Why is Darius the leader of Persia?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Keejus

Prince
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
311
Location
Denmark
Pretty much all of his dawn of man speech is about how much cool stuff Cyrus did. I don't think they attribute anything to Darius himself
 

Bechhold

King
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
683
Why is Catherine the leader of Russia when the empire was at it's zenith under Nicholas I?

Why is Oda Nobunaga leader of Japan but not Meiji?
 

Guandao

Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
5,658
Location
New York City
Darius is not the same one fought by Alexander.
This Darius wouldn't be called the Great.
After Darius the Great's rule, other kings were inferior
 

Soryn Arkayn

Prince
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
313
OrsonM, the Darius in all of the Civ games has always been Darius I (550-486 BCE), also known as Darius the Great. Darius III (380–330 BCE) was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The reason why Darius I is the Persian leader in Civ5 is because he was the emperor of the Persian Empire at its zenith. I don't want to write a long, boring, pointless history lesson. Suffice to say Darius I is the best choice for the Persian leader in the Civ games.
 

Bamboocha

Warlord
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
245
Location
Netherlands
Why is Catherine the leader of Russia when the empire was at it's zenith under Nicholas I?

Why is Oda Nobunaga leader of Japan but not Meiji?

I believe there's multiple reasons for picking Catherine:
1. She's a woman, which would allow Firaxis to introduce another woman in this male dominated game
2. She was a pretty competent ruler, bringing Russia closer to the west in both geography (the conquest of Poland) and culture (she brought the Enlightenment to Russia).
3. She had an 'interesting' social life

As for Oda Nobunaga, he's pretty much the unifier of Japan (actually his suobordinates did that, but he was the brains behind the entire scheme). It's called Meji instead of Japan because this game spans all of human history, not just the period in which Oda was alive. If that were true, Germany would be in a very confusing situation (Germania ---> Holy Roman Empire ---> Prussia ---> Germany)

EDIT: Yeah, as everybody said Civ V's Darius is Darius I, not Darius III. The same is basically going on with the Aztecs: they're led by the very competent Montezuma I, not Montezuma II who was beaten by the Spaniards.
 

mutant-enemy

Warlord
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
136
Location
Würzburg, Germany
It's called Meji instead of Japan because this game spans all of human history, not just the period in which Oda was alive.

I think he actually wondered why they chose Oda Nobunaga over Mutsuhito, who was also called Emperor Meiji ("enlightened rule"), as Japanese leader. (Every Emperor has his special posthumous name and era, e.g. Hirohito was called Emperor Shōwa, "period of enlightened peace/harmony".)

Imho, this would have been a little funny since the samurai are Japan's UU and the samurai lost their special status during the Meiji era (1886 - 1912).
 

Louis XXIV

Le Roi Soleil
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
13,579
Location
Norfolk, VA
There's a reason it's Cyrus the Conqueror, but Darius the Great. Cyrus took over a lot of land. Darius turned it into a great, powerful state. He was better in securing control over the empire, making it run better, creating an effective civil service. I think he created the Satrapies, but I'm probably wrong there. Meaning there's more to being an effective ruler than just conquering. Darius did all the other stuff (although he did finish conquests in Asia, taking the Empire to the Aegean).
 

Midnight-Blue766

The filidh that cam frae Skye
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
3,458
Location
Trotland the Brave
You mean Cyrus the Great?
 

Louis XXIV

Le Roi Soleil
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
13,579
Location
Norfolk, VA
Is he normally thought of as Cyrus the Great? I usually think of him as conqueror. Even if I'm wrong, that completely undercuts my point, so I'm just going to cover my ears and sing loudly :p

My point stands that Darius was a better consolidator of the Emperor, while Cyrus was a conqueror.
 

Soryn Arkayn

Prince
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
313
I stand by my earlier brief statement: because of Alexander.

Then you're still wrong because Civ5 explicitly states that the Persian leader is Darius I, and not Darius III, who was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The first time was possibly excusable because they had the same name and perhaps you were confused. But the second time is inexcusable because you didn't even bother to check your facts; despite that you defiantly reiterated your wrong opinion, which only demonstrates your stubborness and willful ignorance.

Sticking to your guns and doubling down on something that you were wrong about doesn't suddenly make you right, OrsonM.

Moderator Action: Please do not attack other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 

mutant-enemy

Warlord
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
136
Location
Würzburg, Germany
@ Louis: I think you are right - Cyrus II. the Great enlarged the Persian empire by far.
Dareios I. the Great however did introduce satrapies for administration and matters of warfare according to Herodot. This administration is supposed to have influenced the later structure of the Roman Empire as well. Cyrus AND Dareios are referenced to as the two great(est) leaders of the Persian Empire. Imo, Dareios and the golden age trait fit very well - Cyrus would have been a better warmonger though.

