We need more female leaders!

[Antilogic]

Yes, she didn't see the final victory...she died within a few years of becoming the figurehead for the French military--was captured and burned by the English.

 

[GuitarHero]

Civilization is a tribute to the greatest leaders and nations of all time not just the most recognizable people and nations! So Cleopatra would not fit in, she commited suicide while her empire crumbled like good potting soil! I think Joan Of Arc should have been included all the way back in Vanilla. But who the hell is Margareth the I??????

 

[cybrxkhan]

But who the hell is Margareth the I??????

Scandinavian queen, did a buncha stuff.

Here, from the unreliable but reliable Wikipedia:

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


oh,

if Vietnam ever became a civ, we could have the Trung Sisters as our leaders... not just one, but TWO female leaders.

 

[GuitarHero]

She did unite Scandinavia, which is an impressive feat. Charismatic/Financial?

 

[Antilogic]

...aside from the fact that Hannibal currently has those traits.

 

[Leeksoup]

Personally, I think it's rediculous that we should put women leaders in the game simply because they are women. If they are great leaders and happen to be women, by all means, include them. So far, I think Firaxis has done a good job of this so far (except perhaps Boudica, but meh). Feminists proclaim equality in the genders, but then you see men getting fired because a woman wanted his job, and sports teams in schools being dsrastically sut down because an equal amount of boys and girls have to play (even if there are 3x as many boys that want to play). That isn't equality, that's... well, feminism.

I'm not discounting the fact that some of these women are wonderful leaders who did amazing things, but if a man was a better leader, there is no reason to include her. That would be like kicking out Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar so we can fit in Margaret Thatcher.

Sorry if this is a bit ranty, but I'm a bit pissed off at feminists right now. (I got an amazing job for a coffee shop, they were going to give me training and put me in their corporate HQ making $23/hr at 16 years old, but at the last minute they dumped me because "sorry, you're the better choice for the job, but we have to maintain equality, so we're hiring a woman instead". What am I supposed to do, go get a sex change?)

 

[Dairuka]

Maria Francisca Isabel Josefa Antónia Gertrudes Rita Joana de Bragança the Pious

Spiritual/Imperialistic.

She wasn't a particularly great leader, but she is well known in history - and a religious zealot. (Isabella's Portuguese clone?)

 

[Antilogic]

Personally, I think it's rediculous that we should put women leaders in the game simply because they are women. If they are great leaders and happen to be women, by all means, include them. So far, I think Firaxis has done a good job of this so far (except perhaps Boudica, but meh). Feminists proclaim equality in the genders, but then you see men getting fired because a woman wanted his job, and sports teams in schools being dsrastically sut down because an equal amount of boys and girls have to play (even if there are 3x as many boys that want to play). That isn't equality, that's... well, feminism.

I'm not discounting the fact that some of these women are wonderful leaders who did amazing things, but if a man was a better leader, there is no reason to include her. That would be like kicking out Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar so we can fit in Margaret Thatcher.

Sorry if this is a bit ranty, but I'm a bit pissed off at feminists right now. (I got an amazing job for a coffee shop, they were going to give me training and put me in their corporate HQ making $23/hr at 16 years old, but at the last minute they dumped me because "sorry, you're the better choice for the job, but we have to maintain equality, so we're hiring a woman instead". What am I supposed to do, go get a sex change?)

You may be equally dismayed by a recent survey featured in the New York Times (okay, within a couple months...it may have been Slate); the "gender gap" in the US seems to have disappeared between young professional men and women. It seems like young women are actually paid more than young men.

Overall, though, look at Civ3 and look at Civ4. Firaxis has gotten so much better with leader selection, and a little better with civilization selection (stuff like the "Native American Empire" and the HRE are black marks). However, we don't have Xerxes anymore, no more Jeanne d'Arc, no more Cleopatra...and we have good rulers, like Darius, Cyrus, Elizabeth, Catherine, Hatshepsut...if the trend continues, I'll be really happy with Civ5.

However, as you may have noticed by my previous posts, I'm not a fan of simply including women for the hell of it.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

You may be equally dismayed by a recent survey featured in the New York Times (okay, within a couple months...it may have been Slate); the "gender gap" in the US seems to have disappeared between young professional men and women. It seems like young women are actually paid more than young men.

Overall, though, look at Civ3 and look at Civ4. Firaxis has gotten so much better with leader selection, and a little better with civilization selection (stuff like the "Native American Empire" and the HRE are black marks). However, we don't have Xerxes anymore, no more Jeanne d'Arc, no more Cleopatra...and we have good rulers, like Darius, Cyrus, Elizabeth, Catherine, Hatshepsut...if the trend continues, I'll be really happy with Civ5.

However, as you may have noticed by my previous posts, I'm not a fan of simply including women for the hell of it.

