Civ6. Either add the Byzzies separately or have Justinian as an Alt for Rome, but not both.

There are only a handful of leaders who are eligible for leaderdom in the same vein Eleanor is (as an alt for two already present civs). Canute the Great is one, however he led Denmark, rather than Norway. Charles V is also eligible as leader of Spain and Austria, but that would require the latter to be added. Personally I find the mechanic of "one leader, two empires" fascinating, but in the context of Civ 6 only there are only three options, from the top of my head, that Firaxis could have chosen. The first option is any Steward monarch as leader of England and Scotland. The second is Empress Matilda as leader for Germany and England. The third is Eleanor of Aquitaine. [EDIT: I forgot about Kublai Khan!! Fingers crossed :)]

Of course one could add Portugal in the next XPac and make Philip II retroactively the leader of both Spain and Portugal (and add Isabella as the new regular leader of Spain, governing from the old Castillian capital of Toledo), but that's neither here nor there.

I come down very, very strongly (and unrealistically) in the more-the-merrier camp. I would pay for a Justinian + Scenario DLC. He wouldn't have to be the default leader of Byzantium, who really does need to be a Greek-speaker.

You're right about the issue with Charlemagne's capital being shared with Germany, but the shared capital is an issue with most French alt-leaders (in Paris). Charlemagne didn't have a set capital (though he would probably have Aachen). Most modded alt-leaders don't care about shared capitals, though, and Charlemagne would be a great alt-leader in a mod. None of these changes need to be by official release.
 
Well, if I'm real honest, I'd rather not have Alt leaders at all :lol: I prefer having the Franks as a separate civ led by Charlemagne (with France and Germany being led by leaders of different eras; such as Louis XIV and Adenauer) than have Charlemagne as an alt for both France and Germany.
 
I still think Charles Martel ("The Hammer") would make the most sense for an alternate French leader, as without Charles Martel, Europe and France would not exist as we know it. The Battle of Tours was one of the most important battles ever fought by France.

Charles de Gaulle himself declared the Franks to be the historical founders of what became modern France, so that would make the Charles Martel selection even more significant. One possible exception, would be Normandy France, which was colonized by the Scandinavian Vikings who later intermarried with the Franks to create the Normans. In such a scenario, Rollo of Normandy, could be substituted for Martel.

Given that my direct ancestors were from Lower Normandy, I would gladly support a Norman ruler for France.

That's a completely obsolete vision of history, though, and it has been for half a century now (only far right extremist would agree with what you said).
All historians agree that Charles Martel only beat some raiding parties, or at most just a minor expedition - not a conquest force. The Battle of Poitiers (not Tours) was just a small event in the grand scheme of things, and anyway it's impossible to know what would happen if those raiders were not fought off. It seems rather unlikely the Franks could lose anyway given how greedy and inconsistent the muslim leaders seemed to be - but if the Andalusian really wanted to conquer Aquitaine it would have been very easy to gather more men and retaliate. For several reasons (economic, political), they didn't want to, and anyway that victory in Poitiers didn't stop muslims raids (like in Avignon, Arles etc). In fact, the fight against the saracens were used by Charles Martel to unify lands under his rule and forge new alliances. He waited til Aquitaine begged for help, and then look the land of burgundian and provençal nobles, claiming they were andalusian servants. Charles Martel was certainly a strong Frankish leader, but he was just part of the Frankish cycle of unifications through conquests and politics, and divisions through inheritance. It's not a very important step in the french history.

Then, the Franks are far from being the only founders of modern France. France wouldn't exist without several layers - the most visible ones being the Celts (landscape), the Romans (culture, language, more important in southern France) and the Franks (name, politics, in the northern part of France at least) ; but also a lot of different people in different areas, like Basques in the south-west, Greeks in Massalia, Burgundians in Burgundy, Saxons in Normandy, Jews in the big cities, Flemish in the north, just to give some of the most famous names (but you'd need to also add many others).

Given what you wrote I imagine that you're just not very knowledgeable about the history of France and history in general, so I invite you to inform yourself rather than repeating dubious far-right websites quoting Charles de Gaulle. Sadly the english "history of france" wikipedia page isn't very good, so you'd need to read some general books.

Also, it wouldn't make any sense to have a Norman leader for France, as it simply never happened. Check the history of the Normans too while you're at it. They were very quickly assimilated anyway, even if the norman dialect had more loanwords from germanic languages (both scandinavian and saxon).

Such leaders as Hugues Capet, Philippe le Bel, Henri IV, Richelieu, Louis XIV (or many others) would be better as leaders of France than a frankish warchief (or "dux") and regent who was mostly famous for being a dick with everyone (that's what "Martel" means). France wasn't even a thing back then - there was just a Frankish nobility who kept dividing lands between their heirs more or less arbitrarily and called themselves "kings of the franks". Btw, Charles Martel was much more famous in his time for his victories against other Franks and other germanic "kings".

