POLL: Non-Leader Leaders

[Ziad]

Carthage.

I totally agree (I would have loved Hannibal as I said before) but since they went with Phoenicia while also replacing Carthage I can understand why they went with Dido. She's still an actual historical figure (Elissa) even if her memory is legendary.

Did I say how much I would have loved Hanni?

 

[kryat]

For what it’s worth... in democracies, presidents don’t “rule”. They may be there head of state and have influence over policy, but it’s somewhat disingenuous to equate the power that Trajan held over Rome compared to what Roosevelt had over the US and then expect Catherine or Gorgo to count for less. Thus, I find non-government affiliates leaders to be perfectly acceptable, as long as they had a dramatic impact on the society in which they lived, or left a lasting legacy.

 

[Ziad]

My main grievance with Gorgo is that there isn't even that much about her and even her UA is about what her husband did.

Although to be fair, given Spartan women's dominance over the city state's economy, she would be appropriate to meld both the civic (Greece) and military (Sparta) aspect of the civ's UAs.

So if one uses a generic understanding of Spartan women and then (correctly) assumed that the wife of its leader would hold even more power, then she becomes less of an issue.

 

[Patine]

The greatest, most influential, infamous, and often emulated in his symbolism leader who never officially ruled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

 

[Zaarin]

I totally agree (I would have loved Hannibal as I said before) but since they went with Phoenicia while also replacing Carthage I can understand why they went with Dido. She's still an actual historical figure (Elissa) even if her memory is legendary. She has ties to both.

She's maybe a historical figure. Dido and Elissa are Phoenician names, but so far she's completely unattested outside Graeco-Roman sources. Personally I would have chosen Hiram I of Tyre for Phoenicia: he's not exactly a big personality, but he has a glimmer more personality than any other historically attested Phoenician king.

 

[Ziad]

She's maybe a historical figure. Dido and Elissa are Phoenician names, but so far she's completely unattested outside Graeco-Roman sources

The history of the area I'm from being recorded by second-hand biased perspectives will never cease to make me sad.

That being said there is some historical context I believe to Elissa in particular.

 

[Siptah]

The history of the area I'm from being recorded by second-hand biased perspectives will never cease to make me sad.

First hand content is often not less biased if that makes you happier

 

[Ziad]

Bahaha good point.

Oh and @Zaarin I agree about Hiram he would have been cool.

 

[Phrozen]

I wouldn't mind say William Marshal as leader of England as he was the right hand man of several kings and regent for Henry III.

 

[Patine]

In light of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I got to thinking of all the people that looked up to him and considered him a leader. And then more broadly to what constitutes leadership in general? Naturally, that got me thinking about civ. Should one of the criteria of inclusion in the franchise be an official government title? Gandhi, CdM, and Hannibal Barca never directly ruled their respective countries, but are still presented as the face of their civilization. How would people react to Ben Franklin leading America or Cixi leading China? Discuss!

Of those, I would not be able to give any support to Cixi. Her actions as Empress Dowager Regent exacerbated and excelerated the fall of the Millennia-old concept of the Mandate of Heaven, and she and her paleoconservative reactionary court refused to even seriously consider many reforms that could have regained China's power and stature without completely abandoning the Imperial unifying national concept. Her lack of vision saw the Empire end only a few short years after her death. Not a great legacy there, in my opinion.

 

[Zaarin]

Bahaha good point.

Oh and @Zaarin I agree about Hiram he would have been cool.

Of the many projects I'm working on, one is the survival of Carthage in Spain, and the current (1480s) king of Spanish Carthage is Ḥīrom II, so I have some affection for the name.

 

[Sagax]

Nuclear Gandhi should have been retired ages ago; it's a joke that's gone past stale to rotting on the table.

You should check out Chandragupta’s secondary Steam achievement.

 

[Halcyan2]

there are 2 major cases when I'd be totally ok with that are not traditional leader leader
1. Symbolic leaders a la Gandhi, one of the first name you'd come up with when talking about the civ.
2. There are no other choices for leader (usually because little record of the civ) but the civ is so cool/important/interesting to add. Mythological leaders fall here.