Indeed. Equality is judging everyone by the same standards. It is sexist to assign bonus points for gender, whatever gender that may be. Let us hope we need not be treated to anything else like the HRE or Native Americans in CiV.

And I noticed that, and am glad. Very glad. The only blackmark in regards to leaders is Boudicca really....because she was a failure. Firaxis ought to avoid including failures, even if it may be easier(the Romans were always ones to exaggerate defeated foes, and disparage undefeated ones.)

The solution, simply, is to include more civilizations...and more leaders for existing civilizations. For obvious reasons, there weren't as many successful historical female leaders as there were males....and considering where Firaxis draws its leaders from(history), that ought to hold true if(as they should) they use the same standards.

 

[Dairuka]

You can't expect me to believe that Hannibal (Lost to the Romans, then exiled.), Sitting Bull (Surrendered to the Americans.), Moctezuma II (Died in battle against the Spanish, country was conquered.) and Napolean (Lost to the Rus, then exiled.), were all a resounding success, while Boudica was a failure?

We judge great leaders by how well we remember their exploits as rulers of their people.

Boudica is a very strong cultural symbol in the UK even now.

If any 'addition' is a black mark, it's Justinian's "Byzantine Empire".... the empire that never officially existed.

Of course, I know they only added the Byzantine Empire, because they wanted to add the Cataphract.

 

[Leeksoup]

You can't expect me to believe that Hannibal (Lost to the Romans, then exiled.), Sitting Bull (Surrendered to the Americans.), Moctezuma II (Died in battle against the Spanish, country was conquered.) and Napolean (Lost to the Rus, then exiled.), were all a resounding success, while Boudica was a failure?

We judge great leaders by how well we remember their exploits as rulers of their people.

Boudica is a very strong cultural symbol in the UK even now.

If any 'addition' is a black mark, it's Justinian's "Byzantine Empire".... the empire that never officially existed.

Of course, I know they only added the Byzantine Empire, because they wanted to add the Cataphract.

Hannibal- Led an astounding series of raids in Italy proper, crippling the economy of the Romans in the area until stopped.
Sitting Bull- Even though technologically inferior and outnumbered, led a very good defense against the Americans and was a decent administrator.
Montezuma- Okay, yeah, Monty sucked as a ruler, but his nation was incredibly strong at the time of his rule and only lost to the Spanish due to illness.
Napoleon- Before losing, he led a successful revolution in France, took the new country and raised it to glory, conquered vast stretches of modern-day France, Italy, Germany and Spain, and also helped fund the American Revolution.
Boudica- Led a single city in revolt against the Romans, only to be utterly crushed several years later.

You can't tell me they compare.

 

[Antilogic]

And I noticed that, and am glad. Very glad. The only blackmark in regards to leaders is Boudicca really....because she was a failure. Firaxis ought to avoid including failures, even if it may be easier(the Romans were always ones to exaggerate defeated foes, and disparage undefeated ones.)

Here, we differ. My metric is impact, not success. As pointed out above, Hannibal lost eventually, but he was still an amazing success against the Romans, creating the greatest bloodbath in a single day at Cannae until the advent of machine guns and the mile long fronts in WW1. Napoleon, although he lost, managed to conquer most of Europe and set into place a Civil Code that still forms the basis of law for the majority of countries today (some English-colonized places use Common Law, derived from English traditions, or hybrids or native systems). I always assumed the Moctezuma in the game wasn't the failing Moctezuma II, but rather his successful ancestor Moctezuma I. I'll have to look in the Civilopedia to see which one he is before commenting on him further.

I have mixed feelings about Boudica, so that doesn't anger me as much as the "Native American Empire" (because there are three other Native American empires in the game as well, and its damned confusing) and the HRE (why didn't they just represent central Europe with Prussia and Austria?). On the Byzantines...well, they are an offshoot of the Romans that became Greek as time passed (and the Western Empire fell). I figured they picked Justinian because the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) were able to reconquer large swaths of land under his rule. I also figured they wanted to give Belisarius a country in the game, one of the most skilled and underrated commanders in the history of mankind. I'm mixed on the Byzantines as well.

 

[cybrxkhan]

if sucess was the biggest factor for civs, than the leader choices would be so much different.

- Egypt: either Khufu, the guy who built that huge *** pyramid, or Thuthmosis III, the guy who conquered a whole buncha stuff. but they chose someone like Ramses, because he was very "loud" (as in tons of propaganda)

- China: Taizong, one of the most cultured rulers in Chinese history, or Kangxi/Qianlong, who expanded the Chinese to their greatest extent and made China a power in the east; but instead, they have Mao and QSH to represent modern and ancient China, but i find it interesting the two also have very similar traits - dictators who didn't like others opinions and had many die under their reign, purposely or not.

