Female rulers

[Civciv5]

But which civilization would she represent? You can't really call Palmyra a civilization cause it only lasted a few years.

 

[blackcatatonic]

This! I think having a few jointly ruling married couples would be awesome:
Isabella and Ferdinand!
Justinian and Theodora!
FDR and Eleanor!
Suleiman and Roxelana!
Akhenaten and Nefertiri!
Augustus and Livia?

Other family/government arrangements:
Maria Theresa with her sons, Joseph II and Leopold II, skulking in the background!
Prince horsehockyoku with Empress Suiko enthroned behind him!
Victoria seated with a Palmerston, Gladstone, or Disraeli speaking for her!

This is a fantastic idea! I'd love to see a few of these

 

[j51]

Thanks!

 

[Westwall]

You can't really call Palmyra a civilization cause it only lasted a few years.

"If it lives only for a while, Tiberias, it still has lived."

 

[Civciv5]

A civilization would need to have existed at least for a few hundred years in either independent form or subnational form.

Including Palmyra as a civilization would be just as silly as including nations such as Wu Zetian's Zhou Dynasty or the Confederate States of America as civilizations.
Remember the game is called "civilization" not "nations" or "countries".

 

[Novu]

But which civilization would she represent? You can't really call Palmyra a civilization cause it only lasted a few years.

Queen Zenobia's rule only lasted a few years but Palmyra the city lasted for thousands of years. Palmyra was founded some time before 1100BC and was a major center of trade until 1400AD when it declined into ruins. The city wasn't fully abandoned until 1932. That is over 3000 years of continuous history. That is certainly civilization worthy status to me. Palmyra is basically a substitute stand in for Syria / Assyria since there was a lot of cultural overlap in the region.

Another thing to consider is Queen Zenobia herself was one of the most significant female rulers to ever live. Her campaign against the Romans was literally a hundred times more successful than Queen Boudica's revolt. That is not an exaggeration either. Zenobia launched major campaigns against the Romans and won them decisively. She conquered Lebanon, Palestine, and took over Egypt the richest province in the empire and then invaded Anatolia. She scared the ever living daylights out of the Romans because nobody had challenged Roman rule so decisively since the days Hannibal.

Spoiler :

 

[Zaarin]

But which civilization would she represent? You can't really call Palmyra a civilization cause it only lasted a few years.

So call it Syria or Aram. I think Zenobia would be a fantastic addition to the game.

 

[poom3619]

Remember the game is called "civilization" not "nations" or "countries".

As someone from mod community, I probably have larger definition of " civilization". But I think in more exclusive term. There's so many group of people out there that have something which divide two people more clearly than Austria-Germany or Spain-Portugal. They just happen to be less known.

 

[Novu]

So call it Syria or Aram. I think Zenobia would be a fantastic addition to the game.

I agree with this. Call Zenobia Queen of Syria and leave at that. Zenobia should be held to the same standard that Alexander the Great is qualified as. Alexander the Great was not a Greek, he was from Macedon. However, there is no Macedon civilization and everyone considers him Greek because he conquered Greece and then half the known world. Ancient Greece was made up of city states each with their own leaders: Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Thrace, Mycenae, etc.

Syria like Greece was also made up of city states such as Damascus, Aleppo, Homs and Palmyra. When Zenobia became Queen of Palmyra she united all the other Syrian cities under one banner to fight the Romans. That in essence makes her the defacto Queen of a united Syria.

 

[Civciv5]

not a Greek, he was from Macedon

The ancient Kingdom of Macedonia (not related to FYROM) are considered a Greek people.
Therefore, Alexander was Greek.

Also Palmyra is just one city. Ancient Syria was ruled at various times by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Arameans, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Nabataeans, the Romans and the Byzantines. I don't think they were really independent as a nation under any other time than Zenobia's rule as Queen of the Palmyrene Empire.

 

[Novu]

The ancient Kingdom of Macedonia (not related to FYROM) are considered a Greek people.
Therefore, Alexander was Greek.

