More Alternate Leaders?

[Patine]

I would go even further and say that the leaders so far are intended to represent different polities that players have been wanting to see in the game for years. The Greek and India splits were some of the most popular mods on V steam mods, and William the Conqueror (and Eleanor of Aquitaine, to only a slightly lesser degree) were also fairly popular.

Going off of that, as well as other indicators such as the German city list, the odd Russian choice of the lavra, the Rome uniques, and odd polities/leaders representing Arabia and Egypt, my guesses are thus:

* Germany - Arminius. There are a lot of popular German mods, but somehow Arminius is really, really high. Obviously Bismarck isn't a mod, but Arminius is more popular than some 99% of other civs, period. Mechanically, could be a cultural/defensive leader.

* Russia - Olga. Russia also has a lot of popular mods. I believe Stalin is just a tad more popular than Yaroslav, but only by a hair. And like the Maurya and Sparta players have been clamoring for Kievan Rus', which I do not see being a separate civ within VI's current design. Olga works as a "Kievan" leader who is also undeniably Russian, and if you've noticed "wimple" leaders like Tamar and Eleanor have foregone the wimple for some reason..... Mechanically, could be a religious/military leader.

* Rome - Theodora. We've been over this up and down. While Byzantium could go either way, two pretty solid presumptions exist. One, that if Theodora is the leader as opposed to a later ruler, it really should just be called "Rome." And two, that if we have the Angevin Empire, the Mauryan Empire, and possibly others like Kievan Rus' and Magna Germania represented by alternate leaders, it would feel extremely weird if Byzantium were a separate civ. I, for the record, do not consider Macedon a "second Greece," so much as "Alexander's Alexandria," a pure cult of personality. Mechanically, could be religious/naval leader.

* Arabia - Several options have been listed. An Umayyad representative could be Atikah bin Yazid. Ibn Saud could be a modern Arabian leader. Makeda could be an ancient Arabian leader. Given how long and varied the Arabian legacy is, I expect at least one more leader, and if we ever get three leader civs, I consider it one of the strongest candidates alongside China, India, and France. These would all likely be cultural leaders because I don't see the devs going near Arabian military history.

* Egypt - probably Ramesses II. Cleo makes sense as an alt leader who was pushed up to sell the base game, but as with Catherine and Ghandhi we really need a more appropriate option. Military leader?

* China - I stand by Empress Cixi as being the frontrunner, to cover Manchurian China, as well as bookend Imperial China and represent the transition to the modern Chinese state. Likely a diplomatic leader that would combine well with China's turtling tendencies.

These are the six leaders that I feel the game by its very design beg to be added. Many of the other base game civs feel like they were designed with only one leader in mind. If "Spain" were representing "Hispania" and blobbed with Portugal, I would also include Isabella of Portugal (in fact I think that may have been the intention initially), but I think Portugal will be its own civ.

As for "third" leaders, I think Kublai Khan, Charlemagne, and Nur Jahan/Sembiyan Mahadevi could be third leaders. I would prefer Nur Jahan lead the Mughals in a separate civ and the third India leader be Chola, but I do recognize that corners will be cut, and that if we do not get a Mughal civ Nur Jahan could represent "India" in a pinch.

As for DLC alt leaders, I would rather not. I have seen interesting ideas proposed for Hungary, Poland, Scotland, Netherlands. But at this point I would rather we fill out the European map more than start doubling up on niche polities. I would rather have Ireland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland, Bohemia, even Yugoslavia over Wenceslaus or Louis or James or William or whoever.

Brezhnev also fulfills this need too. The "Soviet Union" is officially a different polity that "Russia," and, although it had as one of it's 15 Union Republics a "Russian SFSR," that was, by far, the biggest, and was often during the Cold War just called "Russia," or "Soviet Russia," or early on, "Red Russia,' by colloquial Western sources, was, by definition, a different polity than "Russia" - as in the "Tsardom of Russia," the "Russian Empire," or the modern "Russian Federation." And, hey, Brezhnev's not Stalin - in fact "Stalinism" was a dirty word, politically, in the USSR in Brezhnev's day.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Brezhnev also fulfills this need too. The "Soviet Union" is officially a different polity that "Russia," and, although it had as one of it's 15 Union Republics a "Russian SFSR," that was, by far, the biggest, and was often during the Cold War just called "Russia," or "Soviet Russia," or early on, "Red Russia,' by colloquial Western sources, was, by definition, a different polity than "Russia" - as in the "Tsardom of Russia," the "Russian Empire," or the modern "Russian Federation." And, hey, Brezhnev's not Stalin - in fact "Stalinism" was a dirty word, politically, in the USSR in Brezhnev's day.

