Possible new leader for each civ

[Swein Forkbeard]

Edited the first post. I REALLY disagree with Desert-Fox's ideas, though.

 

[Angst]

Vikings: Margaret I

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

Portugal: The Marquis of Pombal

Really, if you ask me, other than João II he is the only choice for Portugal.


Back to lurking.

The only one?

i think D. Afonso Henriques is a better choice. Fought for independence from Castilla and Leon and created the borders of Portugal which still stand today. the oldest borders in Europe i might add.

 

[TM Moot]

*England: Duke of Wellington, Richard II, Alfred the Great

The Duke of Wellington could be a Great General, but definitely NOT a Leader.

Not sure about Dicky the 2nd, but would like to see Alfred the Great included. Whilst he was King of Wessex , not England, his legacy speaks for itself.

Saying that, I'm sure some Civs need a 2nd leader before England gets a 4th!!

 

[Ringan]

If France had another leader I would recommend Henry IV. He brought religious tolerance to France during the Catholic/Protestant schism by passing the Edict of Nantes and was one of the most popular French kings. I think he'd be as, if not more worthy of a candidate as de Gaulle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_France

 

[Hawe Hawe]

Feel free to add more to the list.

Germany: Paul von Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm II

Oh not again, all together the biggest traitors german history has to offer. Wilhelm II. was simply stupid and paranoid, von Hindenburg was an old man who didn't understand neither the world surrounding him nor what his duty as Reichspräsident was.

My suggestions for Germany instead are:
My favorite: Friedrich Ebert: social democrat, first Reichspräsident 1919-1925 of the Weimar Republic. One of the founders of the first german democracy under very bad circumstances. Traits: organized, protective; favorite civic universal suffrage

Konrad Adenauer: German Chancellor from 1949-1963, formed the Bundesrepublik, intelligent diplomat, Wirtschaftswunder after the total collapse. Traits: Industrial, protective; Favorite civic: Free Market

Willy Brandt: Chancellor 1969-1974, modernized society, acchieved better relationships with the Warsaw Pact countries, especially Poland. Traits: Charismatic, philosophic; Favorite civic: Pacifism

 

[Bast]

I don't have much time tonight, and will be more than willing to post more tomorrow. However, in short:

I don't require the leaders to be monarchs to lead the civilizations in the game--for example, American presidents are not monarchs, and neither was Hannibal, who was an oligarch along with others in Carthage. However, all the generals we have in Civ turned political in their lives: Washington, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, etc. Saying Joan of Arc did more than a cowardly king hiding in a corner doesn't strike me as cogent.

It isn't just a matter of losing wars--Hannibal lost, Napoleon lost, but I'll still argue for their inclusion far more greatly than Maria Theresa. Sometimes, you can make seemingly no major mistakes and still lose (that's life). But Maria Theresa was sheerly incompetent in foreign affairs, it seems. Her reign was the twilight of the Austrians and their empire, as Frederick of Prussia stole the limelight and became a major power in Europe and a key competitor, and Prussia kept that fire going and united Germany. Had Maria Theresa maintained Austrian dominance in German affairs and united Germany, I would think more kindly of her. However, she completely missed her opportunity to do such. And, if you, with an alliance of Austria, the HRE, France, Russia, and Sweden and a combined population of 100 million cannot destroy a tiny, surrounded country like Prussia with only 4 million inhabitants after 7 years of fighting...that speaks to your ineffectiveness as well.

I don't have much time either but why must you always have greater requirements for female leaders? It's always one thing or another. If they win wars, no they must be involved in politics, if they're involved in politics then it's because they don't win wars.

This double standard does not apply to the male leaders that are in the game some of whom are very questionable. Some leaders' rule are equated with some of the worst times in their country. I mean Stalin, Mao? Please!

Stop this double standard. If male leaders are good enough to get in because they did one thing great, surely female leaders also. Not all need to be as famous and lived life in the fast lane like Elizabeth to get into the game.

It's like if it's a female leader we have to question and really see whether she's worthy or whether she just followed the men (advisers) around her and that's how she became great. If it were up to some of you, only Elizabeth would be in the game and even she'd be trialled by some of you.

The fact that Maria Theresa did not acquire as much land as Frederick is beside the point. It's not like she lost wars and lost huge chunks of territory. Austria did gain from the Polish partition too did it not? Also, a unification of Germany under Prussia or Austria was NOT feasible at the time so you can't blame her for that. That's hardly fair.

As for Joan of Arc. I will say this: Joan of Arc saved France. We all know this. If De Gaulle is in, I can't see why she can't be in.

 

[Bast]

*England: Duke of Wellington, Richard II, Alfred the Great

It's Richard I btw... Richard the Lionheart.

Also, can I suggest Eleanor of Aquitaine for England? Thanks.

 

[Cvntpumeler]

Actually, I don't feel that Americans are really a civ, they should be a part of English.

But,

Germans : Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm II
Persians : Xerxes
Spanish : Franco
Roman : Nero
Mongolia : Batu Khan
Russia : Ivan IV
Japan : Hirohito

You have some strange ideas... Hitler and Nero? Hitler there can be at least some arguement made for... but Nero? please... he could be found at the top on a list of "worst rulers ever." What about the leaders civ compares you to at the end of the game? I can't remember who they all are, but the best is Augustus Caesar right? Who's at the bottom, Nero? Caligula?

