More Alternate Leaders?

[Patine]

Sure, but again, that's not my point. My point is that in Civ, African civs from north and south are almost always treated as part of the same group in terms of distribution throughout ages (ancient vis-a-vis modern) and in terms of numbers (vis-a-vis, say, Asia).

To quote, this is what I said before:


Zaarin then said:


He added the clarifying term "(south of the Sahara)". But my original point wasn't about African leaders south of the Sahara. My point was about "African leaders". As Egypt, etc. are geographically in Africa, Egyptian, Moroccan, etc leaders still fit within "African leaders" as per my original post.

Raw geography over cultural distribution is why we got landed with Australia in the first place (which I happen to agree with @Zaarin that they shouldn't have been included as their own civ).

 

[Morningcalm]

Raw geography over cultural distribution is why we got landed with Australia in the first place (which I happen to agree with @Zaarin that they shouldn't have been included as their own civ).

I don't see how that's exactly responsive to my point--that my original statement was as to African leaders, and not some statement about cultural diversity vis-a-vis geographic distribution as such. I simply said that many African leaders in Civ had come from ancient and pre-modern times. And no one contested that, except somewhat Zaarin as to sub-Saharan African leaders (which isn't even disagreeing with my original point as such, but reframing it).

And as I already said, I agree Australia shouldn't have been in the game, but I think Curtin was a good leader to pick (this is me trying to get us back on topic as to Alternate Leaders).

 

[Zaarin]

In cultural spheres of development and archaeology, North Africa is, and always has been, in the same metacultural sphere as the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa has always, more or less, been separate from it, and, in fact has three to five (depending on whom you ask) metacultural spheres of it's own.

I agree. Lumping North Africa in with Sub-Saharan Africa is unproductive.

He added the clarifying term "(south of the Sahara)". But my original point wasn't about African leaders south of the Sahara. My point was about "African leaders". As Egypt, etc. are geographically in Africa, Egyptian, Moroccan, etc leaders still fit within "African leaders" as per my original post.

...Yeeeees, but calling Cleopatra an "African" leader is somewhat like calling Saladin an "Asian" leader. It's technically true, but it's also not what most people mean by either term. I mean, sure, Kurds are from the continent of Asia, but the Middle East is generally regarded as its own region without even getting into the fact that a lot of Westerners use "Asia" as short-hand for the Sinosphere.

And as I already said, I agree Australia shouldn't have been in the game, but I think Curtin was a good leader to pick (this is me trying to get us back on topic as to Alternate Leaders).

I don't know enough about Australian politics to say who should have been chosen for Australia if they must be included. I just personally find Curtin's in-game depiction somewhere between bland and off-putting, quite aside from my dispreference for Australia as a civ. Granted I've only seen him in two games and we had hostile relations in both of them--apparently when you download a new DLC (Persia/Macedon then R&F) the game automatically enables all of your DLC, so I had to go disable Australia again. If only there were a way to disable Alexander without disabling Cyrus...

On the subject of alternate leaders and Cyrus, I'd love to see a Sassanid like Shappur II or Khosrow II. I know some people would like to see Persia pushed even further forward with a Safavid, but personally I'd prefer to see Persia kept pre-Islamic while still advancing it in the timeline a bit past being a perpetual Achaemenid kingdom (without denying that there is indeed cultural continuity even after Persia switched religions, unlike, say, Egypt). Another advantage of either of the Sassanid kings I mentioned is that they'd make great builder leaders, letting Persia double down on its culture bonuses, which Cyrus doesn't synergize very well with.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

He added the clarifying term "(south of the Sahara)". But my original point wasn't about African leaders south of the Sahara. My point was about "African leaders". As Egypt, etc. are geographically in Africa, Egyptian, Moroccan, etc leaders still fit within "African leaders" as per my original post.

...Yeeeees, but calling Cleopatra an "African" leader is somewhat like calling Saladin an "Asian" leader. It's technically true, but it's also not what most people mean by either term. I mean, sure, Kurds are from the continent of Asia, but the Middle East is generally regarded as its own region without even getting into the fact that a lot of Westerners use "Asia" as short-hand for the Sinosphere.

