Why not Hannibal??

[Pascal Nouma]

Because he is mainstream now.

Glad to see different leaders for empires. Ivan would be a far greater choice rather than Cathy for Russia imo for same reason.

 

[Babri]

Because he is mainstream now.

Glad to see different leaders for empires. Ivan would be a far greater choice rather than Cathy for Russia imo for same reason.

Wait ! Is Ivan a woman ?

Actually it seems like they sorely added Wu, Theodara, Dido etc because they were females. There were obviously better choices but among females I guess these were the best ones.

 

[Louis XXIV]

But they also added Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella, and Boudicca because they were very, very good choices.

 

[Civciv5]

Don't forget Wu Zetian,she was good leader,altough there are better choices as Qin Shi Huang,Yongle,Kangxi,Taizong...

 

[elprofesor]

Isabella

For sure, although I'm still waiting for the Civ game that introduces Charles I (V for the heathens ) instead of her.
Plus, that way I won't have the silliness of playing against "Isabel" and "Isabel II" at the same time, because there's the silly norm of translating foreing leaders' names when possible (goes both ways, actually, in this case).

 

[Babri]

But they also added Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella, and Boudicca because they were very, very good choices.

Yes I know & thats fine however as I mentioned some of the other choices they made were purely based on gender of the leader which is not a good thing in my opinion. It should be based more on the capability & success of the leader than gender.

 

[Squibbon]

Theodora, I don't even know her. Dido is a legitimate choice because she founded Carthage. Wu Zetian did what was mentioned above PLUS encouraged massive population growth with her agriculture policies. Isabella set the boarders of the Iberian Spain through the Reconquista, as well as appoint Columbus' exploration into America. Isabella is legitimate. Elizabeth destroyed the Spanish Armada and gave England naval superiority, though I would prefer Victoria over Elizabeth. England's ability is also lacking, considering the AI's navy is so bad that no naval bonus is a bonus enough, and Victoria would have fit beautifully with a colonization-related UA (Maybe +1 production on every coastal city and Railroads give +1 production to cities whose boarders don't touch the capital boarders or something). Catherine expanded the Russian Empire and promoted the Russian Enlightenment. I honestly think there are some male leaders not worth being here. Gandhi wasn't even a leader and does not match India's personality in-game. Ashoka (or even Harshavardhana, who was the Indian equivalent to Alexander the Great) would have been a better choice for an imperialistic India. I would have King Louis XIV over Napoleon because he was the longest living French king and established one of the most successful absolute monarchies. Besides, Napoleon was a failure. The worst is how they had Haile Selassie for Ethiopia. He failed to defend Ethiopia from Mussolini. Menalik II would have been superior because he fended off Italian armies and expanded Ethiopia to its peak. It is also false that it wasn't called Ethiopia. The Aztecs and Incans had more specific names for their empires. The Iroquois is an insulting name because it was designated by their enemies to the Europeans, and it means "black snakes." The real Iroquois name is Haudenosaunee, so if they got to be called "black snakes," then Ethiopia can be called Ethiopia during Menalik II's reign, as it was on official Berlin Conference documents. The female leaders are fine. You should be more worried about the choices of male leaders.

 

[Gucumatz]

Theodora, I don't even know her. Dido is a legitimate choice because she founded Carthage. Wu Zetian did what was mentioned above PLUS encouraged massive population growth with her agriculture policies. Isabella set the boarders of the Iberian Spain through the Reconquista, as well as appoint Columbus' exploration into America. Isabella is legitimate. Elizabeth destroyed the Spanish Armada and gave England naval superiority, though I would prefer Victoria over Elizabeth. England's ability is also lacking, considering the AI's navy is so bad that no naval bonus is a bonus enough, and Victoria would have fit beautifully with a colonization-related UA (Maybe +1 production on every coastal city and Railroads give +1 production to cities whose boarders don't touch the capital boarders or something). Catherine expanded the Russian Empire and promoted the Russian Enlightenment. I honestly think there are some male leaders not worth being here. Gandhi wasn't even a leader and does not match India's personality in-game. Ashoka (or even Harshavardhana, who was the Indian equivalent to Alexander the Great) would have been a better choice for an imperialistic India. I would have King Louis XIV over Napoleon because he was the longest living French king and established one of the most successful absolute monarchies. Besides, Napoleon was a failure. The worst is how they had Haile Selassie for Ethiopia. He failed to defend Ethiopia from Mussolini. Menalik II would have been superior because he fended off Italian armies and expanded Ethiopia to its peak. It is also false that it wasn't called Ethiopia. The Aztecs and Incans had more specific names for their empires. The Iroquois is an insulting name because it was designated by their enemies to the Europeans, and it means "black snakes." The real Iroquois name is Haudenosaunee, so if they got to be called "black snakes," then Ethiopia can be called Ethiopia during Menalik II's reign, as it was on official Berlin Conference documents. The female leaders are fine. You should be more worried about the choices of male leaders.

