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. )
Interesting, Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, in personal age, of the, "classic list," of American Founding Fathers and died of old age less than a year after George Washington's first inauguration as U.S. President. He didn't see much, at all, of, "the Republic," whose form of government he declared.
Interesting, Benjamin Franklin was the oldest, in personal age, of the, "classic list," of American Founding Fathers and died of old age less than a year after George Washington's first inauguration as U.S. President. He didn't see much, at all, of, "the Republic," whose form of government he declared.
to be fair, the US very much existed before the *US*, especially the *presidency*
the 13 colonies had a unique cultural identity for nearly a hundred years before the revolutionary war—a huge reason why canada, bermuda and the caribbean chose not to join in the rebellion. Furthermore, there was the time of the articles of confederation, which franklin was alive for.
Identities. Every colony had its own identity in the colonial period--you had Virginians and Pennsylvanians and Massachussites and so forth before the Revolution. The idea of an American identity was forged, consciously, deliberately, in the Revolution--and Benjamin Franklin was one of the ones doing the forging, though the public voice of the forging was chiefly those of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. (But Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Samuel Adams were prominent as part of the public face. Indeed, both Franklin and Washington attended the Constitutional Convention largely to lend it dignity and legitimacy and were not deeply involved in the drafting process. A younger Franklin would have been vigorously involved, but he was an old man and in poor health by then.)
Identities. Every colony had its own identity in the colonial period--you had Virginians and Pennsylvanians and Massachussites and so forth before the Revolution. The idea of an American identity was forged, consciously, deliberately, in the Revolution--and Benjamin Franklin was one of the ones doing the forging, though the public voice of the forging was chiefly those of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. (But Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Samuel Adams were prominent as part of the public face. Indeed, both Franklin and Washington attended the Constitutional Convention largely to lend it dignity and legitimacy and were not deeply involved in the drafting process. A younger Franklin would have been vigorously involved, but he was an old man and in poor health by then.)
absolutely—and the revolution went a long way in fusing those into the early american identity, but i do think that the relative commonalities (that the nationmaking of the revolution exploited) of the 13 colonies did at least partially assist in why they ended up rebelling, and colonies that they explicitly asked to join (like Bermuda and Canada) didn’t. They were older than many of britain’s other new world colonies, many of them shared backgrounds as places of refuge/solitude from the old country (like massachusetts, maryland, georgia, pennsylvania), etc.
i think we basically agree on this, but i highlighted the identity and shared history of america before independence as a singular specifically to highlight how appropriate ben franklin is as a leader for the us.
I think in imperial and Soviet Russia that ‘intelligentsia’ is a commonly used term for a specific class of individual that could mostly be filled with writers but could also include scientists, composers, etc.
It will be interesting to see which modern civs get great people. Just in Europe Russia, Britain, and France would be good candidates.
When Tudor England gets "Great Playwrights and Poets" and Britain gets all the "Great Engineers"...coming out of Greece with their unique Great People--England needs to stop hogging all the Unique Great People.
Only as long as Scotland isn't in the game, or the Scots would hog a great many of the 'British' Great Engineers:
James Watt, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Robert Napier, John Russell (who helped Brunel build the Great Eastern, among other things), Robert Stevenson, William Symington (built the first practical steamboat, the Charlotte Dundas), Robert Watson-Watt (RADAR pioneer)
absolutely—and the revolution went a long way in fusing those into the early american identity, but i do think that the relative commonalities (that the nationmaking of the revolution exploited) of the 13 colonies did at least partially assist in why they ended up rebelling, and colonies that they explicitly asked to join (like Bermuda and Canada) didn’t. They were older than many of britain’s other new world colonies, many of them shared backgrounds as places of refuge/solitude from the old country (like massachusetts, maryland, georgia, pennsylvania), etc.
i think we basically agree on this, but i highlighted the identity and shared history of america before independence as a singular specifically to highlight how appropriate ben franklin is as a leader for the us.
Although, even over 250 years later, there are still very distinct and profound New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern American (and definitely African-American, even though they lacked an empowered role in the Revolution) cultures and accents.
Although, even over 250 years later, there are still very distinct and profound New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern American (and definitely African-American, even though they lacked an empowered role in the Revolution) cultures and accents.
