More Alternate Leaders?

[Zaarin]

With medieval Europe I consider the medieval European countries to be those under the control of the Roman Church and being part of Christendom.

Then where exactly do the pagan Norse, Anglo-Saxons, Irish, and Balts, Arian Franks and Visigoths, and Orthodox Slavs and Hungarians fit into this scheme? Western Asia? Short version: you're wrong. Europe is a geographic region--its eastern borders are nebulous and its southeastern borders are ill-defined, but the Balkans, Slavic Eastern Europe, the Baltic coast, Scandinavia, the British Isles, France, and the Italian and Iberian Peninsulas are clearly a part of it. Meanwhile, the Middle Ages are a period arbitrarily defined as spanning the millennium from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1500. So during that period there were in fact Christians of at least three different sects (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Arian Christians), Muslims, Jews, and several varieties of pagans inhabiting Europe, to say nothing of a variety of heresies like Catharism. Europe is not just its Romance, Germanic, and Celtic inhabitants.

I always thought that the Byzantine empire was a rival to the western church with its own Orthodox Church, beliefs, culture, and heads of authority.

Yes and no. The history of the relationship between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church is complicated, and, unlike the Oriental Orthodox Churches, there wasn't a complete split between the two until the High Middle Ages. Even after the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other, there were occasional peace feelers from one side or the other. Also NB that the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs acknowledged the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) as "the first among equals" but not the head of the Church. So again, there was rivalry but also sometimes cooperation. Recall that the First Crusade was instigated when the Patriarch of Constantinople sent out a plea for help to the Pope (it didn't turn out as he planned), as was the Fourth (which really didn't turn out as he planned and was essentially the final breach between the two). Also NB that the Eastern Orthodox Church was (and is) less centralized than the Church of Rome. That's why you have one Pope but many Eastern Orthodox patriarchs with their own autocephalous churches (Greek Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.) but common theology. Same situation among the Oriental Orthodox, albeit the Coptic Church has a pope (who, again, is the first among equals as the Patriarch of Alexandria, taking the place of Rome after the Council of Chalcedon, which the Oriental Orthodox churches rejected as invalid).

And with their geographical location (of the empire overall) they seem to not be completely European and not completely middle eastern but something in between. This is why I think the inclusion of the Byzantines could be really cool as the civ would be a hybrid of European and Asian influences. This could be shown in the leaders clothing, the music and the unit and city design.

I mean, yes, the Byzantines were influenced by the Middle East...as was Classical Rome or Medieval Spain (al-Andalus, anyone?) or Victorian England, but that doesn't make them less European. They wore silk because they smuggled silk worms out of China, for instance, and their chanting sounds Middle Eastern because Christian chant has its roots in Judaism and was then further influenced by Syriac religious music (and this applies to Western Christianity as well). And much of the Middle Eastern influence in the region comes from six centuries of Ottoman rule. So yes, sure, they have some Middle Eastern influences to their culture--no culture can be wholly uninfluenced by its neighbors--but thinking that makes them not European is to take a very narrow view of Europe and suggests that Spain, Rome, Greece, and England are also Asian civs--they were no less influenced by Asia than the Byzantines, after all. (Spain by al-Andalus, Rome and Greece by the Middle East [Aphrodite is a Semitic goddess, Poseidon might be Berber, Hermes got syncretized with Egyptian Thoth, etc.], England by India and China.)

It would also be really interesting to have them on the real world map as their location would allow them to benefit from several trade routes and militarily control access between the two continents.

Which was both their strength and their ultimate downfall, but also has nothing really to do with whether they're European. (And if it sounds like I'm arguing against including the Byzantines, I'm not. Despite being sick of just how many Greek civilizations we have in the game I really do consider Byzantium essential and really wish I could jettison Alexander, Cleopatra, and Gorgo in their favor. I'm merely pointing out that culturally, religiously, historically, geographically, Byzantium was definitely European.)

