These two could both do double duty as Great Revolutionaries and Great Ministers, much like Ben Franklin.Sam Houston(Early Modern)
Fredrick Douglass (late industrial)
These two could both do double duty as Great Revolutionaries and Great Ministers, much like Ben Franklin.Sam Houston(Early Modern)
Fredrick Douglass (late industrial)
These two could both do double duty as Great Revolutionaries and Great Ministers, much like Ben Franklin.
I also dislike the randomness and tortured distribution mechanism of the current Great Person implementation both of which are a consequence of their variety. I'd prefer them having a predictable component or perhaps being able to chose from a small selection (3-5) to alleviate the randomness.
He seems more like a revolutionary to me...Cao Cao (classical)
No, because I want him to lead Egypt.Akhenaten (ancient)
If you'd said Bridgette of Sweden, I'd see where you're coming from, and maybe even Catherine of Sienna (despite being sainted her mystical works definitely leave a lot of orthodox Christians of any sect feeling just a little uncomfortable), but in what sense is Teresa of Ávila a revolutionary? Despite being a mystic, her teachings were entirely orthodox; her practices weren't terribly radical--charity has been a staple of the Christian faith since day one. Same point for St. Francis of Assisi, to be honest.Teresa of Ávila (early modern)
Isn't he literally the exact opposite of a revolutionary, i.e., a counter-revolutionary?Joseph McCarthy (atomic)
This is fair, though in the case of Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross it's a matter of where they were: Spanish Catholicism was hyper-orthodox and hyper-regulated; I don't think anyone would have batted an eye at them in France or Italy. In the case of Francis, I don't recall him facing serious opposition. While the Franciscans became a significant part of the Church establishment that fell under criticism both by Protestants and reforming Catholics, St. Francis himself is remarkably uncontroversial; even many Protestants admire him (e.g., modern day Protestant mystic and singer Rich Mullens called himself "a kid brother of St. Frank").eresa of Ávila and Francis of Assisi came to mind as proponents of radical monasticism (though not so much for Francis), poverty, and mysticism--all of which would seem to run contrary to the material development of Europe. I think both were viewed as problematic by authorities even if ultimately they could be endorsed. For Teresa of Ávila, her followers were subject to persecution and imprisonment prior to official acceptance. Both their legacies also left religious authority vulnerable to wider resistance. That said, they are among a pool of candidates that fit or exceed that role.
Many Great People in Civilization. lived during Pilecki's time, so no. In fact, Thomas Sankara is on the list already, and he was born after Pilecki died.Would Witold Pilecki be too recent? Technically, the people he was rebelling against were invaders and then a puppet government.
Would Witold Pilecki be too recent? Technically, the people he was rebelling against were invaders and then a puppet government.
Here are some early Chinese suggestions, mostly selecting for agricultural/tax/political reforms.
Ministers:
Guan Zhong (classical)
Zichan (classical)
Mozi (classical)
Li Kui (classical)
Li Si (classical)
Shang Yang (classical)
Wu Qi (classical)
And...are assassins up for great felon status? They seem to fit the bill for a temporary disruptor.
If so...
Yao Li (classical)
Zhuan Zhu (classical)
Jing Ke (classical)
I'm not 100% confident in the ancient-classical split for the non-Mediterranean world. Probably all of these individuals could fit under a classical designation for convenience as none of them rose to prominence before the Spring and Autumn period.
"Religious buildings cost double upkeep and religious pressure from your cities is halved but changing state religion and reforming your religion cost half price; can be dismissed for free."Thomas Wolsey (early modern)
"Religious buildings cost double upkeep and religious pressure from your cities is halved but changing state religion and reforming your religion cost half price; can be dismissed for free."
I don't mind regents or particularly influential consorts as leaders where they can be justified (and I definitely think CdM falls in this category: she basically ran the country during her sons' reigns, and France has no queens-regent to choose from), but I agree that there are a lot of influential queens-consort who would make perfect candidates for Great Ministers:Something that might work well for the new type of great person would also be consorts who wielded significant power but did not necessarily lead a country in their own right. This is where a figure like Catherine de' Medici makes more sense to me.