Possible new leader for each civ

[BeyondCivilized]

Zongo, let me first say that it's a pleasure meeting you.

He is a prophet only in the islamic point of view, I think. I don't think there is an Islamic ban on representing him too, is there?

There kinda is, and there's also a ban on drawing Abu Bakr. But the Arab world does not care much about video games (yet) so no problem. Besides, although Solomon is one of the greatest prophets and is considered the foundation of the Monotheist religion (Since we consider Islam, Christianity and Judaism the same basic religion that calls for the worship of the one God, but Christianity is an updated version of Judaism and Islam is so to Christianity) I'd like to note also that the name Solomon is pronounced Suleiman, and now you know where the Ottoman Sultan got his name. But alas he was the king of humans and djins and sent by God, the fact that the Israelis always prefer isolation over acceptance is killing me from the inside out, they've been doing so for over 5000 years and they still do that to this very day! Religion is not nationalizing and combating whom ever does not belong to "our superior kind" it's trying to convert, save or enlighten as many people as possible, it may sound bigoted, but that's what religion truly is, except maybe Sikhism. I bet Fireaxis at least concurs, and proof is the "missionary" unit.

Besides, I am positive current standard history consider Solomon an historical figure and a "kingdom if Israel" existing at the time.

History is written by the victors, you can't just swallow everything you hear, evidence can be manipulated for ones personal power gain. Also our education curriculum do not recognize Israel (past or present) and so does our official maps, Israel is marked as "Occupied Palestine" in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc...

In any case, a "temple of Solomon" was built, since Titus burn it down and the feat was celebrated on a triumphal arc in Rome. The proofs: the Arc of Titus is still standing in the Imperial Forum in Rome, and a wall of the temple is still standing in Jerusalem.
Of course, such a temple built is a strong indicator of a state of some sort being behind the operation, just like Angkor Wat made us modern acknowledge the existence of the Khmer civilization. Let us call that state "Israel", ok?

You should probably take into account that Christianity took over Europe by the Iron Fist Rule for the longest time, evidence can be easily manipulated as I said earlier, nothing can be accepted as solid when 1000AD Christianity wasn't a big fan of science, and the second coming of Jesus is considered utmost importance. Also the Wailing Wall was called the Buraq Wall for the longest time, we Muslims consider it the location were the Prophet Muhammad stood in the night of ascension. We can't be both right, but we could be both wrong.

Furhtermore, as far as I remember, the economic success of Solomon's Israel was mostly due to his "free trade" policy with the Phoenician trading cities of Tyre and, well, Sidon. He opened the trade route between Sabah (modern Yemen) and the Mediterranean, profiting greatly as middleman. He was also so tolerant (or wise, or shrewd) to take the Sabah's queen as wife and accept other cults.

You don't have to tell me the biblical story of Solomon, it's almost exactly like the one mentioned the Quran. Even his queen was mentioned, and her name is Balqees according to Arab tradition, long before Islam was founded.

It does not exist yet. I wish it'd exist 'cause I'd likely spam it with posts (as here), but I have not the heart of inflicting it on the community myself

[OFF_TOPIC]
On the most recent history: I followed the invasion on the mass media, and I am deeply sorry for what the people there must have been through.
I think it was both a strategic mistake and a grave criminal responsibility to mount such an offensive in those conditions. But it lies not on Israel or the Israeli, rather on a much smaller number of government and army people (not only from Israel), just like the responsibility of the kidnappings lies not on Lebanon but on some Hizbollah guys (not only from Lebanon).

Heck, I am actually supporting the decision taken by some countries (including mine) to step in as a peace force. I very rarely do. Because the alternative is atrocious (I am old enough to remember many lebanese spotlights) and because I believe that, differently from some other states in the Middle East, Lebanon HAS a chance of developing into a rich democracy in acceptable times.

Sometimes I feel so paranoid as to think that actually this could be what pushes Israel and Lebanon's "arab allies" to step in, or incite refugees, finance guerrillas, and so on. A functional, multicultural, non-confessional state free from oil monopolies is anathema for every religious fanatic or police state, and a serious competitor for every economy.

Although I find the topic interesting and important, I think that we should stop this exchange here or soon, and let the thread go back to a time-wasting game, where everybody happily curse Montezuma together, ok?
[/OFF_TOPIC]

What you said is pure Gold and I agree wholeheartedly, I also agree that we should probably save this thread from our long off topic posts. Damn that CivIV Montezuma! Although I sometimes wonder what would have happened if he prevailed against Cortez in the real world.

 

[Angst]

LOL

What Leif! Great guy!!! He's the Red one, right?

Margaret I, well that one you catch me! I have no idea!!! Scottish queen maybe? Teach me!!!

Red one is close enough, Erik the Red was the guy who discovered Greenland, while Leif the Happy, his son, discovered Newfoundland about 1000AD.

Queen Margaret I united Denmark, Norway and Sweden in the Kalmar Union in the late 14th Century, effectively making a temporary great power. However, only during her reign, afterwards the bad Danish kings (Denmark was the leader) severely used the 'hospitality' of Sweden and took too many resources, taxes, etc. That way, Sweden grew weary, leaving and entering the Union until finally ending the Union in the early 16th century.

 

[Zenon_pt]

Red one is close enough, Erik the Red was the guy who discovered Greenland, while Leif the Happy, his son, discovered Newfoundland about 1000AD.

Queen Margaret I united Denmark, Norway and Sweden in the Kalmar Union in the late 14th Century, effectively making a temporary great power. However, only during her reign, afterwards the bad Danish kings (Denmark was the leader) severely used the 'hospitality' of Sweden and took too many resources, taxes, etc. That way, Sweden grew weary, leaving and entering the Union until finally ending the Union in the early 16th century.

Question:
Didn't Finland was a part of Kalmar Union???
I'm not a Scandinavian so!!! No one is perfect !!!

 

[Depravo]

I still think Athelstan should be added - little known, but a real English Warrior-King.

Great choice. Our most underrated king.

 

[Zongo]

it's a pleasure meeting you.

I reciprocate

There kinda is, and there's also a ban on drawing Abu Bakr. [...] I'd like to note also that the name Solomon is pronounced Suleiman, and now you know where the Ottoman Sultan got his name. [...]

Uh, could you please write me a list of the "invisible guys" please? I see no big problems for Mohamed (even in my old schoolbooks they used old islamic art -I think- for his representation, that is blank space with a beard and the flames of revelation around the head), but Solomon has plenty of picture service already...

The Suleiman-Solomon connection I made yesterday thanks to Wikipedia (double checking myself) so you are a couple of hours late, but thanks for the hint It's good to know though: there is no wealth like knowledge...

Religion [...] it's trying to convert, save or enlighten as many people as possible

That is true for Islam and Christianity, which are universal monotheisms. The belief in only one truth, in only one life and in the universality of the message are the conditions for the missionary activity. Uniqueness, urgency and universality.

Hindus do not seek universal conversion, since life follow life in the Karma. To oversimplify, if you lead a good life, whatever your way, your karma will reincarnate you in a better one next time. There is no sense of urgency, no need for missionaries. Of course, holy people help their fellows with teaching and example, but they do not usually travel to far countries with the only purpose of spreading one word, one path.

Jews believe in one truth and one life too, but they do not hold the message as universal. Salvation is a pact between God and one chosen people, which cannot be extended by man. The concept of conversion is almost heretical, the only possible similar thing being a "return to the right ways" of descendants of jews.

Buddism is extremely flexible and so radically different from the rest that, in some forms, it supports missionary activity, while in others it chooses to only offer a testimony for interested people.
In some sense, it is so philosophically deep and innovative that it needs to be simplified for the masses, while usually religions are designed for the masses and only afterward elaborated for the scholars.
One proof of this uniqueness is that Buddism never supported violent intolerance or religious wars. Christianity, Islam, Jewishry and Induism all did or do.

History is written by the victors [...] You should probably take into account that Christianity took over Europe by the Iron Fist Rule [...] You don't have to tell me the biblical story of Solomon, it's almost exactly like the one mentioned the Quran.

Sorry, I did not mean to ram my version of history to you, or to teach you anything. I was just looking for facts, or stories, which are culturally shared and similar in interpretation (Solomon being good) and which describe a situation of tolerance sadly different from the current one.

