The Carthage Thread

[pokiehl]

You are probably correct, from an iconic, and even great leader, sense. So many here seem to be intent on a woman who probably existed, but we know practically nothing about her as she did, only from mythologized Greek stories, instead of a much more documented, and commonly well-known, leader. It seems like the Dido group are not only pushing a heavily mythologized leader, but avoiding talking about an - elephant in the room.

I think you might be taking peoples' suggestion of Dido a bit too personally ("the Dido group?"); I've read nothing in this thread that indicates anyone who is OK with Dido is "pushing" anything or avoiding Hannibal.

Hannibal wouldn't be a good leader if the civ is Phoenicia, but would be if the civ is Carthage.

I am getting bored of Dido though, so just on that basis if we get Phoenicia I'd rather see someone else new to the series, like Hiram or Pygmalion or something.

 

[Patine]

I think you might be taking peoples' suggestion of Dido a bit too personally ("the Dido group?"); I've read nothing in this thread that indicates anyone who is OK with Dido is "pushing" anything or avoiding Hannibal.

Hannibal wouldn't be a good leader if the civ is Phoenicia, but would be if the civ is Carthage.

I am getting bored of Dido though, so just on that basis if we get Phoenicia I'd rather see someone else new to the series, like Hiram or Pygmalion or something.

I didn't actually say I was for Phoenicia over Carthage, either. I hadn't yet commented on that, specifically.

 

[Evie]

Hannibal is a famous leader no doubt, but he badly needed a break after being the leader three games in a row. Elephants in the room are fine and good, but taking up the whole room is not.

There's also the fact that Hannibal, while one of the great tacticians of history, was not so great (actually pretty bad) at actually conducting anything larger than a battle, let alone at actually winning a war - as his second in command Maharbal reputedly told him "Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory, but not how to use one" - which is actually a pretty damning flaw in a national leader. So, kind of an overrated figure in that regard.

After two rounds of Dido, we could switch back but I think the elephant in the room should suffer the same fate as most of his elephants in the Alps, and we should instead look at lesser known but better qualified Carthaginian or Phoenician leaders that are neither Hannibal or Dido.

Beating the Romans in battle (but losing the war) should only carry you so far.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Hannibal wouldn't be a good leader if the civ is Phoenicia, but would be if the civ is Carthage.

If we look at it as being Hannibal leads the Phoenicians, as a group of people who spread across the Mediterranean and not just confined to the small region of Phoenicia, I don't see a problem with him, or any other Carthaginian leader leading them.

 

[Evie]

Agreed, any Carthaginian leader would be a valid Phoenician leader. Especially since Dido is a Carthaginian leader too.

But Hannibal is overrated and has had his turns, and Dido, while the mythology-or-not question is overrated, has had two games in a row, so it'd be nice to introduce a new face to Carthage/Phoenicia.

 

[Patine]

while the mythology-or-not question is overrated,

I wouldn't say a question so easy to dismiss from all future discussion. There are leaders who we have a very good idea about who they were and what they did, underneath the mythology, and those we know virtually nothing about as people and about concrete achievements, and the mythologization is all we know. Dido seems to be in the latter category. And, I'd say the issue is not a one-size-fits all, to be an absolute rule to strictly adhere to, or to dismiss from discussion as a qualifying issue, lock, stock, and barrel, forever after. And, "overrated," is kind of an odd descriptor there.

 

[pokiehl]

I didn't actually say I was for Phoenicia over Carthage, either. I hadn't yet commented on that, specifically.

I didn't say you did. I was making a different comment.

If we look at it as being Hannibal leads the Phoenicians, as a group of people who spread across the Mediterranean and not just confined to the small region of Phoenicia, I don't see a problem with him, or any other Carthaginian leader leading them.

Agreed, any Carthaginian leader would be a valid Phoenician leader. Especially since Dido is a Carthaginian leader too.

But Hannibal is overrated and has had his turns, and Dido, while the mythology-or-not question is overrated, has had two games in a row, so it'd be nice to introduce a new face to Carthage/Phoenicia.

A Carthaginian leader for Phoenicia feels a lot different to me than a Phoenician leader leading Carthage.

 

[reddishrecue]

I understand that most people here think that Hannibal is overrated, but what other leaders aren't overrated? Hannibal did a major campaign against the feared Romans. He has come out a lot but who else are we going to put for Carthage as a leader? Hamical Barca? Bringing back Hannibal to the series would be a good idea since there will be better graphics and better leader animations. Hannibal from Carthage did do some Roman damage and has been known for that. He also followed his father's legacy, Hamilcar Barca in the Second Punic War. Even though he lost, he did put up a really good fight in his life. He is admired for being one of the greatest military tacticians along with Leonidas, Alexander the Great or even Julius Caesar. Not bad for a Carthaginian.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

How about we have 2 leaders for a joint Phoenician/Carthage civ?

Hannibal leads from Carthage, and Hiram II leads from Tyre.

Also nice pun @Patine

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

How about we have 2 leaders for a joint Phoenician/Carthage civ?

Hannibal leads from Carthage, and Hiram II leads from Tyre.

That's essentially what I would like. The civ would still probably be called Phoenicia though.