@Soryn: obvious troll is obvious.

Moderator Action: Please report posts you think are rule-breaking, rather than responding to them. Calling another member a troll is considered trolling in itself.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 

ShahJahanII

Homesick Alien
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Austin, Texas
The game doesn't hold a civilization to one period of time.
Why does Germany have a Landschnekt UU when Bismarck is leader?
Obvious answer.

EDIT: More leaders is another solution.
I'll post the link when I find it...
 

OrsonM

Our man
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
555
Then you're still wrong because Civ5 explicitly states that the Persian leader is Darius I, and not Darius III, who was defeated by Alexander the Great.

The first time was possibly excusable because they had the same name and perhaps you were confused. But the second time is inexcusable because you didn't even bother to check your facts; despite that you defiantly reiterated your wrong opinion, which only demonstrates your stubborness and willful ignorance.

Sticking to your guns and doubling down on something that you were wrong about doesn't suddenly make you right, OrsonM.

Moderator Action: Please do not attack other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I think nobody would care at all about the Achaemenid Empire had it not had an important role in the History of Hellenic Civilisation. More particularly Alexander's history, he who was, in his own eyes, the last Achaemenid king. And whose eventual hagiographers saw fit to selectively focus their attention on specific subjects.

Why the Achaemenid Empire to begin with, why not the Parthian Empire or the Sassanid Empire? were they not equally as important?

My humble view is that it is because of western history's unhealthy fixation with all things Alexander. This is of course debatable and requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but is overall not an ignorant comment, at least in my view (cryptic perhaps, but certainly not deserving of such insults on my person).
 

Louis XXIV

Le Roi Soleil
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
13,579
Location
Norfolk, VA
^ The Achaeminid Empire was the greatest Middle Eastern Empire until the various Arab Caliphates (and then the Ottoman Empire). It was part of a line of Empires, but it was the greatest. It lasted longer than Alexander's Empire and certainly did not have the problems the Seleucids had.

The game doesn't hold a civilization to one period of time.
Why does Germany have a Landschnekt UU when Bismarck is leader?
Obvious answer.

EDIT: More leaders is another solution.
I'll post the link when I find it...

The reason is they don't want to. They don't want to tie a Civ to a specific era since you have to play them for the whole game. Plus, inclusiveness isn't a bad thing. That way nobody can complain that the Holy Roman Empire isn't in the game, since it's represented by Germany. Nobody has batted an eye in previous games with Gandhi and War Elephants representing India.
 

Keejus

Prince
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
311
Location
Denmark
There's a reason it's Cyrus the Conqueror, but Darius the Great. Cyrus took over a lot of land. Darius turned it into a great, powerful state. He was better in securing control over the empire, making it run better, creating an effective civil service. I think he created the Satrapies, but I'm probably wrong there. Meaning there's more to being an effective ruler than just conquering. Darius did all the other stuff (although he did finish conquests in Asia, taking the Empire to the Aegean).

Ah, alright, that does make sense. I think I phrased the original question a bit poorly; I was mostly just wondering why the DoM speech was all about Cyrus when he's not the guy we're playing as.

Cheers for all the responses :)
 

ShahJahanII

Homesick Alien
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Austin, Texas
The reason is they don't want to. They don't want to tie a Civ to a specific era since you have to play them for the whole game. Plus, inclusiveness isn't a bad thing. That way nobody can complain that the Holy Roman Empire isn't in the game, since it's represented by Germany. Nobody has batted an eye in previous games with Gandhi and War Elephants representing India.

My point exactly.
And I hate that Gandhi is the leader for India.
He never even held political office, and gives the country a weak image.
Why not Akbar or Asoka?
 

Louis XXIV

Le Roi Soleil
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
13,579
Location
Norfolk, VA
That's a bit beside the point. How about France having the Musketeers, even though the leader only represents post-Revolution France. How about England having Longbows even though Elizabeth didn't (nor Ship of the Lines). They want to represent more than just a narrow time period.
 

ShahJahanII

Homesick Alien
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,895
Location
Austin, Texas
That's a bit beside the point. How about France having the Musketeers, even though the leader only represents post-Revolution France. How about England having Longbows even though Elizabeth didn't (nor Ship of the Lines). They want to represent more than just a narrow time period.

No, I agree with you.
the civ should represent the country's entire history, not a small time period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom