Ideas for "Belgian"-themed leaders deserving of being in the game

[Vahnstad]

Obviously i don't think any of the genocidal Kings should ever be in the game.

So here are a couple of suggestions of what in my opinion can represent a Belgian, Flemish or anything in this area the best, and would not be controversial. Also being able to somehow represent multiple civilisations in most cases.

1. Queen Mary of Burgundy
Iconic Burgundian leader, and a way to represent Burgundy perhaps without having to make it into a civ for the exploration era, a spot that likely already has been taken by the Normans, also an important woman in history. And due to Burgundy obviously also a connection to Flanders, she could credibly lead a potential Belgian, Dutch, potential Burgundian and French civilisation.
2. Queen Judith of Flanders
Queen of Wessex and Countess of Flanders, very influential and considered important, important woman in history. Downside is that she might be considered too close to Charlemagne. Could credibly be connected to both an English, Belgian, French and maybe Norman civilisation.
3. Ambiorix
King and Chieftain of the Belgae, a Gaul tribe. Can be seen as a bridge between Gauls and Belgians. Was in the game in civ 6 but he's just an excellent leader pick in general.
4. Emilie Claeys
Belgian pioneering feminist, given these type of leaders are now possible, this is an excellent pick for a more modern era leader for Belgium.

I know we don't necessarily need a leader, but just giving a couple of suggestions of what i think would be on theme for the game and could be a potential option

 

[Lord Lakely]

*This* Belgian has a few leader ideas of his own.

- Peter Paul Rubens - Important key baroque painter not part of the Flemish Primitives period, which makes a good choice for a Cul/Dip leader if Flanders is included in Exploration. Made a design for him here.
- Elizabeth of Belgium - Albert I's queen consort, and a big personality in her own right. Concours Reine Elizabeth is named after her. She also drove ambulances during the first World War, helped hide jews during the second World War and coined the term Iron Curtain.
- Lamoral, Count Egmont - Influential statesman from Brabant whose execution sparked the Eight Years War.
- Jan Breydel / Pieter de Coninck - leaders of the Flemish revolt in the 14th century, and important figures in the battle of the Golden Spurs (1302). De Coninck is the superior choice on paper, but Breydel is more easily marketable as he's effectively Flemish Gilgabro.
- Godfried of Bouillon - Leader of the crusader, first king of Jerusalem. He's a figure EVERYONE in Belgium learns about in School
- Father Damian - Missionary and Saint. Another person every Belgian learns about in school.
- Mercator - the famous cartographer after whom the Mercator projection is name.
- Boudewijn met de IJzeren Arm (Baldwin Iron Arm) - The first Flemish count, and a very chivalrous fellow in his own right. Called Iron Arm because he was a brawny brawler (ALSO a Flemish Gilgabro type), not because he ruled with an iron fist.

I would sacrifice all of them for a Flemish (or Burgundian) Exploration Civ, however.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I would be quite happy with an Ambiorix return. Baldwin Iron Arm sounds fun. Rubens could be a fun diplomat.

What I hope doesn't happen is Vercingetorix, as we have plenty of "French" leaders already and outside of Jules Verne or Marie Curie I wouldn't tolerate any more.

In general, I don't feel the need for a Burgundian or Belgian civ, since much of the exploration and modern era would could be presumptively played under an eventual Franks/HRE (and Spain) and Dutch civ. I would agree exploration Burgundy would be its best chances, but I would be just as content with a solid Belgian leader choice.

 

[Patine]

What I hope doesn't happen is Vercingetorix, as we have plenty of "French" leaders..

Vercingetorix wasn't, "French," or, "Belgian," anymore than Clovis or Charlemagne were. Such nations, cultures, nationalities, or even languages didn't yet exist in the day of any of those three men. It would be like saying Powhatan was an, "American," leader, or that Leif Erickson was a, "Canadian," leader.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Vercingetorix wasn't, "French," or, "Belgian," anymore than Clovis or Charlemagne were. Such nations, cultures, nationalities, or even languages didn't yet exist in the day of any of those three men. It would be like saying Powhatan was an, "American," leader, or that Leif Erickson was a, "Canadian," leader.

