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

[Ferocitus]

So who wants to put Eleanor in the game twice for AI players, one as French, and one as English? And see which one comes out ahead.

Anne Boleyn.

 

[nzcamel]

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.

That'd be cool. I suspect we'll get the one Eleanor, at the age she was in between her two marriages though.

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.

If you look at my OP you'll see it's very easy for Eleanor to get a trade route bonus as part of her LUA. One only tied to sea trade routes even, which are getting a buff.

No ones really speculated on the LUA as much as I expected...

 

[Ziad]

So who wants to put Eleanor in the game twice for AI players, one as French, and one as English? And see which one comes out ahead.

Anne Boleyn.

Or if either survives with their head at all.

 

[Jkchart]

Are you saying Macedonians didn't keep slaves? Cos Greeks did.

Actually, Macedonians were even more into slavery than regular Greeks.

 

[pgm123]

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.

I've given up trying to fight the people who want Byzantium as a separate civ. I know it's a construct. I know it's basically a pejorative. But people want it. And if there is a Byzantium, it would make sense to have some Rome/Byzantine leaders to educate people that they're one and the same. Constantine would work too.

Another Greek speaker!?

If you have Byzantium, you kind of need a Greek speaker. It would be Medieval Greek, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Jkchart]

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. )

Eleanor had quite a bit of political power actually...the entire Duchy of Aquitaine was hers, and they didn't listen to Henry or Louis. Eleanor basically used her power and position to incite Aquitaine into rebellion against Henry and to support Richard, Henry the Younger, and Geoffrey. Additionally, once Richard was on the throne, she ruled England in his name and accepted oaths of fealty, held court, and would even sign letters as "Eleanor, by the grace of God, Queen of England." After all, SOMEONE had to rule the realm while Richard was off killing things and crusading, which he preferred to actual ruling. She basically ruled a state within a state, and then the state itself in addition to managing to get her favored son the throne of England. She actively attempted to pursue her claim to Toulouse (but failed, but since when is 100% success required to be a Civ ruler?). Her cultural accomplishments are well known. She makes very much sense as an actual ruler for England, especially since she was literally signing herself as Queen and ruler of the country.

France, less so, but Aquitaine was still French, and a part of French culture and civilization overall, even though it was a possession of England during much of this period. So her Aquitaine is like a sub-France. And she was queen - the stretch works to some extent.

Sure, she spent a lot of time in prison, but that doesn't diminish the fact that she ruled her Duchy and ruled it well. Certainly she wasn't the best military commander, but neither was George Washington tbh.

EDIT: I'm not trying to criticize you, Zaarin, I'm sorry if it seems that way. I just wanted to show the other side of the coin with Eleanor that a lot of people don't know about. She really actually was a powerful and fascinating figure, and truthfully, she probably had even more direct/"hard" power than Catherine de Medici AND Victoria, especially since this was pre Magna Carta.

 

[Lord Lakely]

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.

Um, that is not what I wrote, nor what I agree with. Justinian, if added as a leader, should only lead the Eastern Roman Empire, which is Byzantium, end of. That the Byzantines called themselves "Rome" is irrelevant. Ancient Rome and Byzantium are two different civs, just like how Kievan Rus isn't Russia or the Golden Horde isn't Mongolia.

 

[pgm123]

Um, that is not what I wrote, nor what I agree with. Justinian, if added as a leader, should only lead the Eastern Roman Empire, which is Byzantium, end of. That the Byzantines called themselves "Rome" is irrelevant. Ancient Rome and Byzantium are two different civs, just like how Kievan Rus isn't Russia or the Golden Horde isn't Mongolia.

They didn't just "call themselves" Rome; they were the literal continuation of the Roman Empire without any break in continuity. Is the Tang Dynasty a different civilization from China? That at least had a gap.

 

[Jkchart]

Um, that is not what I wrote, nor what I agree with. Justinian, if added as a leader, should only lead the Eastern Roman Empire, which is Byzantium, end of. That the Byzantines called themselves "Rome" is irrelevant. Ancient Rome and Byzantium are two different civs, just like how Kievan Rus isn't Russia or the Golden Horde isn't Mongolia.

Yes and no for Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire is actually only a historiographical term that was invented many years after the fall of Constantinople. Up until then, not only did they call themselves the Roman Empire, but everyone else did as well. They are basically the medieval/Renaissance era Rome, transplanted to the East and changed languages to Greek because, well, everyone in the East spoke Greek, not Latin. You can call them different civilizations because they are Greek, but they are still the Roman Empire. That was the reality up until they finally fell. They weren't the "same", but they were the same entity in a different continuation.

EDIT: Nations/Empires evolve over time. That's all that Byzantium is - an evolution of Rome.

 

[pgm123]

Yes and no for Byzantium. The Byzantine Empire is actually only a historiographical term that was invented many years after the fall of Constantinople. Up until then, not only did they call themselves the Roman Empire, but everyone else did as well. They are basically the medieval/Renaissance era Rome, transplanted to the East and changed languages to Greek because, well, everyone in the East spoke Greek, not Latin. You can call them different civilizations because they are Greek, but they are still the Roman Empire. That was the reality up until they finally fell. They weren't the "same", but they were the same entity in a different continuation.

