Why I think Spain didn't get a 2nd leader:

[Arwon]

Carlos I/Charles V wasn't necessarily so great, either, particularly for Castile, which after they tried to revolt against him in the War of the Communities, he essentially ran into the ground and bled it for money to support his other dominions. A lot of Spanish historians trace the beginning of the decline of Spain to the (almost accidental) beginning of the Spanish empire and the non-native monarchy.

Then again, there's also an alternative school of thought which says the the "decline" was largely a myth and part of the Black Legend, and there was never really a decline through the 16th and 17rg centuries because all that really happened was that Spain inherited a bunch of territories through marriage which it then proceeded to try to defend. "Decline" implies a higher starting point, but the actual economic conditions didn't really get much better or worse through the entire imperial time period. I think a lot of it owes to the exceptionally rosy picture people have of Ferdinand and Isabella, giving the image of this ideal which Spain later failed to live up to... a view which which is in itself something of a myth.

THAT ALL SAID, I'd probably give Felipe II Protective and Organised and Carlos I/Charles V Imperial and Cultural.

Also:

I dislike Isabella's portrayal in Civ 4. The whole "unreasonable psycho zealot" thing strikes me as very stereotypical and Black Legendy. It's an almost insulting portrayal, as somebody else said. I mean, Jesus, it was the middle ages, everyone was like that.

 

[Saim]

Charles V should be an Austrian leader. Or maybe he could lead Austria, Spain AND the HRE. Youd have to do the same with Alexander (Macedon and Greece) and Kublai (China and Mongolia) though.

 

[Ikael]

Some persons have risen very good points here.

First of all, Isabella wasn't as religious fanatic as some potrays her. In fact, before the jew expulsion she was one of their most ardent protectors. Also, the expulsion, albeit painful, was one of the most civilized solutions to the problem, specially if we consider that we are on the middle ages. Jew "popular lynchs" were not uncommon in another parts of Europe, and other leader with less piety and more "practical sense" would have choosen that way instead of a expulsion.

I dislike Isabella's portrayal in Civ 4. The whole "unreasonable psycho zealot" thing strikes me as very stereotypical and Black Legendy. It's an almost insulting portrayal, as somebody else said. I mean, Jesus, it was the middle ages, everyone was like that.

QFMFT

Also, Charles V was probably one of the most "glorious" leaders os Spain. Defeated the turks, defeated the Aztec empire, financed the Magallanes expedition which circunnavegated the world, "en mi imperio nunca se pone el sol", etc etc. And in the end, he always felt more Spanish than anything. I think that Imperialistic / protective or imperialistic / creative would be quite good traits for him.

About Philiph II, while not the best leader ever, he was probably one of the most demonized Spanish monarchs ever (and we have had way more horrible and incompetent monarchs like Ferdinand VII). Lots of the wars and debts were inherited from his father, he did not start the religious wars (you can argue that the rebel princes used the Protestantism as a way to legitimate their rebellion against the empire), and despite the whole Armada disaster, during his kingdom Spain had some outstanding victories over the Turks (Lepanto) and specially over France. His tercios even arrived to the Paris gates... only to be stopped due to the lack of money to mantain such an occupation.

And still, I love Charles III of Bourbon, my underdog candidate <3 one of the best rulers that Spain ever had, it was the only monarch to ever start showing what a modern, properly ruled Spain could archieve. The cultural, scientific and industrial advances on his kingdom were outstanding, not to mention that he rebuilt the fleet and recovered almost every possession that Spain previously lost to England.

About Ferdinand the Catholic, he was, avobe all, a master of diplomacy and foreging relationships, more of a strategist than a tactician. He was the perfect complement for the charismatic, internal administrator that Isabella was. I think that his traits should be something along the lines of imperialistic / organized or financial / imperialistic.

 

[Breunor]

Ikael,

While I recognize that Philip II may be overly demonized, I also just frankly can't believe how many people WANT him for the leader of Spain. OK, maybe he is better than his reputation, but I still think he was real bad.

I also like Charles and Ferdinand ....

Breunor

 

[civspain]

Franco would have been perfect. And he would have fit nicely with the WW2 group of leaders.... An isolationist religious fanatic -- a sort of Tokugawa for Spain.

i agree 100% franco would have been great but he was a fascist like mussolini and hitler.just like there wont be hitler or mussolini no franco ,political correctness run a muck.

