Personas as Leaders for Other Civs

Vrenir

King
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Maryland
As we are getting so many more personas (and because I’m honestly not a fan of having multiple versions of the same leader), I’ve started thinking that maybe the personas would fit well as leaders tweaked for different Civs, like we got with Kublai and Eleanor.

So, which ones would work best for this, and in what ways?

For instance…
- vanilla Saladin for Egypt and sultan Saladin for Arabia
- vanilla Cleopatra (w Ptolemaic ability) for Egypt and Ptolemaic Cleopatra (w vanilla ability) for Macedonia

Would any others be ideal for this?
 
I get why Ptolemaic Cleo historically makes more sense to be with Macedon than Greece but dang her ingame ability would fit Greece a lot better lol.

If we had a non-ancient Italian civ, I'd say one of the Catherine de Medicis could lead that...
 
If we had a non-ancient Italian civ, I'd say one of the Catherine de Medicis could lead that...
No that would go to Kristina and her absurd theming bonuses. :mischief:
Thematic wise I could think of a lot, but for historical accuracy I can't see any other existing leaders leading different civs.
 
Having Cleopatra leading either Macedonia or Greece is making as much sense as Abraham Lincoln leading England. After all, both of them have ancestry from a foreign region! From Ptolemy I Soter to Cleopatra VII, there is a wider gap than the American War of Independance and today.

We should focus a lot less about the ancestry, and focus a lot more about what civilization, state, nation... those leaders actually lead.

I understand the appeal of having Catherine de Medici leading Italy. The main golden age of Italy was during the Renaissance era at a time the peninsula wasn't united. It is tempting to have an "Italy" where leaders are from the main City-States like Venice, Genoa, Bologna, Florence, Milan, Vatican city... as a way to circumvent an united Italy under Mussolini (I don't think we are going to have a fascist dictator in the game). Here, Catherine de Medici would "fit" the Florence leader, but she wasn't in charge. It was Cosimo.

For Saladin, it is complicated. Because the concept of Arabia is complicated. Where Maghrebi people often saw themselves Arabian, yet not Arabian citizen. Saladin himself was in charge of today Egypt, Syria and the southern part of the Arabian peninsula, si it could "fit" the Egyptian leader. Yet, people are already complaining that Cleopatra is leading Egypt, because she is a Queen and not Pharaoh (but took the Pantheon and called herself Isis: she did try to emulate something). I don't think Saladin would be better accepted knowing he completely broke away from the ancient Egypt. So we have here "Arabia" as "Muslim middle east, including Egypt" more than anything. This is the Egyptian curse: that is why you don't have Vercingetorix or Charlemagne as French leader, and if they are coming, they would be under a Gaul and Frank Kingdom instead of France. I wonder if they are going to use dynasty name like Ayyubid. After all, they currently use Ottoman (dynasty) instead of Turkey.
 
Victoria for Canada?
So far, we have:
  • Eleanor, who married the French King then the soon English King. She didn't held both crowns at the same time.
  • Kublai, who inherited the Great Khan of Mongols by birth (needed some war) and then became Emperor of the Yuan dynasty 12 years later (needed some war too). He held both power, but at different point in time.
In a sense, Saladin would fit as both Egypt and Arabia since he had control of both territory at different point in time, if it wasn't for Egypt being depicted as Ancient Egypt (Sphinx, Wonders...). Maria Teresa could have been a leader to both Hungary and Germany, since she was King of Hungary then Holy Roman Empress 5 years later, even if she would fit Austria better. Again, there is a problem for "Germany" being the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Austria and the today Germany at the same time.

Victoria doesn't fit, since Canada wasn't a territory that was independant that got absorbed into England, but English expansion that would finally broke away. She just inherited a title that was created during her reign.

There are some rulers who held power at different time. They are not well-known, because they didn't really shine. For example, Henryk / Henri III was first elected as King of Poland then drop the crown and flee the country the minute he heard that his brother died so the Kindgom of France was available. He was... meaningless as King of Poland and he was... fine as King of France... until his assassination. Yeah, not the best one.
 
Victoria for Canada?
I would actually say Victoria would bode well better for Scotland. Now that I think about it, Age of Steam Victoria might go well with Scottish Enlightenment. :mischief:
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMT
I liked the gimmick in theory - it's cool to see someone lead both civs, and have a sort of mix with the leader ability working for both of them in different manners.

But I think in general, it's just super rare that it's happened IRL. Honestly, I'd rather they just come back with a "random civs" game mode, where you can independently pick leader/civ/UU/UB as a fun way to mix and match, rather than really strain themselves to find a case that works, which usually means shoehorning a leader into a spot that doesn't entirely make sense for them.
 
Having Cleopatra leading either Macedonia or Greece is making as much sense as Abraham Lincoln leading England. After all, both of them have ancestry from a foreign region! From Ptolemy I Soter to Cleopatra VII, there is a wider gap than the American War of Independance and today.

We should focus a lot less about the ancestry, and focus a lot more about what civilization, state, nation... those leaders actually lead.

I understand the appeal of having Catherine de Medici leading Italy. The main golden age of Italy was during the Renaissance era at a time the peninsula wasn't united. It is tempting to have an "Italy" where leaders are from the main City-States like Venice, Genoa, Bologna, Florence, Milan, Vatican city... as a way to circumvent an united Italy under Mussolini (I don't think we are going to have a fascist dictator in the game). Here, Catherine de Medici would "fit" the Florence leader, but she wasn't in charge. It was Cosimo.

For Saladin, it is complicated. Because the concept of Arabia is complicated. Where Maghrebi people often saw themselves Arabian, yet not Arabian citizen. Saladin himself was in charge of today Egypt, Syria and the southern part of the Arabian peninsula, si it could "fit" the Egyptian leader. Yet, people are already complaining that Cleopatra is leading Egypt, because she is a Queen and not Pharaoh (but took the Pantheon and called herself Isis: she did try to emulate something). I don't think Saladin would be better accepted knowing he completely broke away from the ancient Egypt. So we have here "Arabia" as "Muslim middle east, including Egypt" more than anything. This is the Egyptian curse: that is why you don't have Vercingetorix or Charlemagne as French leader, and if they are coming, they would be under a Gaul and Frank Kingdom instead of France. I wonder if they are going to use dynasty name like Ayyubid. After all, they currently use Ottoman (dynasty) instead of Turkey.

It is strange that people would argue that Cleopatra shouldn't lead Egypt yet have no problem with Saladin leading Arabia with his capital in Cairo. Saladin was Kurdish and certainly not an Arab. He was born in Northern Iraq. At least Cleopatra was actually born in Egypt.

I personally have no problem with either.
 
Top Bottom