Eh I'm not a proponent of USSR or doubling up on male leaders where strong female options like Olga exist.

I don't begrudge anyone who wants USSR represented because it is a fascinating phenomenon in its own right, I would argue moreso than Novgorod or Muscovy. But I'm solidly in the Olga camp, if only so I can finally rationalize the odd choice that is the lavra.

 

[Patine]

Eh I'm not a proponent of USSR or doubling up on male leaders where strong female options like Olga exist.

I don't begrudge anyone who wants USSR represented because it is a fascinating phenomenon in its own right, I would argue moreso than Novgorod or Muscovy. But I'm solidly in the Olga camp, if only so I can finally rationalize the odd choice that is the lavra.

This issue has never come up before to shoot down valid options. It seems a bit contrived to suddenly use it now. Also, I don't care about whether or not you politically support the USSR or not - do you politically support what any pre-Soviet Russian leader did or believed? REALLY? That is (or should be) irrelevant, because it's about options to enhance a game, not a big political debate, outside certain bogeymen who'll specifically get big chunks of the market banned. And what if I don't agree that Olga brings more to the table than Brezhnev? Am I suddenly and instantly a misogynist just for differing in one game-based opinion for one civilization? Are you REALLY going to play that lame card?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This issue has never come up before to shoot down valid options. It seems a bit contrived to suddenly use it now. Also, I don't care about whether or not you politically support the USSR or not - do you politically support what any pre-Soviet Russian leader did or believed? REALLY? That is (or should be) irrelevant, because it's about options to enhance a game, not a big political debate, outside certain bogeymen who'll specifically get big chunks of the market banned. And what if I don't agree that Olga brings more to the table than Brezhnev? Am I suddenly and instantly a misogynist just for differing in one game-based opinion for one civilization? Are you REALLY going to play that lame card?

I did not shoot down your option. I did not say anything about politically supporting the USSR, merely that I personally do not care about it as a civ. I certainly did not call you a misogynist.

In the future, please read and understand what people are saying before you start jumping down our throats. If all you want to do is have a belligerent, impressionistic tango with yourself, you don't have to involve me at all.

 

[j51]

A non-Achaemenid Persian leader: Khosrau, Abbas - i.e. someone more culturally focused.

A Ummayad Arab Caliph: Maybe someone more militarily oriented OR give Saladin a new defensive trait and give his old scientific trait to someone like Atikah bin Yazid.

A proper Egyptian pharaoh: YES to Zaarin's suggestion for Akhenaten = so much fun!.

A second Chinese leader is absolutely necessary. It's weird that China only has the one when Greece has three. Someone with a more scientific focus would be best I think.

I really like the Olga idea for Russia. I would have never thought of it. I kinda want Lenin to return, but only IF they introduce a revolution mechanic. His ability and focus could relate to spreading revolution to other civs.

As for Germany: To me, it almost looks like they set up Maria Theresa as the second choice. By bringing back her city-state marriage ability you get a neat contrast with Barbarossa. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, if the purchaser also has GS, make her an alternate for Hungary too.

I'd rather they not include a Byzantine leader with Rome, simply because I'd rather Byzantium had it's own stuff: Dromon, diplomacy & religion related abilities, etc.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I really like the Olga idea for Russia. I would have never thought of it. I kinda want Lenin to return, but only IF they introduce a revolution mechanic. His ability and focus could relate to spreading revolution to other civs.

I could support this as a third leader, never said I was against USSR eventually. I think it has jack all to do with Russia's uniques, but as far as representing Russian polities go, the ideal spread would be Kievan Rus', Russia, USSR.

As for Germany: To me, it almost looks like they set up Maria Theresa as the second choice. By bringing back her city-state marriage ability you get a neat contrast with Barbarossa. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, if the purchaser also has GS, make her an alternate for Hungary too.

Hmmmmm you do make a good point. Although we would then have two Holy Roman Emperors leading Germany, and nothing from the Kingdom of Germany or Magna Germania.

Plus, Austrians would throw a fit lol.