Yeah I think Gorgo is probably the one example where I found an inclusion to be somewhat forced, even if one realizes that Spartan women held a great deal of influence for their time.

I think the worst leader choice was Joan of Arc in Civ 3. And I think Gandhi would be the second worst leader choice.

I am okay with (or like) most of the leader choices (of which the female choices seem to be the most controversial).

Wilhelmina, Cleopatra, Hatshepsut, Victoria, Elizabeth, Maria Theresa, Dido, Catherine, and Isabella were all important and powerful historical figures (well except for Dido's mythological roots) who are quintessential representations of their civilizations.

The next category are important and successful historical figures who are often overlooked (often because people don't know much about that civilization's history) but Civ does a good job shining the spotlight on them. I would put Tamar, Gitarja, Seondeok, Amanitore, and Jadwiga. Maybe Tomyris since there is scant historical information about the Scythians.

There is a category of rulers who are interesting historically but weren't considered that "successful" and some people feel are questionable choices to represent their civilization. Like Kristina, Boudicca, Wu Zetian, and Maria of Portugal. I actually didn't mind any of these non-traditional choices because they provide a fresh perspective on history. (While Hannibal as a general would be in the top tier of generals as a political leader he had only a minimal impact. Gajah Mada was a prime minister, though I think Gitarja is a better choice.)

They you have Ruler Consorts and behind the scene players. I actually think Catherine de Medici is a good choice since she ruled as Queen Consort and Regent. Theodora was Empress Consort but she actually ruled and had significant influence (not the least of which included convincing Emperor Justinian to stay and fight off the Nika revolt and her contributions to the East Roman Golden Age). Gorgo seems to be a weaker choice and it feels like she was partly included because of her portrayal in the 300 movie.

I'd actually put Gandhi in the next category. (So yeah, I think Catherine and Theodora are better choices than Gandhi).

And Joan of Arc as absolute worst. She was a blip in the historical radar, didn't come close to ruling, and in fact was manipulated, used, and discarded by the actual French ruler at the time.

 

[Ziad]

Yeah tbh I find playing India as Chandragupta to be far more appropriate (for me) given the nation's history. I'm glad some games are really highlighting the Mauryan empire, including Rome Total War 2.

 

[pgm123]

Yeah I think Gorgo is probably the one example where I found an inclusion to be somewhat forced, even if one realizes that Spartan women held a great deal of influence for their time.

It should have been Leonidas (for the UA).

Yeah, she's definitely the most forced. I don't think Leonidas would be a good choice either--he didn't rule long and he's essentially only known as being the elderly king who was the general during a suicide mission. Cleomenes might work.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I love the inclusion of leaders that were not in direct rule, as stated before I too think they should be directly involved with the political landscape however. So, for instance, Henry Ford or MLK leading the US does not really work as they are both influencial and leaders in their own right, but were more siloed in their impact, but Ben Franklin or Eleanore Roosevelt with their more broad impact on the overall direction and/or impact in the political landscape would be welcome additions.

 

[ezzlar]

When I meet a civ I think about the screen character as somebody sent to represent the civ. It hasn´t to be the actually leader but someone the "leader" would send out to meet other civs.

However, when I am picking civ and reading about civ bonuses the "acceptable" circle of candidates is smaller. Then it should be someone who actually influenced the civ and was considered influential.

 

[mitsho]

The option "hell yeah! everything goes!" is missing. I'd probably have chosen that one.

But ideally for me, Civ would do away with leaders completely. Having one person lead you through all of history seems like one of these simplifications that have stayed throughout the civ versions and has never been really challenged so far. I think it's time. Changing leaders per era is one possibility, but you could also just interact with "the nation" or "an ambassador" & maybe use the great leaders in-game in a different fashion. So many possibilities, and so many graphic artist hours saved since apparently the creation of the leader is the bottleneck for the DLC creation... But well.

 

[Siptah]

The option "hell yeah! everything goes!" is missing. I'd probably have chosen that one.

But ideally for me, Civ would do away with leaders completely. Having one person lead you through all of history seems like one of these simplifications that have stayed throughout the civ versions and has never been really challenged so far. I think it's time. Changing leaders per era is one possibility, but you could also just interact with "the nation" or "an ambassador" & maybe use the great leaders in-game in a different fashion. So many possibilities, and so many graphic artist hours saved since apparently the creation of the leader is the bottleneck for the DLC creation... But well.