 

[Stomper66]

That post was the short version? I know that Anglo Saxon, Nordic, Celtic and Frankish people had their own Pagan religions or rival Christian churches but eventually all these civilisations either converted to Christianity or became part of the Roman church in the Middle Ages, so they were all considered part of Christendom in this era. And the reason I'm going on about the western church so much is because they would play a huge role in establishing European laws, culture and identity throughout the Middle Ages. Every European king was answerable to Rome and the Pope in this era but the Byzantine emperors were independent from this hierarchy.

If you want to really win this I'll tell you that you're right and I'm wrong and the Byzantines were a solid European civilisation, but the reality was that Constantinople (even though it is considered a European city) was known as the gateway between two continents and at its height half the Byzantine empire consisted of Greece, parts and Italy and the Balkans whilst the other half contained Asia Minor and parts of the Middle East, with traders, scholars, generals and emperors coming from Europe and Asia.

Russia is quite similar to the Byzantine empire in that it is another Orthodox country with a capital located in Europe but also expands into Asia. Do you also consider the Russians and all those people inhabiting Siberia as solidly European as well?

 

[AmazonQueen]

That post was the short version? I know that Anglo Saxon, Nordic, Celtic and Frankish people had their own Pagan religions or rival Christian churches but eventually all these civilisations either converted to Christianity or became part of the Roman church in the Middle Ages, so they were all considered part of Christendom in this era. And the reason I'm going on about the western church so much is because they would play a huge role in establishing European laws, culture and identity throughout the Middle Ages. Every European king was answerable to Rome and the Pope in this era but the Byzantine emperors were independent from this hierarchy.

If you want to really win this I'll tell you that you're right and I'm wrong and the Byzantines were a solid European civilisation, but the reality was that Constantinople (even though it is considered a European city) was known as the gateway between two continents and at its height half the Byzantine empire consisted of Greece, parts and Italy and the Balkans whilst the other half contained Asia Minor and parts of the Middle East, with traders, scholars, generals and emperors coming from Europe and Asia.

Russia is quite similar to the Byzantine empire in that it is another Orthodox country with a capital located in Europe but also expands into Asia. Do you also consider the Russians and all those people inhabiting Siberia as solidly European as well?

Both Russia and the Byzantine Empire were large empires ruling over people of many different cultures but their ruling elite and dominant culture was predominantly European and Christian.
Still, European or not, I find this pretty irrelevant to their inclusion in Civ, which should be based on their status as civs that were extremely important and long-lasting.

 

[Zaarin]

but eventually all these civilisations either converted to Christianity

Eventually, sure, but the Middle Ages had been going for 700 years before the Norse converted, 900 before the Balts converted.

Every European king was answerable to Rome and the Pope in this era

The tsars of Russia and the kings of Bulgaria and other Slavic kingdoms in Eastern Europe would disagree.

If you want to really win this I'll tell you that you're right and I'm wrong and the Byzantines were a solid European civilisation

Sorry if I'm coming off as argumentative. That's not my intent. I know I have a tendency to come on strong...

at its height half the Byzantine empire consisted of Greece, parts and Italy and the Balkans whilst the other half contained Asia Minor and parts of the Middle East

At its height the British Empire included India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Hong Kong and other Chinese ports, Australia, New Zealand, various New World holdings, and significant holdings in Africa, but I don't think anyone would argue the British Empire is anything but European. Yes, Byzantium had holdings in Asia, but their leadership was European, their language was European, their religion was European.

Do you also consider the Russians and all those people inhabiting Siberia as solidly European as well?

Considering that 70-80% of Russians live in European Russia, all of Russia's major cities are in Europe, and the government and leadership have for the most part been ethnic Russian (Stalin was Georgian, there are some questions apparently about Lenin's ethnic identity though he self-identified as Russian), yes, of course Russia is European.