I could see it happening. But I will counter with the observation that VI seems to be attempting a more level playing field in terms of "star power." And I think part of that is to have more artistic liberty in interpreting characters, instead of merely playing into stereotypes. No Napoleon, no Hannibal, no Elizabeth, no Catherine. I would consider Maria Teresa a heavyweight as well who doesn't quite fit into that philosophy. Her reputation kind of precedes her character. Although I'm usually in favor of iconic female leaders, I'm really on the fence about her.

I wouldn't dislike Maria Teresa as a second German leader I guess. I'm still gunning for Arminius though haha. He could also have an annexation mechanic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I really like the Olga idea for Russia. I would have never thought of it. I kinda want Lenin to return, but only IF they introduce a revolution mechanic. His ability and focus could relate to spreading revolution to other civs.

As for Germany: To me, it almost looks like they set up Maria Theresa as the second choice. By bringing back her city-state marriage ability you get a neat contrast with Barbarossa. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, if the purchaser also has GS, make her an alternate for Hungary too.

I'd rather they not include a Byzantine leader with Rome, simply because I'd rather Byzantium had it's own stuff: Dromon, diplomacy & religion related abilities, etc.

I'd like Lenin too and your ideas about him now that Dido took the moving your capital ability.

As much as I'd like Maria Theresa to be in the game, she would make more sense as an alt leader for both Hungary and Austria, for the sole reason she never was ruler of the lands of present-day Germany. But unfortunately I don't see that happening either sense there are other areas of the world that needs other Civs.

At this point I am open to possibly an alt Byzantine leader for Rome, but would much rather them being their own Civ.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Maria Theresa led the Germans in Civ2.

Historically, she was Holy Roman Empress, Queen of the Germans, Archduchess of Austria, and Queen of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia.

She could easily lead Germany, Austria, and Hungary.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Maria Theresa led the Germans in Civ2.

Historicalky, she was Holy Roman Empress, Queen of the Germans, Archduchess of Austria, and Queen of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia.

She could easily lead Germany, Austria, and Hungary.

And Bohemia, and the Netherlands, and Italy, and Spain, and France, and Poland, and Bulgaria, and the Zulus.....

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maria Theresa led the Germans in Civ2.

I don't know if Civ 2 is a good game to go by leader-wise.
That game had Shakala, Hippolyta, and Eleanor Roosevelt as leaders as well.

I could understand her possibly leading Germany if they combined some Austrian elements into Germany, at least some Austrian cities, but since I don't see any it would feel weird in my opinion.
Barbarossa might have led the lands of Austria under the Holy Roman Empire, but the rest of the Civ's abilities just feels like Germany proper.

 

[megabearsfan]

Trying to think of some cool abilities to go along with the leaders. Just brainstorming here, so some ideas may sound crazy...

I like the idea of a religious Egyptian leader. Instead of founding a religion, they get to adopt multiple pantheon bonuses?

Henry VIII (England) - "Church of England" : Cannot generate Great Prophet points. After discovering "Reformed Church", automatically receives a Great Prophet, even if all other religions have already been founded. This new religion can select new beliefs, but also keeps one or more of the bonuses of whatever religion was England's majority religion prior.

Justinian and Theodora (Rome) - represent Byzantium as an alt leader for Rome. Probably some religious power and the Cataphract UU. Both Justinian and Theodora should show up on the leader screen. I just think it would be cool to have a married couple be represented as each having equal influence over their civ (rather than having to pick one).

Constantine (Rome) - Begins the game as a Roman leader with access to Legions and Bath uniques. After triggering a Dark Age, gets a free Settler. The next city settled in Constantinople. At this point, Constantine enters an Heroic Age and Constantine's civ changes (mid-game) from Rome to Byzantium. Constantine keeps any existing Legions and Baths, but can't build new ones anymore. Instead, he now gets Byzantine uniques, including a Cataphract UU. He keeps both palaces, but Constantinople is the new capital (for purposes of Domination victory).

Bismark (Germany) - Could be Bismark, or Kaiser Wilhelm. I would like to see the modern nation-state of Germany represented. Perhaps Bismark with a diplomatic bonus (more powerful alliances, more Diplo Favor when not at war, or something like that). I would also be OK with an Austrian leader as an alt for Germany. As mentioned before, Maria Theresa with her city-state annexing ability would be a great contrast for Frederick.