Well technically you could also call Saladin a medieval "African" leader too, as his capital is Cairo, in modern day Egypt.

 

[Zaarin]

Well technically you could also call Saladin a medieval "African" leader too, as his capital is Cairo, in modern day Egypt.

 

[darkace77450]

Her ability sucks tho, but i mean, the solution for that is to buff the damn ability, not spend precious resources and time on a brand new leader, so to placate to the fanboys. (the existence of Macedon and NukeGandhi is enough of a fanwank.)

If you and I both agree that her ability is lackluster then why does your post have such an aggressive tone?

 

[Morningcalm]

I agree. Lumping North Africa in with Sub-Saharan Africa is unproductive.

Take that up with the planet Earth.

...Yeeeees, but calling Cleopatra an "African" leader is somewhat like calling Saladin an "Asian" leader. It's technically true, but it's also not what most people mean by either term. I mean, sure, Kurds are from the continent of Asia, but the Middle East is generally regarded as its own region without even getting into the fact that a lot of Westerners use "Asia" as short-hand for the Sinosphere.

Well, Cleopatra certainly isn't an "Asian" leader, that's for sure. But I think Cleopatra can properly be called an African leader and Saladin a Near Eastern leader.

I don't know enough about Australian politics to say who should have been chosen for Australia if they must be included. I just personally find Curtin's in-game depiction somewhere between bland and off-putting, quite aside from my dispreference for Australia as a civ. Granted I've only seen him in two games and we had hostile relations in both of them--apparently when you download a new DLC (Persia/Macedon then R&F) the game automatically enables all of your DLC, so I had to go disable Australia again. If only there were a way to disable Alexander without disabling Cyrus...

Curtin is by far one of the best choices for Australia. I really don't think Curtin is bland or off-putting, so we'll have to agree to disagree. He's one of the only Civ VI leaders I never get bored of seeing, and his voice work is absolutely excellent, and historically true to Curtin's speechmaking patterns.

 

[Zaarin]

Take that up with the planet Earth.

Earth agrees with me. The Sahara is a major barrier. Geographical descriptors are hardly helpful when discussing culture zones, especially if using plate tectonics as the basis for the definition (I mean, is it at all useful to consider Japanese as North American? It's even of dubious value to consider Chukotko-Kamchatkan or Yukaghir, which are in Siberia on the North American plate but neither has been adequately demonstrated to have any relation to Na-Dene or Eskimo-Aleut. How about the Salishan and other PNW languages on the San Juan de Fuca plate? Meanwhile, other definitions of "continent" are arbitrary and therefore still less than useful.)

Well, Cleopatra certainly isn't an "Asian" leader, that's for sure. But I think Cleopatra can properly be called an African leader and Saladin a Near Eastern leader.

Except Egypt is in the Near East, which makes Cleopatra also a Near Eastern leader. (In general I find the older concept of the "Near East," which is usually taken to include North Africa, the Caucasus, and parts of Central Asia, more useful as a culture zone than the "Middle East," which includes Egypt and Sudan but excludes obviously related cultures in Greater Persia like Tajikistan or the rest of North Africa.)

 

[Patine]

It's even of dubious value to consider Chukotko-Kamchatkan or Yukaghir, which are in Siberia on the North American plate but neither has been adequately demonstrated to have any relation to Na-Dene or Eskimo-Aleut.

I hate to be pedantic, but the Inuit originally migrated from Chukotka to Alaska, Northern Canada, and Greenland, THOUSANDS of years after the original migration across the erstwhile landbridge when the prehistoric descendants of the Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere crossed over, and their are STILL some Inuit of a cultural subset in Chukotka, on the very eastern tip of Siberia, near the settlement of Providenskya. I'm not sure what more of a relation you need there. However, admittedly, the theory of speakers of Yenysean languages being directly related to speakers of Na-Dene is ONLY substantiated by uncanny similarity in the grammar and syntax of those two language families.