Still, European or not, I find this pretty irrelevant to their inclusion in Civ, which should be based on their status as civs that were extremely important and long-lasting.

100% agreed.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Thought I'd comment on this and state my top choices as well even though my signature will make my thoughts pretty obvious.

1. Egypt - Senusret III is my #1 choice for them. The other mentioned choices like Djoser or Rameses II would be good too but its hard to top someone with the accomplishments Morningcalm mentioned and if Cleo loves large armies then she and Senusret will get along just fine!

2. China - Kangxi is a great leader with plenty of possibilities for bonuses on science, putting down rebellions, etc. Taizong would be another good choice.

3. France - Louis XIV because a game with a focus on personalities should definitely include someone called the Sun King!

4. Persia - Khosrow I for a popular Persian leader from a different era who is known for his interest in literature and philosophy, a rational system of taxation, the discipline of his army, etc.

If we are luckily able to get more alt leaders after that, then I'd like to see England (Elizabeth I), Mongolia (Mandukhai), Germany (Otto von Bismarck), and Russia (Vladimir the Great, Catherine the Great, or even Ivan the Terrible or Olga) get them too. Depending on its official civ design, I'd like to see the Maya get an alt leader as well at least so I don't have to choose between Yuknoom or Wak Chanil Ajaw aka Lady Six Sky.


I've heard of the arguments for and against having a Byzantine Emperor/Empress being the alt leader for Rome and I can understand the reasoning on both sides. I have a feeling that most of us could be somewhat forgiving of a Byzantine alt leader for Rome as long as that leader had a pretty hefty ability and their own UU like the dromon. However, doing so would mean adding heavily to the Roman city list with more Byzantine cities including Byzantium/Constantinople itself and I don't know if there's any precedent for that in the civ series to alter their city list like that?

Also, what do you guys think of giving a civ 2 alt leaders for 3 leaders total? Would you like to see a Mughal emperor get added as a 3rd Indian leader (if you don't want to see the Mughals be their own civ) or have Napoleon join Louis XIV as another French alt leader?

 

[Phrozen]

Wouldn't most Byzantine cities be Greek as opposed to most of Rome's cities being Italian? Greece, Egypt, and the Levant were the Byzantine power base and population centers.

No Napoleon. If you want a warring French leader then take Philip Augustus.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've heard of the arguments for and against having a Byzantine Emperor/Empress being the alt leader for Rome and I can understand the reasoning on both sides. I have a feeling that most of us could be somewhat forgiving of a Byzantine alt leader for Rome as long as that leader had a pretty hefty ability and their own UU like the dromon. However, doing so would mean adding heavily to the Roman city list with more Byzantine cities including Byzantium/Constantinople itself and I don't know if there's any precedent for that in the civ series to alter their city list like that?

The only known alteration I can think of is they took off Granada from Spain's city list to make it a city-state, but no re-working that big has taken place and makes it unlikely that a Byzantine ruler would make a good alt leader for Rome. Besides the "All Roads lead to Rome" ability doesn't make much sense either especially if your capital would be Constantinople.

 

[Zaarin]

I've heard of the arguments for and against having a Byzantine Emperor/Empress being the alt leader for Rome and I can understand the reasoning on both sides. I have a feeling that most of us could be somewhat forgiving of a Byzantine alt leader for Rome as long as that leader had a pretty hefty ability and their own UU like the dromon. However, doing so would mean adding heavily to the Roman city list with more Byzantine cities including Byzantium/Constantinople itself and I don't know if there's any precedent for that in the civ series to alter their city list like that?

I'm pretty strongly opposed to the idea. Byzantium was as much Greece as it was Rome, and it's best represented by its own civilization. If Australia can be its own civ...

No Napoleon. If you want a warring French leader then take Philip Augustus.

100% this. Napoleon is overplayed. Philippe Auguste would be a fantastic addition. Plus he's already contemporary or near contemporary with half the game's leaders.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm pretty strongly opposed to the idea. Byzantium was as much Greece as it was Rome, and it's best represented by its own civilization. If Australia can be its own civ...

If Macedon is it's own thing, Byzantium definitely should be.

What about a French King from the Hundred Years War? Any interesting choices from that period?

 

[Zaarin]

What about a French King from the Hundred Years War? Any interesting choices from that period?

Charles VII! To be fair, despite a bad start, he wasn't a bad king--he just kind of got upstaged by a teenage French peasant girl with a mission from God. The Hundred Years' War was kind of a dark age for France; probably not the best era from which to select its leader.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

The only known alteration I can think of is they took off Granada from Spain's city list to make it a city-state, but no re-working that big has taken place and makes it unlikely that a Byzantine ruler would make a good alt leader for Rome. Besides the "All Roads lead to Rome" ability doesn't make much sense either especially if your capital would be Constantinople.

To be fair, Byzantine lands still had plenty of Roman roads, baths, and even the legions early on in its history. However, I do agree that it seems much more likely and preferable for the Byzantines to be their own thing again with the info you provided about a lack of a big city list re-work not to mention how others have made good points about Macedon and Australia being their own thing too.

No Napoleon. If you want a warring French leader then take Philip Augustus.

100% this. Napoleon is overplayed. Philippe Auguste would be a fantastic addition.

I'll admit that Napoleon would a good choice in my book due to his accomplishments and personality but you guys do have me curious about Philip Augustus now, he sounds cool so far. Regardless, it does have my thinking more about civs with 3 leaders. If we ever did get them, I'd personally only want that after quite a bit a time has passed and we've gotten most of the classic and numerous brand new civs.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

Charles VII! To be fair, despite a bad start, he wasn't a bad king--he just kind of got upstaged by a teenage French peasant girl with a mission from God. The Hundred Years' War was kind of a dark age for France; probably not the best era from which to select its leader.

Charles V was in my opinion the best French monarch of the hundred years war period. Another good option from the hundred years war era from France, besides Joan of Arc, is Yolande of Aragon.

 

[Phrozen]

I'll admit that Napoleon would a good choice in my book due to his accomplishments and personality but you guys do have me curious about Philip Augustus now, he sounds cool so far. Regardless, it does have my thinking more about civs with 3 leaders. If we ever did get them, I'd personally only want that after quite a bit a time has passed and we've gotten most of the classic and numerous brand new civs.

When Philip was crowned, the French Monarch was one of the weakest in Europe. It was way overshadowed by its vassals particularly Henry II the king of England and holder of a vast amount of lands in France including Normandy, Anjou, Brittany, and Gascony. By the end of Philips reign English holdings in France were vastly diminished and the French crown was one of the most powerful in Europe. He has a big personality as one of the few descriptions of his personality we have claims that he 'took pleasure in provoking discord among (powerful men who resisted him)' ie his powerful vassals and had martial issues because his 2nd Queen had bad breath, no seriously this caused major religious and international issues.

Along the way he went on Crusade, chartered the University of Paris, paved the streets of Paris, continued construction on Notre Dame, built the central market of Paris, and built the original part of the Louvre.

 

[Zaarin]

Charles V was in my opinion the best French monarch of the hundred years war period. Another good option from the hundred years war era from France, besides Joan of Arc, is Yolande of Aragon.

One foreign queen mother is quite enough for one civ.

 

[Stomper66]

I've heard of the arguments for and against having a Byzantine Emperor/Empress being the alt leader for Rome and I can understand the reasoning on both sides. I have a feeling that most of us could be somewhat forgiving of a Byzantine alt leader for Rome as long as that leader had a pretty hefty ability and their own UU like the dromon. However, doing so would mean adding heavily to the Roman city list with more Byzantine cities including Byzantium/Constantinople itself and I don't know if there's any precedent for that in the civ series to alter their city list like that?

