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

[cybrxkhan]

of course, there are certainly worse choices if not Philip II. if there are enough, then he should be considered to be in.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I didn't read all of this thread so forgive me if this has already been stated.

Carlos was Carlos I of Spain and Karl V Holy Roman Emperor.

And I agree that Phillip II should be added as a Spanish leader.

 

[Breunor]

I didn't read all of this thread so forgive me if this has already been stated.

Carlos was Carlos I of Spain and Karl V Holy Roman Emperor.

And I agree that Phillip II should be added as a Spanish leader.

Can you or somebody else wanting Phillip II to be the leader for Spain tell me why? What qualities make him appropriate for this role?

Breunor

 

[Ikael]

It is more question of eliminating the other candidates:
Fernando of Aragon was too close historic - wise with Isabella.
You can get picky and say that Carlos I was not exactly a Spanish ruler.
Charles III was way less known than any of them.
Pelayo is almost mythologic (in the same sense that, say, Troy is mythologic. Very little is known about him).
El Cid was just a general (albeit a great one).

So that leaves you only with Philiph II.

 

[Breunor]

It is more question of eliminating the other candidates:
Fernando of Aragon was too close historic - wise with Isabella.
You can get picky and say that Carlos I was not exactly a Spanish ruler.
Charles III was way less known than any of them.
Pelayo is almost mythologic (in the same sense that, say, Troy is mythologic. Very little is known about him).
El Cid was just a general (albeit a great one).

So that leaves you only with Philiph II.

Why is this the exhaustive list of potential Spanish leaders? Castile largely became the 'real' Spain, there were other great kings of Aragon and Leon also. If Pericles is the leader of Greece, we can have a GOOD king of Spain, and there were a lot, many of whom have been mentioned on this forum:

Ferdinand III of Castile, his son Alphonse X
FErdinand I of Leon
Alphonse VIII
Alphonse the Wise
James I of Aragon

Some good Visigoth kings also. They are all better than Phillip II!

If you don't want to take the Cid because he wan't a king, take a good Spanish king! You have already opened it up to the Medieval period.

Breunor

 

[Josephias]

They are all better than Phillip II!

Somebody would argue none of the Medieval kings are real "Spanish" kings, as they just ruled a part of Spain. Indeed, trying to portray a Castilian king as a king of spain will piss-off many of the non-castilian spaniard
Heh, i bet even the castle used for "spain" flag in CivIV or Medieval-Total War is not really well received for non-castilian spaniards -- including leonese. St.James Cross, Burgundy Cross, Calatrava Cross, or the Hercules pillars (with plus ultra motto) woudl have been much better.

I won't mind having Alphonse VIII of Navas, Alphonse X the Wise (you repeated him ), or James I of Aragon, the Conqueror, as they were influential through all the Iberian peninsula... yet they none of them did rule all spain. Leovigild and Reccared, yes, but some could argue we are talking about a diferent civilization there.

Back to Philip II topic, I still think you are seeing him trough quite dark glasses, objectively:

-He kept the Turks in check in the Mediterranean. True, he did not better the situation against them, but it did not got worse either, and at that time the Turks had probably
-Attached Portugal to Spain, getting the first worlwide empire. (And, maybe more important even in the mindset of these times, the Iberian unity wich Izzie and Ferdinand started to forge - yes, it was short lived afterwards, but it was already its grandson who lost it, thus Philip )
-Even if at grand cost, maintained all the scattered positions of Spain in Europe (Milan, Naples, French-Compte, Flanders) against France. After the peace of Chateau-Cambresis, spanish hegemony over France was recognized.
-Better or worse, he was the one to first organize the Spanish administration, a task left to do by his father Charles I/V and his grandfather Philip I - Note Izzy and Ferdinand keept separate administrations for Castille and Aragon. -- And also, he was the one to provide an organization for the Spanish possesions around the world.
-Compared with his son and grandson (and much other kings in the era - see Louis XIII and XIV of france, i.e.), he took personally the task of leader, and did not delegate all power in one person (as afterwards, Lerma, Olivares, Richelieu or Manzarino would have). Contrarly to the image of stubbornes some "black legend" historians seem to reflect on this, he often searched the advice of counselors and courts before taking the decisions.
-As an humanist monarch, fostered the arts and sciences.