 

[Zaarin]

I hate to be pedantic, but the Inuit originally migrated from Chukotka to Alaska, Northern Canada, and Greenland, THOUSANDS of years after the original migration across the erstwhile landbridge when the prehistoric descendants of the Indigenous Peoples of the Western Hemisphere crossed over, and their are STILL some Inuit of a cultural subset in Chukotka, on the very eastern tip of Siberia, near the settlement of Providenskya. I'm not sure what more of a relation you need there.

1) Absolutely no satisfactory demonstration of a relationship between Eskimo-Aleut and Chukotko-Kamchatkan exists. 2) The Siberian Yup'ik are backwards immigrants (i.e., they moved back across the Bering Strait from Alaska; they are not a remainder of the Eskimo-Aleut population that remained in Siberia). 3) The original homeland of the Proto-Eskimo-Aleut peoples is unknown and, barring some astonishing linguistic discovery, probably unknowable. They obviously had to pass through Kamchatka, but that doesn't make them Chukotko-Kamchatkan any more than the white population of New York is Iroquois or the Turks in Turkey are Hittite. Also, again, the Yukaghir also live in Kamchatka, but virtually all linguists agree that there is no relationship between Yukaghir and Chukotko-Kamchatkan (they were once lumped together based on geography, as Haida was with Na-Dene).

However, admittedly, the theory of speakers of Yenysean languages being directly related to speakers of Na-Dene is ONLY substantiated by uncanny similarity in the grammar and syntax of those two language families.

I disagree. Dene-Yeniseian is promising and to date the only even vaguely substantiated claim for relationship between an Old World and New World language family. Granted it still needs a lot more work, but I'd call it "promising"--as opposed to nonsensical theories like Eskimo-Uralic, Dene-Dravidian, Eskimo-Chukotko-Kamchatkan, or Eskimo-Yukaghir, all of which rest on much slimmer evidence IMO. Dene-Yeniseian is at least worth exploring, unlike any theory proposed so far involving Eskimo-Aleut.

 

[Patine]

1) Absolutely no satisfactory demonstration of a relationship between Eskimo-Aleut and Chukotko-Kamchatkan exists. 2) The Siberian Yup'ik are backwards immigrants (i.e., they moved back across the Bering Strait from Alaska; they are not a remainder of the Eskimo-Aleut population that remained in Siberia). 3) The original homeland of the Proto-Eskimo-Aleut peoples is unknown and, barring some astonishing linguistic discovery, probably unknowable. They obviously had to pass through Kamchatka, but that doesn't make them Chukotko-Kamchatkan any more than the white population of New York is Iroquois or the Turks in Turkey are Hittite. Also, again, the Yukaghir also live in Kamchatka, but virtually all linguists agree that there is no relationship between Yukaghir and Chukotko-Kamchatkan (they were once lumped together based on geography, as Haida was with Na-Dene).


I disagree. Dene-Yeniseian is promising and to date the only even vaguely substantiated claim for relationship between an Old World and New World language family. Granted it still needs a lot more work, but I'd call it "promising"--as opposed to nonsensical theories like Eskimo-Uralic, Dene-Dravidian, Eskimo-Chukotko-Kamchatkan, or Eskimo-Yukaghir, all of which rest on much slimmer evidence IMO. Dene-Yeniseian is at least worth exploring, unlike any theory proposed so far involving Eskimo-Aleut.

An actual ethnic Inuit who used to work the graveyard shift at a local convenience store in my home city of Edmonton, Alberta where I got late night snacks because nothing else was open nearby, who came down here looking for work (because there's barely any work in Nunavut) said differently about his people's history, as far as he had long been told. Albeit, oral history is obviously more subject to distortion, bias, manipulation, and mythologization over the generations than written history, but how many Inuit do YOU know personally and have spoken to about their history?

 

[Zaarin]

An actual ethnic Inuit who used to work the graveyard shift at a local convenience store in my home city of Edmonton, Alberta where I got late night snacks because nothing else was open nearby, who came down here looking for work (because there's barely any work in Nunavut) said differently about his people's history, as far as he had long been told. Albeit, oral history is obviously more subject to distortion, bias, manipulation, and mythologization over the generations than written history, but how many Inuit do YOU know personally and have spoken to about their history?

