[GS] Why an unpopular Swedish leader?

[Civnu]

Keep in mind that I am a biased Dane when reading this. I will be serious, but this is why I care about it and say some of the stuff I am about to:

So now that the leak is basically confirmed, I find the Swedish leader as odd as the French one.

I am mostly citing the opinions of angry swedes here: Why go for a leader branded a traitor by the Swedish people. Hated back then and still looked down upon? She undid or at least tried to undo the work of her father during the 30 years war, which was a personal, DEFINITELY not a national interest.

Is it because she's a female? (Read: it is because she's female.) Cherry picking the only female leader they could find and just went with her even though she is not even close to being a symbol of her people seems non-Civ. I'm not surprised after the French leader. I mean... why not Napoleon? Any of the Louis XIV? Charles de Gaulle? Dont even get me started on Seondeok.

As an added bonus which i find INCREDIBLY ironic is that Kristina wrote a book called: "It is my opinion that no women should rule a nation".

Female leaders like Victoria obviously makes a ton of sense, so does Cleopatra, Tamar, Wilhemina etc... because they, like the male leaders present in the game, actually is a symbol of their nations.

If they wanted a strong, female, Nordic leader which is actually seen as a national symbol of her origin country, and is a leader of both Denmark AND Sweden in a non viking age, why not go for Margrethe I? She was the leader of ALL 3 Nordic countries - Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway!! She would fit perfectly into the Diplomacy system. You would not be leaving out one of the 3 Scandinavian countries like you did in Civ V(!!!). You'd have an actual strong female leader instead of this actual disaster.

Margrethe I of the Kalmar Union - a much stronger leader and a much stronger nation at a much better time for all 3.

 

[steveg700]

So...How do you feel about Joan Jett getting into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?

 

[Haig]

She is not "branded as a traitor" by Swedes.

Three out of four groups(clergy, burghers, landowners) accepted well her abdication and giving throne to Carl Gustaf, only one group (nobles) protested.

Not my #1 pick for Sweden but an interesting character in Swedish history.

 

[AriochIV]

Because she's a girl.

 

[Duuk]

Because guinea pigs don't wear hats.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I am mostly citing the opinions of angry swedes here: Why go for a leader branded a traitor by the Swedish people. Hated back then and still looked down upon? She undid or at least tried to undo the work of her father during the 30 years war, which was a personal, DEFINITELY not a national interest.

I agree with what @Haig said in that she isn't branded as a traitor by Swedes. From what I've found, a Google search on Kristina and traitor mostly brings up how she had an Italian nobleman killed as a traitor since he was sending copies of all her letters to the Pope. She is quite an interesting character and far from the worst choice to lead Sweden, but I agree that she was most likely picked because she's a girl. I would've greatly preferred Gustavus Adolphus (its especially sad when you think of how, in his only appearance as a leader, Gustavus' appearance was based on his uncle Eric XIV).

why not Napoleon? Any of the Louis XIV? Charles de Gaulle?

I'm surprised too, I would've suspected Napoleon, Louis XIV, or Phillip II would've shown up so its disappointing to see that they haven't.

Dont even get me started on Seondeok

I wouldn't call Seondeok a bad choice at all. If anything, her development of Silla makes her one of the better choices in my eyes like some of the other leaders such as Gitarja, Jadwiga, Tamar, etc.

If they wanted a strong, female, Nordic leader which is actually seen as a national symbol of her origin country, and is a leader of both Denmark AND Sweden in a non viking age, why not go for Margrethe I? She was the leader of ALL 3 Nordic countries - Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway!! She would fit perfectly into the Diplomacy system. You would not be leaving out one of the 3 Scandinavian countries like you did in Civ V(!!!). You'd have an actual strong female leader instead of this actual disaster.

Margrethe I of the Kalmar Union - a much stronger leader and a much stronger nation at a much better time for all 3.

I absolutely agree that Margrethe I would be a much better choice, I don't think anyone could deny her accomplishments.