EDIT: Nations/Empires evolve over time. That's all that Byzantium is - an evolution of Rome.

Minor caveat. In the West, they were generally called the Greeks as "Roman" was a term generally applied to the Germans. Those in the East--Greeks, Arabs, Syrians, Persians, Indians, Rus, etc.--called them Romans. The Chinese said they were the same as the Roman Empire, but used a different name (that might be based on Antioch).

As for language, you're spot on, but I chose Justinian because he spoke Latin. It seems a bit less controversial to say a leader who spoke Latin as a first language and controlled the city of Rome was a leader of the Roman civilization.

 

[Jkchart]

Minor caveat. In the West, they were generally called the Greeks as "Roman" was a term generally applied to the Germans. Those in the East--Greeks, Arabs, Syrians, Persians, Indians, Rus, etc.--called them Romans. The Chinese said they were the same as the Roman Empire, but used a different name (that might be based on Antioch).

As for language, you're spot on, but I chose Justinian because he spoke Latin. It seems a bit less controversial to say a leader who spoke Latin as a first language and controlled the city of Rome was a leader of the Roman civilization.

Good points. Thank you for the info!

 

[Lord Lakely]

They didn't just "call themselves" Rome; they were the literal continuation of the Roman Empire without any break in continuity. Is the Tang Dynasty a different civilization from China? That at least had a gap.

Fair point. Byzantium is imo an aspect of the Roman Civilization, just like how the Tang empire is an aspect of the Chinese Civilization, the Republic of India is an aspect of the Indian Civilization and so forth. Byzantium are therefore a separate entity from Ancient Rome which ended when the empires where split in east and west. Imo, splitting them up is the correct decision.

Civ 6 deals with cases like these on an immensely inconsistent basis, I'm sure you agree. Macedon, Athens and Sparta are all different aspects of the Greek civilization, yet Macedon is its own thing while Sparta and Athens have been merged under one banner. I do believe that *splitting Macedon from Greece* is actually the correct decision here, actually (but for completely the wrong reasons)

The solution for me at least would be to allow some kinship between Rome and Byzantium in the form of an ability or unique they both share (such as both getting access to Baths, for example), but keep their abilities, colours & emblems and city lists separate otherwise. But that has little to do with Eleanor.

 

[Jkchart]

Fair point. Byzantium is imo an aspect of the Roman Civilization, just like how the Tang empire is an aspect of the Chinese Civilization, the Republic of India is an aspect of the Indian Civilization and so forth. Byzantium are therefore a separate entity from Ancient Rome which ended when the empires where split in east and west. Imo, splitting them up is the correct decision.

Civ 6 deals with cases like these on an immensely inconsistent basis, I'm sure you agree. Macedon, Athens and Sparta are all different aspects of the Greek civilization, yet Macedon is its own thing while Sparta and Athens have been merged under one banner. I do believe that *splitting Macedon from Greece* is actually the correct decision here, actually (but for completely the wrong reasons)

The solution for me at least would be to allow some kinship between Rome and Byzantium in the form of an ability or unique they both share (such as both getting access to Baths, for example), but keep their abilities, colours & emblems and city lists separate otherwise. But that has little to do with Eleanor.

I would think you could give Byzantium a newer later leader, such as Basil II, and then have Rome and Byzantium share Justinian/Theodora, because that would make a ton of sense. Justinian's reconquests and their loss is basically a transition to a Greek Eastern empire without any of the West. He might have reconquered much of the West, and thus could appropriately say he was the Roman Emperor (indeed described as "the Last Roman" and probably the last Emperor to use Latin as his first language), but is also the Emperor of the East. It would be fine with me to split the two as well - I personally like the uniqueness of the two and having them split. I also agree with splitting off Macedon.

 

[pgm123]

Fair point. Byzantium is imo an aspect of the Roman Civilization, just like how the Tang empire is an aspect of the Chinese Civilization, the Republic of India is an aspect of the Indian Civilization and so forth. Byzantium are therefore a separate entity from Ancient Rome which ended when the empires where split in east and west. Imo, splitting them up is the correct decision.

Civ 6 deals with cases like these on an immensely inconsistent basis, I'm sure you agree. Macedon, Athens and Sparta are all different aspects of the Greek civilization, yet Macedon is its own thing while Sparta and Athens have been merged under one banner. I do believe that *splitting Macedon from Greece* is actually the correct decision here, actually (but for completely the wrong reasons)

The solution for me at least would be to allow some kinship between Rome and Byzantium in the form of an ability or unique they both share (such as both getting access to Baths, for example), but keep their abilities, colours & emblems and city lists separate otherwise. But that has little to do with Eleanor.

I think one issue with talking about the East-West split is dating it. Are you going with Diocletian (286)? Then what is Constantine? Is it after Theodosius I when there were two distinct lines of succession (395)? That makes some sense, but it would be news to those in both sides of the Empire that they were no longer a part of the same Empire, let alone civilization. And if it's 476 when Rome fell, what do we call the period from 536 to 756 when the city of Rome was ruled by the Eastern Emperor? There really isn't an easy dividing point until either the 4th Crusade or the Turks conquering the city as that's the point where true outsiders (despite Ottoman claims of imperial heritage) conquered Rome. And even the Ottomans took the title Emperor of the Romans as one of their many.

