If I was to add another North American civilization it would definitely be from the Pacific Northwest. The Haida have been suggested before as well. Some sort of conglomerate Athabaskan/Dene civilization might make sense too. Would have to research.
Feedback: Civilizations
- Thread starter Xyth
- Start date
If I was to add another North American civilization it would definitely be from the Pacific Northwest. The Haida have been suggested before as well. Some sort of conglomerate Athabaskan/Dene civilization might make sense too. Would have to research.
jeorgun
Chieftain
So I've recently become kind of obsessed with Ottoman history, and, having a lot of free time lately, written an ENORMOUSLY LONG (sorry about that) list of recommendations for the Turkish civ. Feel free to ignore as much of it as you want, but hopefully some of it is useful:
Scope
I think Turkey representing all Oğuz Turks is excessively broad , since it:
A lot of claims to continuity from the Oğuz, and the Seljuks in particular, date back to the Ottoman sultan Murad II as part of a propaganda campaign against the Timurid Empire (and more generally to early Ottomans trying to establish their legitimacy), and more recently to Atatürk trying to promote a non-Ottoman Turkish identity. In reality, theres a pretty clear break ethnically, culturally, religiously, and linguistically between the nomadic Tengriist Oğuz Turks of Central Asia and the Muslim Anatolian descendants of the Seljuks of Rum.
Its tough to figure out exactly what the scope of Turkey should be, not just in the game but in real life. You cant define it by ethnicity Turks are a smorgasbord of Greek, Arabian, Kurdish, Armenian, Tatar, and much more besides. You could try to define it by religion (the Ottomans sure did), but that owes more to 19th-century revisionism than to anything else. Culturally, Turkey owes at least as much to the Byzantines, Iranians, and Arabians as it does to any Turkic peoples.
All in all, the least wonky definition I can think of is part linguistic and part geographical: all speakers of West Oğuz languages east of the Caspian Sea (at various points in history including various parts of modern-day Turkey, Azerbaijan, northern Iraq and Syria, Thrace, and very arguably Crimea). Possibly parts of western Turkmenistan as well. Politically, theyd be represented primarily by the Sultanate of Rum, the Ottoman Empire, and the Republic of Turkey.
Cities
The Turkish city list needs some work. This goes back to the whole scope thing, of course, and its tricky to figure out a sensible order for a civ most of whose major cities were acquired through conquest. Im working on a city list based on the cities that were captured, or blossomed into significance, in each of the states I mentioned above. Heres the current draft (intentionally biased towards cities actually founded by Turks; Im trying to make it less biased towards cities geographically in modern-day Turkey than the extant list, but not entirely successfully):
Medieval/Seljuks of Rum:
Would something like that work?
Visuals
The light green color the Turks have now doesnt seem to have much to do with the civ I assume it came from swapping Firaxis Turkish and Arabian colors? The best color for Turkey would probably be a fairly vivid red (like rgb #e30a17, used on the modern flag), though that would mean introducing yet another reddish-colored civilization to a region already overflowing with them. A deep blue (around #203cb0) could also work as a reference to İznik pottery and the Blue Mosque, which besides being exceptionally beautiful have an east-meets-west vibe that seems pretty fitting. Both those colors are often used in traditional Turkish carpets, which is a bonus. Sky blue would be a better fit for a Central Asian/Tengriist civ, but could work as representative of the Seljuks.
The bow and arrow emblem on the flag makes more sense for an East Oğuz civ, which as I said earlier should IMO be separate from Turkey. It really doesnt fit the Turkish civ at all. I know its often used as a symbol of the Seljuks, but thats historically inaccurate and mostly based on this one Seljuk flag made up by a 1970s Turkish TV show or something. The bow-and-arrow motif was incorporated into the personal standard of Tuğrul, the founder of the Seljuk Empire, but thats about as far as it goes.
The best choices, IMO, would be the star and crescent (natch), a crescent sans star, or the tulip.
Turkish architecture has way more in common with Byzantine architecture than it does with Arabian architecture. Whatever their citystyle, it ought to be the same one as the Byzantines. IMO there really ought to be a separate Byzantine/Turkish/eastern Mediterranean citystyle, since Byzantine architecture is also very distinctive and has little in common with classical Greco-Roman architecture, but in the absence of that I guess Id very reluctantly recommend switching Turkey to the Greco-Roman citystyle.