Also Palmyra is just one city. Ancient Syria was ruled at various times by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Arameans, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Nabataeans, the Romans and the Byzantines. I don't think they were really independent as a nation under any other time than Zenobia's rule as Queen of the Palmyrene Empire.

What is your point? Palmyra is a city in Syria therefore Zenobia is a Syrian. If Alexander the Great is a Greek then Zenobia is Syrian. No double standards. Greece was also conquered by various Empires that ruled them for centuries. See the Roman occupation of Greece and the Ottoman conquests.

 

[j51]

Palmyra would work best as a city state.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'd like to be able to choose my leader's name and gender and select their image from a supplied file or insert an image of my choosing.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd like to be able to choose my leader's name and gender and select their image from a supplied file or insert an image of my choosing.

In every Civ game I've played (3+) you've been able to name your own leader and Civ, and you never see your own leader anyway.

 

[Blkbird]

We only had three in vanilla last time, which they seemed to go out of their way to rectify with G&K and BNW.

Three are plenty, actually. Civ is about human history, and it's a historical fact that the overwhelming majority of leaders of the overwhelming majority of (major) civilizations have been men. In a game like Civ BE, I'd expect to have roughly equal numbers of male and female leaders. In traditional Civ, having a significant number of female leaders feels like a distortion of history.

 

[m15a]

Three are plenty, actually. Civ is about human history, and it's a historical fact that the overwhelming majority of leaders of the overwhelming majority of (major) civilizations have been men. In a game like Civ BE, I'd expect to have roughly equal numbers of male and female leaders. In traditional Civ, having a significant number of female leaders feels like a distortion of history.

Based on these admittedly modern numbers, it seems like Civ has been a major distortion of history in terms of the number of leaders from Asia (containing over half the population but closer to a quarter of leaders) vs Europe (containing a small portion of the population but nearly half of the Civ V leaders).

Definitely, a lot of Civ players *feel* like that is also a major distortion in Civ games, but I think a lot of players would feel okay with a distribution that has a distribution somewhere other than the historical one.

I guess my point is that what feels okay is different than what is historical. What is historical matters some, but it's not the only thing that matters. And of course it matters to different people different amounts. (Personally, I'm fine with the number of female leaders in Civ V overall. You can play a game with all female leaders easily, which is cool, and probably something I've done at some point.)

 

[brianshapiro]

Definitely, a lot of Civ players *feel* like that is also a major distortion in Civ games, but I think a lot of players would feel okay with a distribution that has a distribution somewhere other than the historical one.

I'm okay with it, but personally I don't think its something the developers should really be worrying too much about, either.

Also, its worth noting that it goes against the spirit of including more women leaders if they're just going to end up doing what they did in CivRev and give Cleopatra unnaturally big breasts and non-functional clothing and including a young version of Catherine the Great just to show off her breasts too.

 

[Westwall]

Depends how you interpret the spirit of including more women.

We're not ISIS, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the female form in all of its glory.

And I doubt the sort of radical feminists who would get too upset over the presence of buxom women in skimpy clothing would be the type to indulge in such patriarchal pursuits as the Civilization titles in the first place.

In other words, I really hope Firaxis doubles down on the sexy women. They've been present since Civ 2 after all.

 

[m15a]

And I doubt the sort of radical feminists who would get too upset over the presence of buxom women in skimpy clothing would be the type to indulge in such patriarchal pursuits as the Civilization titles in the first place.

I hope this is just a bad joke? (If not, I doubt your analysis is actually based on actual people's opinions.)

 

[Westwall]

Well let me ask you this: Who exactly complained about the sexy and more comical look they went for in the Civ Revolutions games?

Because I don't remember there being any major campaign against it, or really any opinions expressed at all one way or the other.

In the same vein, I'm struggling to see who would be upset if Firaxis actually did decide to use attractive women leaders in Civ 6 as well.