Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[Zaarin]

Bismarck was not that kind of chancellor like today BRD. He was the secretary of the king/emperor. He did not count more as leader then Gandhi, who shows his power when it came to the Salt March.

Considering Bismarck's policies completely reshaped the entire political landscape of Europe in the late nineteenth century--and the rejection and dismantling of those policies by Wilhelm II led directly to WW1--I think it's hard to argue that Bismarck was not the real leader of Germany, at least insofar as its foreign affairs were concerned (Kaiser Wilhelm I had more power domestically than Bismarck, that's true--Bismarck's attempts to influence domestic affairs were mostly unsuccessful, except for chasing out the Catholics).

 

[Manifold]

Victoria, too, did not exercise any outstanding power, did she?
Could she declare war alone? Did she send troops and give instructions for warfare?
Has she taxed or affected the budget?

 

[Patine]

Victoria, too, did not exercise any outstanding power, did she?
Could she declare war alone? Did she send troops and give instructions for warfare?
Has she taxed or affected the budget?

No, most of that was mostly Gladstone and Disraeli (among the best know Victorian PM's) in Victoria's name and service.

 

[nzcamel]

Victoria, too, did not exercise any outstanding power, did she?
Could she declare war alone? Did she send troops and give instructions for warfare?
Has she taxed or affected the budget?

No, most of that was mostly Gladstone and Disraeli (among the best know Victorian PM's) in Victoria's name and service.

I don't mind that Victoria as Head of State was only ever a figurehead....but if they later put say Elizabeth II into the game I would have an issue with that; even though the are pretty much the exact same role. So I'm a hypocrite lol

Generally I do prefer leaders to have directly lead. I'd rather not see Ben Franklin, despite knowing he was massively influential on the U.S. - at least as much as Washington. I'll never say that they shouldn't choose the Gandhi's or Franklin's. I just hope that they only fall back to them if there isn't a "better" option who held the top spot.
But what is that top spot when it comes to power? In Westminster style democracy, it is the Prime Minister rather than the Head of State. Then you get countries like Russia and France who in their modern incantation have both a Prime Minister and a President. I think either should be able to be available for inclusion in Civ as long as they are seen to warrant it.

 

[Patine]

I don't mind that Victoria as Head of State was only ever a figurehead....but if they later put say Elizabeth II into the game I would have an issue with that; even though the are pretty much the exact same role. So I'm a hypocrite lol

Generally I do prefer leaders to have directly lead. I'd rather not see Ben Franklin, despite knowing he was massively influential on the U.S. - at least as much as Washington. I'll never say that they shouldn't choose the Gandhi's or Franklin's. I just hope that they only fall back to them if there isn't a "better" option who held the top spot.
But what is that top spot when it comes to power? In Westminster style democracy, it is the Prime Minister rather than the Head of State. Then you get countries like Russia and France who in their modern incantation have both a Prime Minister and a President. I think either should be able to be available for inclusion in Civ as long as they are seen to warrant it.

Medvedev over Putin (regardless of which title either is holding at that time so Putin can dance around Russia's term limit laws)? Really? :S

 

[IgorS]

But what is that top spot when it comes to power? In Westminster style democracy, it is the Prime Minister rather than the Head of State. Then you get countries like Russia and France who in their modern incantation have both a Prime Minister and a President. I think either should be able to be available for inclusion in Civ as long as they are seen to warrant it.

There is a difference between countries. I am not an expert on France, but in Russia the Prime-Minister is just that - the most important minister, not a leader of a country. But in, say, Israel both President and Prime-Minister can be considered leaders of the country. The Prime-Minister is the actual head of state, while the President is kind of like the Queen of England, but is also considered to be a leader of sorts and the citizen number 1. It is the President, for instance, who actually decides after the elections who will be the Prime-Minister and form the government. So this is a case where a country has two leaders. And with England it is the same, even if the Queen is just there to be the Queen.

 

[Patine]

There is a difference between countries. I am not an expert on France, but in Russia the Prime-Minister is just that - the most important minister, not a leader of a country. But in, say, Israel both President and Prime-Minister can be considered leaders of the country. The Prime-Minister is the actual head of state, while the President is kind of like the Queen of England, but is also considered to be a leader of sorts and the citizen number 1. It is the President, for instance, who actually decides after the elections who will be the Prime-Minister and form the government. So this is a case where a country has two leaders. And with England it is the same, even if the Queen is just there to be the Queen.