Many Native Americans are outraged by the suggestion that they originated in Asia, but I'm not sure what that has to do with a scientific discussion of their origins. I'm not disputing that oral histories have value: the Inuit have oral tales about the Paleo-Eskimo, for instance, who are archaeologically attested (and maaaay have been Na-Dene or may have been para-Na-Dene or may have been some other Siberian group). But it's genetically demonstrable that the Inuit originate in Siberia; it's simply not linguistically demonstrable.

In what sense did the Inuit's oral history differ, though? To my knowledge, unlike the bulk of the Amerindians and Na-Dene who largely believe themselves autochthonous, my impression is that the Inuit are aware that they are invaders and have oral histories about their west to east conquest of the Holoarctic.

 

[Patine]

Many Native Americans are outraged by the suggestion that they originated in Asia, but I'm not sure what that has to do with a scientific discussion of their origins. I'm not disputing that oral histories have value: the Inuit have oral tales about the Paleo-Eskimo, for instance, who are archaeologically attested (and maaaay have been Na-Dene or may have been para-Na-Dene or may have been some other Siberian group). But it's genetically demonstrable that the Inuit originate in Siberia; it's simply not linguistically demonstrable.

In what sense did the Inuit's oral history differ, though? To my knowledge, unlike the bulk of the Amerindians and Na-Dene who largely believe themselves autochthonous, my impression is that the Inuit are aware that they are invaders and have oral histories about their west to east conquest of the Holoarctic.

They do indeed consider themselves a completely separate people entirely from the First Nations/Native Americans to the south of them, who I was told (without specifics) they had just as nasty words of reference as the word "Eskimo," which was originally a racist slur for the Inuit coined by their enemies, the Na-Dene ethnicity, the Gwi'chiin, in modern Northern Yukon and Northeastern Alaska, and they reference a group who probably refer to the "Dorset civilization," whom they call "idiotic giants with no weapons whom you just made loud noises and they ran away," and they seem to imply penetrating as far west into Siberia as, by some references and theories, Lake Baikal.

 

[Zaarin]

They do indeed consider themselves a completely separate people entirely from the First Nations/Native Americans to the south of them, who I was told (without specifics) they had just as nasty words of reference as the word "Eskimo," which was originally a racist slur for the Inuit coined by their enemies, the Na-Dene ethnicity, the Gwi'chiin, in modern Northern Yukon and Northeastern Alaska, and they reference a group who probably refer to the "Dorset civilization," whom they call "idiotic giants with no weapons whom you just made loud noises and they ran away," and they seem to imply penetrating as far west into Siberia as, by some references and theories, Lake Baikal.

People do love their "affectionate" nicknames for foreigners. The Tlingit term for the Athabaskans roughly translates to "those backwoods rednecks from the interior." Their names for the Aleuts and Inuit, who are their traditional enemies, are probably unfit for a family-friendly board.

 

[Patine]

People do love their "affectionate" nicknames for foreigners. The Tlingit term for the Athabaskans roughly translates to "those backwoods rednecks from the interior." Their names for the Aleuts and Inuit, who are their traditional enemies, are probably unfit for a family-friendly board.

Strangely, the Japanese highly vicious, xenophobic, racist, self-righteous, and supremacist slur "Gaijin" is now ridiculously romanticized in Western fandom and almost a badge of pride of young White rabid fans of Japanese entertainment and culture...

 

[Morningcalm]

Earth agrees with me. The Sahara is a major barrier. Geographical descriptors are hardly helpful when discussing culture zones, especially if using plate tectonics as the basis for the definition (I mean, is it at all useful to consider Japanese as North American? It's even of dubious value to consider Chukotko-Kamchatkan or Yukaghir, which are in Siberia on the North American plate but neither has been adequately demonstrated to have any relation to Na-Dene or Eskimo-Aleut. How about the Salishan and other PNW languages on the San Juan de Fuca plate? Meanwhile, other definitions of "continent" are arbitrary and therefore still less than useful.)

