Why is Darius the leader of Persia?

[woodshadows]

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?

Well Gandhi deserves some props for basically giving India it's independence after thousands of years of foreign domination. Sort of a 'father of his nation' type thing. I think if you explore Gandhi's life and beliefs you would quickly change your view on seeing him as weak however, there's a strength in that little man that can defy several Montezuma sixpacks.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Well Gandhi deserves some props for basically giving India it's independence after thousands of years of foreign domination. Sort of a 'father of his nation' type thing. I think if you explore Gandhi's life and beliefs you would quickly change your view on seeing him as weak however, there's a strength in that little man that can defy several Montezuma sixpacks.

Yes, the fasting was brave and all.
But the stereotypical image of him is a pacifist one.
Nothing wrong with that, but we could use Asoka instead.

Anyway, I don't care if the leader of Persia is Darius or Cyrus.
They were both good, and none of the leaders were perfect.
Queen Isabella started the Spanish Inquisition, she was as bad as Hitler in a way.
That isn't what we are looking for, after all, it IS just a game. Although we do need a little historical accuracy.

 

[woodshadows]

I can't think of many historical figures with more courage and integrity than Gandhi. Gandhi could go up to some thug muscle heads threatening him and say go ahead and hit me, I am this weak scrawny little guy, I love you, if you want to hit me I will still love you, you can't take anything away from me, this body means nothing to me, by hitting me you are only providing me with a gift, the gift of practicing divine love for even those who wish to harm me. Such power there. Osho called him 'the most cunning politician to ever live'.

Ashoka was a very motivated Buddhist which might not play well with the predominantly Hindu majority of Indians.

 

[ShahJahanII]

I can't think of many historical figures with more courage and integrity than Gandhi. Gandhi could go up to some thug muscle heads threatening him and say go ahead and hit me, I am this weak scrawny little guy, I love you, if you want to hit me I will still love you, you can't take anything away from me, this body means nothing to me, by hitting me you are only providing me with a gift, the gift of practicing divine love for even those who wish to harm me. Such power there. Osho called him 'the most cunning politician to ever live'.

Ashoka was a very motivated Buddhist which might not play well with the predominantly Hindu majority of Indians.

In my opinion, most of the better Indian rulers were not Hindu.
How about Akbar?

 

[qemist]

In my opinion, most of the better Indian rulers were not Hindu.
How about Akbar?

How about the Earl of Lytton?

 

[PhilBowles]

And I thought the Inca were already in the game (albeit as DLC).

The problems you talk about are a consequence of the game's spanning thousands of years and the decision to associate the game civs with real nations. This leads to the need to pretend that nations are permanent. In reality no nation has lasted 5,000 years or anything close. It's futile to try to discern which native tribe was the "real" Mexico in say 1400. It's equally fallacious to equate modern Germany, Prussia (one germanic state of many), the HRE (not a nation), and ancient Germania (a geographical region).

I think he meant Maya. The Inca were nowhere near Mexico, so wouldn't cause any trouble for the Aztecs.

You also, of course, having changing naming conventions to worry about - this is particularly complicated with Rome (at what point does the civ represented actually become Italy? 19th Century consolidation? It certainly ceased being 'Rome' centuries before that), but there are other cases such as Persia becoming Iran once it enters the modern era etc.

 

[PhilBowles]

King Naresuan is better fit for Siam more, we even make an epic film of him containing 4 epic episodes...

No idea if it was one of those episodes, but when I was in Thailand I caught part of a historical movie which looked very well done (although I couldn't follow the dialogue).

Also, the face of King Ramkhamhaeng really remind me of the bad exe.

Thaksin? Yes, there's a resemblance - I believe it's deliberate.

Sure,he achieved the independence of India,but why always Gandh?He is in every Civilization game.

You just answered your own question. Same reason the Zulus were in four incarnations of Civilization without, in any meaningful sense, ever having been a civilization - because they always have been.

Phil

 

[Louis XXIV]

With the Rome/Italy divide, I think it's more fruitful to pick someone like Venice instead more or less for the reason mentioned (drawing lines). Plus, Venice as a state is better than Italy once united (although, culturally, the Italian City-States were quite good).

The thing to keep in mind either way is not every Civ can ever be in the game. So, if it's possible to have one Civ represent the entire history of a people, it's better to do that. I don't think India will ever be sub-divided, for example. Likewise, Germany is supposed to represent Germanic tribes, the Empire, Prussia, and modern Germany (maybe Austria too).

 

[Rydin_Nurdy]

Wasn't Asoka in Civ IV?

 

[Louis XXIV]

He was, representing India. However, the Mughals have never been a separate Civ, for example in spite of their tremendous accomplishments.