I agree with history being written by the victors and Christianity doing its share of "clean-up". However, Christianity was never kind with the jews, and hystorically less tolerant than Islam. So the bias is likely to be in the other direction - that is, toward discredit and denial of jewish existence.

For instance, when the spanish Reconquista overran the Caliphate of Granada, many jews (the Sephardi jews) escaped to muslim North Africa. The ones who stayed were called Marranos (from the arabic muharram, "scum") and forced to formally convert to catholicism. The word was generally used as an insult for centuries - not out of knowledge of arabic, but of association with the jews.
And it was not the muslims that launched an atrocious annichilation campaign in WW2.
During Nazi rule, some jewish children were saved by christian families who took them in from parents who knew the coming doom, did an immense sacrifice and took a terrible risk in order to save them. There was also a clandestine network to ship them outside the Reich, to muslim Turkey, with the supervision of the catholic "ambassador" to Istanbul. At the end of the war, the few surviving families and some jewish charities looked for the children, but the then Pope (the same one who allegedly helped Nazi flee to south America) issued instructions to jam their search down, keep the children, and educate them as christians. Fortunately the ambassador "cleverly disobeyed" and let them free.
He would later become the best Pope of the XX century, John the XXIIIrd. As a Pope, he started an ecumenical council which, between other things, dropped the old tenet that they were responsible for the death of Jesus - for cristians, the ultimate and unforgivable offence of deicide.
But he, and to a lesser extent John Paul the IInd, are sadly the exceptions.

 

[BeyondCivilized]

Uh, could you please write me a list of the "invisible guys" please?

All the prophets mentioned in the Qur'an, since there are also Prophets mentioned by Muhammad, but not in the Quran. And the four Caliphates who lead the Muslims after the prophet's death. Not that big of a list, but I think wikipedia has it..

Solomon has plenty of picture service already...

Yep, he's considered Jewish (even by us) they're free to do whatever they like, we won't draw him, but the Jews are considered the people of the book, as in they are true believers, but a little off track, same goes for the Christians. Now that doesn't mean we don't respect the 100% "infidels" such as Hindus for instance, God created all Human beings equal, it's either we try to convince them to join our religion or leave them be. Now I'm not sure what a dhimme is, but I think it's related to Sharia Law, but it's also no longer practiced, same as slavery, which also was completely abolished. I would also like to note that I speak for Sunni Muslims and most Shias, I don't know much about the rest. Sunni Muslims are also the great majority of Muslims in the world.

That is true for Islam and Christianity [...] Christianity, Islam, Jewishry and Induism all did or do.

See, I one said on these forums that the religion system in this game should be completely revamped! I'm tired of Buddhists waging religious wars upon my oppressed Christian virtual soul!! Thanks for the info which some of it is new to me. Although what really bothers me is that Jews prefer isolation, and perceive themselves as superior to other people, unlike Christianity and Islam, who prefer conversion. Now I'm not saying that conversion is superior, peaceful conversion is good, but ethnic cleansing is not, even if it is "tradition". Both Holy Romans, Spaniards etc and Ottomans had their fair share of ethnic cleansing in the past. And Jews also did this in the 1948 Nakba.

Sorry, I did not mean to ram my version of history to you [...] unforgivable offence of deicide.
But he, and to a lesser extent John Paul the IInd, are sadly the exceptions.

The other reason I'm not so fond of (Israeli) Jews is that they lived amongst us for over 1400 years (Sephardi or Arab Jews in general). Although they betrayed the prophet two times in the early days of Islam, the Prophet ordered the Muslims to treat the people of the book like brothers. They even owned property in what was considered Muslim Land, where the great majority were Muslims. And then when the great exodus to Palestine, and instead of reassessing their loyalty, they back stabbed the rest of the Arabs and joined with the occupiers of Palestine, instead of sharing the rule over the young free nation of Palestine, they ethnic cleansed all what is non-Jewish (NON-ZIONIST) and forced the rest to immigrate for their doomed lives. Arab Christians were also their victims, and unlike the Jews, Arab Christians were loyal, that's why my country Lebanon for example who is 30% Christian has a Christian President, and the next President can not be non Christian (It is anti democratic, but democracy would force the Christians into isolation and we would not want that) Arab Christians also exist in good numbers in dictatorship Syria, Jordan and Egypt. They have been living here for hundreds of years and they have the right to remain here, even if the great majority is Muslim who rule by Sharia Law. I've been reading stories about Arab Jews who are currently living in Israel, but still practice their Arab Traditions (Arab and Muslim are too different thins BTW) and even speak in Arabic between one another, same goes for Persian Jews. Did you know that over 25,000 Jews live in Iran? There isn't much difference between Arabs and Persians, or even Arabs and Turks, our cultures are intertwined, but that's mostly thanks to Islam.

