The inevitable leaders thread

[Iván de España]

As a historian, I can say that the first time was used the term "Holy Roman Empire" was in 1254 and the first time was used the term "Byzantine Empire" was in the 19th century. So, the application of these terms for Justinian, Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa is not correct. In the time of each one, Justinian was considered Emperor of the Romans; Charlemagnewas considered King of the Franks (the old name of the French), King of the Lombards and Emperor of the Romans; and Frederick I was Duke of Swabia, King of Germany and Emperor of the Romans.
Besides, when the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are in the game, cities are repeated in different civilizations or there are secondary cities to not be repeated like in CivIV (Really, the main cities of the Charlemagne territories were Aachen, Paris, Reims and more cities that belong to the French too.)

 

[climat]

In the time of each one, Justinian was considered Emperor of the Romans

IMO, it is arguable. It is correct in some degree because Greeks in the empire called themselves Roman.
But people out of greece usually didn't consider them "Roman".

 

[Tee Kay]

IMO, it is arguable. It is correct in some degree because Greeks in the empire called themselves Roman.
But people out of greece usually didn't consider them "Roman".

The Arabs called Asia Minor the land of "Rum" for a reason...

 

[Dragonflow]

I think that using Holy Roman Emperors as German leaders would be OK. One thing that should be considered is that nobody back then uded the word "Holy Roman". The inhabitants of the Empire called themselves Germans, Italians, Prussians, Bohemians or any other province. Even the Emperors didn't call themselves "Holy Romans" usually they said they were Germans or depending on the Region the came from Saxons, Bavarians, Austrians, Swabians and so on. Even people living outside the "Holy Roman Empire" didn't call the inhabitants "Holy Romans" they used the names of the provinces the people came from.

 

[climat]

The Arabs called Asia Minor the land of "Rum" for a reason...

I forgot that. Arabs usually called Christians in the Europe rumi (meaning "roman people"), didn't they?

And the Greeks called all the Westerners Franks. It really doesn't matter.

Pssst, by "people out of greece" he meant the "Latins." [edit: joking] Arabs and Slavs are subhuman by definition anyway, so their opinions don't matter. [/joking! I almost forgot that I still have a warning for doing this with a "straight face"]

Yes, I meant "Latin". For me, their views (especially views of Italians) matter because they were original "Roman"

 

[Tee Kay]

I forgot that. Arabs usually called Christians in the Europe rumi (meaning "roman people"), didn't they?

Latins were called Franks, and Byzantines/Greeks Rum IIRC.

Actually I'm not sure. Greeks however were "Rum" to the Muslims.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I think that using Holy Roman Emperors as German leaders would be OK. One thing that should be considered is that nobody back then uded the word "Holy Roman". The inhabitants of the Empire called themselves Germans, Italians, Prussians, Bohemians or any other province. Even the Emperors didn't call themselves "Holy Romans" usually they said they were Germans or depending on the Region the came from Saxons, Bavarians, Austrians, Swabians and so on. Even people living outside the "Holy Roman Empire" didn't call the inhabitants "Holy Romans" they used the names of the provinces the people came from.

The name for the HRE in medieval chronicle sources [outside Italy]-- Latin, Slavic, Arabic, and so on-- is almost always "Germany" ... I guess the emperors never did capture Italy ideologically!

 

[climat]

Hahaha, for a moment there I thought you were serious but now I can see you're just trollin' (or ignorant! but still cool, you can't fault a person for being ignorant). High five!

Actually, I wasn't serious when I wrote that words! Sorry for trollin'.

 

[kivanc]

As a historian, I can say that the first time was used the term "Holy Roman Empire" was in 1254 and the first time was used the term "Byzantine Empire" was in the 19th century. So, the application of these terms for Justinian, Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarossa is not correct. In the time of each one, Justinian was considered Emperor of the Romans; Charlemagnewas considered King of the Franks (the old name of the French), King of the Lombards and Emperor of the Romans; and Frederick I was Duke of Swabia, King of Germany and Emperor of the Romans.
Besides, when the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are in the game, cities are repeated in different civilizations or there are secondary cities to not be repeated like in CivIV (Really, the main cities of the Charlemagne territories were Aachen, Paris, Reims and more cities that belong to the French too.)

these are correct.
charlemagne is considered father of germany and france both. after him, the empire was divide into three. west transformed into france while east transformed into austria and germany.

byzantine (capitol name) was a name given very recently. it was in fact "east roman empire".

more info about turks, rum & byzantine;
word rum comes from origin of rome. but as terminology, the true meaning in turkey, "rum" means "citizens of byzantine living in anatolia since that time". so they are generally accepted as greek, most of them consider themselves turkish of greek root, but sure historically they could also have roman blood. i suppose, the palace and dynasty of the east roman empire was roman while most citizens at that time were greek.

there are many such empires in the world, where the dyansty is different from the people in origin. in history, there are some mongol dynasties ruling citizens mostly of turkish origin, and some turkish dynasties ruling citizens mostly of persian origin.

mehmed II (mehmed "the conqueror" - he conquered capitol byzantine) declared himself the new kaiser, kaiser-i rum, meaning caesar of rome. as the eastern roman palace represented roman dynasty, he claimed the caesar title after capturing Istanbul (Byzantine that time) , not being descendant from roman dynasty anyway, he was turkish, of oghuz tribe.
though, west europe did not agree on that title.

similarly, selim I claimed the title "caliphate" after capturing all arabia and egypt in 1517. this title is accepted as most muslim land was united under ottoman rule.

also anatolia was called diyar-i rum, meaning land of the romans during 11th centuries.
alpaslan, seljuk (a turkish dynasty) emperor, defeated byzantine in 1071. later, seljuks took over most of anatolia until mongols defeated seljuks. ottoman dynasty, being one of the successor clans of seljuks, defeated & united other clans in anatolia. Ottoman Emp is accepted to last between 1299-1922

