If a game is to represent Gandhi, it cannot be as a potential player character

[berlin88]

I remember hearing something about Temujin (who would declare himself Genghis Khan not long after) having a Tengrist shamanic vision, or a Tengrist shaman having one and speaking the message to him, or some such, on a similar idea to Alexander's "prophecy."

During Genghis Khan's lifetime, it was forbidden for people to create artwork or other imagery of him, so a lot of what we know of Khan was created after he died. For example, it was widely reported that Khan had red hair, yet most of those accounts were written after his demise, so its not readily verifiable.

However, Khan was influential and powerful enough, that the Russian nobility of the time all wanted to ingratiate themselves with the great Khan and some even tried to join his family via marriage or adoption. Thanks to modern DNA testing, there are now millions of people who can claim to be a descendant of the great Khan.

According to the DNA testing, I share a paternal haplogroup (R-L2) with Niall of the Nine Hostages and maternal Haplogroup (H2a1) with Luke the Evangelist.

 

[Patine]

During Genghis Khan's lifetime, it was forbidden for people to create artwork or other imagery of him, so a lot of what we know of Khan was created after he died. For example, it was widely reported that Khan had red hair, yet most of those accounts were written after his demise, so its not readily verifiable.

However, Khan was influential and powerful enough, that the Russian nobility of the time all wanted to ingratiate themselves with the great Khan and some even tried to join his family via marriage or adoption. Thanks to modern DNA testing, there are now millions of people who can claim to be a descendant of the great Khan.

According to the DNA testing, I share a paternal haplogroup (R-L2) with Niall of the Nine Hostages and maternal Haplogroup (H2a1) with Luke the Evangelist.

Do we really have reliable DNA links to specific named persons of import from the Apostolic Era?

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

The joke's gotten a little stale after 25 years...

And yet, in my games he has yet to make it past the Industrial, let alona drop a nuke.

Arthur created the establishment of modern England.

If he leads and adopts Democracy, though...

 

[berlin88]

Do we really have reliable DNA links to specific named persons of import from the Apostolic Era?

Researchers have studied Luke the Evangelist and believe with a high degree of certainty, that Luke the Evangelist was part of Haplogroup H2, of which H2a1 is a sub branch. Therefore, anyone who has a haplogroup that falls under H2 or one of its sub groups, would share a haplogroup with Luke the Evangelist. Researchers are confident the body they tested belonged to Luke and was not swapped at any point in time with a different body.

 

[Chefofrats]

I know for a fact I share genes with Adam and Eve, true story.

Seriously though, as per https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ts-St-Luke-the-apostles-remains-to-Padua.html the only thing the researchers are sure about is the fact the remains in Padua, claimed by the Catholic Church to be those of Luke, belong to a Syrian man who lived some time during the 500 years between 400 BCE and 100 CE, which is consistent with some elements of the assumed biography of Luke. There is no way of telling if it is Luke - that is, if we even accept he existed at all, which cannot be certain. Even the scientist who carried out the study says, as quoted above: "I think we should accept that there is no way to tell, definitively, that this is the body of Luke, but the genetic evidence does not contradict the idea."

 

[nzcamel]

I mean, it was historically very normal throughout both time and place for rulers to claim a lot more land than what they actually owned. The English monarchs were claiming France up through George III, long after they lost the Hundred Years' War.

Sure though that is different to Frederic's claim. The HRE in his time did have control over most of that?

I've thought about this as well. The entire world was well-populated by the game's start date; it feels weird that everything is empty.

I tend to assume there are plenty of people out there which the barb's and goodie huts represent; but that there are no organised nations as we think of it. So that doesn't bother me much.

 

[Ziad]

I love Elissa but where's Hannibal tbh

 

[Abaxial]

I mention Aurangzeb as the ruler of the Mogul empire at it's greatest extent, covering almost all of modern India. He may not have been the nicest chap, but then neither was Ghengis. As to Gandhi being "traditional" in Civ games, so is Napoleon Bonaparte, but he is conspicuously absent from Civ 6, suggesting a desire to break away from tradition. As for Eleanor of Aquitaine as leader of both France and England, the idea is weird. Anyone later than Elisabeth and the union of the crowns is inappropriate for England - Victoria was monarch of both England and Scotland. Of course, she had no political power. Richard Lionheart might be a good English leader, or Edward III or Henry V.

I'm sorry Sir John A Macdonald wasn't the pick for Canada.

 

[Patine]

I mention Aurangzeb as the ruler of the Mogul empire at it's greatest extent, covering almost all of modern India. He may not have been the nicest chap, but then neither was Ghengis.

I think an Indian leader who is not the leader of an invading, foreign ethnicity would be more appropriate. I think Chandragupta Maurya, Vikramaditya, Narasimhavarman I, Ranjit Singh, or Sivaji would be much better choices of endemic (not invading) Indian leaders who certainly didn't fall into the Mohandas Gandhi trope.

