Favorite Leader Choices

[Lyoncet]

In all my recent lurking, it seems like the general conversation went straight from "what civs should be in the game" to "what civs are you pissed didn't make it" to "who's going to be best now that we know most of the UUs and the special abilities?" Looking over all the info again got me wondering about what people see as the best additions to the cast, not in terms of civs but their leaders. Especially contentious now that we're down to 1 leader per civ *gasp!*

I'm quite excited for Harun al-Rashid, since while Saladin was undoubtedly a badass, he doesn't make as much sense as a leader. Sort of akin to making Patton a leader for the USA or Alexander a leader for Greece (oh wait). Plus, al-Rashid represents what I see as a much more interesting facet of the Arabian Empire. Runner up (and only because he's pretty much a shoe-in) is Bismarck.

I'm a little bummed that we got Darius instead of Cyrus, since I think the latter is one of the most fascinating leaders in history, but it's understandable. I'm happy about getting Augustus instead of Julius though; in my opinion Octavian is much worthier of the slot.

 

[D712]

Im very glad they put Catherine in. She represents really, the Golden Age of Russia. Peter brought russia out of its dark age and Stalin put them back in one. She was the right pick

 

[Schuesseled]

i will be sad to see togukawa (or however its spelt) gone, but i like the idea of oda nobunaga being in.

 

[Ahriman]

Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who unified Japan in 1590, and Tokugawa Ieyasu, who founded the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603, were loyal followers of Nobunaga. These two were gifted with Nobunaga's previous achievements on which they could build a unified Japan. There was a saying: "Nobunaga pounds the national rice cake, Hideyoshi kneads it, and in the end Ieyasu sits down and eats it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobunaga

 

[Caeserportugal]

I am gonna post for each civilization including Babylon.

America - Washington was clearly the best choice. He was one of the founding fathers and also was the general who lead the American forces in the Battle of Yorktown. He was also the first President of the US. Other good choices would have been Abraham Lincoln one of the most famous president of the US which led them through the civil war and also the man who abolished slavery in the union. Woodrow Wilson I find it strange why he has never been in civ before. This man is in my top 5 for US Presidents. He lead America during WW1. He also wanted to impose less hars measures on Germany but sadly his proposals never went ahed and of course Franklin Roosevelt Perhaps the greatest US President in the 20th century. He brought the US out of the Great Depression and of the era of Isolationism. Together with Churchill he was one of the reason the Allies won WW2.

Arabia - Harun-Al-Rashid was perhaps not the best choice. But I would put it as second. He lead the golden age of the Arabian Caliphate. During which Baghdad became the cultural capital of the Muslim world. However I would have chosen Saladin but that's because I like Saladin a lot he was perhaps the greatest Muslim general of the Crusades period. He was respected by both Muslim and Christian alike and in fact the Christians recognized his brillaince as a terryfing General.

Aztec - I don't see anyone better than Montyman but that's probably I don't know much about Aztec. In my country in the History classes we talk more about the history of Portugal and then of Europe and finnally the world so the only Aztec thing we are thought about his how they were easly counquered by the Spainish. And the only Aztec emperor we talk about is Montezuma II here though I have also learned about Monty's son Cuahtemoc.

China - I belive they only choose Wu Zetian because she was a women empress. A better choice would have been Qin Shi Huang or Taizong or perhaps Kangxi.

Egypt - I agree with Ramses choice not only he was a builder but he was also a good milatry leader in his own right however the perfect choice would have been Tutomose III he is perhaps the best Pharoah of Egypt of all time.

Engalnd - I don't have a problem with Elizabeth she was a great Queen and she lead England during a difficult time when Catholics and Anglicans were at each others throats. For me though I would choose either Queen Victoria or Henry VIII if choosing a monarchical ruler or Winston Churcill if choosing a prime minister.

France - The best choice when I think of great French leaders Napolean is allways the first to come to my mind followed by Louis XIV.

Germany - Bismarck was a good choice here. He was the men most responsible for the formation of Germany he was a great leader.

Greece - 1000%behind Alexander expanded the hellinatization to almost all reaches of the known world by then.

India - Gandhi I agree as well he is synonimus with civ games.

Iroquois - I don't know much about them either him, Logan or Degnawida would be good choices.

Japan - I agree with Nobunaga though I will miss Tokugawa. I wouldn't mind Hideyoshi as well or emperor Meiji.

Ottomans - Either him or Mehmed would be the best. Though I prefer Suleiman the Magnificent.

Persia - Darius I is a good choice though I would have prefered Cyrus. When I hear about Persia I allways think of Cyrus the Great counquer of Babylon

Rome - Augustus was a great choice but I belive Julius Caeser should have been the one chosen since he has been in all civ games until this one.

Russia - Yeah defenatly Cathrine. I just wished they would have put Civrev's Cathy though.

Siam - I also don't know much about Siam but I would have prefered the dude which the UU is named after.

Songhai - I also don't know much about Songhai to have an opinion

Babylon - Nebuchadenezaar wasn't a bad choice but I would have prefered Hammurabi.