 

[r_rolo1]

I think that Philip II is over demonized. The cash issue came from Charles I/V ( that should be a Dutch leader, since he had born in ....Ghent? Not sure ) and the Armada thing.... well that was a completely move ( launch a gigantic fleet that took 2 years to assemble ( suprise effect, where are you?) , so big that only 2 or 3 harbors in the world could contain it, sent to a place 1000 km away to cover a disembark of a army that was land locked and pinned to the ground and to fight a fleet that was faster and it was playing home, all of that leaded by a guy that wasn't expert in sea things, putted in that place against will and that passed most of the voyage his guts into the sea ). But he have to agree that the simple fact of the inclusion of Portugal in his crown is a very big acheivement: the only comparation ground I find is to imagine that Bush father managed to transform USSR in a US state or district .
I would like to see Philip II in Civ IV , but Isabella is not the worst they could find....

 

[cybrxkhan]

I would like to see Philip II in Civ IV , but Isabella is not the worst they could find....

she was the best.

 

[civspain]

she was the best.

i don't know if you ever played civ 2 for the playatsion 1 but phillip was a leader on that one i use to love that version of civ

 

[cybrxkhan]

i don't know if you ever played civ 2 for the playatsion 1 but phillip was a leader on that one i use to love that version of civ

nope. i joined in in Civ3.

 

[Josephias]

Indeed, Philip II is over-demoniced. Not strange, probably he was the leader most envyed and hated at its time.

Yep, he over-spent to protect its territories -and also to cover the debt left by his father payments to become the Holy Roman Emperor, all has to be said-, but it is also said that without having him force the "bankrupts" (which are nice events for the "black legend", but now are considered as clever moves by modern economists), the economic situation could have been much worse.

Yep, the "Big and Fortunate Armada" (that was the real name, the "Invincible" name, was paradoxically given by the English) was an odd move. But probalby the last-minute replacement of the admirall that had prepared it (and probably know how he wanted to use it) with a no-sea expert hindered it the most. Why this was made (well, the first admirall died, but why the replacement was so bad) is something that indeed can be faulted to Philip II. On the other hand, we can not say he did not know how to fight in the see. The Spanish victories of Lepanto against the Turks, and of Gravelines (curiously, the same place were the Armada defeat started), against the French, were also under Philip II reign.

Yep, he was friggingly catholic, but he has probably been over-demonized in his religious zeal as well. As happened with Charles V different religion often meant desires of independency from the empire. Thus he fought the religious differencies as if they were political ones (wich indeed, were in most cases). Also, it is important to say, we are well-entered the Renaissance here, and science is not obscure in most cases. I will not deny some scientists or artists might have been prosecuted by the inqisition - but what we have to remind is, despite the name and the "black legend", this inquisition was in no way the "witchunter" inquisition of the middle ages, and more sort of a secret -and beyond-the-law -, police at the service of the crown. Yet spanish scientists continued documenting the natural species discovered at america (even in El Escorial monastery, the core of Philip II religiosity, you can say), and writers continued satirizing the church. Indeed, we are right in the middle of the two "golden centuries" of spanish culture - writting, paint, architecture is at his best in the Spanish History.

Considering this, I'd go with a "Protective,Creative" for Philip... we should rework the traits for Gilgamesh then &#191;any idea?

 

[Breunor]

Well,

I guess I'm kind of fascinated at the defense of Phillip II. Maybe its because I'm old school, but I have (and still do think) that he is one of the worst rulers in history.

Sure, even monarchs don't control the fate of their country, but he was responsible for the Dutch revolt going from bad to horrible; his using his forces to intervene in France lost the Spanish Netherlands forever. This intervention did little good.

He not only lost money horrendously with overseas expansionism that largely failed, his domestic policies were also poor. The separate powers of the assemblies of Spain's historical segments would tax even the best ruler, but Phillip wasn't up to the task. He tried to control each part, and pitted forces against each other. He is generally viewed to have tried hard, spending time and energy trying to manage; however, he chose poor advisors and probably over-micromanaged. (He may have been a good Civ player, though. ) The Perez affair seems to be an attempt by Phillip to do the right thing but failing to understand the complexity of the situation, but also caused by fear of losing power to a popular family member.

Spain also went into a food crisis that probably wasn't necessary, because he preferred the domestification of sheep, perhaps jealous of the wool tax of the English monarchs historically. Phillip's removal of the Moors fropm Grenada also hurt the economy; indeed, Spain's rise was largely caused by the mixing cultures that Spain had held.

I think the bankruptcy of 1557 was a major event. Interest on debt alone became a huge part of government expenditures.

I agree that Phillip reacted well to the Ottoman menace, and along with Venice were responsible for the victory of Lepanto -- but he was equally blameworthy for Djerba, which is what required the Lepanto campaign.

Of course, the Armada was a fiasco, as was his war with France. He ended up with 4 bankrupcies.

To see another game's opinion, check out EU II forums. These people know history VERY well. The multi-player game usually starts with Spain kicking butt. Then, its 'wait until Phillip II takes over and drives the country bankrupt. Then Spain will get its due.'