Now I can hail Israel and recognize it's "right" to exist, but then I would be like and Neo-Nazi self hating American of Polish descend, and Jewish Religion. Now I myself support the two-states one-capital resolution but I don't speak for many people on this one.

I say it again, it's a pleasure.

 

[Angst]

Question:
Didn't Finland was a part of Kalmar Union???
I'm not a Scandinavian so!!! No one is perfect !!!

Technically it was, but it was a part of Sweden back then. It became Finnish after the Russian-Swedish war some year I don't remember... Some nationalistic guys revolted, but instead of returning to Sweden (Which they normally belonged to) they created their own state.

 

[Zongo]

Technically it was, but it was a part of Sweden back then. It became Finnish after the Russian-Swedish war some year I don't remember... Some nationalistic guys revolted, but instead of returning to Sweden (Which they normally belonged to) they created their own state.

As far as I know, Finnish culture spanned Finland, Karelia and a big chunk of today's Russia, around and east of the city of Arkangelsk. ALthough Finland's culture now shares a lot of similarities with the other nordic countries, its language is quite different - it does not even belong to the "germanic" subgroup of the "indoeuropean" language family.

In some sense, Sweden and Russia ruled over Finnish lands as foreign masters, more or less like England did in Ireland. Moreover, they used Finland as a cushion area and battlefield in the wars between them... Understandably, the moment the Finns had a chance they got themselves free.

Nevertheless today's Finland harbours no hatred for Sweden, but a lively and healthy feeling of competition expecially in sport. The feeling for Russia is, I think, a bit murkier. On another note, the fact that they feel squeezed between two big neighbours is probably one of the reasons for them to join the EU wholehartedly: Finland is in the EU, in the Schengen area and it has already adopted the Euro, while Sweden and Denmark still have their own currency (two independent versions of the Kroner).

But I am no Finn, so if any guy from there roams through this thread, please give an account

 

[Antilogic]

@Zongo: Sorry I haven't given you a full response to your posting yet, but I'm still reading it and I've been busy. I'm taking a lot under consideration for the list I'm developing, though, so I'll keep that in mind.

I use the "long 19th" myself, but strictly speaking, Teddy Roosevelt and Meiji spill over into the official 20th century. I'll acknowledge that, mostly because I want my list to have some "20th century" leaders while avoiding the vastly overrated (in my opinion) WW2 leaders.

If you are referring to the Manifest Destiny and the 1840's war against Mexico for the Southwestern Territories (that became California, Arizona, etc.) that was James Polk. Andrew Jackson was lackluster in my opinion as a leader...he is often touted as the "people's president" and the first "man of the people" instead of an intellectual or rich planter in office, but his economic policy of destroying the national banks was a bad move. And, he only exacerbated the disagreements between the North and South, which would later lead to Civil War. There are other things, but if I had to pick American leaders, I would select Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy. FDR and Jefferson are an honorable mentions, but don't make the final cut.

I'm well aware of the history of Austria, the HRE, and Prussia...my top choice is for implementing the "German" people as two civilizations: Prussia and Austria. However, since there is strong support for Charlemagne, or another medieval leader, I could see changing "Prussia" into "Germany" for the purpose of including those leaders...not because it's a good choice, but because it is the least of the bad choices.

However, I'm pleased with Frederick II and Bismarck for Prussia, and Charles V and maybe one more (okay, I know I haven't been the most supportive of her inclusion before, but Maria Theresa because I can't think of any other names now) for Austria. Austria can have other names that represent its greater influence in Europe, but I'm fine to only have Charlemagne or Barbarossa in scenarios.

