POLL: Non-Leader Leaders

[Zaarin]

But we aren't just studying them, we are also playing as them. Perhaps its because I'm a roleplayer as well as a strategy gamer that this bothers me. I'd be the first to admit that my attitudes to this are probably as much emotional as rational.

The game needs villains, though. (I love a good RPG, but I can't say I extend it to Civ--otherwise I'd be in a perpetual state of warfare playing as virtually any leader in game. )

Of course: 'Roman Advantages' were only for members of the Empire, and usually you became that way by being conquered. BUT, unlike other Empires, once conquered Roman Citizenship was generally extended to you pretty quickly, and after that you could share fully in the benefits

And only if you acknowledged the divinity of the Emperor, ergo the persecution of Jews and Christians--and probably Zoroastrians had Rome succeeded in conquering Persia. (Though ironically Zoroastrian Persia persecuted Christians for a time because they thought they were Roman spies...)

no non-Persian ever became a Satrap in the Persian Empire, let alone had any chance whatsoever of becoming King of Kings.

I always find the irony that Septimius Severus was (half) Punic delicious. That being said, Persia was extremely generous to its conquered states compared to other empires of the region and in some cases even compared to Rome (Jews certainly fared better under Achaemenid rule than they did under Rome or Seleucia).

 

[Ziad]

I always find the irony that Septimius Severus was (half) Punic delicious.

It always amused me that one of Rome's most prominent rulers was half Phoenician/Punic

 

[Zaarin]

It always amused me that one of Rome's most prominent rulers was half Phoenician/Punic

And, while he wasn't emperor, St. Augustine of Hippo was also half Punic, so Carthage's influence survived the fall of the Roman Empire in the foundational theology of the Roman Catholic Church (which was also passed on to the Protestants, most of whom still hold Augustine in high regard). Before Trajan was announced, I was hopeful we'd see Severus in Civ6; I'd still like to see him lead Rome in Civ7 (though I wouldn't be surprised Julius or August returns).

 

[Ziad]

And, while he wasn't emperor, St. Augustine of Hippo was also half Punic, so Carthage's influence survived the fall of the Roman Empire in the foundational theology of the Roman Catholic Church (which was also passed on to the Protestants, most of whom still hold Augustine in high regard). Before Trajan was announced, I was hopeful we'd see Severus in Civ6; I'd still like to see him lead Rome in Civ7 (though I wouldn't be surprised Julius or August returns).

I didn't know that! Well... Pythagoras was half-Phoenician, the "first' mathematician!

Severus would be a cool leader to have. I'd like to see Hannibal make a return for Civ7.

Wouldn't Rome vs Carthage (Phoenicia) be awkward then?

 

[awesome]

The game needs villains, though. (I love a good RPG, but I can't say I extend it to Civ--otherwise I'd be in a perpetual state of warfare playing as virtually any leader in game. )

I seem to remember a specific request to make Dandolo look more evil in civ5

 

[MooFreaky]

It always amused me that one of Rome's most prominent rulers was half Phoenician/Punic

When you look at the Empire's history it becomes less surprising. Rome was excellent at recognising what others did well and utilising it.
Their famed Scutum were probably Samnite. The Galdius was Hispanic. Their Montefortino helmets were Gallic. Even huge parts of their army were happily taken from their neighbours, with horsemen, skirmishers and archers/slingers being the more famed conscripts. These weren't just tacked on, they actually went out of their way to incorporate them.
If you find virtually any list of the top 10 Emperors you will see the same approximately 12 - 13 names. Of those Augustus is the only actual Roman, the rest are either provincial (and definitely not considered Roman. It would be like having a Puerto Rican being President of the USA). While close to half would be outright barbarians, who barely spoke Latin, had not been Romanized in any way.
Their religion, their culture, and their architecture was a hodgepodge of everything, but particularly Greek. To the point they didn't even bother doing many things themselves (outside of their engineering which was exceptional), they got Greek slaves to teach rather than have their own teachers, they acknowledged the Greek superiority in philosophy so used that rather than come up with their own (with the exception of rhetoric, which was the one of the few things Romans felt they should do themselves).

Rome was weirdly xenophobic but still super inclusive. They were terrified of all their neighbours, so felt that conquering them (or, in the early days, creating vassal states) was necessary. But they were fine with you joining peacefully, and once you joined they were super quick to accept you. They allowed your gods in, and then often worshipped them themselves.