I'm not sure that's accurate on Israel. As I understand it, other than having more say in what coalition gets to form a government than a European (or Japanese) monarch (or British, Danish, or Dutch viceregal figure) or most parliamentary European Parliaments, the Israeli President seems to just be a sinecure, or honourific, for an esteemed but effectively retired Israeli politician or other statesman.

 

[God of Kings]

In many republics, President is head of state and Prime Minister is head of government.

The United States combined the roles of President and Prime Minister into a single position held by a single person.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy; the Governor General has a higher position than the Prime Minister and the Governor General represents the Queen; the Queen is Canada's head of state and given that she is also the head of state of many other Commonwealth countries, aside from Britain, she has Governors General represent her in those countries.

 

[nzcamel]

There is a difference between countries. I am not an expert on France, but in Russia the Prime-Minister is just that - the most important minister, not a leader of a country. But in, say, Israel both President and Prime-Minister can be considered leaders of the country. The Prime-Minister is the actual head of state, while the President is kind of like the Queen of England, but is also considered to be a leader of sorts and the citizen number 1. It is the President, for instance, who actually decides after the elections who will be the Prime-Minister and form the government. So this is a case where a country has two leaders. And with England it is the same, even if the Queen is just there to be the Queen.

Yes...there are differences lol.
Under Westminster (the system that invented Prime Ministers) P.M.s started out as 'the first among equals'; but they very much are the leaders of the country now as the Queen is only ceremonial; and her Governor General in each country likewise has close to no power (the few powers they do retain are pretty strong, but it is generally bad form for them to ever use them). The PM will be part of both the executive and the legislature.
In Russia and France the role will differ quite a bit as it is the President who is the executive; and the PM is generally the leader of the largest block in their legislature.

Israel is quite like Westminster - i.e. the President is mostly ceremonial; and it is the Prime Minister who is in both executive and legislature.

In many republics, President is head of state and Prime Minister is head of government.

The United States combined the roles of President and Prime Minister into a single position held by a single person.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy; the Governor General has a higher position than the Prime Minister and the Governor General represents the Queen; the Queen is Canada's head of state and given that she is also the head of state of many other Commonwealth countries, aside from Britain, she has Governors General represent her in those countries.

Yes...and no (to the US merging the roles); because the President isn't part of the legislature. They do not craft law (or aren't supposed to - those pesky Executive Orders blur the lines ) where as almost all Prime Ministers are in the legislature. And the Governor General, while being "higher" is really only so out of convention. The PM appoints the GG, as I'm sure you know lol.

 

[God of Kings]

Thanks so much for the clarifications, @nzcamel

 

[IgorS]

I'm not sure that's accurate on Israel. As I understand it, other than having more say in what coalition gets to form a government than a European (or Japanese) monarch (or British, Danish, or Dutch viceregal figure) or most parliamentary European Parliaments, the Israeli President seems to just be a sinecure, or honourific, for an esteemed but effectively retired Israeli politician or other statesman.

That's exactly what I said. The President of Israel is like the Queen of England, basically, although he does decide who forms the government, and also can pardon convicted criminals.

But the main question was: should a leader in Civ be someone like Wilhelm (who was the actual ruler of Germany) or is someone like Bismarck (who was not the ruler, but was a very influential Kanzler) also OK. And how far can we go. Is Gandhi a reasonable choice even though he didn't hold any office?
What I was trying to say is that in countries where there is both a "ceremonial" leader and an "actual" leader, both are OK to be considered for leaders in Civ. While having a French Prime-Minister, or an American Vice-President as leader would be a bit wrong. And the same is true for the various Gandhis and Franklins. When it comes to queens and First Ladies, we should look at how much influence they had. There was already much discussion about Catherine de' Medici and Gorgo, for instance. I, personally, see nothing wrong with them being leaders in the game (although I think they are far from being the best choices for leaders).

 

[The Kingmaker]

As long as the person in question can be looked to as a leading figure for that civ, I don't think it matters if they had an official position or not.

 

[Patine]

That's exactly what I said. The President of Israel is like the Queen of England, basically, although he does decide who forms the government, and also can pardon convicted criminals.