No he wasn't, but the Averni were in French territory and therefore it isn't surprising that he is regarded as a French folk hero. No different than Ambiorix and Arminius being Belgian and German nationalist figures. Or, for that matter, Tomyris and Kazakhstan, Zenobia and Syria, etc. etc.

I think there are far more interesting things the game could be doing than cramming as many leaders as it can from that general Gaulish region. No Verky please.

 

[Patine]

No he wasn't, but the Averni were in French territory and therefore it isn't surprising that he is regarded as a French folk hero. No different than Ambiorix and Arminius being Belgian and German nationalist figures. Or, for that matter, Tomyris and Kazakhstan, Zenobia and Syria, etc. etc.

I think there are far more interesting things the game could be doing than cramming as many leaders as it can from that general Gaulish region. No Verky please.

There was no such thing as, "French territory," back then. And national heroes are among the most contrived, subjective, arbitrary, and revisionist list of historical figures one will find. I cannot, at all, agree with excluding Vercingetorix on such flimsy grounds (even if I personally prefer Boadicea).

 

[RedCourtJester]

There was no such thing as, "French territory," back then. And national heroes are among the most contrived, subjective, arbitrary, and revisionist list of historical figures one will find. I cannot, at all, agree with excluding Vercingetorix on such flimsy grounds (even if I personally prefer Boadicea).

Eh be that as it may, I was sick of the entire region before the game even launched and would not mind if we never saw another continental Europe leader in the game, let alone one from the region of modern France. Even the American representation in the game is too French between the Statue of Liberty and the biggest Francophile in 18th century America.

You are welcome to your druthers, I would rather the devs explore literally anywhere else on the map for a good long time.

 

[Jeppetto]

Elizabeth of Belgium - Albert I's queen consort, and a big personality in her own right. Concours Reine Elizabeth is named after her. She also drove ambulances during the first World War, helped hide jews during the second World War and coined the term Iron Curtain.

Elizabeth of Belgium leads Belgium in Sid Meier's Civilization VII Belgium Pack

 

[Patine]

Eh be that as it may, I was sick of the entire region before the game even launched and would not mind if we never saw another continental Europe leader in the game, let alone one from the region of modern France. Even the American representation in the game is too French between the Statue of Liberty and the biggest Francophile in 18th century America.

I would say that, given the context, that is the height of wild wishful thinking, and bizarre for the Civ series.

 

[Taizong4Civ7]

Charles of Ghent

Seconding Exploration (Valois) Burgundy.

 

[Lord Lakely]

In general, I don't feel the need for a Burgundian or Belgian civ, since much of the exploration and modern era would could be presumptively played under an eventual Franks/HRE (and Spain) and Dutch civ. I would agree exploration Burgundy would be its best chances, but I would be just as content with a solid Belgian leader choice.

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think adding new Civs is way more important than adding new leaders. You need to have paths that are satisfying to follow for a gamer. Leaders are little more than opponents in the strictest sense.

So if you want the Netherlands, you'll need a Civ the Netherlands can transition into in Modern, or can transition out of if the Netherlands themselves are in modern.

The cleanest approach to that is by simply having a Flemish Civ in Exploration. The county of Flanders was a small entity geographically but they were a trade juggernaught. All of the important trade cities in the low countries were located in Flanders and Brabant until the end of the 80 Years War, which caused the decline of Antwerp's Golden Age (the last powerful trade hub in the Southern Netherlands) and the rise of Amsterdam and Rotterdam as its replacements. This puts Flanders historically firmly into Exploration which the Dutch Golden Age took place in the murky waters between Exploration and Modern.

The Canary Islands were also a Flemish colony at a certain point, but let's not delve too deeply into that at 1:43 am.

Burgundy could also work, as a substitute for France, while also filling in for Netherlands and Germany, but only if they have a distinct Flemish flavour - like a Flemish Primitive Great Person for instance. Burgundy also doesn't compete with Austria, which can then also be placed in Exploration over the HRE.