So Rome turning an enemy into a ruler of their empire, actually makes total sense to me. In fact, it is one of the most Roman things I can imagine.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . And only if you acknowledged the divinity of the Emperor, ergo the persecution of Jews and Christians--and probably Zoroastrians had Rome succeeded in conquering Persia. (Though ironically Zoroastrian Persia persecuted Christians for a time because they thought they were Roman spies...)

Actually, the persecution of Christians, at least, depends on the Emperor. One Roman governor (a fellow by the name of Flavius Xenophontus Arrianus, who was writing a little history of Alexander on the side, and carefully copying Xenophon's writing style while doing it) asked the Emperor Trajan what to do about Christians who refused to make proper offerings to the Emperor's (cult) Statues, and Trajan replied that he didn't care what anybody worshipped as long as they paid their taxes!
"Render unto Caesar" - although I'm mortally certain Trajan didn't know who he was quoting. . .

 

[Zaarin]

Actually, the persecution of Christians, at least, depends on the Emperor. One Roman governor (a fellow by the name of Flavius Xenophontus Arrianus, who was writing a little history of Alexander on the side, and carefully copying Xenophon's writing style while doing it) asked the Emperor Trajan what to do about Christians who refused to make proper offerings to the Emperor's (cult) Statues, and Trajan replied that he didn't care what anybody worshipped as long as they paid their taxes!
"Render unto Caesar" - although I'm mortally certain Trajan didn't know who he was quoting. . .

Yes, I was generalizing. In general persecution was carried out more by the provincial governors than directly by the emperor, with a few exceptions.

 

[berlin88]

If we are going to debate what constitutes a leader and weather or not someone is qualified to lead a civ, then Martin Luther or John Calvin should have been made a leader a long time ago. The Protestant Reformation had a significant influence on the political, linguistic and cultural landscape of Europe, and Luther and Calvin were key leaders of that movement. If Firaxis can make Gandhi a leader, why not Luther?

 

[AmazonQueen]

If we are going to debate what constitutes a leader and weather or not someone is qualified to lead a civ, then Martin Luther or John Calvin should have been made a leader a long time ago. The Protestant Reformation had a significant influence on the political, linguistic and cultural landscape of Europe, and Luther and Calvin were key leaders of that movement. If Firaxis can make Gandhi a leader, why not Luther?

This is undoubtedly true although in my mind more of an argument for not having Gandhi.
Still Martin Luther as a leader of Germany would make at least as much sense as Gandhi for India.

 

[Sagax]

Yup, every debate stems from Gandhi...

Actually, why did Sid choose Gandhi for Civ1 in the first place?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yup, every debate stems from Gandhi...

Actually, why did Sid choose Gandhi for Civ1 in the first place?

Cmon, he can't be an expert on everything, it was late at night. he'd done everyone else (OK, maybe Shaka wasn't a great idea either), he was tired, he didn't realise 30+ years he'd be stuck with it, you know how it goes ...

 

[MooFreaky]

Actually, why did Sid choose Gandhi for Civ1 in the first place?

Civ 1 was just the most commonly known leaders of those countries at the time.
That's how you end up with the likes of Mao and Stalin, because they were names that would have been most known in the West. Along with Gandhi, because how many people on the street would known any Indian leader (or even famous person) besides Gandhi? They are a big player on the world stage, both today and historically, but they probably have the least common knowledge about them.
And I freely admit I fall into that category, I have learned precisely zero about India other than via Alexander's invasion.

 

[Zaarin]

And to expand on what @MooFreaky said, it's not just Gandhi we got stuck with as a trope from lack of research. The Aztec were hardly the most important civilization in Mesoamerica, but like Gandhi they and Montezuma are probably the most well-known indigenous people of the New World (other than maybe the Sioux/Sitting Bull).

 

[AmazonQueen]

And to expand on what @MooFreaky said, it's not just Gandhi we got stuck with as a trope from lack of research. The Aztec were hardly the most important civilization in Mesoamerica, but like Gandhi they and Montezuma are probably the most well-known indigenous people of the New World (other than maybe the Sioux/Sitting Bull).