 

[Sian]

I would prefer Ito Hirobumi instead of Meiji more for the same reason I prefer Churchill instead of George VI, and Bismarck instead of Wilhelm I (although that's certainly not perfectly analogous).

problem is that it's hard to pin the massive development in Japan dueing the Meiji period on any speficic person due to it largely being an oligracy with no absolute leaderhead (except Meiji 'himselves', which really was nothing more than a glorified figurehead, and which the emperors more or less had been since the first Shogun in 11xx ... glorified figurehead that is)

 

[climat]

Surrender!
Thanks for information, camarilla, anyway.
Seljuk Turk called their empire in Anatolia "Rum Sultanate" and Ottoman also used that name.
Ottoman called conquered lands in greece and Balkan "Rumelia". Both means land of Romans.
If Firaxis decide to include Byzantine in the game again, Justinian should be a Byzantine leader.
But if Byzantine is not in, then he will be qualified for a Roman leader.

 

[awesome]

double post.

 

[awesome]

Catherine was Tsarina of the Russian Empire. Stalin was chairman of the CPSU. Which one of these is "Russia," and which of them is not?

catherine was born in germany, which is further away from russia than georgia. plus, as someone else said, the ussr was seen as another russian empire.

yeah, that sounds pretty asian. i know they even changed a few people's given names if they sounded too much like the emperor's, or if the emperor's given name was a common word.

also, just to correct myself, i was specifically talking about china here, i just forgot to mention it.

 

[kivanc]

Surrender!
Thanks for information, camarilla, anyway.
Seljuk Turk called their empire in Anatolia "Rum Sultanate" and Ottoman also used that name.
Ottoman called conquered lands in greece and Balkan "Rumelia". Both means land of Romans.
If Firaxis decide to include Byzantine in the game again, Justinian should be a Byzantine leader.
But if Byzantine is not in, then he will be qualified for a Roman leader.

yep.
rumelia comes from turkish "rumeli" meaning "roman place" or "roman hand" sth like that. an old name.

in english, seljuks in europe is called so. rum sultanate, whereas turks call that turkish kingdom as "anatolian seljuks" because it was a part of the "great seljuk empire" which was founded in persia. after great seljuk empire, anatolian seljuks was one part of the divisions. i don't know why europe calls it rum sultanate, anyway.

i agree with your approach of Byzantine civilization. firaxis would either make the mighty Justinian I leader of it (it was a good warmonger in BTS) Rome or Byzantine. Both are reasonable and historically accurate.

for the starting 18civs, I don't expect byzantine to be in. maybe in an EP, it may be added. However, having byzantine and romans seperately isn't required. This is just like having Huns and Ottomans both in the game as 2 seperate civilizations which are both are Turkish empires.

 

[climat]

in english, seljuks in europe is called so. rum sultanate, whereas turks call that turkish kingdom as "anatolian seljuks" because it was a part of the "great seljuk empire" which was founded in persia. after great seljuk empire, anatolian seljuks was one part of the divisions. i don't know why europe calls it rum sultanate, anyway.

So didn't Seljuks call themselves Rum Sultanate?
I don't know much about seljuks..
Just I heard it somewhere before that Seljuks in anatolia called themselves as "Sultanate of Rum" after division.

for the starting 18civs, I don't expect byzantine to be in. maybe in an EP, it may be added. However, having byzantine and romans seperately isn't required.

I agree. Personally, I want to see Turks (definitely better than Ottoman because we can have seljuk leaders with Turks) rather than Byzantine because I hate overlaps(especially overlaps of cities, e.g. Constantinople and Istanbul ), but it's just my biased feeling. (No offense, fans of Byzantines and Greeks! Please don't be mad at me. )

 

[Gedemo]

About Charlemagne, as said before, he was Holy Roman.
Loius and Napoleon are excellent choices.

For France,

Vercingetorix -> Gauls
Clovis -> Francks
Charlemagne -> Holy Roman
Joan of Arc -> not a leader, just a "great general"

Louis XIV and Napoleon are good choice and now very well known in the civ universe.

I've read that we'll have some new leaders in civ V that never been in civ before...if those are french I guess it would be:

-Francis the First

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

- Henry IV

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

 

[j51]

"-Hitler. He conquered one half of Europe. If you don’t like him emotionally, my next option is Otto I (first German Emperor) because Frederick II the Great was King of Prussia, not of all Germany." - @ Iván de España

What the hell? Only skinheads and oily jerks like Hitler emotionally. And "he" (more like his generals) conquered half of Europe and only held it for a few years before Germany was completely crushed. The German nation only continued to exist after the war by the good graces of a few foreign advisors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan

But the point is moot. Firaxis won't include him without a fecal storm happening - I only with the same could be said of Mao and Stalin.

 

[awesome]

i'd like to see hitler in a wwii scenario

 

[Iván de España]

I want to say "don't like emotionally as a Civ leader". I think it was clear because we're talking about choosing leaders for the game, not politics.

 

[Dragonflow]

If they are including Leaders that have never been in civ before. I would really like to see some Sassanid emperors for Persia. Also Henry IV of France would be nice as well.
Here is a list of some new leader I would like to see:

Germany: Frederic Barbarossa, Maximillian I and Wilhelm II
France: Henry IV and Napoleon III
Persia: Shapur I and Khosrau II
Spain: Charles V and Philip II
Rome: Constantine and Trajan
Greece: Lysander and Manuel I Komnenos ( the later could be also the leader of Rome or Byzantium)
Japan: Meiji or Hirohito
Turkey: Atatürk
England: Richard Lionheart and Oliver Cromwell