Except Egypt is in the Near East, which makes Cleopatra also a Near Eastern leader. (In general I find the older concept of the "Near East," which is usually taken to include North Africa, the Caucasus, and parts of Central Asia, more useful as a culture zone than the "Middle East," which includes Egypt and Sudan but excludes obviously related cultures in Greater Persia like Tajikistan or the rest of North Africa.)

The Sahara doesn't divide Egypt from its neighbors as such; the Nile links Nubia and Egypt, both are in the game and culturally similar even if Egypt can be more readily considered Near Eastern. And I would say it's dubious to consider Nubia Near Eastern even if you classify Egypt that way. Again, my original point said nothing about culture and simply pointed out that historically, Civ's distribution (based on continents) has always been to count Egypt as African. We can argue all day long about how continental or cultural distribution should be, but the fact is, Civ's overall distribution is continent based, not culture based.

It seems silly to even consider a Civ that would arbitrarily do civilization distribution based on tectonic plates. Civs in a continent, however, can have affinity while also being different (Egypt and Nubia being key examples of such African civs). And the debate as to whether Egyptians are African or Arabian rages on in the modern day, so I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

And we are now way, way off topic. There hasn't been discussion of alternate leaders in many posts.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I think I can help bring us back on topic.

On the subject of alternate leaders and Cyrus, I'd love to see a Sassanid like Shappur II or Khosrow II. I know some people would like to see Persia pushed even further forward with a Safavid, but personally I'd prefer to see Persia kept pre-Islamic while still advancing it in the timeline a bit past being a perpetual Achaemenid kingdom

Definitely agreed with keeping Persia pre-Islamic. Chances are we'll get at least a couple of Islamic leaders and I don't see many opportunities to add Zoroastrian leaders. Shappur II and Khosrow II both look like great choices but I think I'd still prefer Khosrow I for Persia's alt leader and he could easily have building bonuses too. Is there anything I should know about them that makes them more tempting as leaders or is it just a matter of personal preference?

Don't be so hasty to say that--Egyptian history is full of some truly dreadful leaders! Or modern ones, like Nasser. Though I doubt Firaxis would put him in the main game any time soon.

You've got me curious about these dreadful leaders! Most of the sources I've seen online say Akhenaten (who wouldn't be my pick for Egypt's alt leader but he would be a fascinating choice) was the worst but I'd like to know who else did just as bad or possibly worse at ruling ancient Egypt.

 

[Patine]

I think I can help bring us back on topic.



Definitely agreed with keeping Persia pre-Islamic.

I'm afraid I don't really agree with this stated parameter. The Sassanids were a cool civilization, and should have leaders on the table as considerations, certainly - but I wouldn't artificially declare a ban on considering several notable Safavid, Zengrid, or even early Qajar leaders (admittedly, Persia's history began to go downhill sharply when the Pahlavis took power in 1925).

 

[Zaarin]

Definitely agreed with keeping Persia pre-Islamic. Chances are we'll get at least a couple of Islamic leaders and I don't see many opportunities to add Zoroastrian leaders. Shappur II and Khosrow II both look like great choices but I think I'd still prefer Khosrow I for Persia's alt leader and he could easily have building bonuses too. Is there anything I should know about them that makes them more tempting as leaders or is it just a matter of personal preference?

Khosrow II was a typo (though not at all a bad option); I meant Khosrow I. While I think any of the three would be fine choices and could easily have cultural bonuses, Shappur II seems to me the best fit. Khosrow II does feature in the Shahnemah, but Firaxis prefers more recent cultural references.

You've got me curious about these dreadful leaders! Most of the sources I've seen online say Akhenaten (who wouldn't be my pick for Egypt's alt leader but he would be a fascinating choice) was the worst but I'd like to know who else did just as bad or possibly worse at ruling ancient Egypt.