I think Alexander fits both as Greece and as a separate Macedonian civ. He's actually a really good example of a leader who should be able to lead both. I think this is pushing the limits of the concept, but Cleopatra leading Macedonia is something I'd like to try too.

As far as the last paragraph, why wouldn't you support my idea of having a separate Byzantine civ and allowing one of their earlier, Latin-speaking emperors like Constantine or Justinian to be able to play as both, similar to how Eleanor will probably be able to play as France or England?

I would think you could give Byzantium a newer later leader, such as Basil II, and then have Rome and Byzantium share Justinian/Theodora, because that would make a ton of sense. Justinian's reconquests and their loss is basically a transition to a Greek Eastern empire without any of the West. He might have reconquered much of the West, and thus could appropriately say he was the Roman Emperor (indeed described as "the Last Roman" and probably the last Emperor to use Latin as his first language), but is also the Emperor of the East. It would be fine with me to split the two as well - I personally like the uniqueness of the two and having them split. I also agree with splitting off Macedon.

Yep. That's exactly what I'd do. Justinian would probably have a religious agenda (One Emperor, One Empire, One Church), but "the Last Roman" is a pretty solid ability name.

 

[Stringer1313]

Can we make predictions for her Unique Leader Ability?

My prediction based on the probably-fictional (when has that stopped Firaxis) "Court of Love" and her Second Crusade and chivalry: All Medieval and Renaissance units get +5 combat strength if produced in a city with a Theater Square (or Ampitheater) or Holy Site (and Shrine).

 

[Zaarin]

Eleanor had quite a bit of political power actually...the entire Duchy of Aquitaine was hers, and they didn't listen to Henry or Louis.

Yes, but as far as we know she's not being presented as leader of Aquitaine...(If she is, I'm a lot more okay with her, though I'll be disappointed they went with Aquitaine over Brittany.)

She makes very much sense as an actual ruler for England

She would...if England didn't half several better female options than Eleanor. I'd say rather she's a less horrible choice for England than she is for France.

I'm not trying to criticize you, Zaarin, I'm sorry if it seems that way. I just wanted to show the other side of the coin with Eleanor that a lot of people don't know about. She really actually was a powerful and fascinating figure, and truthfully, she probably had even more direct/"hard" power than Catherine de Medici AND Victoria, especially since this was pre Magna Carta.

I actually agree that she was more powerful and arguably a better choice than CdM or Victoria. I wasn't a fan of CdM (I've warmed up to her a little) and I'm even less so of Victoria, so if we didn't already have those two already I might even be okay with Eleanor (for England). For me the biggest issue is that she's a dubious choice for two civs that already have dubious leader choices (IMO).

 

[Jkchart]

Yes, but as far as we know she's not being presented as leader of Aquitaine...(If she is, I'm a lot more okay with her, though I'll be disappointed they went with Aquitaine over Brittany.)


She would...if England didn't half several better female options than Eleanor. I'd say rather she's a less horrible choice for England than she is for France.


I actually agree that she was more powerful and arguably a better choice than CdM or Victoria. I wasn't a fan of CdM (I've warmed up to her a little) and I'm even less so of Victoria, so if we didn't already have those two already I might even be okay with Eleanor (for England). For me the biggest issue is that she's a dubious choice for two civs that already have dubious leader choices (IMO).

And those are good points, I'm definitely not blind to that. I've just learned a lot about her that has made me fascinated with the figure, so I welcome her. I do hope they don't go the whole courtly-love route, but it'll be interesting just to see a double-civ leader. I hope she can somehow either synergize well with both, or give them new opportunities in areas that they haven't been able to explore.

Brittany would be an excellent civ, I agree, since they have a unique culture and were definitely independent for the longest time.

 

[Zaarin]

And those are good points, I'm definitely not blind to that. I've just learned a lot about her that has made me fascinated with the figure

Yes, I find both her and her daughter quite interesting as a historical figures; she just wouldn't have been my first choice either as leader of England or as a two-civ leader.

 

[Jkchart]

Yes, I find both her and her daughter quite interesting as a historical figures; she just wouldn't have been my first choice either as leader of England or as a two-civ leader.

Nor mine. If I was designing England I would go in a different direction - I'd bring back Lizzie, and I'd make the alt leader Alfred the Great. Change the UU for the Civ to Longbowman, make Alfred a defensive/militaristic leader and Lizzie a cultural or religious one, possibly give her a Sea Dog, if not give Alfred Housecarls, eschew the naval focus, and find something more "English" instead of British.

EDIT: I'll take Eleanor because it's what I'm getting probably, so I'll welcome someone new if they can find an interesting way to play off of it.

 

[Guandao]

Not directly related to Eleanor, but I was hoping for more non-White female leaders. It looks like this expansion will have none (unless you count Dido).
Will Amanitore be the token black African leader in Civ6? And I'm still waiting for a Mayan queen....