Tangentially related: I think a good solution to the whole Greek/Roman/Byzantine scope issue would be to have Greece just represent ancient/pre-Christian Greece, and have Byzantium represent the modern Hellenic Republic and other Balkan states. Fun fact: during the initial Greek nationalist movement in the 18th century, many people were surprised to learn they were Greek, having thought of themselves for centuries as Romans (i.e. Byzantines)!
Leaders
The Imperialist trait doesnt really suit Süleyman. My understanding is that it represents leaders who oversaw the establishment of an empire, or otherwise helped their people take on an unprecedented level of importance in world politics. That definitely doesnt describe Süleyman, who was crowned Sultan of an already vast empire that was central on the world stage. None of its effects really seem fitting either getting research from conquered Belgrade or Baghdad? Extremely efficient slave labor? Both of those seem geared towards the history of the Roman Empire, which is all well and good, but they dont have much to do with Süleyman or the Ottoman golden age.
Of course its unclear what could replace it. Judicial is absolutely essential, and all the Judicial slots are filled. Charismatic fits him shockingly well, but Le Loi already has Cha/Jud, and I dont know enough about him to know if there are any viable alternatives quickly reading through his Wikipedia page, the best I could come up with is Cha/Org, which is currently Atatürks combo! Coincidence, or something deeper
Progressive or Philosophical could also work, given his investments into education and the arts. Humane too, since a lot of his legal reforms protected religious minorities, the poor, and criminal convicts. These three all downplay his military prominence, which IMO is a good thing, since all the Turkish leaders as they stand now are at least partially military-themed. That bugs me particularly because the cultural/political history of Turkey is often lost to the Ottomans-as-'Eastern Peril' and Seljuks-as-opponents-to-Crusaders narratives. I could go on a long quasi-political rant here but I think everyone's better off without that.
Minor point: Atatürks diplo text refers to him giving a 5-day speech; the Nutuk actually lasted for 6 days.
Civilopedia
The Firaxis civilopedia entry, aside from only covering the Ottoman Empire, is just plain awful. Almost every single detail in it is wrong. I can try to write a replacement if you want, but in the meantime Id recommend just leaving it blank over keeping it as it currently stands.
Scope
I think Turkey representing all Oğuz Turks is excessively broad , since it:
- Combines East and West Oğuz groups,
- Ignores both ethnic and cultural continuity with the native Anatolians, and
- Exaggerates the continuity between the Oğuz and (Anatolian) Turkish people.
A lot of claims to continuity from the Oğuz, and the Seljuks in particular, date back to the Ottoman sultan Murad II as part of a propaganda campaign against the Timurid Empire (and more generally to early Ottomans trying to establish their legitimacy), and more recently to Atatürk trying to promote a non-Ottoman Turkish identity. In reality, theres a pretty clear break ethnically, culturally, religiously, and linguistically between the nomadic Tengriist Oğuz Turks of Central Asia and the Muslim Anatolian descendants of the Seljuks of Rum.
Its tough to figure out exactly what the scope of Turkey should be, not just in the game but in real life. You cant define it by ethnicity Turks are a smorgasbord of Greek, Arabian, Kurdish, Armenian, Tatar, and much more besides. You could try to define it by religion (the Ottomans sure did), but that owes more to 19th-century revisionism than to anything else. Culturally, Turkey owes at least as much to the Byzantines, Iranians, and Arabians as it does to any Turkic peoples.
All in all, the least wonky definition I can think of is part linguistic and part geographical: all speakers of West Oğuz languages east of the Caspian Sea (at various points in history including various parts of modern-day Turkey, Azerbaijan, northern Iraq and Syria, Thrace, and very arguably Crimea). Possibly parts of western Turkmenistan as well. Politically, theyd be represented primarily by the Sultanate of Rum, the Ottoman Empire, and the Republic of Turkey.
Cities
The Turkish city list needs some work. This goes back to the whole scope thing, of course, and its tricky to figure out a sensible order for a civ most of whose major cities were acquired through conquest. Im working on a city list based on the cities that were captured, or blossomed into significance, in each of the states I mentioned above. Heres the current draft (intentionally biased towards cities actually founded by Turks; Im trying to make it less biased towards cities geographically in modern-day Turkey than the extant list, but not entirely successfully):
Medieval/Seljuks of Rum:
- Konya
- Antakya
- İznik
- Kayseri (Mazaka, Caesarea)
- Antalya
- Diyarbakır
- Balıkesir (Karasi)
- Denizli
- Bursa
- İzmit (Nicomedia)
- Edirne (Adrianople)
- Ankara
- İzmir
- Isparta (Baris)
- Selanik (Thessaloniki, Thessalonika)
- Manisa
- Amasya (Amaseia)
- İstanbul (Constantinople, Byzantium, and countless others)
- Trabzon (Trebizond, Trapezus)
- Erzurum
- Gaziantep
- Aleppo
- Tarsus (Tarsos, Tarsa)
- Van
- Maraş (Kahramanmaraş
- İskenderun (Alexandretta)
- Adana
- Eskişehir
- Samsun (Amisus)
- Mersin (Zephyrion, Hadrianopolis)
- Ordu
- Malatya
- Adapazarı
- Elazığ
- Batman
Would something like that work?