I have to protest. Akhenaten's reign ended disastrously, but he wasn't a horrible ruler in his life time. He effected a radical culture change in one of the most conservative cultures in human history, presided (and spearheaded) a cultural renaissance, he broke the power of the priestly bureaucracy (for a time), and enacted social reforms. Later in his reign he suffered from ill health and depression (possibly the result of the death of Nefertiti, who disappears from the records around that time, but who has also been proposed as the identity of the definitely female pharaoh who briefly succeeded Akhenaten prior to Tutankhamun, Neferneferuaten, though Meritaten/Meritamun and others have been proposed as well), resulting in bankrupting the royal treasury and watching his reforms crash down around him. So in terms of legacy, Akhenaten was ineffective, but I think it's a little unfair to call him a bad ruler considering what he did accomplish earlier in his reign. I think it's somewhat unfortunate that a lot of Akhenaten's pop culture capital comes from Atenism, which was important to his reign but most certainly was not the world's first monotheistic religion--chiefly because it wasn't monotheistic but henotheistic, which was the cultural norm throughout the Near East outside of Egypt (and was probably the case in pre-Dynastic Egypt as well: the later state of Egyptian religion probably represents a synthesis of regional pantheons when Upper and Lower Egypt were unified). NB I'm not arguing that Akhenaten was a great leader. His reign absolutely ended in disaster and brought a grim conclusion to a glorious dynasty (he was succeeded by a few completely unremarkable pharaohs who represented a return to status quo but were virtually powerless in the face of the resurgence of the priests of Amun). I'm just saying that judging him as "horrible" or "Egypt's worst pharaoh" is far harsher than he deserves in light of the accomplishments earlier in his reign.

I'm afraid I don't really agree with this stated parameter. The Sassanids were a cool civilization, and should have leaders on the table as considerations, certainly - but I wouldn't artificially declare a ban on considering several notable Safavid, Zengrid, or even early Qajar leaders

The problem is exactly as TahamiTsunami stated, though: there are a lot of other Islamic civs to choose from, but not so many Zoroastrian civs (maybe Sogdia, but a Sogdian leader would be more likely to be Buddhist). Speaking for myself, it's neither slighting the accomplishments of the later Persians nor denying the cultural continuity of Persia; it's rather preferring a greater diversity in the potential favored religions (as the game stands we're swimming in Christians and Buddhists, and there's a lot of potential Islamic civs like the Ottomans, Mali, Morocco, etc. that could join the roster). But aside from that consideration, I'd have no problem with Safavids etc. being represented as alternate leaders of Persia.

(admittedly, Persia's history began to go downhill sharply when the Pahlavis took power in 1925).

I've always had a certain admiration for Reza Shah. He wasn't perfect, he made plenty of mistakes, and enacted plenty of poor policies, but he also tried to modernize the nation and unify its disparate religions (I recall reading he described Zoroastrians and Persian Christians as a national heritage). He was certainly preferable to the regime that succeeded him, at any rate. (He's too recent to be a Civ leader, though, nor do I care for such recent leaders in game anyway.)

 

[Patine]

The problem is exactly as TahamiTsunami stated, though: there are a lot of other Islamic civs to choose from, but not so many Zoroastrian civs (maybe Sogdia, but a Sogdian leader would be more likely to be Buddhist). Speaking for myself, it's neither slighting the accomplishments of the later Persians nor denying the cultural continuity of Persia; it's rather preferring a greater diversity in the potential favored religions (as the game stands we're swimming in Christians and Buddhists, and there's a lot of potential Islamic civs like the Ottomans, Mali, Morocco, etc. that could join the roster). But aside from that consideration, I'd have no problem with Safavids etc. being represented as alternate leaders of Persia.

The problem with this argument is that, as the three biggest universalist, proselytizing religions of any great success (along with, for a while, Manichaeism), the reason "we're swimming in Christians and Buddhists, and there's a lot of potential Islamic civs," is because of the previously mentioned fact of these three religions, compared to the VAST majority of other religions that exist or have existed in the world, which are usually very parochial in their world view and strongly tied to a specific region, people, and/or nation, and having a real ringer they put prospective converts through, if they take converts at all.