Henry VIII

[SammyKhalifa]

Nothing. But how about a different English leader for a change?



It`s ALWAYS Elizabeth. Every CiV game it`s Elizabeth. Compare that to other Civs in Civ5 which have generally used different leaders this time round.

That's true. I'll buy that.

I'd actually be for Victoria if they're going to change. People would get caught up in the British vs. English debate, but that didn't stop them from making Alex the Greek leader and I'm ok with it. It's an interesting era in history and would make for some unique leaderhead graphics. Plus she was "leader" for like 350 years or something.

 

[TM Moot]

Plus she was "leader" for like 350 years or something.

(soon to be overtaken by Lizzy II mind)

 

[Rooftrellen]

Victoria was more British then English
Churchill was an elected politician, i'd rather have royalty/dictators etc.. in the game

I have to wonder what you think of Alex, who was Macedonian, not Greek, Dido, who, even in myth, was Phoenician, not Carthaginian, or Washington, who was not just British but a general, being leaders, among others.

It's not terribly important to be too picky.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Being English, I can say that for the majority of Englishmen, the two figureheads that most inspire patriotism and the two generally regarded highest are Churchill and Victoria. A distant thrid would be Elizabeth (I). ...

George III would probably rank in the top 5 monarchs. He was very highly regarded for a long time after his death - which seems very odd to 'mericans who have a different picture of him.

Churchill would work as the leader, but you really need a monarch for the game. As such, Liz does ok plus it allows another female into the game. I am just glad they removed Cleopatra as Egypt's leader (who had not a drop of Egyptian blood in her).

It would be kind of neat if at least some Civ's leader changed over time. US: Washington-Lincoln-FDR England: Richard-Liz-Churchill, France: Joan D'Arc-Napoleon-De Gaulle. Their disposition could change slightly as well.

Washington, who was not just British but a general

Everyone in the Colonies proudly considered themselves British until the late 1760s/early 1770s. It was one of the underlying causes of the war: they didnt seem to have the same rights as those in the Isles. Washington is in there due to his presidency.

 

[Rooftrellen]

George III would probably rank in the top 5 monarchs. He was very highly regarded for a long time after his death - which seems very odd to 'mericans who have a different picture of him.

Churchill would work as the leader, but you really need a monarch for the game. As such, Liz does ok plus it allows another female into the game. I am just glad they removed Cleopatra as Egypt's leader (who had not a drop of Egyptian blood in her).

Speaking as one of those "'mericans," the name George wouldn't even cross my mind for English leader.

Funny you should mention Cleopatra, just because the English line has been amazingly resilient to ending. It's pretty impressive how long you can manage down a family tree and keep the next king or queen in that tree, though several "dead ends" in other countries, though no known member of the family still living, revolution, etc.

Anyway, I'd certainly think of the two Elizabeths and Victoria. Those are, after all, the people who are even lend their name to eras. Now, with Elizabeth II still alive, no chance in the world she should get in, as no living leader should.

That leaves Elizabeth I and Victoria. And...I think they got it wrong.

And I base that on the UA. The UA points very directly to the Victorian era. While there is a disconnect for several leaders and UA's, we're not talking about the UA being about or in the time period of some unknown leader (Bismark's UA talks of a time before "countries," let alone "Germany") so why not make the leader, since you get a UA that fits her?

If they wanted to go more cultural with the UA, that would be the ideal situation in which to see Elizabeth, and Churchill could fit in a more warlike UA, but in the end, England has a history of strong and long ruling queens, again, to the point that we can talk about the Elizabethan era, the Victorian Era, and the New Elizabethan Era and know exactly what time period we are talking about.

At least to us Americans, we can't do that with any other rulers, monarchs or otherwise, on that side of the pond.

 

[Socratatus]

It`s kind of obvious why an American would not consider George as a Leader in Civ5, isn`t it?

As an English Citizen, I wouldn`t presume I knew what`s the best CIV leader for America. That said, I wouldn`t choose George III, myself since he stupidly gave America away when all he needed to do was treat them with common sense. A Major British facepalm moment... "We just lost AMERICA? to our own citizens?"

So I think Henry VIII is a fine English alternative choice. Nothing wrong with Elizabeth, i`m just looking at alternatives.

I thought Richard The Lionheart was also good one too, except he`d have to speak French ingame, which would be slightly shocking to hear.

 

[blackcatatonic]

OK, Henry VIII I can just about buy on the basis that he would be interesting as a character.

Richard I... no. Just no. About the most overrated king England has ever had. Given that he was hardly ever in the country since he was crowned, he's hardly the best representative.

If you want a medieval king, what's wrong with Edward III?

 

[Uberfrog]

I thought Richard The Lionheart was also good one too, except he`d have to speak French ingame, which would be slightly shocking to hear.

In-game, Richard the Lionheart would no more have to speak French than Willem van Oranje does.

A more pressing issue against Ricky would be that he spent almost no time y'know, actually ruling the country.

 

[Socratatus]

I suppose you may have a point about Richard I. He did spend little time in England and seemed to prefer France...

Edward III, hmmm, let me think about him...

 

[The_Quasar]

Henry V is not only an interesting possibility, he has an excellent claim to be a Great General too, for the victory at Agincourt, where the English beat more than twenty times their own number by clever use of the Longbow.

Henry VIII actually put in place many of the policies that Lizzy benefited from, like a modern navy. His marriages were a distraction, but the English, and later British Empire was all the stronger for his rule. His achievements are mostly overlooked because folk tend to focus on his marriages.

Arthur is another interesting possibility. Although he was only king of Wessex. Most difficult thing with him is knowing the facts from the legends!

Edward III was an interesting man too... his early years were spectacularly good, and he did many things well, and founded many other good things. Unfortunately, his latter years were the complete opposite, and much of the good his earlier years presided over was wholly or partially undone.