And finally, given that he's a rallying figure for french neonazis (even worse than Jeanne d'Arc, since at least she's mainly instrumentalized by christian fundamentalists and ultra-nationalists), it would send a very bad signal to french people to pick him as a leader (your use of a quote from Charles de Gaulle was quite ironic in that sense). Anyway, there are just so many better choices - Charles Martel would be a mistake.
 
Charlemagne would be pretty solid. Justinian too, if they add the Byzantines.

Neither would work in Civ 6. Charlemagne would share his capital with Frederick, while adding Byzantines with Justinian and having that same Justinian also double as the alt leader for Rome is way too extra, even for Civ6. Either add the Byzzies separately or have Justinian as an Alt for Rome, but not both.

I'm with Lord Lakely - Justinian never lead Byzantium. It is a modern construct to describe the Eastern half of the Roman Empire after the West fell. There are enough differences which came into being that you can note them, but Justinian himself would have no idea what you're on about re Byzantium. Whereas Eleanor did know the differences between the French & English thrones she married into.

There are only a handful of leaders who are eligible for leaderdom in the same vein Eleanor is (as an alt for two already present civs). Canute the Great is one, however he led Denmark, rather than Norway. Charles V is also eligible as leader of Spain and Austria, but that would require the latter to be added. Personally I find the mechanic of "one leader, two empires" fascinating, but in the context of Civ 6 only there are only three options, from the top of my head, that Firaxis could have chosen. The first option is any Steward monarch as leader of England and Scotland. The second is Empress Matilda as leader for Germany and England. The third is Eleanor of Aquitaine. [EDIT: I forgot about Kublai Khan!! Fingers crossed :)]

Of course one could add Portugal in the next XPac and make Philip II retroactively the leader of both Spain and Portugal (and add Isabella as the new regular leader of Spain, governing from the old Castillian capital of Toledo), but that's neither here nor there.

Don't forget Victoria - Queen of Scotland, England, India, the Maori, Canada, & Australia ;)

George II.

America, England, Australia, India, Scotland, Germany, Canada....

Oh yeah i didn't mention it in my post above but selecting a ruler for a country that they conquered or colonized is a pretty terrible choice. You might as well hand Eleanor's portfolio over to William the Conqueror if you do that. Alexander shouldn't lead Persia nor Egypt, even though he conquered both and was *technically* the Shah and Pharaoh for a brief while. Wilhelmina shouldn't be an Alt for Indonesia either, which was still a Dutch colony at that point. Would Americans accept George III as an alternative leader for the USA? Nuts.

Eleanor fits because she was *nominally* the Queen of France, then England and presumably spoke the languages (although, I'm sure the English court still spoke French at that time :p)

Oh and another thing I forgot to consider, but if you want an Alternative leader for two civs, they NEEDS to be two civs from the basegame. Gathering Storm can be installed without R&F or any of the DLCs. Imagine how awkward it would be to add an Alt leader for a Civ which doesn't even exist in your game version...

Yeah I think there are plenty of genuine contenders, but LL is right that a local favourite is (most of the time) more appropriate.

I come down very, very strongly (and unrealistically) in the more-the-merrier camp. I would pay for a Justinian + Scenario DLC. He wouldn't have to be the default leader of Byzantium, who really does need to be a Greek-speaker.

Another Greek speaker!? :mischief::lol:
 
Eleonor of Aquitaine spoke more an occitan language than french anyway. A language almost instinct in modern France and somehow can be half-understand by people of Catalonia.

Back then, the King of Franks was a minor figure. He was the "chief" but basicly, the Dukes and Counts have the power (Philippe Auguste will change this a few decades later). Aquitaine was the greatest duchy of the kingdom: the most rich, powerful and wide. So Eleanor have between her hands a huge power that nobody wanted she use. Because she was a woman.

She managed to rule the Kingdom, mostly because the Kingdom didn't have that much power to begin with. And when the King wanted to take the power back, she manage to cancel the marriage.

She's a strong figure, somehow a feminist figure. First queen to get into a viril pilgrimage (also as know as "Crusade"), most powerful figure of the Kingdom between men and women, huge patronage of arts, she even help a female abbess for her church.

Maybe we will have 2 Eleonor with 2 differents abilities.
Young Eleonor, Queen of France, shy and cheerful. Ready to rules Aquitaine for the best but somehow naive.
Old Eleonor, Queen of England, grumpy and tired (you know: imprisonned by her husband), but ready to revenge and cunning.

But I hope so much the possibility that add a custom game mode that allow to choose a leader and a civilization indepently. Like Qin of France, Tomirys of Macedonia, Saladin of Russia, or Hojo of Germany.
 
