ColtSeavers
Prince
Tolstoy wasn't involved in politics at all, I think they should stick to real statesmen when selecing the leaders.
New Leader Crumbs?
- Thread starter Thenewwwguy
- Start date
They've already said they're looking at more thought leaders and not just heads of state in Civ7. At any rate, Tolstoy wasn't a politician, but he was a political theorist espousing pacifism, Christian anarchism, and Georgism (a kind of economic theory that espoused private property ownership but communal ownership of land). He was also active in promoting improving the quality of life for serfs, and he was critical of the tsar. He was as politically active as Machiavelli or Gandhi and not far off from Confucius.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,950
He was not a politician, but he was a thought leader.
Tolstoyan movement - Wikipedia
And if you're trying to convince me that only heads of state are the only qualified leaders for civ, you're wasting your time. I like having thought leaders as leaders in Civ 7.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
He also corresponded with the young Gandhi and influenced him directly, and was political enough to have to go into exile and live under an assumed name in Belgium for a while after being pursued by the Russian Secret Police. He described himself as a "Christian anarchist and pacifist", both stances being both moral and political and his writings on those subjects influenced, among others, Marin Luther King and Wittgenstein in the 20th century.
Political enough, I think, to ascribe some distinct attributes to him for the game, which is really all Civ VII needs for a Leader figure.
Last edited:
Thenewwwguy
Deity
if you’d wanna compromise between thought and political leadership i’d still advocate for lenin. he’s relatively uncontroversial, even in the states
Thenewwwguy
Deity
strongly disagree. joan of arc, ben franklin, confucius and machiavelli are arguably better leader choices than some of the other choices their civs have received
I personally loved the inclusion of Ludwig, just for variety sake and not having to play as a military industrial complex Germany every game.
Too recent, and I believe Soviet leaders will be avoided for reasons.
He would be fun, but I think Rasputin is less likely considering the clues for Catherine, plus we just got Machiavelli that portrays that Disney cartoon villain role.
Surprised that they went for Napoleon again over Jeanne d'Arc, considering the conditions of picking leaders. Though I guess Trung Trac fits that image in the base game.
Mr Jon of Cheam
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,358
There will always be this division in the fanbase. For me, it's alternate history. Why not lean in and choose influential people that weren't technically leaders? But there are many purists who just can't accept it.
More than just alternate history, I've never seen leaders as something that literally exists in the game but as an archetype/avatar, and Ben Franklin is just more interesting as an avatar than Mythologized/Sanitized George Washington is. (The real George Washington actually was pretty interesting, but his Civ portrayals have definitely been the mythical George Washington.
)
Thenewwwguy
Deity
yeah that comment about ludwig ii makes it sound like he was irrelevant or forced in like the Mad King of Bavaria isn’t a unique, famous “big personality” leader who built Germany’s second most famous landmark
also surprised they didn’t go for cicero for rome by the standards civ 7 is choosing
I'd love a Dostoevsky character, dropping melancholic and pessimistic lines while interacting with me.
Btw, aren't we heading toward Russia having a unique type of writer? Russian literature, especially from the 19th century, is highly influential, with major literary figures gaining worldwide recognition.
Btw, aren't we heading toward Russia having a unique type of writer? Russian literature, especially from the 19th century, is highly influential, with major literary figures gaining worldwide recognition.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,950
Is there a collective name for Russian literati?
I would love Russia to have a unique writer great person with Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Gogol, Chekhov, Tyutchev, Nabokov, etc.
Wiktionary suggests literátor.
Ukrainians can contest
I mean I can understand the sentiments considering he was only king of Bavaria, especially to Germans, but that doesn't bother me.
I would have originally though a Boyar, but upon research they were essentially abolished under Peter the Great, so probably wouldn't work for a modern Russia.
I do think a unique "artist" civilian unit that could be a combination of writers, artists, and musicians, considering they were also known for ballet, would be better than just literature.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
Frederick and Otto von Bismarck were only leaders of Prussia, even if it conquered much of Germany. Frederick Barbarossa’s holy roman empire wouldn’t have identified with a german identity as it didn’t exist yet when he was emperor.
hell, going further, Maurya != India. Silla is hardly representative of all of Korea.
bavaria is german. bavarian culture is the first thing to come to mind when thinking about germany, and is even the primary german subculture that *germany* markets and exports.
i know bavarian is a slightly different language, and it is somewhat isolated from the rest of germany, but its bizarre to me that it wouldn’t be representative of germany when its never been a prerequisite that leaders in civ need to have ruled over ALL of the civ they represent
They can, but saying Gogol was not Russian is as politically revisionist as saying he was not Ukrainian. He was both, and they were not mutually exclusive in his lifetime. (Personally, while I haven't read as much of him as some others, he's one of my favorite Russian writers, and I'd be disappointed to see him left out because of politics.)Ukrainians can contest
They could, and it would be in line with other unique Great Persons. However, I'd still hope it would lean heavily towards literature, where 19th century Russia excelled beyond all other arts IMO. E.g., while noteworthy, I don't feel like Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff are the giants in their field that Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Nabokov, Pushkin, Chekov, etc. are in the literary arts--and while I've enjoyed a great deal of Russian romantic, realist, and modernist paintings, I can't actually name a Russian painter off the top of my head (by name), though I'll readily admit visual art history is not my particular specialty.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
There is a strong 'literatory' thread running through Russian history.
Ivan IV set up the first printing press in Moscow (I know I've posted this before) and published numerous religious tracts, many of which he wrote himself and they are still considered quite good.
Expanding on my comments about Tolstoy, note that Pushkin also did more than dabble in politics and the poetry that one Josif Dzugashvilli wrote when he was a young man in Georgia is still regarded as quite good in that language - now That would be a different view of leader that people think they are familiar with!
I don't mind leaning more towards writers and musicians, and bypassing the visual artists. I just thought that just writers might be too limiting.
You could easily fill a Great Writer list with exclusively Russians, though.I don't mind leaning more towards writers and musicians, and bypassing the visual artists. I just thought that just writers might be too limiting.
Similar threads
- Poll