 

[Zhahz]

I seriously don't care as long as there's some I recognize. The leaders are pretty meaningless, especially this time around when they don't have traits. It's just something to add flavor to your civ. It amuses me that people get so worked up over trivial stuff like this, but whatever floats the armada.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well. Napoleon is the guy who made France losing its status as a world power. So it's kind of weird to have him as the French leader. As for Louis XIV, he's the symbol of French absolute monarchy... one of the most despotic regime France ever known.

The most popular historical figures over here in France are probably Henry IV and Charles de Gaulle. I guess French people would like them the most as representing their country. My personal favourite choice would probably be Henry IV for everything he symbolizes about France.

However, successive producers of the Civilization serie always liked better France to be represented by Napoleon, Louis XIV or Joan of Arch... maybe because they make better ennemies for England I dunno.

 

[Caeserportugal]

Well. Napoleon is the guy who made France losing its status as a world power. So it's kind of weird to have him as the French leader. As for Louis XIV, he's the symbol of French absolute monarchy... one of the most despotic regime France ever known.

The most popular historical figures over here in France are probably Henry IV and Charles de Gaulle. I guess French people would like them the most as representing their country. My personal favourite choice would probably be Henry IV for everything he symbolizes about France.

However, successive producers of the Civilization serie always liked better France to be represented by Napoleon, Louis XIV or Joan of Arch... maybe because they make better ennemies for England I dunno.

Henry IV? That guy was leader of the Hugenot movement that failed I think. De Gaulle I do agree he would be a good choice for leader of the French.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Henry IV? That guy was leader of the Hugenot movement that failed I think. De Gaulle I do agree he would be a good choice for leader of the French.

Henry IV was a French king during 21 years (1589-1610). He put an end to the wars of religion in France. This has considerably stabilized the country and allowed it to rise during the 17th century!

He enacted the edict of Nantes, guaranteeing religious liberties to the Protestants in France. It directly inspired the French revolution and the laws of laicity.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong about the guy. He's by far the best king who has ever ruled France.

 

[PinkHammurabi]

I clearly miss Hammurabi, especially with the way leaders are more animated. I also miss Xerxes for Persia but that's got a lot more to do with nostalgia and a heck of a lot less due to actually deserving the spot (Xerxes' Modern-Era leaderhead in Civ III was awesome looking. So was Hammurabi's Industrial now that I think about it).

Honestly I don't know what my "favorite choice" would be.

 

[D712]

Henry IV was a French king during 21 years (1589-1610). He put an end to the wars of religion in France. This has considerably stabilized the country and allowed it to rise during the 17th century!

He enacted the edict of Nantes, guaranteeing religious liberties to the Protestants in France. It directly inspired the French revolution and the laws of laicity.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong about the guy. He's by far the best king who has ever ruled France.

I disagree. I believe the ruler of the french civ should be Louis XIV. He was what provided the modern idea of French living. Joie de Vive was really from Louis XIV's reign. He built an attraction that, to this day, is a monument to what people love about France, Versailles. He worked to improve his country more than any other Monarch, just because he was a Absolute Ruler dosent mean he was a bad one.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I disagree. I believe the ruler of the french civ should be Louis XIV. He was what provided the modern idea of French living. Joie de Vive was really from Louis XIV's reign. He built an attraction that, to this day, is a monument to what people love about France, Versailles. He worked to improve his country more than any other Monarch, just because he was a Absolute Ruler dosent mean he was a bad one.

What makes Louis XIV particularly identified in History is his exceptional longetivity (72 years!) and the fact he ruled at a time of a cultural golden era. However, he politically inherited from a largely stabilized kingdom which was already well organized.

That's widely the result of Henry IV's reign, which ended 30 years before his own started. Henry IV's policy restored peace and prosperity to the French kingdom, and this for a far longer era than his own reign. Without Henry IV, we hardly know what France may have become, maybe it would have split in pieces. On the other side, if other kings had ruled instead of Louis XIV, I don't believe it would have made a really big difference for the country overall.

From a historical point of view, it's clear that Henry IV's reign has been a lot more decisive for France's development than Louis XIV's. However, Louis XIV is indeed a better symbol of a French kingdom golden era... a bit like Queen Victoria is for England (to this regard).

Of course, the history of France is a lot less known than history of Britain, so I can understand this doesn't sound obvious to foreigners ears... but anyone having really studied French History will agree with this.

 

[Bast]

Wu Zetian is a brave choice so I applaud that.

It should been Queen Victoria rather than Elizabeth I for England imo.

 

[ilikepies]

I agree with all the choices except these:

Elizabeth is a fine choice, that's why the civ is "England" and not "Britain". If it were "Britain" I would say Victoria.

Qin Shi Huang is undoubtedly a better choice than Wu Ze Tian. He was the first emperor and one of the most famous, and was actually pure Chinese unlike Kangxi who I believe was Manchurian. At least it wasn't Mao. Mao was a great general but an incompetent and deluded dictator.

