Male leader for England

[Zaarin]

Frankly, I think Sumer was always going to be a problem Civ because so much of what they did first was also done by almost everybody after and around them in the same region, and I would argue that Babylon, Assyria, and even the Hittites have probably more 'name recognition'.

I think the way to go with Sumer is to focus on their obsession with records (which is unique--everyone else in the region, including Babylon, were reckless exaggerators) and their god-kings (which are hardly unique, but they and Egypt sort of did it first independently). They were also the first to do a lot of things--the bonus to Inspirations/Eurekas that China gets honestly would have made more sense for Sumer IMO.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think the way to go with Sumer is to focus on their obsession with records (which is unique--everyone else in the region, including Babylon, were reckless exaggerators) and their god-kings (which are hardly unique, but they and Egypt sort of did it first independently). They were also the first to do a lot of things--the bonus to Inspirations/Eurekas that China gets honestly would have made more sense for Sumer IMO.

We're getting a little OT from "English Male Leaders", but just have to put my Sumer Two Cents' worth in here. I think Sumer as a Civ should emphasize the fact that they were, to the best of our current knowledge the very first City Dwelling Civ by a wide margin. Even China and the Indus Valley civ appear to have been a 1000 years or more after them, and Sumer may have been the only Civ with 'cities' in any recognizable form at the start of game in 4000 BCE. (Yes, there were "settlements" elsewhere, like the sites of Jericho, Argos, Athens, Luxor, and Plovdiv but we have no evidence that they were Cities as opposed to mere collections of farming/herding families)

So, I'd like to see them get a Starting Bonus the way the Maori get a 'jump start' from founding their first cit later: maybe Sumer should start with Population = 2 and a Builder generated in their first city as soon as it is founded . . .

 

[Phrozen]

Excellent! I should have included him alongside Richelieu and Cromwell, because he is another example of a 'Non-Official Leader" who did as much or more to actually guide the Civ than the 'real' Monarch did!

In addition to all that he was an excellent tournament knight, in fact how he first got his fame and fortune, with his best event being the Melee but he was a pretty damn good jouster as well.

 

[Alqamar Alaswad]

Departing from the "Male leader for English" topic, I'd like to say that Richelieu as a French leader would be awesome.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In addition to all that he was an excellent tournament knight, in fact how he first got his fame and fortune, with his best event being the Melee but he was a pretty damn good jouster as well.

Given that Tourneys were as much (or more) Entertainment as Military, he could be a Leader with a very rare Entertainment Bonus instead of the usual Religion, Diplomatic, or Military Unique.

 

[Patine]

Departing from the "Male leader for English" topic, I'd like to say that Richelieu as a French leader would be awesome.

I would also advocate (I know I have several times now) for Charles De Galle, as well.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I would also advocate (I know I have several times now) for Charles De Galle, as well.

Because they don't have the Curtain of Historical Forgetfulness to hide behind, contemporary or near-contemporary (twentieth century) Leaders tend to be a lot more controversial than Safely Dead and Largely Forgotten 'older' Leaders.

For instance, De Gaulle did a fair job of bringing France back to the status of a European 'Power" (which didn't mean near as much as it meant a century earlier), but he was a mediocre military leader, 'forecasting' armored developments after everything he forecast had been stated by others like Fuller, Liddell-Hart, Tukhachevskii, et al, and leading his own armored division (the French 4th) in 1940 in utterly ineffective counterattacks (which German accounts don't even mention) - and his attempt to hang on to the French Colonial Empire after WWII in Algeria and Southeast Asia were utterly disastrous for both France and the indigenous populations.
Not saying he wouldn't be an interesting Leader (certainly from a Big Personality standpoint) for Civ VI, but his Uniques would have to be very carefully chosen.