Woaw a ton of things here. Next time would you mind using some paragraphs, makes it easier for us to read
===

I don't see how Haile Selassie is a bad choice for Ethiopia? Again compare the two wars.

The first Italo-Ethiopian War pitted 110k soldiers vs about 17k Italian soldiers. And Menelik II is a great choice by all means, but the tecnology developed greatly in the 40 years that transpired between the wars.

So while Menelik II was able to win the first war even with older tech, the disparity was still not as great (numbers and tech) as compared to the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. You can't underestimate the tech differences. Menelik II was able to starve the Italian Soldiers out of their fortifications and then superior numbers were able to annihalate the Italians.

Haile Selassie didn't have the luxury to starve his enemies out. Artillery, planes, gasses, all developed greatly in 40 years. Haile Selassie still managed to equip a large amount of soldiers EVEN AS the English Government and French Government had signed a secret treaty allowing the mass transport of weapons/artillery against Ethiopia to the Italians. The Hoare-Laval Pact was a deal signed to give the Italians Ethiopia in exchange for helping against the Germans in an upcoming war.

=======

So considering that, consider what he accomplished. His touring and appeals to the League of Nations caused mass resignations in the English and French Gov'ts. Because of him, the French and British stopped their secret agreement almost entirely on his personality and resumed support for Haile Selassie. In fact if it wasn't for Haile Selassie Italy would have been an ally in WW2, and the French and English would have never came to the rescue of Ethiopia during the World War.

====

Compare that to the 600,000 troops the Italians mustered against Haile Selassie. They were determined to not be embarrased. With English and French permission they were able to ship both the needed weapons and soldiers into Ethiopia. 600k vs about 20k is a huge difference.

Prior to the Hoare-Laval pact in fact, Haile Selassie had been winning against the Italians AGAIN. Haile Selassie launched a Christmas day offensive that surrounded and was forcing the Italians to retreat. In fact Mussolini almost lost the entire campaign and would have due to superior Ethiopian Tactics had it not been for chemical gasses.

=================

Haile Selassie was able to save his country still. His influence in Europe was able to save it despite all odds. He wasn't voted Time's Man of the Year for nothing. And his speech at the League of Nations is one of the best speeches ever given they say. He rightfully predicted that Ethiopia would only be the start. He predicted that if England and France did not act, that other small nations would fall in Europe. In fact a Czechen Nationalist committed suicide soon after Haile Selassie spoke in the hall because he realized Haile Selassie was right. The English and British didn't appear as if they wanted to help. And that they were going to abandon the small nations of the world and that his own nation could be enveloped soon too (he was right).

Soon after the Hoare-Laval Pact was revealed to the world causing disgrace to the governments and ensured Italy would not be an ally in the upcoming World War. His tourings in Europe caused the new British and French Governments to begin supplying the rebels and broke the deal between them and the Italians. Because of this Mussolini became enraged, lost Tunisia (France got it as part of the secret treaty), and Germany was able to come and ally them)

 

[Squibbon]

Woaw a ton of things here. Next time would you mind using some paragraphs, makes it easier for us to read
===

I don't see how Haile Selassie is a bad choice for Ethiopia? Again compare the two wars.

The first Italo-Ethiopian War pitted 110k soldiers vs about 17k Italian soldiers. And Menelik II is a great choice by all means, but the tecnology developed greatly in the 40 years that transpired between the wars.

So while Menelik II was able to win the first war even with older tech, the disparity was still not as great (numbers and tech) as compared to the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. You can't underestimate the tech differences. Menelik II was able to starve the Italian Soldiers out of their fortifications and then superior numbers were able to annihalate the Italians.