But the main question was: should a leader in Civ be someone like Wilhelm (who was the actual ruler of Germany) or is someone like Bismarck (who was not the ruler, but was a very influential Kanzler) also OK. And how far can we go. Is Gandhi a reasonable choice even though he didn't hold any office?
What I was trying to say is that in countries where there is both a "ceremonial" leader and an "actual" leader, both are OK to be considered for leaders in Civ. While having a French Prime-Minister, or an American Vice-President as leader would be a bit wrong. And the same is true for the various Gandhis and Franklins. When it comes to queens and First Ladies, we should look at how much influence they had. There was already much discussion about Catherine de' Medici and Gorgo, for instance. I, personally, see nothing wrong with them being leaders in the game (although I think they are far from being the best choices for leaders).

For fear of being pedantic, you COULD have a French Prime Minister if you, say, had a hankering to include a Third Republic one (like Raymond Poincare, notably in a WW1 mod or scenario), as in the Third Republic, unlike the modern Fifth Republic, had a system more like mentioned above for Israel, where the Prime Minister had the true power, and the President has a ceremonial figurehead who chose the Prime Minister and a few other duties.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Here is my personal opinion on which civs need other leaders. In bracelets are alternative leaders I won't mind if they leaded the nation.

America: No (Washington, Lincoln)
Arabia: No (Harun al-Rashid)
Australia: Don't know
Aztec: No
Brazil: No (Juscelino Kubitschek)
China: No
Egypt: Yes (Hatshepsut, Ramesses II, Thutmose III)
England: No (Henry VIII, Elizabeth)
France: Yes (Napoleon, Louis XIV)
Germany: No (Bismarck)
Greece/Athens: No
Greece/Sparta: Yes (Leonidas)
India: Yes (Ashoka)
Japan: No (Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Iyeasu)
Kongo: No
Macedon: No
Norway: No
Persia: No (Darius I)
Poland: Don't know (Casimir III, Boleslaw I)
Rome: No (Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Augustus, Julius Caesar)
Russia: No (Catherine the Great, Ivan III, Ivan IV)
Scythia: Don't know
Spain: No (Isabella, Charles V)
Sumeria: Don't know

 

[Patine]

Here is my personal opinion on which civs need other leaders. In bracelets are alternative leaders I won't mind if they leaded the nation.

America: No (Washington, Lincoln)
Arabia: No (Harun al-Rashid)
Australia: Don't know
Aztec: No
Brazil: No (Juscelino Kubitschek)
China: No
Egypt: Yes (Hatshepsut, Ramesses II, Thutmose III)
England: No (Henry VIII, Elizabeth)
France: Yes (Napoleon, Louis XIV)
Germany: No (Bismarck)
Greece/Athens: No
Greece/Sparta: Yes (Leonidas)
India: Yes (Ashoka)
Japan: No (Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Iyeasu)
Kongo: No
Macedon: No
Norway: No
Persia: No (Darius I)
Poland: Don't know (Casimir III, Boleslaw I)
Rome: No (Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Augustus, Julius Caesar)
Russia: No (Catherine the Great, Ivan III, Ivan IV)
Scythia: Don't know
Spain: No (Isabella, Charles V)
Sumeria: Don't know

I would add Constantine I (the last great Roman Emperor, and whose style of governance and whole tenor of his reign was VERY different than his predecessors to the Romans and Charles de Gaulle to the French. I also stand by my list of good alternate leaders of India in a recent post on this thread, but Ashoka is good too. There are a LOT of good Chinese alternatives, I think you said 'no' far too fast there. Also, I assume you mean Elizabeth I when you just say Elizabeth for England, correct? Though Henry II and Edward I are highly underrated too.

 

[Zaarin]

Eh, why not.

America: No (John Adams)
Arabia: Yes (Harun al-Rashid)
Australia: God forbid
Aztec: No
Brazil: God forbid
China: Yes (Taizong, Wu Zetian, lots of options)
Egypt: Yes (Akhenaten)
England: Yes (Henry II, Henry V, Elizabeth I, James I)
France: Yes (Louis XIV, Francis I, Louis IX)
Germany: No (Bismarck)
Greece: God forbid
India: Yes (Shah Jehan, Chandraguptya, Ashoka)
Japan: No
Kongo: No
Macedon: God forbid
Norway: No
Persia: Yes (Shappur II)
Poland: Not necessary
Rome: Sure (lots of options)
Russia: Maybe (Catherine the Great)
Scythia: No
Spain: Don't care
Sumeria: Frankly Sumeria needs a complete do-over with Ur-Nammu, Gudea, Shulgi, or even Kug-bau/Kubaba as leader.

