That's more because the Hittites didn't do anything famous to the average Mustafa Q. Public. Every 19th century French schoolboy had read (or was supposed to read) about Vercingetorix. It's hard to use nobodies as rallying cries.
The inevitable leaders thread
- Thread starter GoodSarmatian
- Start date
every turkish schoolboy read the hittites as well, in prelim school.
5t0rmm4k3r
Chieftain
Tecumseh was Shawnee (an Algonquian people) not Sioux, he shouldn't be a Sioux leader.
All good leaders except if your calling it Turkey I would probably replace Osman with Ataturk.
What is wrong with Brennus? I think he would probably be chosen over Viriathus (on the grounds he has been a Celtic leader in every game that featured them (as far as I know)).
I don't mean to offend anyone btw. Generally I think most of the suggestions so far have been awesome! (I'm not sure why Vercingetorix has never been in before...)
PS - I think that since this is Inevitable leaders, probably most of the leaders from civ IV will prob be in. Also, I think we shouldn't limit ourselves to 36 civs, whats to say Firaxis won't add more tis time round? And would anyone else like to see more than 3 leaders per civ?
Yeah, ostensibly. And are they easy symbols to use?
I don't know. Personally I like the sound of "Masters of the Chariots"
Didn't the Mitanni have better ones though?
Ah well, they're Mountain Hittites.
I don't get you clearly. Hittite civilization were there many milleniums before Turks moved to Anatolia. So there is quite a sympathy for them and schoolboys read much about. However, it is not a figure that the nationalists use and exploit
To put it more simply: how OH EXPLOITABLE are they? Vercingetorix is perceived as being a proto-nationalistic figure who stood up to foreign tyranny. The Hittites are most famous for lol iron and drawing a battle in Palestine to one of the most promiscuous pharaohs in Egyptian history. Not exactly the hero you deserve or the one you needed right now, if you get the reference.
it seems much different from abroad, doesn't it...
There was no chaos in mid-east when it was ruled by Ottomans.
In early 20th century, some jewish rich men wanted to buy lands of Israel from the ottoman sultan Abdulhamid. He replied: "the land was captured with the blood of our war heroes. So it is not mine, I cannot sell."
Soon, later in world war, arabs made a league with English and gained "independence". Arabs sold all the lands of today's Israel to Jewish businessman. Situation hasn't changed since then. There is always chaos in mid-east.
After Caesar conquered Gallia, Gauls became Gallo-romans: they adopted roman lifestyle but keep their beliefs (druids,..).
Frankish invaders 'd just forced roman legions to go back home
They were not so many. They stayed in the north of (today's) France and mixed with local population (not all the population). Then next french leaders were frankish but just a little part of population too...almost each little part of france had his own language and culture at this time. (It was still the case till the 19th century).
So I think that French are more "gauls"(and celts) than germanic.
This is an excellent website with a lot of europe maps from 0 AD to 2000 AD:
http://www.euratlas.net/sommaire.htm
there are both advantages and disadvantages of having a mixed cultural influence from multiple ancient civs. it seems advantageous sides has proven to be more for france.After Caesar conquered Gallia, Gauls became Gallo-romans: they adopted roman lifestyle but keep their beliefs (druids,..).
Frankish invaders 'd just forced roman legions to go back home
They were not so many. They stayed in the north of (today's) France and mixed with local population (not all the population). Then next french leaders were frankish but just a little part of population too...almost each little part of france had his own language and culture at this time. (It was still the case till the 19th century).
So I think that French are more "gauls"(and celts) than germanic.
This is an excellent website with a lot of europe maps from 0 AD to 2000 AD:
http://www.euratlas.net/sommaire.htm
of course a mix with local pop is very normal. it is also observed in Anatolia. we have mixed with other mediterrenean and caucasian nations very much. especially Izmir ,my city, is famous with its beautiful girls
Izmir, being a port city was inhabited also of Greek and Italian/French (levantine) as much as Turks, even in late 19th century.most europeon gens are hybrid however, the national identity is more dominated by the culture and religion. i mean, in balkans and anatolia there might be many "more" turkish christians confused as greek and many muslim greeks confused as "more" turk. generally religion has seperated nations.
most genetic researches prove that having hybrid genes increase beauty & IQ, despite some theories glorifying "pure" races
Iván de España
Chieftain
5t0rmm4k3r
Chieftain
Yep, he would have been my choice too. I really really hope they don't have a Native American Empire again though. That was just stupid!
And would anyone else like to see a Nubian Empire, or a Tibetan or even Israeli Empire? I think these are important cultures that have so far been ignored. They were all fairly important in their times (or massively in Israel's case), plus, with the exception of Israel, those civs would help to flesh out regions without many civs.
And would anyone else like to see a Nubian Empire, or a Tibetan or even Israeli Empire? I think these are important cultures that have so far been ignored. They were all fairly important in their times (or massively in Israel's case), plus, with the exception of Israel, those civs would help to flesh out regions without many civs.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
^I agree. And I think it's best to settle it at that, as, similarly to the question of Israel, it could raise a nice hell on these forums.
Nubia, however, is something I'd be really interested to see, maybe at least as a 2nd xp civ. They aren't a copy-off of Egypt!
Nubia, however, is something I'd be really interested to see, maybe at least as a 2nd xp civ. They aren't a copy-off of Egypt!
5t0rmm4k3r
Chieftain
Hmmm... Yeah, I suppose so. But then again, could the inclusion Arabia not insult some Israelis? Oh well, I don't want to start up hell... so I'll shut up now... (Damned politics!
)
Yay, I agree about Nubia. Nubia has a culture of its own (something Firaxis seems to have overlooked) and they were a great power in their day, right up into the middle ages.
Armenia too was the other one I was thinking of. Great history, one of the first Christian nations in the world and plenty of good leaders, both ancient and modern. I would also love to see Khosrau in civ 5 as well (for Persia obviously, not Armenia...).
)Yay, I agree about Nubia. Nubia has a culture of its own (something Firaxis seems to have overlooked) and they were a great power in their day, right up into the middle ages.
Armenia too was the other one I was thinking of. Great history, one of the first Christian nations in the world and plenty of good leaders, both ancient and modern. I would also love to see Khosrau in civ 5 as well (for Persia obviously, not Armenia...).
Ottomans: In terms of importance and influence, Suleyman the Magnificent, Mehmed the Conqueror and Sultan II. Abdulhamid.
If they happened to cover the republic era as well(then unlike in IV, the Civ would be called "The Turks"), add Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to the list above.
If they happened to cover the republic era as well(then unlike in IV, the Civ would be called "The Turks"), add Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to the list above.
I would love to play as Ataturk, so I am fully behind this idea.
Similar threads