That's a completely obsolete vision of history, though, and it has been for half a century now (only far right extremist would agree with what you said).
All historians agree that Charles Martel only beat some raiding parties, or at most just a minor expedition - not a conquest force. The Battle of Poitiers (not Tours) was just a small event in the grand scheme of things, and anyway it's impossible to know what would happen if those raiders were not fought off. It seems rather unlikely the Franks could lose anyway given how greedy and inconsistent the muslim leaders seemed to be - but if the Andalusian really wanted to conquer Aquitaine it would have been very easy to gather more men and retaliate. For several reasons (economic, political), they didn't want to, and anyway that victory in Poitiers didn't stop muslims raids (like in Avignon, Arles etc). In fact, the fight against the saracens were used by Charles Martel to unify lands under his rule and forge new alliances. He waited til Aquitaine begged for help, and then look the land of burgundian and provençal nobles, claiming they were andalusian servants. Charles Martel was certainly a strong Frankish leader, but he was just part of the Frankish cycle of unifications through conquests and politics, and divisions through inheritance. It's not a very important step in the french history.

Then, the Franks are far from being the only founders of modern France. France wouldn't exist without several layers - the most visible ones being the Celts (landscape), the Romans (culture, language, more important in southern France) and the Franks (name, politics, in the northern part of France at least) ; but also a lot of different people in different areas, like Basques in the south-west, Greeks in Massalia, Burgundians in Burgundy, Saxons in Normandy, Jews in the big cities, Flemish in the north, just to give some of the most famous names (but you'd need to also add many others).

Given what you wrote I imagine that you're just not very knowledgeable about the history of France and history in general, so I invite you to inform yourself rather than repeating dubious far-right websites quoting Charles de Gaulle. Sadly the english "history of france" wikipedia page isn't very good, so you'd need to read some general books.

Also, it wouldn't make any sense to have a Norman leader for France, as it simply never happened. Check the history of the Normans too while you're at it. They were very quickly assimilated anyway, even if the norman dialect had more loanwords from germanic languages (both scandinavian and saxon).

Such leaders as Hugues Capet, Philippe le Bel, Henri IV, Richelieu, Louis XIV (or many others) would be better as leaders of France than a frankish warchief (or "dux") and regent who was mostly famous for being a dick with everyone (that's what "Martel" means). France wasn't even a thing back then - there was just a Frankish nobility who kept dividing lands between their heirs more or less arbitrarily and called themselves "kings of the franks". Btw, Charles Martel was much more famous in his time for his victories against other Franks and other germanic "kings".

And finally, given that he's a rallying figure for french neonazis (even worse than Jeanne d'Arc, since at least she's mainly instrumentalized by christian fundamentalists and ultra-nationalists), it would send a very bad signal to french people to pick him as a leader (your use of a quote from Charles de Gaulle was quite ironic in that sense). Anyway, there are just so many better choices - Charles Martel would be a mistake.

First and foremost, there are plenty of Historians (including living ones), who still view the Battle of Tours as a significant historical event, so saying all historians agree is false. Prior to the mid 20th century, virtually every historian considered the Battle of Tours a significant event, and it had nothing to do with politics. Secondly, calling it the Battle of Tours is accurate, as both Tours and Poitiers have been used over the centuries as names for the battle.

On top of that, I never argued that Tours was the end of anything, merely that it ensured the Frankish Kingdom survived. Charlemagne was the grandson of Charles Martel, so if Martel had failed at Tours, that could easily have altered the outcome of the Western World.

In regards to Charles de Gaulle, I was simply repeating his belief that the Franks were the predecessors to modern France. Obviously the Franks were not the only group to populate what we now call France, but they were one of the most important.

With regard to Normandy, I am well aware that the Scandinavian Vikings who populated Normandy never ruled over the entire country, but they still played an important role in the history of France. The Normans were the result of Scandinavian Vikings intermarrying with the Franks who had previously populated Normandy (The Franks having replaced the Gauls / Romans). Many of the famous French explorers who helped establish the French colonies in North America, were from Normandy. Many of the French immigrants to Canada were also Norman, as the bulk of French immigrants to France's North American colonies were from the coastal areas of France, as opposed to the interior or eastern part of the country. My direct ancestors were from Normandy, so I am well aware of the history of Normandy.

Getting back to the general topic of this thread, people were simply debating alternate leaders for a French civ in Civilization VI, and I voiced my support for Charles Martel or Rollo of Normandy. Both had historical significance to what became the French nation, so its perfectly legitimate to pick one. If you judge Martel based on the social and cultural norms of his time, then he passes the litmus test. You can't judge someone from the year 688 based on the value system of 2018. Martel was a product of his time, and in his era, he was held in high regard.
 
Everyone seems to want both and that'd be really interesting from a modding perspective but since I really want an alternate England leader my money's on France.

It's worth noting the change to Victoria's LA which gives a trade route bonus instead of the RND. Trade routes are a fan-favourite bonus for England - it seems strange for Firaxis to have an England under Eleanor as that would mean no trade route bonus.

On the other hand, it would be really strange if France got not one but two niche and disappointing leaders. I imagine people would be upset.
 
Top Bottom