I'm pretty strongly opposed to the idea. Byzantium was as much Greece as it was Rome, and it's best represented by its own civilization. If Australia can be its own civ...

I agree Byzantium should be it's own civ not just an alternate leader for Rome. It has its own culture and history that is quite different from what most people associate with the Roman Empire eg time period, leaders etc.

3. France - Louis XIV because a game with a focus on personalities should definitely include someone called the Sun King!

He would definitely be fun but if he was included surely the Versailles wonder would have to be added as well. The Sun King is a cool name but the Red Eminence is just as good

100% this. Napoleon is overplayed. Philippe Auguste would be a fantastic addition. Plus he's already contemporary or near contemporary with half the game's leaders.

When Philip was crowned, the French Monarch was one of the weakest in Europe. It was way overshadowed by its vassals particularly Henry II the king of England and holder of a vast amount of lands in France including Normandy, Anjou, Brittany, and Gascony. By the end of Philips reign English holdings in France were vastly diminished and the French crown was one of the most powerful in Europe. He has a big personality as one of the few descriptions of his personality we have claims that he 'took pleasure in provoking discord among (powerful men who resisted him)' ie his powerful vassals and had martial issues because his 2nd Queen had bad breath, no seriously this caused major religious and international issues.

Along the way he went on Crusade, chartered the University of Paris, paved the streets of Paris, continued construction on Notre Dame, built the central market of Paris, and built the original part of the Louvre.

Yes definitely this guy! Medieval king, fought the English, fought in the Crusades, strengthened French power, built Notre Dame (another must for wonders) developed Paris, what is not to like? Does he have a cool nickname though thats a deal breaker for me.

Him taking pleasure in provoking discord among other leaders could be a really fun trait for the leader design. I'm also not a fan of having Napoleon. He is too modern for a European leader, he was in Civ5 already and he is a little bit one dimensional and boring for the game to be honest. I know the Napoleonic code that he established and his impact on European history is very important but other than that it just seems as though war is his only thing.

 

[Phrozen]

Yes definitely this guy! Medieval king, fought the English, fought in the Crusades, strengthened French power, built Notre Dame (another must for wonders) developed Paris, what is not to like? Does he have a cool nickname though thats a deal breaker for me.

Him taking pleasure in provoking discord among other leaders could be a really fun trait for the leader design. I'm also not a fan of having Napoleon. He is too modern for a European leader, he was in Civ5 already and he is a little bit one dimensional and boring for the game to be honest. I know the Napoleonic code that he established and his impact on European history is very important but other than that it just seems as though war is his only thing.

Augustus is his nickname. Technically he is Philip II of France but most people call him Philip Augustus or Philippe Auguste if using a more French spelling.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

As much as I still like Napoleon, I think Philip Augustus might be my choice for a 3rd French leader now! That info about him made it quite convincing.

 

[Stomper66]

What do people think of Wilhelmina? I really like the Netherlands as a civ but I think they could do with an alternate leader. Wilhelminas leader bonus isn't great (having ten trade routes nets you 10 culture) and she is very modern compared to other European leaders. Her animations are a bit ridiculous as well, especially when you declare war on her.

Rather than Mary Poppins I would like to see either William I the Silent or William III of Orange as leader. Since both these leaders were some of the main opponents to the Catholic church in Europe maybe a leader bonus that is focused on religion would be more appropriate. I know William the Silent was in Civ5 but like Genghis Khan I would make an exemption for a leader who was so important to the Civ that they led.

 

[Phrozen]

Leader bonus has to be weak, like Peter's, because the other parts of the Netherlands's bonuses are very strong.

 

[Stomper66]

The civ bonuses are strong but you can only use them effectively if you have access to rivers and tiles to build polders on, which can be quite tricky in most games. It doesn't have to be an amazing bonus just something more appropriate to the civ. Like Spain some small bonus that either helps or encourages the Netherlands leader to get a religion.