I'm cool with the name Holly Roman Empire... but it was also the West Roman Empire.
He should be the King of the Franks, not the West Roman Emperor or Holy Roman Emperor, as he never actually held either of the two titles as they are now known.
As said 697x, we have too many warmonger leaders in this game, I like evil leaders to fight against, but your suggestion of more ancient leaders is cool too. Zimbabwe can have leaders from all eras.
Warmongers and "evil," weren't my only condemnations. I'm not against warmongers or "evil," leaders in Civ. But leaders who were also utter failures and led their nations to economic and political ruin is what I'm referring to. The two stand-in leaders I gave, one for each, I firmly stand by.
That is really controversial, sorry, I'm a bit controversial, but this historical interpretation can be understood if we remember Tecumseh lead a group of more than 10 tribe-nations at a war called North-West territory war.
(Since Germany-Barbarrosa interpretation is a thing, I want to give others possible weird interpretations of history)
I believe you're referring to the "Western Confederacy," and "Tecumseh's Confederacy," both exonyms, not what their members called them, that operated within the area the United States called, and administered as, the North-West Territory, which was not a political entity or mandate either Confederacy governed by that name, and they even rejected the American political construct's existence and legitimacy, and thus using it as their "Civ nation name," completely defeats the whole purpose.
NOT MEXICO! South Brazil, he start his Libertador life in South Brazil when D.Pedro was just a child and his republic survive ~10 years. Even today the State of Rio Grande do Sul use the revolutionary flag and everyone who born in that State called himself Gaucho, don't matter their ethinic background. I think it is very cool.
Rio Grande do Sul is Brazilian's Texas
(but better)
I see. In any case, Garibaldi should not be the leader here, as he was not the political leader of this entity, but only made an intervention, and should not be misappropriated from the far more dominant historical role that even he, himself, would say dominated the cause of his life - the Italian Reunification.
I really like semi mitycal kings, for me Civ 7 should be a kind of Mythological game with even more semi-mythical kings.
C'mon, just think how amazing it will be play with Toltec's Quetzalcoalt and use dragons to solve your boarders issues. What can be more fun?
It could be fun. Just not in Civ.
Zapotecs lost their freadom to the Spanish-Nahualt empire but still surviving.
Benito Juarez just speak Zapotec language since his 12 years old, he is a Zapotec and Mexican hero.
But okay, I agree even mexican would don't like this idea. But it is an amazing idea!
It's not an amazing idea. It's shows a deliberate and blatant desire to tell Mexican players, or those who desire a Mexican tell, to suck it - their nation is unworthy, and all of their great leaders will forcibly contrived into indigenous civ's that ceased to exist in their classic mold centuries before and and whose traditions and culture they don't represent.