Tezozomoc (Aztec) - I'm not very well-versed in Aztec history, so I'm not sure if this is the right leader name for this idea. I would like to see a less-militaristic, more diplomatic leader with a "Triple Alliance" ability. It would either be stronger alliances and/or some ability to annex city states. Or maybe he can make a permanent alliance as a leader ability (in which case, both civs win if either civ wins)? Or maybe he starts the game with 2 extra Settlers to found the 3 founding cities of the Aztec empire (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Justinian and Theodora (Rome) - represent Byzantium as an alt leader for Rome. Probably some religious power and the Cataphract UU. Both Justinian and Theodora should show up on the leader screen. I just think it would be cool to have a married couple be represented as each having equal influence over their civ (rather than having to pick one).

This idea really grosses me out. Far too twee. Gag me with a chainsaw.

Also, I can pick for you. Theodora, easily. We don't have Henry II of England. We don't have Henry II of France. None of those consorts needed a man to complete them. And really, what sort of personality could Justinian possibly have that would be so different from Trajan?

Not sure where this weird fascination with a Byzantine leader couple arose from but I staunchly oppose it as not only unnecessary, but fundamentally undermining the core philosophy of VI to provide each civ with a clear, consistent personality. It wastes resources AND ruins gameplay politics.

 

[Imaus]

This idea really grosses me out. Far too twee. Gag me with a chainsaw.

Also, I can pick for you. Theodora, easily. We don't have Henry II of England. We don't have Henry II of France. None of those consorts needed a man to complete them. And really, what sort of personality could Justinian possibly have that would be so different from Trajan?

Not sure where this weird fascination with a Byzantine leader couple arose from but I staunchly oppose it as not only unnecessary, but fundamentally undermining the core philosophy of VI to provide each civ with a clear, consistent personality. It wastes resources AND ruins gameplay politics.

Theodora was a strong voice in Justinian's ear and she basically told him to man up and face the rebelling sports-teams-turning-rebels in the capital; as one of her most famous episodes. The problem arises if she did anything more than this, being a strong willed woman who gives one hard line stance in time of crisis is nice, but just a one-time thing.

 

[Patine]

I could support this as a third leader, never said I was against USSR eventually. I think it has jack all to do with Russia's uniques, but as far as representing Russian polities go, the ideal spread would be Kievan Rus', Russia, USSR.

I don't think the Kievan Rus' should be just an immense priority. I'd put it as bottom of the three, in fact. It's a comparatively poorly attested time period, subject to heavy mythologization, largely established by Norse raiders and adventurers and bearing a similar mentality in many ways, and I'm not even convinced, despite all that, Olga's the best candidate for it's leader, as I actually had to look her up when you mentioned her, unlike several other leaders of that period, and I'm an avid history buff, which shows she has a certain obscurity. Also, I don't think there's a strong consensus of EXACTLY the ethnic group called the "Chudes" really are, despite seemingly being vitally important to the area and time period.

I'm still gunning for Arminius though haha. He could also have an annexation mechanic.

Arminius has the problem that Theodoric does, or the Celtic leaders like Brennius, Vercingetorix, and Boadiccea do, or that Dacian leaders like Decabalus, whose histories were effectively completely written in Latin by Roman scribes and historians who, while they may be have been impressed by the military successes, organization, and prowess of said leaders, were nonetheless hostile in their point-of-view, and always played up the "civilized observer of a barbarian chieftain" schtick - and fact VERY much driven home by the notable fact all of these are ONLY known by Latin names given to them by the Romans, not by their own endemic language names (except some estimations at piecing together said likely names from dubious and tenuous sources).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Theodora was a strong voice in Justinian's ear and she basically told him to man up and face the rebelling sports-teams-turning-rebels in the capital; as one of her most famous episodes. The problem arises if she did anything more than this, being a strong willed woman who gives one hard line stance in time of crisis is nice, but just a one-time thing.

She engaged in other political and religious reforms, certainly about as much as CdM or Eleanor. If the only difference is that she was whispering in her husband's ear rather than her son's, then the problem still persists that there is no reason to include the owner of the ear in question.