Haile Selassie didn't have the luxury to starve his enemies out. Artillery, planes, gasses, all developed greatly in 40 years. Haile Selassie still managed to equip a large amount of soldiers EVEN AS the English Government and French Government had signed a secret treaty allowing the mass transport of weapons/artillery against Ethiopia to the Italians. The Hoare-Laval Pact was a deal signed to give the Italians Ethiopia in exchange for helping against the Germans in an upcoming war.

=======

So considering that, consider what he accomplished. His touring and appeals to the League of Nations caused mass resignations in the English and French Gov'ts. Because of him, the French and British stopped their secret agreement almost entirely on his personality and resumed support for Haile Selassie. In fact if it wasn't for Haile Selassie Italy would have been an ally in WW2, and the French and English would have never came to the rescue of Ethiopia during the World War.

====

Compare that to the 600,000 troops the Italians mustered against Haile Selassie. They were determined to not be embarrased. With English and French permission they were able to ship both the needed weapons and soldiers into Ethiopia. 600k vs about 20k is a huge difference.

Prior to the Hoare-Laval pact in fact, Haile Selassie had been winning against the Italians AGAIN. Haile Selassie launched a Christmas day offensive that surrounded and was forcing the Italians to retreat. In fact Mussolini almost lost the entire campaign and would have due to superior Ethiopian Tactics had it not been for chemical gasses.

=================

Haile Selassie was able to save his country still. His influence in Europe was able to save it despite all odds. He wasn't voted Time's Man of the Year for nothing. And his speech at the League of Nations is one of the best speeches ever given they say. He rightfully predicted that Ethiopia would only be the start. He predicted that if England and France did not act, that other small nations would fall in Europe. In fact a Czechen Nationalist committed suicide soon after Haile Selassie spoke in the hall because he realized Haile Selassie was right. The English and British didn't appear as if they wanted to help. And that they were going to abandon the small nations of the world and that his own nation could be enveloped soon too (he was right).

Soon after the Hoare-Laval Pact was revealed to the world causing disgrace to the governments and ensured Italy would not be an ally in the upcoming World War. His tourings in Europe caused the new British and French Governments to begin supplying the rebels and broke the deal between them and the Italians. Because of this Mussolini became enraged, lost Tunisia (France got it as part of the secret treaty), and Germany was able to come and ally them)

Sure. Still not much he did for ETHIOPIA. You listed stuff he did for Europe. I will research as well, but please also describe the great, or infamous, deeds he committed for Ethiopia. I will also let you know if I find something.

 

[Gucumatz]

Sure. Still not much he did for ETHIOPIA. You listed stuff he did for Europe. I will research as well, but please also describe the great, or infamous, deeds he committed for Ethiopia. I will also let you know if I find something.

Wait saving Ethiopia from domination doesn't constitute doing something for Ethiopia?

The numbers and equipment was against him. But he was able to get the French and British to turn on their would be allies in Italy. Without him and with some less amiable leader Ethiopia would have never been liberated? The Ethiopian Rifles and spears were outnumbered. He was forced by the amount of goods let in by the Hoare Laval pact to go into exile and try and save what he could from his country while putting faith in his skills as a Diplomat (which he used to gain action to save Ethiopia from Domination)

======

He also led the famous Christmas day offensive in the war

======

And off the top of my head I know he outlawed slavery and got Ethiopia to be the only founding member in Africa of the United Nations. Once in the United Nations Ethiopia became the main military force for actions within Africa.

=====

If you want me to do research on him in more regards with Ethiopia, sure I will. But right now I am going to bed (have an IB Math HL Paper 3 tomorrow...)

 

[colonization]

'Cause its nice to have variety, and not the same leaders every game.

Washington, Napoleon, Augustus, Alex, Monty, etc...

Just saying.

 

[Squibbon]

Wait saving Ethiopia from domination doesn't constitute doing something for Ethiopia?

The numbers and equipment was against him. But he was able to get the French and British to turn on their would be allies in Italy. Without him and with some less amiable leader Ethiopia would have never been liberated? The Ethiopian Rifles and spears were outnumbered. He was forced by the amount of goods let in by the Hoare Laval pact to go into exile and try and save what he could from his country while putting faith in his skills as a Diplomat (which he used to gain action to save Ethiopia from Domination)

======

He also led the famous Christmas day offensive in the war

======

And off the top of my head I know he outlawed slavery and got Ethiopia to be the only founding member in Africa of the United Nations. Once in the United Nations Ethiopia became the main military force for actions within Africa.