Visuals
The light green color the Turks have now doesnt seem to have much to do with the civ I assume it came from swapping Firaxis Turkish and Arabian colors? The best color for Turkey would probably be a fairly vivid red (like rgb #e30a17, used on the modern flag), though that would mean introducing yet another reddish-colored civilization to a region already overflowing with them. A deep blue (around #203cb0) could also work as a reference to İznik pottery and the Blue Mosque, which besides being exceptionally beautiful have an east-meets-west vibe that seems pretty fitting. Both those colors are often used in traditional Turkish carpets, which is a bonus. Sky blue would be a better fit for a Central Asian/Tengriist civ, but could work as representative of the Seljuks.
The bow and arrow emblem on the flag makes more sense for an East Oğuz civ, which as I said earlier should IMO be separate from Turkey. It really doesnt fit the Turkish civ at all. I know its often used as a symbol of the Seljuks, but thats historically inaccurate and mostly based on this one Seljuk flag made up by a 1970s Turkish TV show or something. The bow-and-arrow motif was incorporated into the personal standard of Tuğrul, the founder of the Seljuk Empire, but thats about as far as it goes.
The best choices, IMO, would be the star and crescent (natch), a crescent sans star, or the tulip.
Turkish architecture has way more in common with Byzantine architecture than it does with Arabian architecture. Whatever their citystyle, it ought to be the same one as the Byzantines. IMO there really ought to be a separate Byzantine/Turkish/eastern Mediterranean citystyle, since Byzantine architecture is also very distinctive and has little in common with classical Greco-Roman architecture, but in the absence of that I guess Id very reluctantly recommend switching Turkey to the Greco-Roman citystyle.
Tangentially related: I think a good solution to the whole Greek/Roman/Byzantine scope issue would be to have Greece just represent ancient/pre-Christian Greece, and have Byzantium represent the modern Hellenic Republic and other Balkan states. Fun fact: during the initial Greek nationalist movement in the 18th century, many people were surprised to learn they were Greek, having thought of themselves for centuries as Romans (i.e. Byzantines)!
Leaders
The Imperialist trait doesnt really suit Süleyman. My understanding is that it represents leaders who oversaw the establishment of an empire, or otherwise helped their people take on an unprecedented level of importance in world politics. That definitely doesnt describe Süleyman, who was crowned Sultan of an already vast empire that was central on the world stage. None of its effects really seem fitting either getting research from conquered Belgrade or Baghdad? Extremely efficient slave labor? Both of those seem geared towards the history of the Roman Empire, which is all well and good, but they dont have much to do with Süleyman or the Ottoman golden age.
Of course its unclear what could replace it. Judicial is absolutely essential, and all the Judicial slots are filled. Charismatic fits him shockingly well, but Le Loi already has Cha/Jud, and I dont know enough about him to know if there are any viable alternatives quickly reading through his Wikipedia page, the best I could come up with is Cha/Org, which is currently Atatürks combo! Coincidence, or something deeper
Progressive or Philosophical could also work, given his investments into education and the arts. Humane too, since a lot of his legal reforms protected religious minorities, the poor, and criminal convicts. These three all downplay his military prominence, which IMO is a good thing, since all the Turkish leaders as they stand now are at least partially military-themed. That bugs me particularly because the cultural/political history of Turkey is often lost to the Ottomans-as-'Eastern Peril' and Seljuks-as-opponents-to-Crusaders narratives. I could go on a long quasi-political rant here but I think everyone's better off without that.
Minor point: Atatürks diplo text refers to him giving a 5-day speech; the Nutuk actually lasted for 6 days.
Civilopedia
The Firaxis civilopedia entry, aside from only covering the Ottoman Empire, is just plain awful. Almost every single detail in it is wrong. I can try to write a replacement if you want, but in the meantime Id recommend just leaving it blank over keeping it as it currently stands.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Nice post!
