Possible new leader for each civ

No Castela was the kingdom of Castela,Spain was the unify kingdoms of Castela,Leão,Navarra and Aragão,and that happened after the Portugal existence.

But Isabella was the leader of Castela, so Spain in the game is also representing Castela
 
No Isabela married with Aragons king and made those kingdoms united,so its obvious that she was the leader.

Isabella I (April 22, 1451 – November 26, 1504) was Queen regnant of Castile and Leon. She and her husband, Ferdinand II of Aragon, laid the foundation for the political unification of Spain.

As you see in this map of 1210 ( a lot before Isabella) you will notice that Portugal is there before the existence of spain:

Castilla_1210.png
 
Check out Toledo guarding Spain's southern border. I've been there, that city was a fortress.
 
No Isabela married with Aragons king and made those kingdoms united,so its obvious that she was the leader.

Isabella I (April 22, 1451 – November 26, 1504) was Queen regnant of Castile and Leon. She and her husband, Ferdinand II of Aragon, laid the foundation for the political unification of Spain.

As you see in this map of 1210 ( a lot before Isabella) you will notice that Portugal is there before the existence of spain:

Castilla_1210.png

Hm, okay, it was a shot for me.

But still Spain is a vanilla civ which is definately deserving another leader. I don't mind about a new leader for Portugal, Spain is just first priority.
 
Well, if we're talking about an American leader (which was one of the original questions earlier in the thread,) there really isn't much to go on beyond the past 200 years or so.

For Spain, well, per your earlier point, their current leader, Isabella, is hardly a 20th Century leader. Franco would certainly be an interesting contrast, as (I think) he should be more isolationist, and less aggressive in foreign affairs.

Sun Yat-Sen was hardly a lackluster leader, nor was he a WW2 leader.

I am a disappointed that you describe yourself a historian and yet actively avoid studying a specific era.... History is one big story, and to fully appreciate it, you need to see and understand what happened later as well as earlier.

Sorry I forgot to explain the one exception to the rule. Since America is so recent, I would probably select both Washington and Lincoln. Beyond that, I may not pick any more. T. Roosevelt would probably be the latest president I would select for the game.

But, how great was Franco for Spain? The point of Civ leaders is draw attention to great historical leaders, and to give the cream of the crop, so to speak, a chance to shine as animated leaderheads. Too often, I get the feeling that too many people latch onto common names they have heard their parents refer to, or people they saw in the news awhile back, or some WW2 special they saw on the History Channel.

I'm not talking exclusively about WW2, but the 20th century in general. Sun Yat-Sen was especially active in the beginning of the 20th century, so I think my point stands.

And on the study of history...by your statement I sincerely doubt you understand how historians operate and do research. Every university professor I know tends to specialize in a particular piece of the historical puzzle, so to speak, and if I specialize in earlier time periods because I am more interested in those than the contemporary period, it doesn't make me any more or less a historian. For every person who focuses on European history, there is another who studies East Asia, one who works on specific African tribes, a person who studies the Ancient Mediterranean. Often times, a historian will be quite skilled in a few particular historical subjects and only be as competent as the average person in the others. Calling history a singular "story" is a gross oversimplification; history is many interwoven stories into a tapestry, each with their own cast and plot lines that intersect and diverge constantly. And one man cannot learn it all.

In any case, this rant is directed more at those on this forum who cannot be bothered to do any research whatsoever on a culture when trying to select a leader, and instead immediately recognize a contemporary leader (such as ones from WW2, which provoked the rant) as the "best" choice. I cannot recount how many times I have seen Franco's name posted with no serious consideration of other names. I cannot count how many times Hitler has come up, but nobody proposes an alternate (like I always do--when I see somebody suggest Hitler, I suggest Otto I or Barbarossa). Same goes for France and De Gaulle, and disturbingly that was the Firaxian pick. At least there are some people on this board who have read something on China and suggest leaders like Taizong or other ancient figures as leaders. However, I have the nagging suspicion that is because Mao has already been implemented as a Civ leader.
 
Franco as the knee-jerk pick for spain makes no sense at all. Having lived in Spain for awhile, the Franco peroid is seen as this backwords era where the rest of the world passed Spain by both technologically and culturally.

He won no great wars, he completed no great wonders, (I think the Sagrada Famila in Barcelona actually wasn't worked on during his rule) he oversaw no golden age.

To put it bluntly, he got power and did...nothing...at least nothing warrenting a civ IV leaderhead.
 
Completely take all three's attrocities out of the picture and what do you?

Hitler lead his country into complete unconditional defeat and capitulation.

Stalin won the 'Great Patriotic War' as WWII is called in Russia. He also Industrialized Russia.