Likewise, Frederich the Great was a leader of Germany, not Prussia. Alexander was a leader of Greece, not Macedonia, Pericles was also a leader of Greece, not Athens, Attica, or the Delian League. Civ4 had more leaders to represent different eras. Civ5 seems to limit it to more narrow things (different UUs, UAs, or UBs along with leaders). Civ5 doesn't have Asoka, but it does have War Elephants, for example.

 

[Rydin_Nurdy]

I'm sure it's been covered before as this topic (Why isn't this leader represented?) has been brought up before but I think the CiV team simply choses leaders that most people/players will have heard of or that presided over the Civ in question during popular or great eras in the Civ's history.

I have an interest in history and read a lot about it, I've visited Egypt and stood in awe of the ancient monoliths and been able to actually touch graffiti left on walls from Roman times. But I don't know everything about each of the Civ's in these games.

Seeing Augustus leading the Romans is someone I've heard of and know a little about so I'm fine with it, if it were Julius I'd be just as happy.

My point is while you can squabble that one leader would be a better representation in your opinion in the end it really doesn't matter.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm sure it's been covered before as this topic (Why isn't this leader represented?) has been brought up before but I think the CiV team simply choses leaders that most people/players will have heard of or that presided over the Civ in question during popular or great eras in the Civ's history.

I have an interest in history and read a lot about it, I've visited Egypt and stood in awe of the ancient monoliths and been able to actually touch graffiti left on walls from Roman times. But I don't know everything about each of the Civ's in these games.

Seeing Augustus leading the Romans is someone I've heard of and know a little about so I'm fine with it, if it were Julius I'd be just as happy.

My point is while you can squabble that one leader would be a better representation in your opinion in the end it really doesn't matter.

I'd query whether Askia is a major figure in the popular consciousness of Civ players. That's why the earlier games went with Shaka and his Zulus rather than one of the genuine African civilizations such as Mali, Songhai, or the Swahili or Merina Kingdoms - granted the Zulus were essentially a warband which as a 'nation' lasted for the lifetime of a single ruler, had no structured government and, in the absence of major permanent settlements, their Civ city names were mostly derived from battlefields - but the general Civ-going public have heard of both the Zulus and Shaka, despite the fact that they'd have been more accurately represented in the game as a named tribal village or barbarian encampment (since Civ III and IV took to naming those).

 

[Rydin_Nurdy]

I'd query whether Askia is a major figure in the popular consciousness of Civ players.

I'll admit before CiV came out I had never heard of Askia or the Songhai, since reading the writeup in the Civolopedia I've taken a small interest and read up more about him and his people. While I'm sure I don't know the whole history it did make me question the use of the backdrop in the game for him. From what I read he was actually more of a foreward thinking leader than just a warmonger which his backdrop kind of hints to.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'll admit before CiV came out I had never heard of Askia or the Songhai, since reading the writeup in the Civolopedia I've taken a small interest and read up more about him and his people. While I'm sure I don't know the whole history it did make me question the use of the backdrop in the game for him. From what I read he was actually more of a foreward thinking leader than just a warmonger which his backdrop kind of hints to.

I'd agree - I think he should have some kind of trade-related UA.

 

[Meltemi]

Yes, the fasting was brave and all.
But the stereotypical image of him is a pacifist one.
Nothing wrong with that, but we could use Asoka instead.

Anyway, I don't care if the leader of Persia is Darius or Cyrus.
They were both good, and none of the leaders were perfect.
Queen Isabella started the Spanish Inquisition, she was as bad as Hitler in a way.
That isn't what we are looking for, after all, it IS just a game. Although we do need a little historical accuracy.

In what way? The Inquisitions were around long before Issie set the precedent of an Inquistion under secular, royal command. It was far from a nice institution, but it was no Holocaust, even after the Protestant Reformation caused a knee-jerk reaction against humanist philosophies, and it did do a lot of good in repressing witch hunts, which you tend to see more of in the Germanies. Issie herself wasn't that nice either, with things like the Alhambra Decree, expulsion of the moriscos, and such-like, but she was hardly a Hitler.

In my opinion, most of the better Indian rulers were not Hindu.
How about Akbar?

Well, if we want a Hindu ruler, Chandragupta II might be a decent pick. Plus, the idea of a warlike India would be absolutely hilarious to players used to good ol' Gandhi.

 

[ForzaFiori]

What annoys me most about the choice of Gandhi as a leader is the background text it gives him, where it refers to him as "president". He was never the actual leader of India, and didn't even spend much time as leader of the Indian National Congress. That was Jawaharlal Nehru, though granted, he's a much lesser known leader, and basically Gandhi's puppet during a good bit of the nationalist movement.

