You may have meant WW2 where you said WW1...
Yep, sorry. Corrected.
My 20th century leader picks right now are Gandhi (left in because I haven't examined Indian history yet, but I'm inclined to leave good ol' Gandhi), Meiji (doesn't he spill over into the early 1900's?), and Teddy Roosevelt in favor of FDR.
Gandhi was great but out of contest: he was against nationalism and against planned industrialization, the forces driving India at his age. India would have gained independence even without his help, and Pakistan did split away even against his advice. He was soon killed by an hindu nationalist.
Ironically, his biggest contribution was to present decolonisation as "the right thing to do" in the West's point of view.
Meiji is 1800 for me. I like Eric Hobsbawm's picture of the "long XIX century" starting 1789 and ending 1914, followed by the "short XX century" starting 1914 and ending 1989. If I might suggest some wonderful history books, then it would be his 1800 trilogy: "1789-1848 Age of Revolutions", "1848-1870 Age of Capital" and "1870-1914 Age of Empire".
FDR had a big propaganda component and still lacks a balanced hystorical analysis, but that's typical of the recent XX century. He was much better than any other US President for quite a long time, though.
I see Teddy as a symbol of the new (for that time) US imperialism. But this started earlier, with the Mexican War. Was it Andrew Jackson?
The sole reason I am considering not renaming the Germans "Prussians" is to incorporate one of these earlier German["ic"] leaders, either Barbarossa or Otto I. Otherwise, I would have made that move already. With the HRE gone and replaced with Austria, it's easier to justify making them German leaders.
Historically, the austrian empire was formally a collection of disparate personal Hapsburg domains, aquired mostly through marriage. That made the title of the leader of the family a huge cacophony: "Duke of Austria, King of Bohemia, King of Hungary, Margrav of LostInTranslatia..." The imperial title they held was precisely the HRE title, which they were able to keep in the family almost consistently for 4 centuries.
Napoleon was the one responsible for abolishing the HRE as a relic of the past. The "Austrian Empire" was formally born in 1815 after the Wien Congress: Prussia did not want the HRE back, seeing it as Austrian interference, forcing Austria to do some "diplomatic outing".
The HRE was the only political union perceived by the german(ic) people, their First Empire. The fact that it included Bohemia and parts of France, Italy and the Netherlands was not a problem. It was not perceived as "national" in the sense of nationalism, this concept being only a later fantasy. In a way, the HRE died when nationalism was born, leaving 2 local powers, Austria and Prussia, fight for dominance. The national one, Prussia, won and found the (second) German Empire, while the multicultural Austria lost and slid toward the path of marginalization and instability.
By the way, this is why the Nazis called theirs "the third Reich (empire)", since they perceived it as the third instalment of the franchise.
So the answer to the question "which one is Germany" is somewhat arbitrary. The title slid from HRE to Prussia between 1815 and 1870, along with the rise of new social and political views.
Possibly, a good trade-off might be keeping HRE in name, getting rid of Aachen and Charlemagne (start with Vienna, Prague, etc; rename Charlemagne into Barbarossa) and "feel" it as Austria, while renaming Germany into Prussia.
Yes, that means that there is no Germany in the game. So what? There is no United Kingdom either.
An event changing Civs names and giving minor bonuses after certain discoveries would be cool. After Nationalism, the most powerful between Prussia or the HRE can change its name into Germany. After Liberalism, the most powerful between Celtia or England can change its name into United Kingdom. After Communism, Russia can become the Soviet Union (and change back to Russia with the same tech that obsoletes the Kremlin). After Feudalism, Rome can become Italy. Aztec would become Mexico, Incas would be Perù, etc. We could have Castilla becoming Spain.
The REALLY funky thing would be the possibility of changing civ (I mean flag, color and LEADER) after a certain technology and with a choice, like:
celtia -> (stay Celtia or become) HRE OR England
HRE -> (stay HRE or become) France OR Germany
Rome -> (since Italy cannot start, one MUST become) Italy OR Bysantium
England -> (since UK cannot start, one MUST become) United Kingdom OR America
In my example, Italy and the UK are only name changes for the civs, the leaders stay the same.