I agree with everything you wrote
Some minor points:
(just to avoid confusion, it's kinda obvious from the following sentence though)
So no need to have totally separate lists for the various eras/leaders.
For example Istanbul can and should be a city for all west turkish leaders after 1453 (and not necessarily on the first position)
I also dislike most of the original Firaxis civ entries.
I would also be very interested in a new entry for them for RFC Europe.
I agree with everything you wrote
Some minor points:
I suppose you meant west of the Caspian Sea, not east.
(just to avoid confusion, it's kinda obvious from the following sentence though)
On city lists you can have the cities on multiple lists. Also it can be varied for each leader separately in HR.
So no need to have totally separate lists for the various eras/leaders.
For example Istanbul can and should be a city for all west turkish leaders after 1453 (and not necessarily on the first position)
I also dislike most of the original Firaxis civ entries.
I would also be very interested in a new entry for them for RFC Europe.
Definitely useful! The Turks have suffered a bit from neglect in HR, largely because it's been such a challenge to define just who the civ represents.
I've been thinking this over for a few days, but I've decided that I'm happy with the scope of the Turkish Civilization as it is. Where possible I prefer to define a civ by ethnonyms, rather than by the name of the state or region. So in this case, what constitutes 'Turks' and 'Turkish' is more important to consider than what constitutes 'Turkey'. I used to use 'Turkestan' for this civ, and I'm still not too sure which is the better choice.
The current definition is broad for sure, but I do a lot of this in HR. Adding new civs is a very time-consuming and resource-heavy process, so having civs that are broad in scope allows me to include many peoples and states that I couldn't justify including otherwise.
This seems to be a primarily linguistic and geographical divide that arose well after the collapse of the Seljuk Empire. Since we go back that far, I don't see a need to separate along these lines.
True, but I'm not sure that splitting the civ would change this, especially since said Anatolians already have their own civ.
I really don't think the Seljuk Empire can be left out of this. The Sultanate of Rum seceded from it, and Osman seceded from that in turn. They're all Oğuz dynasties and each led to the next. Having the Seljuks and the Ottomans as separate civs in the same game would be bizarre.
Currently the civ doesn't go back that far, just to the Seljuks. And there is considerable political, ethnolinguistic, and cultural continuity from them through to the Ottomans and the Republic. All Muslim too. This continuity is primarily borne through the ruling elite and the military, but that's kinda unavoidable for a people whose empires were forged far from their ancestral homelands and cosmopolitan by necessity.
It would be good to have some Tengriist Turkic peoples represented in HR at some point. No idea which, Turkic history starts getting pretty convoluted this far back and this far east. But better to cover one of the many unrepresented Turkic civilisations than splitting the current one.
HR can name cities dynamically rather than in a defined order. Each city is given a 'priority' which can vary by leader and era - as can its name. However, other than capitals (and a few cities that used to be Greek) this is not set up for the Turks yet.
Your list of cities by era is very useful. Can I request that your final list includes cities even if they're already listed in another era section? That way I can see when a city rose or fell to/from prominence, and can adjust priority accordingly.
Civ colours are a challenge to assign. There's only so many shades that are both practical to use in Civ and sufficiently distinct from each other. As a result its often a case of choosing a civ for a colour, rather than the other way around. Might be able to squeeze in another red, will experiment at some point.
The bow and arrow symbol is a relic from earlier days of HR when I was foolishly trying to have a single, massive 'Turkic' civilization. Definitely open to replacing it. I've seen a few mods use a Tughra which looked pretty cool. Tulip is an interesting idea. I'd prefer not to use a crescent, I try to avoid using symbols of world religions for individual civilizations.
Yeah, the Turks really need their own citystyle. It's on my todo list.
Yeah, that's how I define them.
I agree regarding Suleiman. Mehmed's traits (Aggressive/Judicial) aren't all that appropriate either, he should probably be the one with Imperialist. I'll see if I can shuffle things around a bit.
Fixed. His diplotext is borrowed from another mod.
Yeah it's pretty terrible. Would greatly appreciate an entry to replace it!
/subscribe
ales_
Heir
So Byzantium may get a modern Greek/Balkan leader?
jeorgun
Chieftain
Thanks for the responses!
Gah! Yes, I did mean west.
I think Turkestan is definitely too broad a name, even for an all-encompassing Oğuz civ. Calling the Seljuks "Turkey" isn't any more far-fetched than calling the Carolingians "Germany".
Sure, no problem. If anything that makes it a lot easier, since I don't have to deal with deciding which state 'gets' a city that was conquered multiple times. Also means I can include a list for Alp Arslan without totally messing up the later leaders.