Anyone later than Elisabeth and the union of the crowns is inappropriate for England - Victoria was monarch of both England and Scotland. Of course, she had no political power. Richard Lionheart might be a good English leader, or Edward III or Henry V.

British royal historiography makes no distinction between monarchs of England and monarchs of Britain as two separate lines, or one line of national existence ending, and another beginning. That point of view you've just stated has no strong backing or support in historical circles (except among Scottish Nationalists). So, no need for a hard temporal limit there is needed, or even justified. Also, some British PM's were very good and iconic leaders in latter eras when the monarchs had no power.

I'm sorry Sir John A Macdonald wasn't the pick for Canada.

I would have preferred Lester B. Pearson myself.

 

[berlin88]

I mention Aurangzeb as the ruler of the Mogul empire at it's greatest extent, covering almost all of modern India. He may not have been the nicest chap, but then neither was Ghengis. As to Gandhi being "traditional" in Civ games, so is Napoleon Bonaparte, but he is conspicuously absent from Civ 6, suggesting a desire to break away from tradition. As for Eleanor of Aquitaine as leader of both France and England, the idea is weird. Anyone later than Elisabeth and the union of the crowns is inappropriate for England - Victoria was monarch of both England and Scotland. Of course, she had no political power. Richard Lionheart might be a good English leader, or Edward III or Henry V.

I'm sorry Sir John A Macdonald wasn't the pick for Canada.

I disagree about having an Anglophone represent Canada, as in MacDonald's day, the Canadiens français were the largest Demographic in Canada, and remained so until the post WW2 era (as recently as WWI, they were 30% of the population). In fact, at the time of the War of 1812, a majority of folks living in Ontario and the Maritimes were ex American loyalists (or their descendants) who fled the colonies after the revolution. In 1812, an American tourist could have walked virtually anywhere in Ontario, and felt as though they were in America, given that the population largely had American roots, and spoke the American dialect of English and adhered to colonial American culture.

Additionally, prior to the creation of the Dominion of Canada, Canada largely referred to Ontario and Quebec, where the Quebecois were a decided majority, and United Empire Loyalists a strong 2nd.

In my humble opinion, its not Canada without the French (although I confess to being biased in this regard). While I may not have picked Laurier as the leader of Canada, I would have still picked a Francophone to represent the Canada civ in the game. I would have gone way back and chosen explorer Jacque Cartier or Samuel de Champlain.

 

[Patine]

I disagree about having an Anglophone represent Canada, as in MacDonald's day, the Canadiens français were the largest Demographic in Canada, and remained so until the post WW2 era (as recently as WWI, they were 30% of the population). In fact, at the time of the War of 1812, a majority of folks living in Ontario and the Maritimes were ex American loyalists (or their descendants) who fled the colonies after the revolution. In 1812, an American tourist could have walked virtually anywhere in Ontario, and felt as though they were in America, given that the population largely had American roots, and spoke the American dialect of English and adhered to colonial American culture.

Additionally, prior to the creation of the Dominion of Canada, Canada largely referred to Ontario and Quebec, where the Quebecois were a decided majority, and United Empire Loyalists a strong 2nd.

In my humble opinion, its not Canada without the French (although I confess to being biased in this regard). While I may not have picked Laurier as the leader of Canada, I would have still picked a Francophone to represent the Canada civ in the game. I would have gone way back and chosen explorer Jacque Cartier or Samuel de Champlain.

As a Canadian myself, I have to call out that highly-distorted, skewed, and inaccurate view of Canadian history. Where did you read that - the PQ/BQ's party websites? That is not the situation at all. Plus, saying a Francophone PM is the most representative leader of the whole Canadian civilization, when only five PM's of like 39 were Francophones (Mulroney and Martin were from Quebec, but they weren't REALLY classical Francophones), and a very disproportionate percentage of Quebec political leaders and movements have been antagonistic to the existence of a Canada, as a post-1867 entity, and often desired lopsided autonomy or outright separatism - how would you feel about Jefferson Davis, Malcom X, or Black Cloud as a leader of AMERICA? - and the ethnic population statistical numbers you're quoting post-1867 (when Canada exists as a NATION - and not a bunch of separately-administered British colonies) are blatantly false, unless every separate country and ethnicity of origin of Anglophones is recorded separately, as well as Inuit/First Nation/Metis numbers (not all Metis speak French, contrary to popular belief), African-Americans having settled from the Underground Railroad days, and early Asian immigrants, then maybe, if you do that manipulative statistic style, the Quebecois have a commanding PLURALITY prior to WW2. But your portrayal here is highly distorted and inaccurate, and as a Canadian, I'm calling it out!