On the other hand
-He was, now trully stubbornly, convinced Catholicism could be the only religion of his kingdom. Maybe he could have used a bit more flexibility here.
-He dealt with internal problems in Granada (with the moorish) and Aragon, yet that was not uncommon in these times for any leader.
-He increased greatly the debt of Spain, indeed probably a bad move. Yet I guess it was seen as an "investment" in getting a position of power that will allow to recover the expenses in later times. Did not work, due to decrease on the prices of gold and silver (market laws were not that know at these times), even if these -even with piracy around- keept flowing to spanish treasury much time afterwards.
- He indeed managed a fiasco with the Armada. Yet -as Rocroi would be some years later- the defeat was not that big regarding overall power of spanish Navy for the first (and Army for the second). Both defeats were, however wisely used by anti-Spanish propaganda. And indeed, probably the victory over the "Invencible" (name that - take into account, were the english who gave as a propaganda plus) gave wings to England in is quest for world supremacy over spain.

Pluses and minuses taken into account, he cannot be considered a 100% good leader, I agree, but in my opinion he is a fair leader, with a bunch of shadows, but that can keep in pair with many of the leaders already portrayed in Civ. He is as well much more known worlwide and to the common mortal (not the history fan) than, let's say, Olivares or Alphonse VIII, what gives him a point as well in the "Civ Entry" qualification.

Note: Breunor, I checked some of your links while writting all this, and indeed with these sources, I underestand your position. Yet -having consulted few english sources on Philip II myself before- I have to say I was greatly surprised by the negativity of most of these sources. Even the timeline, which you portray as "objective", I'd say is quite biased to pointing and developing the "bad" entries in Philipp II reign. If historic material is so polarized about this king, I guess it will be difficult to reach a final agreement.

 

[Breunor]

Josephias,

To be clear, my opinion of Phillip II is not mostly from the sources I listed, its from the stuff I've read about for 40 years which is even MORE negative. So when I saw so many people advocating im, I decided to do what 'new' historians do, and checked the on-line stiff. If seems these are SLIGHTLY more positive than my recollection, but the conclusion does seem to bear out that he was pretty bad. As I said, try EU II and you get 90% of the people on that forum saying he was one of the worst ever also.

I also think viewing that Phillip is 'legiitmate' because he lead a 'unified' Spain is a slightly positive point, but I'm not convinced. The reason I say that is that Phillip's Spain was NOT unified! Indeed, the reason that he had so much trouble is that Spain was anything but unified.

In reality, the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella simply made the kinds of the differnt parts of Spain under the same family. The reason his reign had so much trouble, though, was that he continued to have factional disputes; the Castilian faction was considered the 'dominant' one and was resented.

Viewing Spain as unified under Phoillip is like saying that Austria and Spain were 'unified' under Cahrles V/ Carlos I. Spain's REAL unification took a long time.

So, to me, taking a rally bad king who happened to rule the fighting parts of Spain, and failed mostly because they weren't unified, makes little sense relatrive to some GREAT leaders leading part of the coutnry anyway.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[j51]

I stumbled on this thread looking for a burgundian saltire flag - cannot find one. I must say, why has no on mentioned Carlos II? Clearly the best choice for a second leader.

 

[Wodan]

Charles II? You're kidding, right? He was ineffectual, incompetent, and threw his empire into a devastating civil war. What makes him "clearly the best choice"?

 

[Josephias]

I stumbled on this thread looking for a burgundian saltire flag - cannot find one. I must say, why has no on mentioned Carlos II? Clearly the best choice for a second leader.

You mean the last Habsburg, the one that was called "the bewitched" because could not do anything worth, even having children?... Serious?

If you are meaning either Philiph (Felipe) II -the most powerful and hated- or Carlos (Charles) III -the Bourbon "restorator"-, I would agree with you, but I think these two are already mentioned.