 

[Hammurabbit]

As a Swede I don't have a problem with Kristina being the first Swedish leader in Civ 6. I definitely agree that she is far from the most successful Swedish king/queen, but I like that she now get more international exposure, given her interesting life story.

Is it because she is a woman? Yes probably, and that's great, I would hate if it was mostly male leaders, so I'm glad that Firaxis keeps an eye on the balance.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

She's an interesting choice no doubt, but not a bad one. I think the problem is your idea of what a civ leader should be, i.e., an iconic symbol of the nation they represent, whereas it's quite clear to me that the devs have made a deliberate choice to widen the scope to include any historical figure that they find interesting and fits one of the game's mechanics. I suspect one of the key motives for this is representation but I don't see why that is a problem, it's great to have a more balanced selection of men and women.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Kristina is an odd choice, not because of her accomplishments, the brevity of her tenure or even her gender, but because she HATED the responsibilities that came with being Queen of Sweden. She loathed that she was expected to solidify Sweden's power through war and political marriages. Instead she tried (emphasis on *tried*) to turn Sweden into a hub of learning and scholarship.

When that failed, she made arrangements towards her abdication. I don't think she was out of her depth or a weak ruler. Krtistina was proud, ambitious and very bright . She was simply way ahead of her time.

Overall she fits the theme of Big Personalities the Civ6 Leaders have going for them and that makes her a great choice.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I remember viewing an History show in France (Secrets d'Histoire), and one show was specifically about Kristina of Sweden. I didn't knew her before that, and I must say that I was very interresting. I don't really remember her accomplishments as a ruler, but as a personality, she was overwhelming (especially the phrase: "My Queen, with this attitude, you will die a spinster!""Not a spinster: a celibate" (I don't know if I translated it correctly in English, but in French it was very strong)). As people say, she was ahead of her time, and I think that by choosing her, Firaxis wanted to have a proeminent figure of Sweden history linked to their modern depiction of freedom and tolerance, which Kristina apparently was the defendant.

Plus it will be fun to have one of the leader depicted as the one who don't want to rule, always looking to the player as someone who just bother her, and that she would be anywhere but here. I like having each ruler with their own personality.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

She definitely wouldn't be my first choice, though I don't know much about Sweden history in the first place, and would like to see her in game and learn more about her.

Kristina is an odd choice, not because of her accomplishments, the brevity of her tenure or even her gender, but because she HATED the responsibilities that came with being Queen of Sweden. She loathed that she was expected to solidify Sweden's power through war and political marriages. Instead she tried (emphasis on *tried*) to turn Sweden into a hub of learning and scholarship.

When that failed, she made arrangements towards her abdication. I don't think she was out of her depth or a weak ruler. Krtistina was proud, ambitious and very bright . She was simply way ahead of her time.

Overall she fits the theme of Big Personalities the Civ6 Leaders have going for them and that makes her a great choice.

You know that would be interesting as part of her leader ability she will not want to become allied with other Civs. This would make her interesting during the world Congress especially if they become the Civ that gets benefits for winning the various competitions and not necessarily caring who she helps or not in the process.

 

[steveg700]

This thread makes me wish I knew a little more about Swedish history.

 

[Jkchart]

If they do add Denmark (which they probably won't) and complete the Scandinavian trifecta, which would be cool, Margrethe I would be fantastic to add.

I also don't think that Kristina is bad for the purposes of the game. Plus, she actually did rule her country, even if it wasn't for a long time, but seriously, we've had other more dubious choices. The original Montezuma they used early in the series was the one famous for losing his whole Empire to the Spanish and nothing else, before appropriately switching to the much more successful Montezuma I. France has Joan of Arc in II and III - she was a military commander for 3 years and a saint, but nothing else leaderish. Abu Bakr for Arabia literally ruled for 2 years in the Rashidun Caliphate and then died. Boudica's rebellion lasted 1 year, and that's really what she's known for (before that, she was the wife of a king, then was forced into that rebellion after the atrocities of the Romans. Julius Caesar was a great general, seized power, and then was assassinated, but they put him in originally for the longest time because we know him from Shakespeare, same for Cleo - she's well known, but not the best choice for an Ancient Egypt civ. And don't get us started on Gandhi!!!