 

[Evie]

I don't know to what extend the Carthaginians feared the Romans at the time of the first two punic wars. A lot of the idea seems to be backdating later perceptions of Rome (and particularly the way Rome has been elevated in the Western World and neighborhing areas to some kind of Ultimate Empire) onto the situation at the time. But at the time, Rome and Carthage would have been much closer to evenly matched (arguably, Rome was the underdog in the First Punic War), rather than Hannibal and the Carthaginians being some plucky underdogs (though they were outnumbered in a number of battle). Carthage vs Rome is not Zulu vs British; it's French vs British, and Hannibal was not, in fact, the only Carthaginian commander to defeat Romans in battle in the first two Punic war, though he was the most successful of them.

There are other options, both Carthaginian and Phoenician, without needing to revisit Hannibal.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

That's essentially what I would like. The civ would still probably be called Phoenicia though.

Yeah

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I don't know to what extend the Carthaginians feared the Romans at the time of the first two punic wars. A lot of the idea seems to be backdating later perceptions of Rome (and particularly the way Rome has been elevated in the Western World and neighborhing areas to some kind of Ultimate Empire) onto the situation at the time. But at the time, Rome and Carthage would have been much closer to evenly matched (arguably, Rome was the underdog in the First Punic War), rather than Hannibal and the Carthaginians being some plucky underdogs (though they were outnumbered in a number of battle). Carthage vs Rome is not Zulu vs British; it's French vs British, and Hannibal was not, in fact, the only Carthaginian commander to defeat Romans in battle in the first two Punic war, though he was the most successful of them.

There are other options, both Carthaginian and Phoenician, without needing to revisit Hannibal.

Hanno or Hiram II would be interesting options.

 

[reddishrecue]

I don't know to what extend the Carthaginians feared the Romans at the time of the first two punic wars. A lot of the idea seems to be backdating later perceptions of Rome (and particularly the way Rome has been elevated in the Western World and neighborhing areas to some kind of Ultimate Empire) onto the situation at the time. But at the time, Rome and Carthage would have been much closer to evenly matched (arguably, Rome was the underdog in the First Punic War), rather than Hannibal and the Carthaginians being some plucky underdogs (though they were outnumbered in a number of battle). Carthage vs Rome is not Zulu vs British; it's French vs British, and Hannibal was not, in fact, the only Carthaginian commander to defeat Romans in battle in the first two Punic war, though he was the most successful of them.

There are other options, both Carthaginian and Phoenician, without needing to revisit Hannibal.

Why not Hannibal? They kept Napoleon for France many times and England kept Elizabeth many times as the same leader throughout the series as well and they were all brought back with nice graphics and better designs in the next series.

 

[Evie]

Elizabeth has swapped in and out with Victoria a lot (and options for women leaders that no one will complain about are a lot rarer, so the fact that these two are the widely accepted two best choices for England means we’ll see them a lot)) and Napoleon having been leader for France too often is one of the thing most of us would very much like to end. And even then I still think England should get a break from Elizabeth/Victoria once in a while.

Anytime one civ fixate on one leader we lose out on a number of other good leaders from their history that could add variety to the game. So frequently reusing the same leader should be the exception, done for some good reason, not the rule.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Elizabeth has swapped in and out with Victoria a lot (and options for women leaders that no one will complain about are a lot rarer, so the fact that these two are the widely accepted two best choices for England means we’ll see them a lot))

I wouldn't necessarily call them swapping out considering Elizabeth has now been in every game alongside the ones where you can also have Victoria.

Anytime one civ fixate on one leader we lose out on a number of other good leaders from their history that could add variety to the game. So frequently reusing the same leader should be the exception, done for some good reason, not the rule.

I do feel like there are exceptions such as Elizabeth for reasons above, as well as Alexander, Shaka, and Genghis Khan. Gandhi more or less is a mascot as well but is the least preferential of the always recurring leaders to me.
However, when Elizabeth does return for Civ 7 hope she is more than just the "Trade Agreement" queen, like they made her in Civ 6.

 

[Patine]

Napoleon having been leader for France too often is one of the thing most of us would very much like to end.

To be fair, though many here (myself included) have offered alternatives to Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc, and Catherine de Medici, I believe you - and Zarin, as well, I believe - were the only ones who showed a definite, strong desire against Napoleon's actual reappearance. That's not a DEMONSTRATED majority. Personally, I'm somewhat indifferent to his reappearance, and a number of others here likely are in such an ambivalent position.

 

[Evie]

Fair enough, I thought others had also opposed him.

That said, if we consider how many appearances a leader has made vs the total number of leaders a civ has gotten in main series game - how much they’re hogging the spotlight - then Napoléon has 3 appearances out of 10 French leaders (1-4-5). He’s followed closely by Louis XIV (2-4) and Joan of Arc (2-3), with de Gaulle (4), Catherine (6) and Eleanor (6) rounding it up.

Which is a lot more diversity (six distinct leaders) than Carthage, whose six leaders have been Hannibal (2-3-4) and Dido (2-5-6).

Carthage/Phoenicia is due for new blood, not another rethread.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

(Potential) Non-Didoly-HannabalicCarthaginian Leaders:

Mago (Magon) I (first of the Magonid Dynasty)
Hanno the Great
Hannon the Navigator

and a 'real' female leader:

Sophonisba

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

When thinking about potential leaders, one also has to consider how that leader would play or synergize with the rest of the civ. I don't necessarily want a new face if it really doesn't give justice to that particular civ.
In that regard, I think Hannon the Navigator would definitely fit an early naval power.