Now I am replying to this thread since a long time ago, I would like to share something that maybe has already pointed out, but I think is relevant in this thread. Indeed, it seems that Philip II was considered at some time, but did not make the final cut. I say this because in Colonization we have this guy:

Spoiler :

We are told he is Simon Bolivar, but it clearly does not look like this guy, that is the real Simon bolivar:

Spoiler :

Instead, we could consider it was initially a Hernan Cortez:

Spoiler :

But it does not exactly fit with the portrait earlier. Also the background brings resemblance to a luxurios monastery, with an arch on one side, a tapestry in the other and a crucifix in the middle: Yes, all these things are in the background!, although they are either cut off the sides or hidden behind the leaderhead!. This reminds me the El Escorial monastery, that was the headquarters for this guy, Philip II:

Spoiler :

It looks fitting the leaderhead as well, doesn't him?

--

Whatever the case, I modded Simon Bolivar into Beyond the Sword as Philip II, using colonization Spanish themes as is background music, and he really works well as spain's second leader (Religious, Protective - i had to modify as well Saladin to Religious, Charismatic, and Brennus to Cultural, Charismatic to not repeat traits). Due to lack of knowledge on most parameters, I still did not work all the leader character (currently he is akin to Isabella, except some minor modifications).
If it is interesting, I could share some files, altough for copyright reasons I guess the reuse of colonization archives should be made by each one at home.

 

[Higher Game]

Franco was a great Spanish leader for a long time.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Josephias

If you go that way, IMHO this guy

... probably looks more like a young Philip II than with the person he suposedely is in BtS....

 

[DrewTate]

Fernando Torres

 

[AfterShafter]

A Japan leader in my opinion would have been more reasonable, cconsidering Japan weight during history.

Heh, are you insinuating that Spain isn't a weighty country in world history? Spain is the second or third most spoken (as a first language) language in the world depending on the estimate... Yep, some estimates even put it ahead of English. Spain's impact on world history is *tremendous*.

I know that Japan has long been a power player in Asia and gets bonus points for being one of the world's most notable countries today, but, I'd give Spain more leaders ahead of Japan... Though, realistically, both should have two leaders. France, Russia, and the US getting third leaders while they don't even have two is just wacky.

 

[Josephias]

@ r_rolo1

For a while I tought the same (BTW, do you know why the medal has the lions and castles in it?), until I found this bank note image

Spoiler :

Note what relates the most each leaderhead is the hairstyle. Young Joao II is often pictured with bob-type hair (this picture as well, i.e.)

Spoiler :

Receding hairline on both sides, while keeping hair in the middle, is seen in many Philip II pictures (see the stamp below as well), and it is the characteristic trait of "Simon Bolivar" leaderhead. Dressing and background also help, of course.

Spoiler :

Anyway, it could be anyone nevertheless....

 

[Molybdeus]

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 think you can make a reasonable argument that Franco was the most intelligent of the ww2 era leaders, however loathsome he might be on a personal level. Hitler once went to Spain to try to harangue Franco into joining the war and left without an agreement, saying that he'd rather have teeth pulled than negotiate with Franco again.

Organized/Protective might work for him.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Josephias

Both those images ( and yes ,I'm still from the time when that note was in circulation ) are XX century recreations and neither is even close of the oldest known representations of D. João II:

Spoiler big images too :

and even those are being generous, given that it is widely known that he got grey hair even before he got to 30.

Even the "oficial" portrait:

Spoiler :

( that BTW is the one that comes in wiki ) shows someone very diferent of the LH that Firaxis delivered with his name.

On the medalion.... there is no reason for D. João II use a Leon and Castille medalion. Both his father ( due his mariage with the Beltraneja ... ) and his son (due the mariage with one daugher of the Catholic Kings) had claims to the castilian crown , but João II himself never made any claims to the castilian throne. That is a sure sign that the LH, whoever is the person despicted, is not a despiction of D. João II ...

On that LH being designed for Philip II ... well, to be crude IMHO the LH seems a hybrid between this two portraits of him:

Spoiler more wiki images :

 

[JF Kennedy]

how about cortes or pizzarro(sp?)

 

[Molybdeus]

Neither one of them was ruler of Spain or a Spanish sub-territory. You might as well choose Michael Jordan or Elvis as leader for America.

 

[JF Kennedy]

cortes conquered the aztces with about 600 men. be he a leader of a spanish province or not, thats still a mighty fine effort