 

[berlin88]

As a Canadian myself, I have to call out that highly-distorted, skewed, and inaccurate view of Canadian history. Where did you read that - the PQ/BQ's party websites? That is not the situation at all. Plus, saying a Francophone PM is the most representative leader of the whole Canadian civilization, when only five PM's of like 39 were Francophones (Mulroney and Martin were from Quebec, but they weren't REALLY classical Francophones), and a very disproportionate percentage of Quebec political leaders and movements have been antagonistic to the existence of a Canada, as a post-1867 entity, and often desired lopsided autonomy or outright separatism - how would you feel about Jefferson Davis, Malcom X, or Black Cloud as a leader of AMERICA? - and the ethnic population statistical numbers you're quoting post-1867 (when Canada exists as a NATION - and not a bunch of separately-administered British colonies) are blatantly false, unless every separate country and ethnicity of origin of Anglophones is recorded separately, as well as Inuit/First Nation/Metis numbers (not all Metis speak French, contrary to popular belief), African-Americans having settled from the Underground Railroad days, and early Asian immigrants, then maybe, if you do that manipulative statistic style, the Quebecois have a commanding PLURALITY prior to WW2. But your portrayal here is highly distorted and inaccurate, and as a Canadian, I'm calling it out!

Lets see, Canada had roughly 3.4 million people in 1867, and 1.1 million were of French heritage, that's roughly 32%. Around the time of WW1, it was still near 30% if you count Acadians and Metis who have French ancestry.

Between 1840 and 1930 roughly 900,000 Canadiens français left Canada for the USA, otherwise those percentages might have been even higher.

 

[Patine]

Lets see, Canada had roughly 3.4 million people in 1867, and 1.1 million were of French heritage, that's roughly 32%. Around the time of WW1, it was still near 30% if you count Acadians and Metis who have French ancestry.

Between 1840 and 1930 roughly 900,000 Canadiens français left Canada for the USA, otherwise those percentages might have been even higher.

Regardless, you have a very distorted view of Canadian history, culture, leadership, and national identity. Canada is NOT to France what the U.S. is to Britain, Mexico to Spain, or Brazil to Portugal. In fact, you seem to have set and highly biased agenda to greatly downplay and highly diminish, perhaps erase, the VERY significant Anglophone and First Nations/Inuit hand in Canadian heritage in this, and similar game portrayals - which is MUCH MORE profound in creating the NATION OF CANADA that Francophone hand, to be honest. Now, either study Canadian history in it's full breadth and depth, and understand the entirety of it and the part ALL the different groups played in the MULTIETHNIC nation, or just PLEASE shut up about Canada altogether.

Moderator Action: Please do not tell another forum member to "shut up", it is trolling. leif

 

[berlin88]

Regardless, you have a very distorted view of Canadian history, culture, leadership, and national identity. Canada is NOT to France what the U.S. is to Britain, Mexico to Spain, or Brazil to Portugal. In fact, you seem to have set and highly biased agenda to greatly downplay and highly diminish, perhaps erase, the VERY significant Anglophone and First Nations/Inuit hand in Canadian heritage in this, and similar game portrayals - which is MUCH MORE profound in creating the NATION OF CANADA that Francophone hand, to be honest. Now, either study Canadian history in it's full breadth and depth, and understand the entirety of it and the part ALL the different groups played in the MULTIETHNIC nation, or just PLEASE shut up about Canada altogether.

For your information, I have a very detailed knowledge of Canadian history, given that some of my ancestors lived there for over 220+ years, and were thus part of Canadian history. Some even served in various functions such as Church Warden, fur trader, farmer, militia Captain, surgeon, bailiff and even in the Lower Canada Parliament. In regards to First Nations folks, I have no beef with them, in fact I even have one (Huron) on my family tree way back when.

I am not disputing that other groups have contributed to the creation of the modern Canadian civilization, I am simply stating my belief that when selecting which leader represents Canada in a Civilization game, that a French Canadian is the best choice. Not the only choice obviously, but the best option.

 

[Patine]

For your information, I have a very detailed knowledge of Canadian history, given that some of my ancestors lived there for over 220+ years, and were thus part of Canadian history. Some even served in various functions such as Church Warden, fur trader, farmer, militia Captain, surgeon, bailiff and even in the Lower Canada Parliament. In regards to First Nations folks, I have no beef with them, in fact I even have one (Huron) on my family tree way back when.

I am not disputing that other groups have contributed to the creation of the modern Canadian civilization, I am simply stating my belief that when selecting which leader represents Canada in a Civilization game, that a French Canadian is the best choice. Not the only choice obviously, but the best option.

And I still sharply disagree with notion, and you almost certainly won't move me from that viewpoint. To me, it sounds arbitrarily UNREPRESENTATIVE to say that a "French Canadian," (not necessarily a named one) is AUTOMATICALLY a better choice and more representative than an "English-Speaking Canadian," (just by linguistic roots alone). In certain other countries, those types statements or opinions would get potentially much more VIOLENT responses from various peoples within. They are often called, generically, "loaded," statements or opinions.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Thank you for taking this thread way off the tracks. Thread closed.