But leaders themselves, yeah. I don't necessarily want a Belgian (or Belgium-adjacent) leader. The spot for the Low Countries leader should go to the Dutch (De Witt, De Ruyter, Spinoza, Erasmus or William the Silent again), or a Burgundian/Austrian with a connection to the Netherlands (Maria of Habsburg, Charles V) before it should go to a Fleming or a Brabantian.

 

[Vahnstad]

I'm of the opposite opinion. I think adding new Civs is way more important than adding new leaders. You need to have paths that are satisfying to follow for a gamer. Leaders are little more than opponents in the strictest sense.

So if you want the Netherlands, you'll need a Civ the Netherlands can transition into in Modern, or can transition out of if the Netherlands themselves are in modern.

The problem with that is that i think they'll add the Dutch to the exploration era because of its exploration, trade & colonization.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The problem with that is that i think they'll add the Dutch to the exploration era because of its exploration, trade & colonization.

I'm expecting that too. I don't agree with the decision, so all I can do is raise my voice and spread the gospel around, in as many threads as possible.

NL (E) => Belgium (M) is a fine path. It's also the most boring path available.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm expecting that too. I don't agree with the decision, so all I can do is raise my voice and spread the gospel around, in as many threads as possible.

NL (E) => Belgium (M) is a fine path. It's also the most boring path available.

I think the Dutch have equal odds of being modern versus exploration, depending on how "colonial" our version of modern Britain is. We still don't know yet if the devs even want to cram Spain/Portugal/England/Dutch into exploration era, and Britain may be pointing toward aims to split that. What sets the Dutch apart from Spain/Portugal/England is a general lack of prior representation of modern derived colonial powers.

As it stands, the Majapahit could comfortably move into modern Dutch and we would probably accept that. If we start seeing evidence of modern Dutch colonial powers like a proper "Indonesia" or "South Africa/Boers" civ, then I would then consider exploration Dutch to be a lock. And I do think that, given enough time, this may be the direction the game is going, as I would be very surprised to see Canada/Australia appear alongside the U.S. without an "English" exploration civ at some point.

It's a bit too early to tell what they do with it, but I think wherever the Dutch end up is going to better inform how Belgium may get representation. I do not think it likely that they will both occupy the same era.

 

[Patine]

As it stands, the Majapahit could comfortably move into modern Dutch and we would probably accept that

I'm not sure it would be accepted, uncontested. And it might get the game banned in Indonesia, the 14th most populous country in the world, and 2nd biggest predominantly Islamic nation for gaming markets, after Pakistan, and just above Turkey. But transitioning pre-colonial nations to their colonial masters or those masters' post-colonial states has always led to sharp disagreement in many areas, and is an area fraught with difficulty that Firaxis, for now, has been trying to put under the carpet.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm not sure it would be accepted, uncontested. And it might get the game banned in Indonesia, the 14th most populous country in the world, and 2nd biggest predominantly Islamic nation for gaming markets, after Pakistan, and just above Turkey. But transitioning pre-colonial nations to their colonial masters or those masters' post-colonial states has always led to sharp disagreement in many areas, and is an area fraught with difficulty that Firaxis, for now, has been trying to put under the carpet.

I don't see how it would be that controversial as long as the game maintains this plausible deniability of merely adding "big civs" without regard to full three-civ paths. Indonesia was a strong medieval power: it got an exploration era civ. The way the game is being marketed, just because it could progress to the Dutch doesn't mean that would be the presumed conclusion, in the same way that no one is complaining that the Shawnee only have America as the most historically accurate civ to progress to.

We really don't know yet to what extent Firaxis wants to flesh out certain regions of the world. For all we know, SEA will only be represented by one civ per major cultural heritage (one Khmer, one Vietnam, one Indonesia, etc. etc.). And as long as other regions of the world get that same treatment I don't really see much basis for Indonesians to complain about Majapahit -> Dutch (and, let's be realistic, they will likely have the Philippines as a second option) when Siam has no Ayutthaya or Vietnam has no modern Vietnam, or other "logical" pathways might include Arawak -> Inca -> Gran Colombia or Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda.

The completionist in me certainly would like Dutch -> Boers + Indonesia (+ Belgium?), but I am not presuming we will get that level of granularity yet.