All the above were ruling Kings, as Lizzy I was too. Victoria, on the other hand was a figurehead... parliament, by her time, had a firm grip on the ruling bit! So imho, all the above, and Lizzy I, have a better right to be the English representative.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I thought Arthur was pretty much entirely apocryphal. Definitely rules him out in my opinion.

Although it seems from your post that you have confused him with King Alfred...?

 

[Socratatus]

I thought Arthur was pretty much entirely apocryphal. Definitely rules him out in my opinion.

Although it seems from your post that you have confused him with King Alfred...?

I think the Quasar makes a reasoanble set of points.

However, I agree about Arthur. Historians still argue if he was ever even a real person at all, let alone a king. That said, CIV5 decided to use Dido for Carthage and she`s about as real as Arthur... So under CIV5 Dido rules, Arthur would be acceptable.

Dido should never have been used as a leader in my opinion. there has to be a suitable Carthage leader- And if they did it just to have another female, then that was a mistake. Keep Leaders real, I say.

 

[Morningcalm]

At least there were records of Dido's existence--she was more legendary, Arthur is veering on mythical. Although apparently the Battle of Badon Hill did happen. Besides, the romantic legendary Arthur we all know was largely a French, rather than English, invention.

 

[True_Candyman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_1

He aint perfect but he's a damn sight better than the rest. Eizabeth included. Victoria i think would classify as a leader for England, but what did she do to qualify as a leader? She was a glorified sock puppet. Edward I was king at a time when it meant using the business end of a stick.

 

[Danei]

no, I would rather not make a trade agreement with England.

This.

I anger her on purpose just so I don't have to hear it anymore.

 

[Socratatus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_1

He aint perfect but he's a damn sight better than the rest. Eizabeth included. Victoria i think would classify as a leader for England, but what did she do to qualify as a leader? She was a glorified sock puppet. Edward I was king at a time when it meant using the business end of a stick.

Been reading on him. Yes, he was quiet a King, powerful, intimidating, aggressive, he also actually really loved his wife as well which was unusual. He seemed to have an interesting eye condition, I wonder how that would be replicated in a Civ leader?

Interesting how we have all these other fascinating English Kings, yet, Civ decides to just use Elizabeth. Forever.

Oh and Carthage could`ve used Hannibal.

 

[Art Grin]

I agree that it would be nice if Civ used some different leaders instead of the overused ones( I'm looking at you Elizabeth, Catherine, Bismarck and Napoleon). There are quite some possibilities for interesting leaders for Civs like France, England, Germany or Russia. Would be nice to see people like Philip II Augustus leading France or Henry V as the English leader. I think there is also a distinct lack of medieval leaders in Civ, especially with European civs where the leaders are either from the antiquity, renaissance or later.

 

[Crow T Robot]

...
That said, I wouldn`t choose George III, myself since he stupidly gave America away when all he needed to do was treat them with common sense. A Major British facepalm moment... "We just lost AMERICA? to our own citizens?"
...

G3 gets too a bit too much of the blame for 'losing' the colonies. It was Parliament who passed the Stamp Act and the tea tax and applied the Navigation Acts etc etc etc. The king could bully and bribe to influence policy but (to his great regret) the days of absolute monarchy were over. After Cornwallis lost at Lexington, the king was very resolute about fighting on to retain the colonies. It was Parliament, the general populace, privy council and the press who considered the war lost.

re facepalm: At the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty, one of the French reps tried to gloat by saying something like 'Well, there goes 2.5 millions of loyal subjects' to which the British rep replied 'Yes and every one of them speaking English'. Eventually, most Brits had come to realize that they would likely get all the benefits of the colonies in the form of trade and import/export duties with none of the costs related to defending them.

But yes, a few concessions early on would have prevented the response-counter response cycle that led to the break.

 

[nokmirt]

Henry VIII should have been an optional English Leader. In fact THE English leader! He was Great.

I`m tired of Elizabeth in every Civ game.

Henry VIII would probably have appreciated being chosen for England in game!

Henry VIII was too busy with his pants around his ankles. Elizabeth was a tireless leader. She had her father's intelligence, but the difference is that she used it more readily. Henry on the other hand was in one scandal after another throughout his reign. He is the leader who began building what was to become the Royal Navy. He created the Church of England, and we all know the story behind why that had to be done. Does the name Anne Boleyn ring a bell? Henry and his ministers came up with so many prefabrications about people they had to get rid of, it is unbelievable. The man has so much innocent blood on his hands, you could fill a Roman bath easily with it. This was not a just and wonderful ruler, but was a master of intrigue. What I love him for, is that he makes history so much more dramatic. He also, began building what was to become the Royal Navy. His flagship was the ill fated Mary Rose.

All in all though Elizabeth was a far better ruler IMHO.

 

[Morningcalm]

Edward Longshanks is a solid choice....if you want to enrage any Scots playing the game. Henry V is probably a better option--and more recognizable. That said, I would like to see them go with Victoria in a later game--v. recognizable, and also female.

For other female leaders they could pick Hatshepsut (warrior, architect, trader, monument builder), Jadwiga of Poland, a successful female ruler who also held the title of "King" Finally, Queen Seondeok of Silla Korea (warrior, artist, monument builder, astronomer, deeply religious ala Wu Zetian). So that takes care of some of the females. Russia having a male ruler would work--but then you'd probably have to preserve Dido for Carthage, Theodora for Byzantium--which, since they're relatively new on the stage, isn't a bad thing. China could definitely use Qin Shi Huangdi or Kangxi as a new ruler (he ruled China for the longest period of any emperor, and ushered in an era of peace), and India needs Akbar, the religiously-tolerant warrior-artist, instead of Gandhi for once (though Akbar was Mughal).