Anyway, I admit my background may be overly harsh, but I just find it almost incomprehensible that he would represent the best of this civilization!

The Wikipedia article on him, I think, is pretty good, and paints him better than I do:

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

Here is the 'classic' negative view:

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/euro_his/chap2/e0202401.htm

A slightly negative and 'conventional' view:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12002a.htm

Another negative article:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0860342.html

Another fairly negative article:

http://historymedren.about.com/gi/d...com/brigitte/royal/bio/philip2ofspainbio.html

A more positive view:

http://countrystudies.us/spain/8.htm

Britannica article (relatively negative):

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-70399/Spain

A very good timeline, with little judgemental material:

http://www.historymole.com/cgi-bin/main/results.pl?type=theme&theme=SpainPhilipII

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Ikael]

It is not that I wish him to be the leader of Spain, I believe that Charles I and III or even Pelayo are way better representatives of Spain than him (and better leaders). And mad props to Breaunor, you surely potrayed his faults well you are gentlemen and a scholar.

However, I am very, very tired of the black legend. The Spanish empire has always been painted in darker tones than it really was since hey, winners write the history and in the end, Spain lost against England. And Philiph II was the Spanish ruler that got the most of flack for it. History has had way more fanatical and incompetent leaders than him like Cromwell or Philiph VII which would deserve more of a historic beating, yet he is always potrayed as the ultimate prototype of religious fanatic, incompetent king *sigh*

 

[Breunor]

Thanks Ikael, very nice words!

Yes, I agree that Phillip is overly vilified for the black legend. My complaint about him is fiscal irresponsibility and horrendous management. I suspect Spain losing its status as greatest world power was inevitable, but he just didn't handle it well.

Just to be clear, when I said I was fascinated by the defense of Phillip II, I wasn't being sarcastic. I really was interested. In my generation and reading, he's just considered bad, real bad, almost a joke.

However, attitudes do change, history is reinterpreted. For instance, in the 19th century and earlier, the Roman emperors Tiberius and Claudius were considered to be horrible, scourges of the earth. Later, then, Momsen declared that Tiberias was the best emperor ever! Claudius was reevaluated by historians and popularized by Robert Graves.

So, I was fascinated if there is a 'reinterpretation' of Phillip II. And obvioulsy there was by the powerful defense he gets here. I'm glad you don't think he shouldn't be the 'main' leader, but a lot of people posting here think he should be!

At any rate, for now, I'm sticking to my view, but in researching his view now on the sources, it seems he does get a little better treatment than when I was first studying European history (about 40 years ago). However, as I said, if you 'like' Phillip II, stay away from EUII. He's considered one of the worst kings in the hisotry of the world (well, that games is the 15th century to the 19th). But, I'll consider moving him out of the 'horrendous' category.

But, as you said, to put him ahead of some of the other Spanish kings seems crazy, there were some real good ones!

Thanks again,

Breunor

 

[Duncan_Idaho]

The question is, why didn't Japan get a second leader?!

 

[r_rolo1]

Breunor has a point when he says that Philip II of spain, I of Portugal ( ) would be a decent/good CivIV player : no trust on governors, obsessive micromanagement ( sometimes loosing the big picture ), the " land is power" syndrom, don't giving a d@m about citizens and their wills,....
I think that he biggest mistake of Philip II was negleting the proper usage of naval power. For him, in naval items, all was resumed in big, enourmous, gigantic fleets to smash any beetle that standed on the way. Nice idea in theory, but assembling such a fleet takes time , is hard to do on schedule and does not bode for suprise effects. In between, the enemy fleets could plunder the unprotected shores of the Philip's domains unmolested ( where I live , 20/30 km of Lisbon, a harbour of enourmous importance to Philip's finances ( was the end harbour of the Carreira das Indias, the portuguese spice route, a prime source of cash for Philip II ) Francis Drake could pillage unmolested in 1598 and to stop any ship of entering or leaving harbour. Why? The Spanish fleet was being joined in Cadiz to protect the Silver Galleons from the Spanish Americas... ). Philip didn't realised that having the upper hand in the Atlantic against the English , the French and the rebelous Dutch ( to protect his cash sources ) was far more important than depleting his treasury in a stalemate land war against the Dutch, with a tortuous and highly inefective supply line from Milan to Belgium ( the Spanish Road ), for not much more than spite....

 

[Ikael]

Hahaha, yep, he would be awesome at civ, it is a pity that such a thing is useless when ruling over a real empire (specially an empire as massive as the Spain + Portugal one).