I'm not a fan of the "civilization" changing in the middle of the game. Although it would add an element of realism, it just doesn't seem to work right with Civ-style mechanics. You pick a player in 4000 BCE, and you are them until 2050 CE. Only in a mod or scenario should that occur.

On Sargon...I knew beforehand he was Akkadian. However, since he had conquered Sumer, there was a proposition he could be included as a second leader for them. It wasn't my idea originally--I found it in another thread here. I haven't investigated that or the Indian leaders yet, so I'm still figuring that stuff out. In any case, I guess my civilization count just went from 37 to 38...Sargon had one of the first true empires in history. We can't exclude him, now, can we?

 

[cybrxkhan]

On Sargon...I knew beforehand he was Akkadian. However, since he had conquered Sumer, there was a proposition he could be included as a second leader for them. It wasn't my idea originally--I found it in another thread here. I haven't investigated that or the Indian leaders yet, so I'm still figuring that stuff out. In any case, I guess my civilization count just went from 37 to 38...Sargon had one of the first true empires in history. We can't exclude him, now, can we?

Someone suggested much earlier Sargon could definitely work for the Babylonians, because Alexander the Greek - I mean Great was Macedonian or something like that.

 

[Zongo]

If you are referring to the Manifest Destiny [...] that was James Polk. Andrew Jackson was lackluster in my opinion as a leader [...] I would select Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy.

Thanks. I did not really wanted Jackson in, though I would like Alexander Hamilton. The guy who was never president and that everybody loved to hate, but to whom most of the economical and political structure of the US is due. Nationalist, centralizer, aggressive, deviously clever and immensely ambitious.

I would live without Lincoln - yes, I know, everybody in the US love him and his stony face looks down from Mt. Rushmore, but he was a divisive, ill-advised sweet talker in the end. He hated the concept of central bank, and sleepwalked into a civil war! In his time, nobody had a great opinion of him. He got deified after the war and his death, somehow to "bury and enshrine" a past to be disposed of as fast as possible.

I don't get what you see in Teddy Roosevelt, beside imperialism and a sick love for propaganda. Care to explain?

I'm well aware of the history of Austria, the HRE, and Prussia [...] I'm pleased with Frederick II and Bismarck for Prussia, and Charles V and maybe one more ([...] Maria Theresa [...]) for Austria.

If you are not happy with Maria Theresa, why not Metternich, the mastermind of the 1815 Vienna Congress?

On Sargon...I knew beforehand he was Akkadian. However, since he had conquered Sumer, there was a proposition he could be included as a second leader for them. [...] Sargon had one of the first true empires in history. We can't exclude him, now, can we?

No, we can't exclude the first of the Big Bad Guys

@Cybrxkhan

I think that the suggestion for him to be sumerian did not take into accout that the originating culture (the akkadian-babylonian) is already represented in the game, differently from what happens with Alexander and the macedonian culture (which did not achieve too much in itself).

I haven't investigated that or the Indian leaders yet, so I'm still figuring that stuff out.

Babur is the founder of the Moghul empire, a muslim dominated but multicultural and tolerant union which is of tremendous importance for the history of India. Akbar was possibly the one who ruled the moghul empire at his peak.

I made a tragic slip-up in my list, I should have placed Akbar in India and Abbas I for Persia. Abbas I is the one who took Persia to new cultural heights, and who also shifted Persia to Shia Islam (most muslim countries are Sunni) which will have huge ripercussions in history.

In fact, while the first and possibly largest component of the muslim world is arabic, the leading cultural one is persian - a lot of islamic art and muslim culture was developed or borrowed from Persia, as an unexpectedy large part of christian one, too! Angels with wings and halos, dualism of good and evil, guys who die and resurrect (check the Mithra cult), etc.
The conflict between the two -or better three, from the moment the Turks came into play- is at the base of the division of the islamic world today.
If not for the Sunni-Shia division, Persia would possibly be the leading muslim nation in the world.

 

[Depravo]

Austrians? If it was up to me I would get rid of the HRE and make Charlemagne a German or maybe French leader. And Byzantium too for that matter.