Edit: Americans should be part of english? That doesn't really make sense when compared to the rest of the civs in the game... should Spain, France, Portugal, and Byzantines all just be lumped into Rome?

 

[Common Sensei]

Actually, I don't feel that Americans are really a civ, they should be a part of English.

But,

Germans : Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm II
Persians : Xerxes
Spanish : Franco
Roman : Nero
Mongolia : Batu Khan
Russia : Ivan IV
Japan : Hirohito

All this post needs is a dash of HRE, and a pinch of Poland.

 

[Pidesco]

The only one?

i think D. Afonso Henriques is a better choice. Fought for independence from Castilla and Leon and created the borders of Portugal which still stand today. the oldest borders in Europe i might add.

Well, he was great and all, but I really think the odds were stacked in his favour. Castilla was too busy with Aragon and the Moors, and the Moors themselves were not only in disarray but more concerned about fighting off Castilla than about fighting against Afonso for territory that really wasn't all that important.

Pombal, on the other hand was fighting an uphill political battle against the powers that be from day one, and he won. He was also, probably the only progressive leader Portugal has had since the independence from Spain.

 

[Desert-Fox]

Edited the first post. I REALLY disagree with Desert-Fox's ideas, though.

LOL, I put these bad leaders just for joke, I think that for political correctness some of them never appear in civ X.

 

[Cvntpumeler]

LOL, I put these bad leaders just for joke, I think that for political correctness some of them never appear in civ X.

Haha ok that makes a lot more sense then .

 

[asprabhu]

Chandragupta Maurya for India is long due..ruled a vast empire
or
Shivaji for India..had a tough time with the Mughals with persian culture.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Female leaders should be held to the exact same standard as male leaders. Boudicca was fairly unsuccessful, whereas other Celts like Dumnorix and Vercingetorix actually met with some success(markedly more, and were more influential. Dumnorix actually conspired with other Celtic kings to split Gaul three ways and fight the Romans together). Boudicca is a great story and all, but her rebellion was short-lived and marked by poor leadership and favorable circumstance, IMO.

Seriously, worthy females are in short-supply with the current crop. They obviously aren't too concerned, or they may've gone with Vietnam over the Khmer for the Trung sisters...or one of 'em at least.

 

[Comrade Aart]

Netherlands: Johan de Witt

(Really suprising the only other Dutch leader people can come up with is Wilhelmina. Saying no leader at all is better than that. j/k )

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, I don't feel that Americans are really a civ, they should be a part of English.

But,

Germans : Adolf Hitler, Wilhelm II
Persians : Xerxes
Spanish : Franco
Roman : Nero
Mongolia : Batu Khan
Russia : Ivan IV
Japan : Hirohito

This has to be a joke post. I'm searching its limited words for veins of sarcasm, yet can find disturbingly few. I was quite happy to find that it was indeed a joke after reading further.

I don't have much time either but why must you always have greater requirements for female leaders? It's always one thing or another. If they win wars, no they must be involved in politics, if they're involved in politics then it's because they don't win wars.

This double standard does not apply to the male leaders that are in the game some of whom are very questionable. Some leaders' rule are equated with some of the worst times in their country. I mean Stalin, Mao? Please!

Stop this double standard. If male leaders are good enough to get in because they did one thing great, surely female leaders also. Not all need to be as famous and lived life in the fast lane like Elizabeth to get into the game.

It's like if it's a female leader we have to question and really see whether she's worthy or whether she just followed the men (advisers) around her and that's how she became great. If it were up to some of you, only Elizabeth would be in the game and even she'd be trialled by some of you.

The fact that Maria Theresa did not acquire as much land as Frederick is beside the point. It's not like she lost wars and lost huge chunks of territory. Austria did gain from the Polish partition too did it not? Also, a unification of Germany under Prussia or Austria was NOT feasible at the time so you can't blame her for that. That's hardly fair.

As for Joan of Arc. I will say this: Joan of Arc saved France. We all know this. If De Gaulle is in, I can't see why she can't be in.

I don't have much of a double standard for inclusion of women leaders, and I resent your implications of such. My list for inclusion actually does not include only Elizabeth, which was a pointless and stupid speculation on your part. You may notice that nowhere in my post did I defend Mao's, Stalin's, or De Gaulle's inclusion in the game...I may even think they should be removed in favor of other leaders (and if you pay attention to my other posts in other threads regarding this subject, this would be readily apparent to you). And somebody has to play the Devil's Advocate and argue against, even if he may actually support an inclusion.

I'll unsubscribe if this is how you want to debate. I've already had one bad experience on this board with some clown slandering me, and I'm not going to put up with it any further.

 

[LightSpectra]

Trajan (Rome), Nebuchadnezzar II (Babylon), Muhammed Ali (Egypt), Constantine the Great (Byzantium), Taizong (China), Menelik II (Ethiopia), Akbar the Great (India), Abu Bakr and Harun al-Rashid (Arabia), Charles I (Spain), Meiji (Japan), Ivan III the Great (Russia).

 

[Grimus]

Ronald Reagan??

Anyway... I do wish that Thomas Jefferson was in the game as Philosophical and Creative. (Even though America has enough leaderheads already)

 

[Quildavyr]

I have some ideas too

Byzantine: Michael Palaleigos
Ottomans:II. Mahmut or Hürrem Sultan
Arabs:Caliph Ali