Philip II mistakes were essentailly: stuborness which perpetuated some wars more than they should (Flandes) and made him control everything instead of assigning governors, completely lack of understanding of naval power (the invincible armada fiasco was entirely his fault and pirates ran rampant in the empire's coasts) and finally, the isolationist approach that ended up crippling the Spain's science and culture.

Still, the task was ENOURMOUS. You must be a mad genious to be able to administrate and defend such a massive empire. You can say that Spain's empire died because of its own size. And yep, his kingdom's highliths like the decisive victories agaisnt the Turks or the awesome breed of artists and writters, were always overlooked and dismissed.

Still, on topic: I mantain that Charles I should be the new leader of Spain, period. Although he was overrated by history (he pretty much created the bases for the economic disaster that was his son's reign) the biggest Spanish expansion was during his kingdom, he carried on the Catholic reform, was the first European King to ever consider American natives to be human (still, not sure if Isabella already gave a direction on that issue) and he tried to stop the abuses of the conquistadores, a noble attitude that created the first revolt in America against the crown (a thing that has been forgotten by history, because then againg, every Spanish king is a black hole of evil and fanatism while English ones were the awesome princes of freedom). Very few Spanish leaders come close to what he did.

 

[cybrxkhan]

You must be a mad genious to be able to administrate and defend such a massive empire.

hmm.. lets see historical examples of that... Genghis Khan, the prime minister(s) under Queen Victoria, Bush, every decent Chinese leader from QSH to Taizong to Taizu to Qianlong to Mao...

back on topic, the main audience of Civ doesn't really care about what the leader of a civ is, as long as that leader isn't 100&#37; unknown and wasn't that crappy and wouldn't be that contreversial, so I think Philip II, Charles [Plug in number], etc., wouldn't be so bad as second leaders.

 

[Josephias]

hmm.. lets see historical examples of that... Genghis Khan, the prime minister(s) under Queen Victoria, Bush, every decent Chinese leader from QSH to Taizong to Taizu to Qianlong to Mao...

Not a fair comparison, let's add some more qualificatives to the phrase:

You must be a mad genious to be able to administrate and defend such a massive, scattered, young and harassed empire.

Philip II empire was scattered all around the europe, and the world, that makes it not easy to defend, especially being young as harassed.

Young because it was formed by the different heritages of his father and there was indeed still not a cohesive "spanish" identity. There was not the same someone from Flanders than someone from Milan than someone from the Iberian Peninsula, even in Iberia there were still big differences between Portuguese, Castillian and Aragonese peoples. Philip II, besides defending and governing the empire had to try to build an "identity".

Harassed by the power of the declared enemies. Maybe England was still rising, but France was fighting from continental control, and able to buy/fund enemies (as the Dutch). Also, Spain had to fight Turkey for Mediterranean control and to avoid expansion to the "cousin" Austria/HRE lands. I tried to find if Victoria was in such an harassed situation, but I found nothing.

--

Yet, I am not goint to postule as a Philip II defender. Probably there were more wisest things to do than he did, that might have had a big payout (like giving flanders Authonomy in exchange for Alliegance - and maybe forgetting a bit about Italy - and concentrating in building strenght in the Iberian Peninsula and the Oceanic Territories). Yet these were also risky bets, and might have had consequences in image, in losing strategic positions for trade or others.

He tried a strategy, which proved not worthy. Yet I would not say it was only by stubborness, as "english" history seems to attribute. Maybe it was a choice between bad or worse. Maybe what seems good to our eyes was not as good in Philip II circumstances. The Spanish empire was a higly unstable construction which had to be consolidated, and in this situation it is probable Philip II had to make many blind bets.

Anyway, I still think, i.e. he should have moved the capital to Lisbon, prevented the "nobility hunger" in Spain and try it to copy some of flanders industry (even if it was more expensive in Spain, just lay a foundation).

Maybe also he had to relax a bit its position regarding protestantism but who knows - anyone could have seen this as a sign of debility to foster discontent in Philip II catholic states and debilitate its position as well.

Definitely the outcome was not good, but &#191;was it really worse because of him?. The anti-Hausburg propaganda probably promoted that, but was that 100&#37; exact?

---

On the other hand, needless to say many other leaders in Civ have a lot of shadows in its reign as well...

 

[cybrxkhan]

hmm.. lets see historical examples of that... Genghis Khan, the prime minister(s) under Queen Victoria, Bush, every decent Chinese leader from QSH to Taizong to Taizu to Qianlong to Mao...

Not a fair comparison, let's add some more qualificatives to the phrase:

You must be a mad genious to be able to administrate and defend such a massive, scattered, young and harassed empire.

i was half joking around...

 

[Josephias]

Ok, no pun intended , just I like to play devil's advocate; and Philip II is clearly the "devil" one here.