A tughra is an excellent symbol for the Ottomans, but I think it's too narrow to cover all of Turkish history. A crescent on its own is too Islamic, you're right; the star and crescent has a history almost as convoluted as the Turkic people themselves, but as best I can tell the consensus is that it only became a symbol of Islam through association with the Ottomans. It does feel a little on-the-nose, though, especially if their color is changed to red. I suggested it only as an afterthought, but I'm really beginning to fall in love with the tulip idea. Some pictures for inspiration.
Woohoo!
Great; thanks! I was conflicted about Mehmed because he personally was very aggressive, but you're right, Imperialist fits his reign much better.
(and, accordingly, he was the first only? Ottoman sultan to proclaim himself Roman emperor)
Anyway, I'll get to work on the citylist and pedia entry; I should have them by Monday if nothing comes up in the meantime.
Gah! Yes, I did mean west.
Oh sorry I didn't mean to imply that the Seljuks shouldn't be included! I think the current scope of Turkey as represented in-game is pretty much perfect I'm mainly just defining what I mean by Turkey/Turkish in the later sections. I would have concerns if the current Turkish civ tried to include in-game representation of, e.g., the 6th-century Oğuz, since reconciling that with the more modern civ would be nearly impossible without seriously compromising one or both of them.
I think Turkestan is definitely too broad a name, even for an all-encompassing Oğuz civ. Calling the Seljuks "Turkey" isn't any more far-fetched than calling the Carolingians "Germany".
Sure, no problem. If anything that makes it a lot easier, since I don't have to deal with deciding which state 'gets' a city that was conquered multiple times. Also means I can include a list for Alp Arslan without totally messing up the later leaders.
A tughra is an excellent symbol for the Ottomans, but I think it's too narrow to cover all of Turkish history. A crescent on its own is too Islamic, you're right; the star and crescent has a history almost as convoluted as the Turkic people themselves, but as best I can tell the consensus is that it only became a symbol of Islam through association with the Ottomans. It does feel a little on-the-nose, though, especially if their color is changed to red. I suggested it only as an afterthought, but I'm really beginning to fall in love with the tulip idea. Some pictures for inspiration.
Woohoo!
Great; thanks! I was conflicted about Mehmed because he personally was very aggressive, but you're right, Imperialist fits his reign much better.
(and, accordingly, he was the first only? Ottoman sultan to proclaim himself Roman emperor)
Anyway, I'll get to work on the citylist and pedia entry; I should have them by Monday if nothing comes up in the meantime.
AbsintheRed
Deity
I'm joining Leoreth, would love to have that citystyle!
Yeah, wanted to reply the same for Xyth.
We use the Tughra for the Ottomans in RFCE and I love it, but I don't think that would be a good choice for your Turkish civ as it covers much more time periods.
I'm not entirely sure about tulips either, doesn't it also mostly connected to the Ottomans?
I probably need to read more on the subject though, it's absolutely possible that it's more fitting than I think.
jeorgun
Chieftain
It's definitely associated with the Ottoman tulip period, but (unlike tughras) they're not limited to them. I think the plant, as well as the cultural significance, was imported into Turkish culture by the Seljuks (along with a whole boatload of Iranian culture). They were definitely important to the Ottomans pre-Tulip period at least as far back as Süleyman. And of course, it's the national flower of the Republic of Turkey; so it has some meaning for all three of the major periods covered by the Turkish civ.
No. The Greeks are very well represented already. Leader slots needed elsewhere.
Ah, good to know we agree!
Seems like most maps or descriptions I've seen vary considerably on what constitutes Turkestan. 'Turkey' it shall remain then.
I've switched Mehmed to Imperialist/Progressive. Still working on Suleiman, but considering Creative/Judicial.
Thanks!
It would probably be a mix of other styles, rather than an all new style. Kinda appropriate for the Turks though. I can't promise to do this anytime too soon though, I've got a lot of work still to get finished on 1.24 first.
I did an overhaul of default city art (the stuff you don't deliberately construct) in 1.23.1, but a building art (stuff you do construct) review is waaay overdue. I have a big folder full of unused art that I need to sort through. So if not in 1.24, in an update soon after.
Yeah, seems like Tulips are from Central Asia originally, first cultivated in Persia, and the Seljuks were responsible for bring them to Anatolia. Definitely seems like the best option.
jeorgun
Chieftain
Sorry for the delay! Here's the civilopedia entry. It ended up being a little more Ottoman-centric than I'd have liked; on the plus side, maybe that means it's usable for RFCE without too many changes? Let me know if you want any revisions.