Personally, however, I think that the Indian civilization should be replaced with the Mughal, under the leadership of either Babur, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, or Akbar. My personal preference is for shah Jahan... from what I've learned in class, he seems to be the most well rounded of the great Mughal emperors. Both of India's unique units are Mughal in origin (while elephants were used both before and after, the Mughal's really took it to it's height, introducing armor for the elephants), and their ability could fit for any of the empires really.

 

[Bechhold]

Manmohan Singh should just have been made Leader of India, it would make news gaming and non, and would make sense. Look at all the things he has done. So far.

 

[aru]

Personally, however, I think that the Indian civilization should be replaced with the Mughal, under the leadership of either Babur, Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, or Akbar. My personal preference is for shah Jahan... from what I've learned in class, he seems to be the most well rounded of the great Mughal emperors. Both of India's unique units are Mughal in origin (while elephants were used both before and after, the Mughal's really took it to it's height, introducing armor for the elephants), and their ability could fit for any of the empires really.

Mughal civilization instead of Indian? Seriously? Mughals were an important, but ultimately, only one portion of the long-lasting Indian civilization. Indian history does not begin and end with the Mauryas, Mughals and Gandhi. There have been many other great kingdoms and kings; they just didn't rule over as much of India as Ashoka or Akbar did.

Also, why would you prefer Shah Jahan over Akbar? Shah Jahan isn't comparable to Akbar in stature.

 

[ForzaFiori]

Mughal civilization instead of Indian? Seriously? Mughals were an important, but ultimately, only one portion of the long-lasting Indian civilization. Indian history does not begin and end with the Mauryas, Mughals and Gandhi. There have been many other great kingdoms and kings; they just didn't rule over as much of India as Ashoka or Akbar did.

Also, why would you prefer Shah Jahan over Akbar? Shah Jahan isn't comparable to Akbar in stature.

Why should it be the Mughals in all civ games:
For the same reason that it's Rome, and not Italy.
The Mughals are the best known, and one of the largest and most influential of Indians various nations. While the Maurya and Gupta could also make a run for the position, outside of India,how many people could tell you where those civilizations were, or even that they were Indian? Then find out how many of them can name a leader (besides Ashoka) of either of those two civs. Rather than using the name that we know the area as now, they should use the name of the actual great civilizations that have sprung up there. India, like Italy, spent the vast majority of history being only a geographical term for a spit of land, not the name of a nation.
Modern India is even worse. It's major accomplishments include: tying in war against a country several times smaller than it; and creating a spin-off of Hollywood.

Why shoud it be the Mughals in Civ5 specifically?
because both the Mughal Fort, and the Mughal Elephant are the unique units. Why not just go ahead and make the civilization the same one you took it's UU and UB from?

Why Shah Jehan?
I like him better personally. He's got a cool name. I personally don't care which Mughal Emperor was used, as long as they were to finally stop putting someone who NEVER LED INDIA in charge of India. Personally, given the strong advantage given to warfare in Civ5, it should probably be Aurangzeb that leads. If they went with the biggest and best leaders, Hadrian would probably lead Rome (he died shortly before what is thought of as the "high point" of the Roman Empire, in AD 150, and is much better known than Antoninus Pius, who was the actual emperor at that point)

TL;DR: I could care less if it was a Mauryan, Guptan, or Mughal civilization in Civ, as long as they stop pretending that the nation of "India" is or has ever been, anything more than a regional power, and as long as they stop claiming that Gandhi was a president of India. I choose the Mughals as my choice based on the UU and UB in Civ5, and my choice of leader for the Mughals was a simple matter of thinking Shah Jahan was the coolest of the emperors.

 

[qemist]

Why should it be the Mughals in all civ games:
For the same reason that it's Rome, and not Italy.
The Mughals are the best known, and one of the largest and most influential of Indians various nations. While the Maurya and Gupta could also make a run for the position, outside of India,how many people could tell you where those civilizations were, or even that they were Indian?

There is some value in something called education, you know.

Then find out how many of them can name a leader (besides Ashoka) of either of those two civs. Rather than using the name that we know the area as now, they should use the name of the actual great civilizations that have sprung up there. India, like Italy, spent the vast majority of history being only a geographical term for a spit of land, not the name of a nation.

Yes, but if crowd appeal is what you want then you have to appease the Hindutva. The Mughal empire would just annoy them.

Modern India is even worse. It's major accomplishments include: tying in war against a country several times smaller than it; and creating a spin-off of Hollywood.

Well that's ahead of the USA on both counts. The USA lost a war to a nation much smaller than itself and created the original Hollywood.