And, to be fair, Churchill would be subject to some of the same critiques: his wartime political/diplomatic leadership was highly successful, but his direct intervention in military affairs much less so and his attempt to maintain the British Empire after the war as ineffective as De Gaulle's efforts for the French colonies if slightly less disastrous to the people involved (save India, whose Independence and Partition was a humanitarian disaster for almost all concerned: my wife has a client who lived through it).

 

[Patine]

Because they don't have the Curtain of Historical Forgetfulness to hide behind, contemporary or near-contemporary (twentieth century) Leaders tend to be a lot more controversial than Safely Dead and Largely Forgotten 'older' Leaders.

Well, that viewpoint feeds into the nostalgic "the old days were good, nothing is good anymore thing," and all leaders will end up being very old, unless by necessity (Canada and Australia, for instance). Also, though some wonders and features don't kick in until later that are neat (although I'm dubious about the addition of the World Congress), the exaggerated climate change mechanics (and I'm NOT a denier at all - the part of the world I live in is very blatantly and undeniably hit hard), the resource issues with maintaining a modern army, and the fact that a lot of people complain they want to finish their games before the modern age hits, indicates this game bias is not JUST in leader choices in CivVI.

 

[Jkchart]

I wouldn't mind seeing a male leader of England, but...Charles I? Really? The guy who was so hated by pretty much everyone that he got his head detached from his shoulders as much for his incompetence as for his radicalism? I think the only Stuart you can really make much of a case for would be James I--Charles I was horrible in every sense, Charles II was too busy indulging his appetite to rule, James II only avoided his father's fate because he had the good sense to abdicate, and Anne was impotent.

That being said, England has plenty of fine male leaders to choose from. Henry V would be my choice. A case could be made for James I. Edward I Longshanks would be decent. Not taking sex into account, if I had my choice, Victoria shouldn't have been chosen in the first place and it should have been Elizabeth I, and I'd still welcome either her or Empress Matilda as a second leader for England.


I'd say England has three: Elizabeth I, Mary I (despite her damaged reputation she was a competent ruler), and Empress Matilda. If you want to count the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (which I'd rather see as their own civ) one could add Æthelflæd of Mercia, who is currently on the Great General list I believe. This is unusual but not unique: I could name at least four decent choices for Egypt (as long as we count influential queens-consort), three for the Maya, two for Israel (three if it's okay that one of them was a butcher and a tyrant ), two for Byzantium...But yes, England is certainly unusual in that regard.

Anne's depiction is unfairly biased against her thanks to the Duchess of Marlborough and subsequent male writers of that era disparaging her. Modern academics tend to agree that her reign was far more positive than how she has been characterized. She's actually a fascinating character, and it was her reign that led to Great Britain becoming a state instead of England and Scotland in personal union. That era led to Britain's golden age of becoming a major military power, and she had FAR more power than Victoria ever did, even if she wasn't able to fully exercise it due to illness and the ever-decreasing influence of monarch's power in Britain. She was also very active in her cabinet with her government, architecture, science, writing, and the economy all flourished, and her reign led to Britain's increased stability. Anne was a powerful woman, and her government and rulership was instrumental in creating a step towards the modern United Kingdom when you think about it. Also, she was actually the Queen of England (and Scotland) before the union, so she is even more appropriate as an English leader than Victoria since she had the title. Just had to defend my Queen

Mary was competent, I agree, though she's too controversial probably. I do know that the series has controversial leaders, but something tells me people would not go for Mary I being the representative of England. I do appreciate that call out though.

Matilda would be AWESOME, but I'm afraid she would be ignored or overlooked as merely a pretender (which is ridiculous since she was the rightful heir and her throne was usurped by Stephen). She also never really ruled the country, but almost got it. She did rule many significant lands though, so personally I'd let her in as an alternate leader. You already know my feelings about Mrs. Eleanor, who I approve of, particularly as an English ruler since she actually ruled for Richard.

As for a male leader, I'm biased so James I, I also love the idea of Alfred the Great or Aethelstan. William of Normandy would be interesting as well.