People like to complain about the choices they're making in Civ VI, but for the most part, they are picking people that have had power (either hard power or soft power), influence, and personality. Kristina is a sensible addition even if she is not the BEST choice, but I'd get bored having a bunch of old dudes who were good at conquering their enemies as all of the leaders because the idea of "great" in history and what "ruling" and "power" are can be pretty skewed sometimes.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I'm glad that not all leader decisions are popularity contests. I'd much rather get fresh new faces with new and interesting gameplay rather than rehashing the same "iconic" leaders over and over again. Plus, seeing new leaders provides a way to learn about facets of a nation's history which may I may not have known.

It's interesting that all the largest outcries (Cleopatra, Catherine, Seondeok, Jadwiga, and now Kristina...am I missing any?) have all been over women... even though these are all women who actually ruled the nations they're representing in Civ 6.

 

[Sagax]

No matter the opinion on Kristina, I do agree with the notion that the leader choice should, first of all, sit well with people from the country represented by the civ. Unless there is some obvious revisionist propaganda going on, but we haven’t gotten to that point yet. If Swedes are ok with Kristina, then so be it.

That being said: Interesting characters are fine, but you can’t dismiss the appeal of the “iconic great rulers” in a game that’s all about celebrating the greatness of civilizations that stand the test of time. Not to mention, with the introduction of Leader UAs, it makes sense to let the old and obvious choices rejoin the roster once again, adding their own flavor to the civ gameplay (yes, that includes Gandhi....)

 

[Jkchart]

I'm glad that not all leader decisions are popularity contests. I'd much rather get fresh new faces with new and interesting gameplay rather than rehashing the same "iconic" leaders over and over again. Plus, seeing new leaders provides a way to learn about facets of a nation's history which may I may not have known.

It's interesting that all the largest outcries (Cleopatra, Catherine, Seondeok, Jadwiga, and now Kristina...am I missing any?) have all been over women... even though these are all women who actually ruled the nations they're representing in Civ 6.

These are the largest outcries, for sure, but there are some good reasons why people are skeptical of each.

-Cleopatra: mostly because we know her from Shakespeare and her personality is romanticized, she has been included several times. Many people would prefer an actual ethnic ancient Egyptian leader as opposed to a Greek transplant that lost her country, doing the best with what she had. I think that Cleopatra honestly does work, because actually looking at her she was bright, ambitious, and attempted to consolidate her power/the power of her children on the throne of Egypt. She worked hard to learn the Egyptian language and to actually become a Pharaoh and to become Egyptian, rather than just another conqueror of a foreign people. Militarily, even though she lost, she resisted Octavian. She also actually ruled her country with true power. To me, she works as a leader fine, but I can understand wanting the even more brilliant Hatshepsut more.

-Catherine: she was never Queen-regnant, and some people don't like that she's an Italian noblewoman acting as a leader for the French civilization. I like Catherine because she is a unique figure that ruled in the shadows of each of her sons. Kind of like the Renaissance Dick Cheney if you will - she had much/all of the power, and truly she is blamed over her sons for many of the worst atrocities during the French Wars of Religion. But if it weren't for Catherine, France may not have come out of that time period and catapulted towards superpower over the next two to three centuries. She deserves far more credit than we are giving her as a leader IMO.

-Seondeok: I'm not sure of all of the arguments against her other than being female? She's a legit choice based on what I know about her, probably one of the best female choices in Civ VI, a ruler that built up her kingdom to become the dominant one in Korea. Enough said.

-Jadwiga: Mostly famous for her piety, marrying the Grand Duke of Lithuania to create a union, and then dying at the age of 25. However, Jadwiga really EARNED her saint status because during her reign she was charitable, established numerous churches and schools, and even promoted the use of local vernacular in churches at a time when it was very frowned upon to use anything other than Latin at mass. Scriptures and hymns were written in Polish during her reign. Additionally, that union between her and her husband helped create the largest, and one of the most powerful states in Europe, and converted the last bastion of paganism into a Catholic nation. Militarily, she invaded Hungary after they imprisoned some family members and was able to absorb Galicia-Volhynia into the state. She revived the university of Krakow and also literally styled herself KING of Poland. Her reign might have been brief, but she used her time on the throne well. I think she is an excellent choice as a leader of Poland.