The city list is taking a little longer than expected, but it should be done by the end of the week.
The city list is taking a little longer than expected, but it should be done by the end of the week.
It's fantastic, thank you. Btw, I ended up with Mehmed as Imperialist/Progressive and Suleiman as Judicial/Philosophical.
jeorgun
Chieftain
Here's my completed city list (for "completed", read "I'm already two months late in delivering this stupid thing, so this'll have to do"). Alternate names are shown in parentheses the first time the city is mentioned. I've tried to order them by importance/chronological order within each period, but a lot of times that's pretty meaningless the dashes separate indicate separate groups of cities of roughly equal priority. Let me know if there are any issues with it!
Great Seljuk Empire
Great Seljuk Empire
- Isfahan
- Merv
-- - Samarkand
- Mosul
- Ankara
-- - Konya
- Sivas (Sebastia)
- Erzurum (Theodosiopolis)
-- - İznik (Nicaea)
- İzmit (Nikomedia, Nicomedia)
- Konya
- Sivas
-- - Antakya (Antioch)
- Kayseri (Mazaka, Caesarea)
- Diyarbakır
- Balıkesir (Karasi)
- Antalya
-- - Denizli
- Söğüt
- Eskişehir
- Yenişehir
- Bursa
- İznik
- İzmit
- Ankara
-- - Edirne (Adrianople, Hadrianopolis)
- İzmir (Smyrna)
- Selanik (Thessaloniki, Thessalonika)
- Amasya (Amaseia)
- Sivas
- Manisa
- Konya
- İstanbul (Constantinople, Byzantium, Byzantion...)
-- - Bursa
- Trabzon (Trebizond, Trapezus)
- Edirne
- Selanik
-- - Erzurum
- Antep (Gaziantep)
- Aleppo
- Tarsus (Tarsos, Tarsa)
- Adana
- Diyarbakır
-- - Malatya (Meliddu, Malateia, Mitilene)
- Van
- Maraş (Kahramanmaraş
- İstanbul
-- - Bursa
- İskenderun (Alexandretta)
- Aleppo
-- - Adana
- Van
- Eskişehir
- Selanik
- Mersin (Zephyrion, Hadrianopolis)
- Kayseri
-- - Edirne
- Diyarbakır
- Samsun (Amisos)
- Antep
-- - Antakya
- Ordu (Cotyora, Bayramlı
- Malatya
- Adapazarı
- Ankara
-- - İstanbul
-- - İzmir
- Bursa
- Konya
- Adana
- Gaziantep (Antep)
-- - Antalya
- Mersin
- Samsun
- Kayseri
- Diyarbakır
- Edirne
- Trabzon
-- - Çanakkale
- Malatya
- Şanlıurfa (Edessa, Urfa)
- Denizli
- Elazığ
- Erzurum
Looks great, I'll get it implemented for 1.24. Thank you!
If you are still looking for a leader to fill the Expansive/Philosophical slot in the next version, how about American President Thomas Jefferson?
America currently only has 3 leaders, and he fits the two categories as well as anyone can think of - Expansive because of the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark Expedition, and Philosophical because he wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal," life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.), and also wrote extensively on many other topics (he's the BTS quote for more than one tech IIRC). He's also one of the more well-known/significant historical leaders not currently in the game.
The only downside is that there's already a "founding era" American leader and it might be better for a fourth leader to represent a different period of U.S. history, but the obvious candidates (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan come to mind) don't fit an open slot that I noticed as obviously.
America currently only has 3 leaders, and he fits the two categories as well as anyone can think of - Expansive because of the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark Expedition, and Philosophical because he wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal," life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc.), and also wrote extensively on many other topics (he's the BTS quote for more than one tech IIRC). He's also one of the more well-known/significant historical leaders not currently in the game.
The only downside is that there's already a "founding era" American leader and it might be better for a fourth leader to represent a different period of U.S. history, but the obvious candidates (Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan come to mind) don't fit an open slot that I noticed as obviously.
ales_
Heir
Only? I think Xyth has already said that 3 leaders are enough for America.
AbsintheRed
Deity
I would even say more than enough to represent only 200 years of the (more or less) same entity.
No-one has ever made a Thomas Jefferson leaderhead, which is surprising. Most other significant American leaders have been made. As the others say, I'm not particularly keen to add any more American leaders. America hasn't existed very long and doesn't have distinct phases or sub-entities like many other civilizations do.
Similar threads