 

[Patine]

Anne's depiction is unfairly biased against her thanks to the Duchess of Marlborough and subsequent male writers of that era disparaging her. Modern academics tend to agree that her reign was far more positive than how she has been characterized. She's actually a fascinating character, and it was her reign that led to Great Britain becoming a state instead of England and Scotland in personal union. That era led to Britain's golden age of becoming a major military power, and she had FAR more power than Victoria ever did, even if she wasn't able to fully exercise it due to illness and the ever-decreasing influence of monarch's power in Britain. She was also very active in her cabinet with her government, architecture, science, writing, and the economy all flourished, and her reign led to Britain's increased stability. Anne was a powerful woman, and her government and rulership was instrumental in creating a step towards the modern United Kingdom when you think about it. Also, she was actually the Queen of England (and Scotland) before the union, so she is even more appropriate as an English leader than Victoria since she had the title. Just had to defend my Queen

Mary was competent, I agree, though she's too controversial probably. I do know that the series has controversial leaders, but something tells me people would not go for Mary I being the representative of England. I do appreciate that call out though.

Matilda would be AWESOME, but I'm afraid she would be ignored or overlooked as merely a pretender (which is ridiculous since she was the rightful heir and her throne was usurped by Stephen). She also never really ruled the country, but almost got it. She did rule many significant lands though, so personally I'd let her in as an alternate leader. You already know my feelings about Mrs. Eleanor, who I approve of, particularly as an English ruler since she actually ruled for Richard.

As for a male leader, I'm biased so James I, I also love the idea of Alfred the Great or Aethelstan. William of Normandy would be interesting as well.

And what are your thoughts on Prime Ministers after the Napoleonic Era, when they had all the REAL power (despite the office not existing on paper or explicitly constitutionally, but only as an "informal constitutional convention and convenience."

 

[Zaarin]

Anne's depiction is unfairly biased against her thanks to the Duchess of Marlborough and subsequent male writers of that era disparaging her. Modern academics tend to agree that her reign was far more positive than how she has been characterized. She's actually a fascinating character, and it was her reign that led to Great Britain becoming a state instead of England and Scotland in personal union. That era led to Britain's golden age of becoming a major military power, and she had FAR more power than Victoria ever did, even if she wasn't able to fully exercise it due to illness and the ever-decreasing influence of monarch's power in Britain. She was also very active in her cabinet with her government, architecture, science, writing, and the economy all flourished, and her reign led to Britain's increased stability. Anne was a powerful woman, and her government and rulership was instrumental in creating a step towards the modern United Kingdom when you think about it. Also, she was actually the Queen of England (and Scotland) before the union, so she is even more appropriate as an English leader than Victoria since she had the title. Just had to defend my Queen

I actually didn't know much about her beyond being the first to rely more heavily on her ministers and her being the last to have the title "Queen of England." Personally so long as the civilization is called England, I'd rather not see anyone later than Anne...

Mary was competent, I agree, though she's too controversial probably. I do know that the series has controversial leaders, but something tells me people would not go for Mary I being the representative of England. I do appreciate that call out though.

I don't think we'll see her, either, especially since England has other choices who are not only less controversial but incontrovertibly more successful. Still, it is interesting to see academic opinion of her swing more positively after centuries of hostility (much like England's other hated monarch, John).

Matilda would be AWESOME, but I'm afraid she would be ignored or overlooked as merely a pretender (which is ridiculous since she was the rightful heir and her throne was usurped by Stephen). She also never really ruled the country, but almost got it. She did rule many significant lands though, so personally I'd let her in as an alternate leader.

I wouldn't want her as England's only ruler for those exact reasons, but I'd love to see her as an alternate. Her history is quite fascinating.

As for a male leader, I'm biased so James I

He'd be a lot of fun for sure.

 

[Jkchart]

I actually didn't know much about her beyond being the first to rely more heavily on her ministers and her being the last to have the title "Queen of England." Personally so long as the civilization is called England, I'd rather not see anyone later than Anne...