Who we could easily have been stuck with. At least the Aztec aren't a blob. I suspect the Aztec are inevitable just due to public perception. I fear thats true for the Zulus too. Even if they are better deserving than the Aztecs or Zulus its probably why the Iroquois will regularly reappear.

edit: And I wouldn't argue that any of them are undeserving of a place in civ, just not a regular place (and personally I'd apply that to Portugal and Austria and some other Europeans too)

 

[Ziad]

You think Iroquois are inevitable in a third expansion if it exists?

 

[Zaarin]

Who we could easily have been stuck with.

Yes, I appreciate that we've only had the Sioux twice-ish and hopefully not again soon...

I suspect the Aztec are inevitable just due to public perception.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. *sigh* If Firaxis doesn't even put the Maya in Civ6...

I'd apply that to Portugal and Austria and some other Europeans too

Sure, though honestly I would have preferred Austria to Sweden...but will accept Hungary, who I've wanted to see included for some time, as a substitute. Poland can sit out Civ7, too; substitute Bohemia or Lithuania.

You think Iroquois are inevitable in a third expansion if it exists?

I wouldn't object to them in the slightest, but I personally hope we get someone from the PNW (it looks like we were very, very close to getting the Haida instead of the Cree), the Powhatan, or the Choctaw--just for someone new. Either Powhatan or Iroquois would be prime choices for diplomatic abilities--so prime that I'm a little surprised we didn't see them in Gathering Storm (maybe in place of Canada...).

 

[AmazonQueen]

You think Iroquois are inevitable in a third expansion if it exists?

Maybe not, they have made some brave choices in Civ VI. Still assuming there is a 3rd expansion and it includes a NA civ (good bet) I'd say its 50/50 between Iroquois and Navaho. Some civs will be included to placate the desire for old favourites.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yes, I appreciate that we've only had the Sioux twice-ish and hopefully not again soon...


Yeah, that's what I was getting at. *sigh* If Firaxis doesn't even put the Maya in Civ6...

Optimistic me tends to think it could've been worse (except in Mesopotamia)

Sure, though honestly I would have preferred Austria to Sweden...but will accept Hungary, who I've wanted to see included for some time, as a substitute. Poland can sit out Civ7, too; substitute Bohemia or Lithuania.

I didn't really want Austria or Sweden so which make the cut was a matter of indifference to me. I agree Hungary was a good choice, happy with Poland but would've been happy with Bohemia or Lithuania too ( they could defnitely have done some interesting things with Lithuania)


I don't know much about the PNW apart from the Salish myself. I'd be more interested in seeing a new African civ, maybe Dahomey.

 

[berlin88]

Yes, I appreciate that we've only had the Sioux twice-ish and hopefully not again soon...


Yeah, that's what I was getting at. *sigh* If Firaxis doesn't even put the Maya in Civ6...


Sure, though honestly I would have preferred Austria to Sweden...but will accept Hungary, who I've wanted to see included for some time, as a substitute. Poland can sit out Civ7, too; substitute Bohemia or Lithuania.


I wouldn't object to them in the slightest, but I personally hope we get someone from the PNW (it looks like we were very, very close to getting the Haida instead of the Cree), the Powhatan, or the Choctaw--just for someone new. Either Powhatan or Iroquois would be prime choices for diplomatic abilities--so prime that I'm a little surprised we didn't see them in Gathering Storm (maybe in place of Canada...).

In regards to Poland, why not simply combine them with Lithuania and recreate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

Austria was never an independent nation state until after WWI, and most Austrians identified as German until after WWII, when Austrians began to distance themselves from other Germans. Austria started as a Bavarian stem duchy, known as the Margraviate of Austria, then the Duchy of Austria, Archduchy of Austria and finally the Austro-Hungarian empire. During this time, Austria refered only to the modern regions of upper and lower Austria, as Styria, Carinthia, Voralberg, Tyrol and Salzburg were separate political entities.

Given the significance of the Holy Roman Empire in European history, including Austria makes sense.

In regards to various North American Indian tribes, I think Cochise or Geronimo are famous enough that Firaxis could include them in a future civ game. I would love to see the Wyandot (Huron) included in the game, but I don't think they are well known enough for Firaxis to include them. The Huron were allied with the French Canadians and the two groups often intermarried, so now that Canada is in the game, why not include the Huron.