BTW, Isabella was not the religious fanatic her psycho characterization in Civ 4 makes her out to be; she had the same kind of piety that most medieval rulers in the Christian and Islamic world had.
Well, it is even said in Spain she was very religious (still, that does not mean fanaticism or xenophobia towards the other religions). The issues (big issues) with muslims and jews are often explained in
political terms: due to the will to use religion in order to create a "national identity" that kept the iberic lands together. True, that is ethnical cleanising, and that unfortunately has been quite common in history in order to generate a power base.
breunor said:
Well, Phillip II was important but was an AWFUL leader for Spain. He probably single-handedly ended Spanish hegemony. He bankrupt the country and lead to the horrendous Armada loss. Yech!
Tough no one can deny he was not the best leader, neither he was the worst. There were as well important victories, mainly against the Turks (Lepanto). The cultural golden ages started at his reign; And lately I read bankrupts were not that bad, but means to pressure the Fugger and other bankers to get better deals (indeed, he inherited a lot of debts from his father). Indeed, we already have a lot of not-so-good leaders in the game, speaking of raw power of its nation from the start to the end of his reign, the importance is if they were influential... and indeed Philip II was influential in forging Spanish Empire mindset. A flawed mindset, maybe, but inluential in any case.
In any case, I have to defy the original statement of the topic:
... Isabella was such a good leader that they couldn't think of anyone else to fill her shoes. I think so too.
As already has been comented, the first "else" is her husband Ferdinand, as much good leader as her, and probably complementary. I like the descriptions that have been made of him as:
windbourne said:
he was a great military mind, and very talented at raising funds for his wars, which was something a lot of kingdoms weren't so good at. It was their TEAM that made Spain have such a great start
And I'd add he also had a gread diplomatic mind. It is said he forged the whole marital policy of his (and Isabella's) sons. (focused in isolating France -the main contender for pre-American spanish area of expansion: Italy; and that in the end gave greater benefits incorporating part of the HRE to spain)
Philip II might be not so good but indeed Charles V (Phi/Imp) is (tough he has the problem of being a leader for other civ as well - he ended being more Spanish than Austrian, tough). Also, I list below a list of leaders that could stand in front of isabella in order of preference:
Charles V
Ferdinand
Pelayo (starter of reconquista, mithycal leader that mostly all spain would agree to have <-- And that in spain is a BIG plus)
Leovigild (Visigoth, 1st political unity of Hispania)
Alphonse VIII of Castille (led all spanish christian kings in the most decisive battle of the reconquista (Navas de Tolosa) - thus can be considered leader of all spain, and not just castille)
Reccared (Visigoth, 1st religious unity of Hispania)
Alphonse X the Wise (Castille) outstanding king of castille, both cultural and militarily - primus in ther pares amongst the peninsular kings after the death of James I (he was his father in law, also).
James I the Conqueror (Aragon) outstanding king of aragon, both cultural and militarily - primus in ther pares amongst the peninsular kings.
Also, nice leaders for Spain (even if not so "shiny" would be)
Philip II
Count-Duke of Olivares (the real power behind Philip IV - and he would make a very funny leaderhead, for sure)
Charles III of Bourbon.
This is a partial list, and there are already 8 leaders toe-to-toe (if not superior to isabella) and other 3 that, while inferior, would not have problem being portrayed along her. So, not leaders for spain is a fallacy (a word quite used now in these forums
)
. 