I don't think we'll see her, either, especially since England has other choices who are not only less controversial but incontrovertibly more successful. Still, it is interesting to see academic opinion of her swing more positively after centuries of hostility (much like England's other hated monarch, John).


I wouldn't want her as England's only ruler for those exact reasons, but I'd love to see her as an alternate. Her history is quite fascinating.


He'd be a lot of fun for sure.

Lots of people don’t know about Anne other than that, but she was actually a far more capable ruler than she is given credit for. Yes, she did have to rely more on ministers, but that isn’t necessarily a bad trait for a leader she’s fascinating IMO

Yeah, we won’t see Mary, James would be fantastic, and if Matilda were included she should be an alt.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Male leader choices for for England = YES
Charles I = Not my favorite choices
I'd go for either Guilliame le Conquerant (he could also rule France, has his personal unique units available to HIM rather than countries, the Normans). or Oliver Cromwell (Religious leader, also has his UU, the Ironsides)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Male leader choices for for England = YES
Charles I = Not my favorite choices
I'd go for either Guilliame le Conquerant (he could also rule France, has his personal unique units available to HIM rather than countries, the Normans). or Oliver Cromwell (Religious leader, also has his UU, the Ironsides)

There is already a Mod for Guilliame (they use the 'English' spelling of William) that provides him as an Alternate Leader for Britain/England and also a Leader for a new Civ: Normandy.
Note that Cromwell's New Model Army also had the first official 'Red Coats' as a Pike and Shot Unit, in 1645.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ What do Normans in that mod have?

 

[Laurana Kanan]

^ What do Normans in that mod have?

Man-At-Arms

CIVITAS Normandy

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I'm annoyed that there are no male English leaders in Civ 6. Correct me if I'm wrong if that's been rectified with updates.
It's only a game, I appreciate, but being English, it matters to me.
If ever there was a true ENGLISH leader it would be either Alfred the Great, or perhaps more historically relevant, Athelstan, who most historians recognise as the first TRUE king of England.
Queen Victoria, although a great monarch, wasn't really the monarch that ruled England, but rather, the British Empire. So I feel it is historically inaccurate to have her as leader of the English.
Now, to indulge my historical fetish, personally I would really love to see Charles I as a leader for England. He firmly believed in Divine Right, i.e. the concept that monarchs are appointed by God and are appointed to rule as they see fit by virtue of their divine calling. I think Charles I would make an excellent ruler of the English, perhaps because it might allow the English race to have +faith, especially to Protestantism (Charles I was after all the Head of the Church of England). This would be particularly relevant because he believed firmly in Divine Right.
So Devs, please consider this. Thanks.

As much as I sympathise with Charles...
nope.
You might as well make King John as leader of England for Charles is just as good of a leader as John.

 

[Zaarin]

As much as I sympathise with Charles...
nope.
You might as well make King John as leader of England for Charles is just as good of a leader as John.

John wasn't great, but he was a much better leader than Charles I (or Charles II). NB John may have died in the midst of an uprising, but he nevertheless died with the crown on his head and his head attached to his shoulders.

 

[Phrozen]

John wasn't great, but he was a much better leader than Charles I (or Charles II). NB John may have died in the midst of an uprising, but he nevertheless died with the crown on his head and his head attached to his shoulders.

And William the Marshal would be an even better choice for Angevin Empire era England outside of Henry II, would speak Angevin French or Latin, of course.

 

[Jkchart]

If we really want a male leader for England (and not Anglo-Saxon), there's always the option of Edward III, who stabilized the realm after his father was executed, consolidated his holdings in France, the government was developed significantly during his realm, and managed to press his claim on France (even though he ultimately was unsuccessful, and kicked off the Hundred Years' War). He was also widely popular during his reign and modern historians have also rehabilitated the view on him, and lots was accomplished during his 50 year reign. He's also got a big personality - very tempermental but also able to easily forgive and show restraint when required. He'd be an interesting choice.