If the country you would like to change into already exists, you can pick the alternative or stay as you are.
Of course you could start the game with America anyway, but you would not get any "change into" event.
I left Charles V with Austria just because he was the main guy from Civ3, not to mention his role in the Reformation (an underrepresented part of European history in the game, compared to the over-represented WW2).
Holy words! I would LOVE a religious split mechanic of some sort. Justifying game efforts to keep it in one piece, or accepting reality and prepare for the split...
My original plan for Charles V was unique: we would add Austria with two leaders, somebody else and Charles V. Then, if Charles V could also lead Spain, in addition to Austria. So, if Isabella was picked for Spain, then either Charles V or the other leader could lead Austria. If Charles V was picked for Spain, then the other leader would have to lead Austria. Vice-versa is also true. It was a way to give both Spain and Austria a second leader in one move. I hadn't considered him as the head of the Netherlands, though, just Austria or Spain.
Neat. But I would leave it independent, and just add a +10 relationship bonus if the leaders happen to be the same person. There might be conflict between bureaucracies and noblemen, even if the ruler is formally the same...
Is Sargon more appropriate for Sumeria or Babylon? I had him as a second Sumerian leader, with a second Babylonian leader as Nebuchadnezzar, a particularly famous figure, although poorly researched by myself.
He was Akkadian. Akkad started north of Sumer, roughly a millennium later, and had a different language and culture. They absorbed large parts of Sumerian culture but kept their own language, and eventually became the dominant power, inglobating and assimilating the former. A bit like the Greece-Rome relationship. Babylon was founded by the Akkadians (possibly by Sargon himself), and remained Akkadian until the Assyrian invasion. After that there was the second Babylonian Empire (Nebuchadnezzar II, the one appearing in the Bible) which had a so called "Caldean" culture, somewhat a daughter culture of the Akkadian as the Byzantine is to the Roman.
For Rome, I wouldn't even consider Nero. Trajan and Hadrian for late rulers, and Constantine (under a similar system above for Charles V--he can rule both Rome and Byzantium). I need to read more early Roman Republican history to pick out a good name for that period. Sulla jumps to mind, but I'm not sure he would be my final pick.
The "double" Constantine sounds good. Trajan would be the other choice. He was great in public building and military issues, altough not awesome like Caesar or Augustus. These two were almost otherwordly.
Caesar was a brilliant general, a talented journalist (De Bello Gallico), a charismatic and ruthless leader, and also a generous and merciful man. He was killed by the fearful and envious men he spared - including Brutus, one of his adopted sons.
Born Gaius Octavius (Thurinus), Augustus was also adopted by Caesar and changed thereafter his name into (Gaius Julius) Caesar Octavianus. Augustus is a title he was bestowed by the Senate only after the civil war, meaning "the majestic increaser".
After a brief period of hesitation after the death of his father, he became chillingly single-minded and absolutely merciless: he spent Caesar's considerable personal fortune to raise armies, he used and betrayed all of his friends and he brutally killed through epuration lists any opposer, securing the long-lasting success and peace that Caesar lenience did not achieve. He had seen it, and learnt from it.
Then he built on his bloody and expensive victory. He morphed into a deviously clever politician (governing absolutely but without alienating the Senate, as Caesar was not able to) and a magnificent ruler in his reconstruction of Rome: 40 years of uninterrupted peace and stability, grandiose public constructions and a golden age of literature and arts.
But Otto I should stay with HRE, IMHO. The HRE of Otto I and Barbarossa contained Northern Italy and Burgundy, too. Besides, I would rename the game's Germany into Prussia. Leaders for Germany as we know it are only Bismarck the Iron Chancellor, Wilhelm II the Mad (got rid of the Iron Chancellor, styled himself Kriegsherr and dived into a WW1 spiral) and, well, Adolf the Evil.
Teach me!!!