- Rome: They shold've picked Augustus Caesar first, because unlike Julius, he stopped all the civil wars and didnt get stabbed 37 times by betrayers.

so, i would say that the "pop culture", and actual impact, as Antilogic say, also are very important. thats why there are certain women in the game - i don't mean to sound sexist if i do, but i think that because obviuosly for the last 5000 years most of the leaders have been men, and when a woman does something that isn't necessarily "womanly", that makes her seem more awesome than if a man did it - so if Boadicea was a guy, who would really care? than "his" rebellion would just be another footnote of history; but because she's a woman, the Romans got all scared and made her seem all awesome.

 

[Antilogic]

so, i would say that the "pop culture", and actual impact, as Antilogic say, also are very important. thats why there are certain women in the game - i don't mean to sound sexist if i do, but i think that because obviuosly for the last 5000 years most of the leaders have been men, and when a woman does something that isn't necessarily "womanly", that makes her seem more awesome than if a man did it - so if Boadicea was a guy, who would really care? than "his" rebellion would just be another footnote of history; but because she's a woman, the Romans got all scared and made her seem all awesome.

I second this part of your post, especially. Take a look at all the WW2-era leaders: Roosevelt, Churchill, De Gaulle, Stalin, and Mao (did I miss anyone?). 5 out of 52 leaders, or roughly 10% come from a time period of not more than a couple decades. Out of the twelve or so millennia (going back for Sumeria) they could have picked leaders, 10% come from a time period of less than 20 years? Is that pop culture poisoning or what?

I wouldn't necessarily say the Romans were scared of Boudica...she was pretty badass when it came to slaughtering civilians or ambushing the ill-prepared Roman column sent to assist Londinium. But the moment a skilled Roman commander took the field with some decent troops, her army was obliterated. There are many, many, people who fought against the Romans and failed; I just don't see why Boudica is as memorable as people like Hannibal, besides her gender.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I just don't see why Boudica is as memorable as people like Hannibal, besides her gender.

Thats exactly why shes more, or if not, as, memorable.

Think about it - if a little girl comes up and punches you in the face, sending you to the hospital when you were in high school, or if some random guy did it, what would be more "memorable"?

 

[Antilogic]

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just saying she's only memorable because she has a nice...umm...you know. And I wasn't trying to sound prudish initially, but have since thrown that idea to the winds.

 

[Dairuka]

Montezuma- Okay, yeah, Monty sucked as a ruler, but his nation was incredibly strong at the time of his rule and only lost to the Spanish due to illness.

So it's okay that hes in the game as a resounding failure, but not Boudica.

Yeah. Nice rationalization.

They obviously chose the leaders based on their cultural influence on our world well past their death.

Plus theres an obvious Americanized tint on history in Civ 4. Why else would they call him Montezuma, rather Moctezuma II? Because we know him as Montezuma.

 

[Leeksoup]

So it's okay that hes in the game as a resounding failure, but not Boudica.

Yeah. Nice rationalization.

They obviously chose the leaders based on their cultural influence on our world well past their death.

Plus theres an obvious Americanized tint on history in Civ 4. Why else would they call him Montezuma, rather Moctezuma II? Because we know him as Montezuma.

No, see, there's a huge difference. Aztecs at time of Monty II? They pwnt all of Central America. Boudica didn't even have a nation, she was just a member of a local tribe that decided to capture Londinium. But I can see that arguing with you will accomplish nothing in the end, whether you end up agreeing with me or not, so I'll drop it.

 

[GuitarHero]

I'm just saying she's only memorable because she has a nice...umm...you know. And I wasn't trying to sound prudish initially, but have since thrown that idea to the winds.

Yeah Boudica is hot, but I thought we were supposedly talking about appointing leaders.

 

[Antilogic]

So it's okay that hes in the game as a resounding failure, but not Boudica.

Yeah. Nice rationalization.

They obviously chose the leaders based on their cultural influence on our world well past their death.

Plus theres an obvious Americanized tint on history in Civ 4. Why else would they call him Montezuma, rather Moctezuma II? Because we know him as Montezuma.

I will congratulate you on your amazing observation that an American-made game has an American "tint". Such a revelation has yet to be made in this thread. sarcasm

However, I did check the Civilopedia, and my hopes that the more successful Moctezuma I instead of Moctezuma II was described were dashed. I guess Firaxis still has a little work to do, but overall having only a couple truly bad choices is an improvement over Civ3.

@GuitarHero: If you followed the above discussion, it relates to the issue of adding more female leaders and what qualifications should be set. And my original point was that simply leading a rebellion is not noteworthy enough, that Boudica got in on the "affirmative action" and "we can sex her up" factors. The fact is, there are not many great ones to pick from (at least, not as many great women as men). The best picks are already in the game.