Akbar for India sounds nice. Frankly I would have Nehru in place of Gandhi but that firy little wucker seems to be a fixture now. Still, if they found the courage to get rid of Joan of Arc...

The only civs that really NEED new leaders IMO are Spain and Japan and of them I echo the calls for Meiji and Charles V. If we take Ottomans to mean Turkish culture generally, as I do, Timur would be a badass opponent.

 

[Arksa]

Definately Adolf Hitler for the germans. If Stalin is in the game (he killed millions of his own people) Hitler should be too. Hitler is not in the game because his "rage" was pointed to a certain race of people.

Anyway...


Konstantinus for Rome, Hitler for Germany. What would Hitler be though?

Ind, Cha
or
Ind, Agg
or
Agg, Cha

 

[Zongo]

Definately Adolf Hitler for the germans.

Please allow me to be the first to point out how, in this thread so far, there has been a rather strong agreement in not turning it into the Adolf thread.

If I understand well, a plurality of people here would merrily get rid of Stalin, Mao, Churchill, De Gaulle and Roosevelt, too. I personally second this.
We believe WW2 to be already overrepresented in game terms, and that most of these leaders were nothing special either, rather they just happened to be in charge in what the chinese wisdom calls "interesting times".
Your particular choice has the extra point of having been quite mad, too - scarcely a feature correlated with great leadership.

So, within the blessing of free speech and in acknowledgement of the tolerance and understanding that it requires, I warmly suggest you to take some time reading through the thread, if you did not do so yet.

 

[aronnax]

The only civs that really NEED new leaders IMO are Spain and Japan and of them I echo the calls for Meiji and Charles V. If we take Ottomans to mean Turkish culture generally, as I do, Timur would be a badass opponent.

But we wont. The Ottomans and their Empire is not just Turkish Culture, it was the first non-nomadic, stable Turkish state with their own laws and system base on ruling a state and the first real Islamic threat to Christian Europe since Poiters. The Ottomans are a far cry from the Turkish horders in Central Asia

 

[BeyondCivilized]

If not for the Sunni-Shia division, Persia would possibly be the leading muslim nation in the world.

Tell me about it. In Lebanon, we know if someone is a Shiite or a Sunni just by asking him which part of Lebanon s/he lives in.

 

[Depravo]

But we wont. The Ottomans and their Empire is not just Turkish Culture, it was the first non-nomadic, stable Turkish state with their own laws and system base on ruling a state and the first real Islamic threat to Christian Europe since Poiters. The Ottomans are a far cry from the Turkish horders in Central Asia

Well it all depends how you constitute a 'civilisation'. At the very least I would have renamed the Ottomans 'Turkey', Ottoman being a purely dynastic label.

 

[Zongo]

At the very least I would have renamed the Ottomans 'Turkey', Ottoman being a purely dynastic label.

That's a reductive view. They are the Osman turks, to be distinguished from the white sheep turks in Persia and many others. Dinastic divisions were the only thing distinguishing many kingdoms in Europe too, so the concept of the age was quite different from the modern one.

Moreover, modern Turkey is different from the Ottoman empire, a bit more than modern Germany is different from the HRE, and a bit less than modern Italy is different from Rome. The ottoman empire was a multiethnic, religious empire, while modern Turkey is a national republic as laicistic as France.

 

[Depravo]

That's a reductive view. They are the Osman turks, to be distinguished from the white sheep turks in Persia and many others. Dinastic divisions were the only thing distinguishing many kingdoms in Europe too, so the concept of the age was quite different from the modern one.

Moreover, modern Turkey is different from the Ottoman empire, a bit more than modern Germany is different from the HRE, and a bit less than modern Italy is different from Rome. The ottoman empire was a multiethnic, religious empire, while modern Turkey is a national republic as laicistic as France.

Right but did Kemal 'create a new civilisation' when he took over? I think not.

I've said it many times before but having an Ottoman civ is almost as bad as having a Valois or Tudor one. It's unneccessarily specific, as in fact is the distinction between Rome / Byzantium and HRE / Germany where there was clear cultural continuity in both cases.

 

[Angst]

Still, it was under the Ottomans where the Turks had the peak of their power...