America has retained very strong regional subcultures (especially in the South and New England), but they've become a part of broader American culture (even when they sometimes hate each other). Certainly someone from Boston has more in common culturally with someone from Atlanta than someone from Aberdeen or Belfast or Leeds.
Although, even over 250 years later, there are still very distinct and profound New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Southern American (and definitely African-American, even though they lacked an empowered role in the Revolution) cultures and accents.
To be fair that is true in most places of the world, there are distinct parts of England, France, Germany, Italy, in accents at the very least, and probably cultures as well. Chances are if you don't know about any subcultures in a human culture you either just don't know enough about that culture to know the subcultures... or that culture is one person who is remarkably at peace with themselves.
To be fair that is true in most places of the world, there are distinct parts of England, France, Germany, Italy, in accents at the very least, and probably cultures as well. Chances are if you don't know about any subcultures in a human culture you either just don't know enough about that culture to know the subcultures... or that culture is one person who is remarkably at peace with themselves.
I was born in Missouri, spent most of my childhood and young adulthood in Virginia and Pennsylvania, and the last 30 years of my life in the Pacific Northwest. My own recollection is that I have lived in 4 very different Americas.
The US Army stationed me in (West) Berlin, Wiesbaden in Hessia and Aschaffenburg in Bavaria, so I have also lived in 3 distinctly different Germanies.
Sub-Cultures are everywhere, and the longer any Culture has been established the more Sub-Cultures it spawns and maintains, regardless of any consolidating factors present.
I think in imperial and Soviet Russia that ‘intelligentsia’ is a commonly used term for a specific class of individual that could mostly be filled with writers but could also include scientists, composers, etc.
It will be interesting to see which modern civs get great people. Just in Europe Russia, Britain, and France would be good candidates.
I hope that in Era 2 or 3, the Great People will be universal. It varies the gameplay and especially in modern times it makes sense with how global many great people are (willingly or unwillingly).
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.
I love Tolstoy and his novels certainly contain some political content (i.e. War and Peace), but I don't consider him primarly as a political author like Machiavelli.
Anyways, I don't want to argue about this. All I want to say is, that for me it would feel weird, if i had to play against Tolstoy or Goethe or any other Artist or Novellist as an opposing Civ leader.
There is a fine line which writers and thinkers I find acceptable. Novelists and poets like Hugo or Tolstoy? I‘d rather not. People that wrote about political concepts, such as Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Marx, Piccolomini (as a pre-papacy persona), Voltaire, Thoreau? Yeah, why not. Although I wouldn‘t like too many of these.
While he would make for very interesting bonuses related to terrain and Towns (in the vein of Bull Moose Teddy from VI), it would feel a little antithetical to me for the "go live in a cabin in the woods and disobey the government" guy to be at the helm of an entire developed nation.
I'm aware that's a gross oversimplification of his writings, but if Machiavelli is any indication a gross oversimplification is probably what we're gonna get.
Edit: Thoreau would make for some great Tech or Civic quotes though. "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." Feels very monumental and Civ-esque.
While he would make for very interesting bonuses related to terrain and Towns (in the vein of Bull Moose Teddy from VI), it would feel a little antithetical to me for the "go live in a cabin in the woods and disobey the government" guy to be at the helm of an entire developed nation.
I'm aware that's a gross oversimplification of his writings, but if Machiavelli is any indication a gross oversimplification is probably what we're gonna get.
Edit: Thoreau would make for some great Tech or Civic quotes though. "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." Feels very monumental and Civ-esque.
I haven‘t thought about actual bonuses. But yes, you are right, Thoreau would require quite an asymmetric play stable to make any sense. But in terms of being antithetical for the imperial and faith in progress fantasies that civ caters to and embodies, the same is true for Marx (and probably many others).
I haven‘t thought about actual bonuses. But yes, you are right, Thoreau would require quite an asymmetric play stable to make any sense. But in terms of being antithetical for the imperial and faith in progress fantasies that civ caters to and embodies, the same is true for Marx (and probably many others).
Marx definitely had the "faith in progress" and maybe not "imperial" but definitely "missionizing".... but I doubt he would be used as a leader for some of those exact reasons.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