I don't think the Kievan Rus' should be just an immense priority. I'd put it as bottom of the three, in fact. It's a comparatively poorly attested time period, subject to heavy mythologization, largely established by Norse raiders and adventurers and bearing a similar mentality in many ways, and I'm not even convinced, despite all that, Olga's the best candidate for it's leader, as I actually had to look her up when you mentioned her, unlike several other leaders of that period, and I'm an avid history buff, which shows she has a certain obscurity. Also, I don't think there's a strong consensus of EXACTLY the ethnic group called the "Chudes" really are, despite seemingly being vitally important to the area and time period.

Olga is not that obscure. She is one of perhaps only three or four leaders strongly associated with Kievan Rus', and the only one with any Russian legitimacy. Maybe not the best leader in a vacuum against Yaroslav, but when considering alternate Russian leaders AND potential female leaders AND something which better integrates the lavra into Russian identity, she somewhat outshines everyone else.

Arminius has the problem that Theodoric does, or the Celtic leaders like Brennius, Vercingetorix, and Boadiccea do, or that Dacian leaders like Decabalus, whose histories were effectively completely written in Latin by Roman scribes and historians who, while they may be have been impressed by the military successes, organization, and prowess of said leaders, were nonetheless hostile in their point-of-view, and always played up the "civilized observer of a barbarian chieftain" schtick - and fact VERY much driven home by the notable fact all of these are ONLY known by Latin names given to them by the Romans, not by their own endemic language names (except some estimations at piecing together said likely names from dubious and tenuous sources).

You are right about the Roman lense, but that ultimately isn't a major issue for Arminius when a) we have Tomyris (and to some extent, Tamar), who was largely informed by foreign accounts, b) we have Peter but not Piotr, and c) Arminius is a German folk hero to the point of being a personification of Germany. That latter point is especially relevant because it catapults him on the same level of "nation personified" as Tomyris represents the Kazakhs, Cyrus represents the Persians, Kupe represents the Maori, and Gilgamesh represents the Akkadian legacy. It is for that reason and the loose concept of "Magna Germania" that I think "the Germans" are more likely to get a leader out of contemporary Roman tribes, as opposed to the Gauls, the Iceni, or the Britons.

As for the Goths, I merely observe that they were the only tribes to settle down and develop not one but two kingdoms, and that Theoderic happened to rule both of them. They also happen to be the most popular civ on the V steam mods. That may not be enough to develop a civ out of, but I think that they stand the strongest shot of the "barbarian" cultures to gain the attention of the devs, certainly moreso than any of the Celtic tribes which have been somewhat obviated by VI's different take on what constitutes a civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Kaiser Wilhelm

I or II? Neither was exactly the most intelligent leader in German history, though Wilhelm I at least had the good sense to listen to Bismarck.

Aztec history...I would like to see a less-militaristic, more diplomatic leader

The Aztecs were probably one of the most violent, warlike civilizations in human history. They were at war with their neighbors for virtually their entire existence, including under Tezozomoc. A "less militaristic" Aztec civ makes about as much sense as an isolationist Roman civ or a wonder-shunning Egyptian civ...

Arminius has the problem that Theodoric does, or the Celtic leaders like Brennius, Vercingetorix, and Boadiccea do, or that Dacian leaders like Decabalus, whose histories were effectively completely written in Latin by Roman scribes and historians who, while they may be have been impressed by the military successes, organization, and prowess of said leaders, were nonetheless hostile in their point-of-view, and always played up the "civilized observer of a barbarian chieftain" schtick - and fact VERY much driven home by the notable fact all of these are ONLY known by Latin names given to them by the Romans, not by their own endemic language names (except some estimations at piecing together said likely names from dubious and tenuous sources).

We most certainly do know Vercingetorix's name in Gaulish: Vercingetorix. Likewise, Boudica is likely the correct name of the queen of the Iceni (may she never appear in Civ again) and its Gaulish equivalent Boudiga is well attested in Gaul. Brennus is certainly of Celtic derivation, but may have been a title rather than a name. Your charge stands for Arminius, however: we don't know its etymology and it probably wasn't his original name. I'm not sure that's really relevant: if Tomyris actually existed (highly dubious), her name probably wasn't Tomyris, either. To say nothing of the many leaders in game whose names have been Hellenized (Cyrus < Kurush), borrowed incorrectly (Gilgamesh < Bilgames), or otherwise mangled (Montezuma < Moteuczoma).