I actually think Peter would have been just as good of a choice. He brought Russia into the world stage and made it into a major power. Catherine was a great leader but she lead during Russia's golden age. It would be like making Hitler the German leader, since he ruled Germany when it was most powerful and influential. I think they should have put in the man who built the empire, not the one who reaped the benefits. Though Catherine is a woman and they need diversity, pluss..

Cyrus>Darius

Washington is a good choice because everyone knows him, but I'd argue Lincoln or Roosevelt were just as good if not better leaders. CiV America seems to be split between newly formed America (Minutemen), expansionist America (Manifest Destiny), and superpower America (B17). Teddy Roosevelt would also be awesome and represent Manifest Destiny well, but it won't happen because the CiV engine cannot support his awesomeness. Monocle is watching you!

I would have argued Muhammad would be the perfect choice for an Arab leader, being the unifier, creator, leader, and prophet of Arabia as a nation, but that could never happen in a popular game. So sad

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I'm disappointed they chose Ramkhamhaeng over Mongkut.

 

[Lyoncet]

Really intrigued by the number of people who seem to prefer Cyrus over Darius. But I guess there's not many people who were put in the Torah as an example of who to be exactly like, so that's a serious endorsement. Heh, perhaps if we had Cyrus and the city-states came down slightly differently, we could have had a nice little conflict between Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar over Jerusalem.

I think for American leaders, Washington and FDR would be a tough call. Both represent pivotal moments in the history of America as it related to the rest of the world (the first successful colonial rebellion and the end of American isolationism). Presidents like Lincoln and TR were extraordinary, but more so in terms of their impact on the nation itself, not as much the world abroad (which I think is an important criterion for a game like Civ). And yes, you'd have to run Civ on an overclocked PC to be able to handle the sheer amount of man that was Teddy Roosevelt.

Also surprised that Oda is leading in the poll right now. Or maybe not considering how badass he seems to be (I mean, the guy's using THREE SWORDS in his diplo screen!) Considering the number of people who were pulling for Meiji, it's interesting that people seem so happy with a very different type of leader. I think the modernization period of Japan is more interesting than the unification, but that's just me. Plus there's the general taboo in Japan (not a small tech/entertainment market) of depicting emperors.

As for France… I really don't get what enthralls the Civ franchise to Napoleon. I don't know if I would have gone with De Gualle since, while an excellent general and president and a very popular and charismatic individual, he represents a France not at its peak in terms of influence. Perhaps we could have gone with "Le President Bling-Bling" for a more modern flavor. But in all seriousness, I agree that Louis XIV would have been my first choice since he is pretty much emblematic of France at its height (if not its best, per se).

It really did pain me to vote for Harun al-Rashid, since I'm a huge Saladin fan (one of my favorite quotations of all time is his "it is not the wont of kings to kill kings…"). But really I think Civ leaders should tend more towards the empire builders, unifiers and political/social leaders more than the great military minds. Just my opinion. Plus, I seem to recall an early announcement mentioning that they were putting less emphasis on military figures for leaders this time around compared to other Civ games. Another reason I think Pericles would have been a better idea than Alexander (would have to change the SA name from Hellenistic League to Delian League though I suppose ).

 

[Zhulfiqar]

Suleiman the Magnificent is my favorite leader of this group. I'd like to see more diversity in the Turkish leaders. Kilij Arslan or Alp Arslan would make great Turkish leaders, and Zengi would be even better. They could also maybe throw in a modern Turk like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or Mahmud II.

 

[Lyoncet]

Suleiman the Magnificent is my favorite leader of this group. I'd like to see more diversity in the Turkish leaders. Kilij Arslan or Alp Arslan would make great Turkish leaders, and Zengi would be even better. They could also maybe throw in a modern Turk like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or Mahmud II.

A few good ones there, but for the more modern leaders, it doesn't seem likely that they would put in the Ottoman Empire and post-Ottoman Turkey. There's generally a sentiment about not putting in multiple political entities from the same general area (obviously it's not hard-and-fast, see Persia, Rome, et al.) and the fall of the Ottoman Empire happened under a century ago, making putting in modern Turkey a tough sell. That's why we don't see, say, Anwar Sadat alongside Ramesses and Hatshepsut or Mussolini along with the Caesars in Civ IV.

Totally off-topic, but that just made me realize that we're coming up on the 100th anniversary of WWI. That's crazy.

 

[Souron]

They should have kept Abe, because he was in all prior versions of civ.

I agree with Catherine for Russia. Peter is good too, but in this case they're so close that you put the woman in.

I never liked Gandhi as india's leader. Not sure who'd be better though.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Napoleon is an excellent choice. Yes, he was arrogant and egotistical, and he weakened France as a military power in Europe, but he was a true egalitarian. His military and civil innovations literally changed the western world.

Military: canned rations; advancement by merit, not birth or station; unit assignments based on skill and ability, not hometown.

Civil: The Napoleonic Code.

The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified. . . The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the patchwork of previous feudal juridical codes. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world.