Amen.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think the worst leader choice was Joan of Arc in Civ 3. And I think Gandhi would be the second worst leader choice.

I am okay with (or like) most of the leader choices (of which the female choices seem to be the most controversial).

Wilhelmina, Cleopatra, Hatshepsut, Victoria, Elizabeth, Maria Theresa, Dido, Catherine, and Isabella were all important and powerful historical figures (well except for Dido's mythological roots) who are quintessential representations of their civilizations.

The next category are important and successful historical figures who are often overlooked (often because people don't know much about that civilization's history) but Civ does a good job shining the spotlight on them. I would put Tamar, Gitarja, Seondeok, Amanitore, and Jadwiga. Maybe Tomyris since there is scant historical information about the Scythians.

There is a category of rulers who are interesting historically but weren't considered that "successful" and some people feel are questionable choices to represent their civilization. Like Kristina, Boudicca, Wu Zetian, and Maria of Portugal. I actually didn't mind any of these non-traditional choices because they provide a fresh perspective on history. (While Hannibal as a general would be in the top tier of generals as a political leader he had only a minimal impact. Gajah Mada was a prime minister, though I think Gitarja is a better choice.)

They you have Ruler Consorts and behind the scene players. I actually think Catherine de Medici is a good choice since she ruled as Queen Consort and Regent. Theodora was Empress Consort but she actually ruled and had significant influence (not the least of which included convincing Emperor Justinian to stay and fight off the Nika revolt and her contributions to the East Roman Golden Age). Gorgo seems to be a weaker choice and it feels like she was partly included because of her portrayal in the 300 movie.

I'd actually put Gandhi in the next category. (So yeah, I think Catherine and Theodora are better choices than Gandhi).

And Joan of Arc as absolute worst. She was a blip in the historical radar, didn't come close to ruling, and in fact was manipulated, used, and discarded by the actual French ruler at the time.

I generally agree with this, except I would say Wu Zetian was on Hatshepsut's level as far as being important and powerful--like Hatshepsut she was originally meant to just be a queen regent, rather than the sole ruler. As Hatshepsut was one of the very few to seize the pharaoh title as a woman, Wu Zetian was the only woman to seize the "huangdi" (emperor) title in all of Chinese history, succeeded militarily in certain areas where her predecessors failed, elevated education and religion, had more merit-based promotions available for people of lower social class, elevated the status of women, etc. She was not flawless, of course--she had a rather bloody reign and executed many who got in her way (though quite a few of the murder rumors, it must be said, come from unsympathetic sources--in fact all sources on her are unsympathetic, but all universally agreed she was an ambitious and powerful woman). She almost certainly ran a police state, but her rule certainly came with improvements in life for many people as well. Unlike with other female rulers, who unsympathetic (male and sexist, per ancient tradition) sources paint as weak, Wu Zetian was painted as tyrannical, powerful, and evil--but not weak. In that sense she's viewed (albeit with less reverence) rather similarly to China's current Civ representative, Qin Shi Huangdi.

The option "hell yeah! everything goes!" is missing. I'd probably have chosen that one.

But ideally for me, Civ would do away with leaders completely. Having one person lead you through all of history seems like one of these simplifications that have stayed throughout the civ versions and has never been really challenged so far. I think it's time. Changing leaders per era is one possibility, but you could also just interact with "the nation" or "an ambassador" & maybe use the great leaders in-game in a different fashion. So many possibilities, and so many graphic artist hours saved since apparently the creation of the leader is the bottleneck for the DLC creation... But well.

I think leaders add some great flavor and personality to the game, so I would rather not do away with leaders completely. Having one ruler lead for all eternity is a grand oversimplification, sure, but so are almost all Civ game mechanics. Economics in real life was far more complex than Civ portrays it to be, even in ancient times, and was inextricably tied to the political (and potential for civil strife). Not so in Civ. But when dealing with the mammoth intricacies of history, some such simplifications are necessary. Even the complex Paradox games (which model internal politics better than Civ ever will) are oversimplifications of history.