 

[Patine]

Eh, why not.

America: No (John Adams)
Arabia: Yes (Harun al-Rashid)
Australia: God forbid
Aztec: No
Brazil: God forbid
China: Yes (Taizong, Wu Zetian, lots of options)
Egypt: Yes (Akhenaten)
England: Yes (Henry II, Henry V, Elizabeth I, James I)
France: Yes (Louis XIV, Francis I, Louis IX)
Germany: No (Bismarck)
Greece: God forbid
India: Yes (Shah Jehan, Chandraguptya, Ashoka)
Japan: No
Kongo: No
Macedon: God forbid
Norway: No
Persia: Yes (Shappur II)
Poland: Not necessary
Rome: Sure (lots of options)
Russia: Maybe (Catherine the Great)
Scythia: No
Spain: Don't care
Sumeria: Frankly Sumeria needs a complete do-over with Ur-Nammu, Gudea, Shulgi, or even Kug-bau/Kubaba as leader.

I'm still a bit erked that they have an Australia civ but not a Canada one (oh, I forgot, no doubt Firaxis, like most Americans, regards Canada as a backwater appendage to the United States with colder weather). :S

 

[Kimiimaro]

I would add Constantine I (the last great Roman Emperor, and whose style of governance and whole tenor of his reign was VERY different than his predecessors to the Romans and Charles de Gaulle to the French. I also stand by my list of good alternate leaders of India in a recent post on this thread, but Ashoka is good too. There are a LOT of good Chinese alternatives, I think you said 'no' far too fast there. Also, I assume you mean Elizabeth I when you just say Elizabeth for England, correct? Though Henry II and Edward I are highly underrated too.

Well, I'm 15 and half years old boy from Czech Republic, so I don't know everything, but history interrests me, to be honest, so I've written all alternative leaders I know. We're learning about European history mostly in History, and we have only few non-european countries (Germany, France, England, Russia/USSR, Italy, Spain, Rome, Greece, USA, Mezopotamian civilizations, Ottomans and Bohemia/Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, of course). But I'm sure I will learn more when I'll start studying at grammar school. I actually don't know any other Indian leader than Ashoka... and I don't know much about Chinese history, but I don't have big issue with Qin Shi Huang as leader. If I'm not mistaken, he was the first emperor of unified China. I know he was despotic tyrant. He destroyed all books in China, so he destroyed important historic sources. Great wall caused giant debt for China and lot of people died during its construction. Shortly after his death his dynasty lost power. Yes, I know. But he was surely important man in Chinese history and his Great Wall stands to the present day. And yes, I mean Elizabeth I.

 

[Patine]

Well, I'm 15 and half years old boy from Czech Republic, so I don't know everything, but history interrests me, to be honest, so I've written all alternative leaders I know. We're learning about European history mostly in History, and we have only few non-european countries (Germany, France, England, Russia/USSR, Italy, Spain, Rome, Greece, USA, Mezopotamian civilizations, Ottomans and Bohemia/Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, of course). But I'm sure I will learn more when I'll start studying at grammar school. I actually don't know any other Indian leader than Ashoka... and I don't know much about Chinese history, but I don't have big issue with Qin Shi Huang as leader. If I'm not mistaken, he was the first emperor of unified China. I know he was despotic tyrant. He destroyed all books in China, so he destroyed important historic sources. Great wall caused giant debt for China and lot of people died during its construction. Shortly after his death his dynasty lost power. Yes, I know. But he was surely important man in Chinese history and his Great Wall stands to the present day. And yes, I mean Elizabeth I.

What leader prior to the early 18th Century wasn't a despotic tyrant?

 

[Kimiimaro]

What leader prior to the early 18th Century wasn't a despotic tyrant?

I think there were some good rulurs. Charles IV, for example, surely wasn't tyrant. He was mostly peaceful ruler, and during his reign Prague became centre of culture and arts.