Mao lead the communist revolution in China which looks like is going to become the worlds strongest economy in less than 100 years after Mao took over.

Hitler had a huge impact on both Germany and the World, but as far as Germany is concerned the impact was negative.

Stalins 5 year plans whilst they did industrialise russia, also caused the death of millions.

Mao's cultural revolution and great leap forward did nothing to industrialise china and left it in a worse state than when he took power. Millions died of starvation during this 10 year period.

Hitler's economic policies pulled germany out of depression in the 30s and turned a raveged country from WW1 into an economic powerhouse.

so, going by economic policies Hitler is more deserving than Mao. Also, it was people like Deng Xiaoping who really turned the country around economically, not Mao.
 
Hitler's economic policies pulled germany out of depression in the 30s and turned a raveged country from WW1 into an economic powerhouse..


so if youre reading about German history I take it you put the book down when it gets to Sept 1939? Do you not know what comes next or something?
 
I agree. :yup: I would've rather had Lenin over Stalin btw...even though Stalin "reigned" for much longer and held more power than Lenin ever did I actually think Lenin did more in a shorter time that was PROGRESSive. Besides that Stalin was a tad insane...;) Lenin seems like a better choice to me:
1. Not so freaking controversial that everyone says "Hilter should be in since we have Stalin and Mao!"
2. Smarter than Stalin.
3. Accomplished turning the world upside down in 10 years.
4. Ruled a state which he created.
The list goes on...
Anyone agree? :groucho:

Lenin was far better leader but Stalin shaped the world outside the CCCP more than Lenin did.
 
so if youre reading about German history I take it you put the book down when it gets to Sept 1939? Do you not know what comes next or something?

Ok, fine, you havent read the posts that were previously posted, and have immediately jumped on what i said assuming i know nothing. ******.

More people died in China under Mao's rule than they ever did under Hitlers. Stalin sent some 20 million russians to their deaths during the second world war on the front lines. that is more than 3 times than died in the concentration camps. I am by no means legitimizing it, u dumbass, i am poiting certain things out. I accept that images of the swastika and hitler are banned in germany hence the non-inclusion of him in the game. it was a point of discussion, much like possible new leaders for spain and portugal, which, correct me if im wrong, was the original point of this thread. then again i know nothing, because i dont reading history books published after 1939.
 
Ok, fine, you havent read the posts that were previously posted, and have immediately jumped on what i said assuming i know nothing. ******.

More people died in China under Mao's rule than they ever did under Hitlers. Stalin sent some 20 million russians to their deaths during the second world war on the front lines. that is more than 3 times than died in the concentration camps. I am by no means legitimizing it, u dumbass, i am poiting certain things out. I accept that images of the swastika and hitler are banned in germany hence the non-inclusion of him in the game. it was a point of discussion, much like possible new leaders for spain and portugal, which, correct me if im wrong, was the original point of this thread. then again i know nothing, because i dont reading history books published after 1939.


flaming aside, you said hitler should be included because he Made Germany an economic powerhouse. I wasnt referring to the holocaust, I was referring to the fact that after 1939 he turned the country from an economic powerhouse into a ruined and divided and occupied country which was probably the most hated nation on Earth. so you want him included on the basis of the first 6 years of his rule, not the entirety of it. the point people are making is that during Stalins rule, the USSR increased its power by an order of magnitude. during Hitlers rule he left Germany utterly destroyed. Morality dosent come into it, every leader in civ bar one or two is up to their necks in blood. Hitler shouldnt be included because he was a piss poor leader, not because of the evil things he did. Stalin did evil things, but improved the USSRs geostrategic position by an enormous amount. civ leaders arent picked on how moral they are, theyre picked on how the improved their countries standing (well, this seems to be by far the main factor anyway)
 
But, how great was Franco for Spain? The point of Civ leaders is draw attention to great historical leaders, and to give the cream of the crop, so to speak, a chance to shine as animated leaderheads. Too often, I get the feeling that too many people latch onto common names they have heard their parents refer to, or people they saw in the news awhile back, or some WW2 special they saw on the History Channel.

Modern Spain would not be what it is today, for good or ill, without Franco. In my judgment, this is sufficient to include him in the game given the relatively low bar set by Firaxis for inclusion. (Victoria? What power did she actually wield? Montezuma? Responsible for getting his empire sacked by a handful of Spanish adventurers??!? Franco's legacy makes him a veritable Solomon the Wise compared with Monty.)

Antilogic, your rants task me. Of course historians specialize. However, a historian who announces that he refuses to study anything from a certain era because that era is popular with people he feels are beneath him (as you said earlier,) in my judgment, shows that he is bringing a lack of maturity and seriousness to his profession.
 
Back
Top Bottom