-Kristina: this thread has discussed her in-depth. Undoubtedly not the BEST choice, but I will approach her optimistically if they can find something good to do with her since she is a fascinating figure.

 

[bbbt]

Jesus are we complaining about leaders before they are even officially announced now?

Adding Margrethe as a ruler for Denmark would be great, as a ruler for Sweden, like having Victoria rule Australia. And clearly they decided to readd Sweden. Honestly this just seems like a little Denmark vs Sweden rivarly on your part dressed up as leader ''concern"

 

[liv]

I loved this choice. At the time of the last expansion we did some discussion about female leaders and I was stanning her
She is much discussed now partly because Sweden may be getting a female monarch again one of these days. And it is pretty interesting. I think given the equality in Scandinavia that is great that that region is represented by a female. Anyway I am excited about it

(from my earlier post)
I have read the recent Swedish biography about her and that was not the author's (Eric Peterson's) opinion about her. He sees her as a very decisive woman who make her own decisions about politics and personal life from when she was a child. He argues she outmaneuvered the men who wanted to rule through her, made her own choices about who she wanted to have relations to. She is anything but boring according to that book. I do not share her opinions but I certainly think that as a female ruler she was quite impressive because she controlled the circumstances to get the life she wanted. I always found her relations to Descartes to be fascinating.
She stated that: I was born free, I lived free and I will die freed.

But maybe she is not everyone's cup of tea

ETA
Interestingly because Christina refused to marry there has always been rumours about her actually being a man (as with Elizabeth I)
Her body was even exhumed in 1965 to check the skeleton. They said she had a typical female skeleton. It is another thing I like about her. By making that decision and defying the norms she has continued for centuries to unsettle people's perceptions about what female means.

Also a lot written about her sexual preferences and gender identification.

so she would make a great diversity queen

 

[local_hero]

I've written earlier that I haven't noticed that there's a general view on Kristina that she's a traitor in Sweden. I think most people have poor knowledge of our regents in general. And abdicating the throne can hardly be seen as traitorous in my opinion. Her decision shocked Sweden then and people surely felt she betrayed her father's memory but that's quite understandable as it was such a shock. But in no way was she trying to actively destroy her beloved father's legacy. On the contrary, she was very tough in the peace negotiations that ended the 30 years war and would probably have let the war continue instead of accepting unfavourable terms for Sweden. She was also very concerned about who the throne would pass to, and spent years ensuring that Charles X would accept the offer and to gather support for him. All that was done in a way that convinces me that she was skilled in statemanship and that she merely lacked the desire to rule.

Her views on that women shouldn't rule and so on should be seen in it's historic context, what women were expected to be and act like then. And the poor relationship to her neurotic mother probably influenced that as well.

I was very intrigued when I heard that Kristina will lead Sweden and I have read a bit and listened to podcasts about her since. Now I'm very pleased she'll be the leader of Sweden. I think she was a really interesting person and it's more plausible we'll see other sides of Sweden with Kristina than the militaristic associated with Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII.

 

[HanNorwood]

... because she HATED the responsibilities that came with being Queen of Sweden.

By that token, Pedro II would be an odd choice for Brazil, even though he's by far the greatest leader in Brazil's history. I've seen in a couple places that he resented ruling Brazil, which is part of the reason he willingly (relative to what one would expect) accepted his removal from the throne and exile.

To be a leader in Civ, as proven by Pedro, you don't have to enjoy your role; you just have to do a good job of it.

I like Kristina. She fits the big personality perfectly, and could make Sweden a lot more interesting than it was in Civ V. And for anything lamenting the loss of Gustavus Adolphus, myself included, I'm sure some modder is already working on him.