 

[Patine]

Olga is not that obscure. She is one of perhaps only three or four leaders strongly associated with Kievan Rus', and the only one with any Russian legitimacy. Maybe not the best leader in a vacuum against Yaroslav, but when considering alternate Russian leaders AND potential female leaders AND something which better integrates the lavra into Russian identity, she somewhat outshines everyone else.

Such a distinction as you're implying was irrelevant at the time, except maybe historiographically, in retrospect, by comparing modern political geography to the times then between modern Russian and Ukrainian (politicized) historians (and revisionists) and the foreign supporter of each. There were no separate ethnic and linguistic "Russian," "Ukrainian," "Belarussian," "Ruthenian," or "Rusyn" identities AT ALL in the Kievan Rus' - there was just a more or less single, generic "Old East Slavic" ethnicity and language - amidst a bunch of unrelated Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Baltic, and other ethnic and linguistic groups, as well as the Norse-speaking Varangians and Greek-speaking Byzantine missionaries, but THAT'S beside the point. So, any comparison and contrast on those grounds between Olga and Yaroslav the Wise, is, in truth, quite moot.

 

[Patine]

Also, I can pick for you. Theodora, easily. We don't have Henry II of England. We don't have Henry II of France. None of those consorts needed a man to complete them. And really, what sort of personality could Justinian possibly have that would be so different from Trajan?

Although I don't know nearly as much about Henri II of France, I do know that their is VERY compelling to have Henry II of England, the first de facto ruler of the "Angevin Empire," as a separate ruler in his own right with his own legacy. He was VERY skilled at waging war on a simultaneous number of battlefronts through that most Medieval kings couldn't do nearly as well through proxy, feudal vassal ruler, which could be a unique ability dealing somehow with city-states. And Justinian was VERY different than Trajan and his point of view and achievements (including the Justinian Code - which was very pivotal) were very different, too. And, though both did take their wives' advice on certain issues of notable historical import, neither's reign's were slavishly controlled by "whispers in the ear" AT ALL.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Such a distinction as you're implying was irrelevant at the time, except maybe historiographically, in retrospect, by comparing modern political geography to the times then between modern Russian and Ukrainian (politicized) historians (and revisionists) and the foreign supporter of each. There were no separate ethnic and linguistic "Russian," "Ukrainian," "Belarussian," "Ruthenian," or "Rusyn" identities AT ALL in the Kievan Rus' - there was just a more or less single, generic "Old East Slavic" ethnicity and language - amidst a bunch of unrelated Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Baltic, and other ethnic and linguistic groups, as well as the Norse-speaking Varangians and Greek-speaking Byzantine missionaries, but THAT'S beside the point. So, any comparison and contrast on those grounds between Olga and Yaroslav the Wise, is, in truth, quite moot.

The Mauryans weren't "Indian" by that standard and Chandragupta speaks Sanskrit I believe. Granted, if we wanted a perfect one-to-one then Ashoka really fills the space in modern Indian culture that Olga does in Russian culture, not Chandragupta. But perfect parallels don't exist in history, and going back past a certain point no culture looks the same as its later incarnations. That, in fact, is kind of the point of having an Occitan-speaking leader for England.

Although I don't know nearly as much about Henri II of France, I do know that their is VERY compelling to have Henry II of England, the first de facto ruler of the "Angevin Empire," as a separate ruler in his own right with his own legacy. He was VERY skilled at waging war on a simultaneous number of battlefronts through that most Medieval kings couldn't do nearly as well through proxy, feudal vassal ruler, which could be a unique ability dealing somehow with city-states. And Justinian was VERY different than Trajan and his point of view and achievements (including the Justinian Code - which was very pivotal) were very different, too. And, though both did take their wives' advice on certain issues of notable historical import, neither's reign's were slavishly controlled by "whispers in the ear" AT ALL.

Frankly I can't tell what your entire position is so I won't comment on everything, but merely stating that some dude with a crown won a thing and enacted a thing is pretty flimsy support for VI character design and agenda. A thousand monarchs were "great," now please explain to me why Henri is more fun than Eleanor.

 

[Patine]

Frankly I can't tell what your entire position is so I won't comment on everything, but merely stating that some dude with a crown won a thing and enacted a thing is pretty flimsy support for VI character design and agenda. A thousand monarchs were "great," now please explain to me why Henri is more fun than Eleanor.

"Wearing the crown alone" wasn't my position, AT ALL. I don't even know where you got that from. Certainly not from reading MY post...