=====

If you want me to do research on him in more regards with Ethiopia, sure I will. But right now I am going to bed (have an IB Math HL Paper 3 tomorrow...)

What do you mean by "saving Ethiopia" Ethiopia was conquered by Italy!

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: First of all, this thread is supposed to be about Hannibal and Carthage. Second of all, we have, in other threads, talked about these uncivil diversion s into history, please take them to the history threads. Lastly, if your uncontrolled passion for history cannot allow you to read what another has written and ask for clarification with civility instead of attacking with retort, then more threads will be closed with appropriate infractions given.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CoolLizy]

Washington, Napoleon, Augustus, Alex, Monty, etc...

Just saying.

• Washington didn't become the leader of the Americans until IV. Before that it was always Lincoln.
• Napoleon has only been the leader of France in Civ I, IV, and V (and Revolution). In Civ II the leaders were Louis XIV and Jeanne d'Arc. In III it was d'Arc only.
• Traditionally it has been Julius Caesar, not Augustus Caesar, who leads the Roman civilization.

This leaves Alex and Monty, who are about the only leaders that have been in every game, and Alex could be swapped out for Pericles in IV. Monty, on the other hand, is about the closest thing this series has to a mascot (other than Gandhi), and I look forward to butting heads with him each release.

Personally, I kind of like it when they mix things up each game. More "obscure" leaders like Hatshepsut, Dido, and Wu Zetian are very much welcome in my book. Gives me new people to research.

 

[Gucumatz]

• Washington didn't become the leader of the Americans until IV. Before that it was always Lincoln.
• Napoleon has only been the leader of France in Civ I, IV, and V (and Revolution). In Civ II the leaders were Louis XIV and Jeanne d'Arc. In III it was d'Arc only.
• Traditionally it has been Julius Caesar, not Augustus Caesar, who leads the Roman civilization.

This leaves Alex and Monty, who are about the only leaders that have been in every game, and Alex could be swapped out for Pericles in IV. Monty, on the other hand, is about the closest thing this series has to a mascot (other than Gandhi), and I look forward to butting heads with him each release.

Personally, I kind of like it when they mix things up each game. More "obscure" leaders like Hatshepsut, Dido, and Wu Zetian are very much welcome in my book. Gives me new people to research.

I could be wrong but didn't we have Montezuma II in one Civ game rather than regular Monty?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Every previous game used Monty II, this one uses Monty I

 

[aluelkdf]

Hannibal should definitely be the leader for Carthage. It's nice to have a variety, but once in a while a civ has one leader that stands out and fits better, on a level that no other leaders can match. Carthage is one of those civs.

Hannibal is famous for bringing the Romans to their knees and almost destroying them. It was probably the most perilous time in Roman history, up to the time when they started to collapse. Other civs have given Rome a hard time and even conqured some Roman lands, but the Roman Republic/Empire itself was never threatened, just faced some setbacks. Carthage is the one exception, they almost destroyed the Roman Republic.

At that time there were 2 superpowers and one of them was going to conquer the known world (what was known to them). It ended up being Rome, but it was almost Carthage.

Hannibal is responsible for all of that. Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time too. Practically in the same league as Alexander The Great. For Carthage to have any other leader besides Hannibal makes no sense. Maybe if there was an option of 2 or 3 leaders it would be okay, but Haniball would have to be one of the choices, and if there is only 1 choice then it has to be Haniball.

Having Dido as a leader instead of Hannibal would be equivalent to America having James Monroe instead of George Washington. I don't care if Civ V wants to have more female leaders. Having female leaders is fine, but it has to be a proper fit, like how Elizabeth is for England. I think that out of all the female leaders, the one that fits the best is Catherine of Russia.

 

[Louis XXIV]

At that time there were 2 superpowers and one of them was going to conquer the known world (what was known to them). It ended up being Rome, but it was almost Carthage.

That's Roman propaganda. Specifically, 1st Century BC, 1st Century AD propaganda by Livy among others. Carthage was an ancient superpower that had a dominant Mediterranean trade. Their goal had been, for centuries, to control Sicily. That's why they fought with Syracuse for centuries before fighting Rome. Rome only jumped in to what had been the historic Carthaginian fight over Sicily for questionable reasons (you can tell it was questionable because Roman historians said the Senate couldn't vote to do it, so they had to turn to the people instead).

Carthage wasn't the gateway to Roman dominance. Carthage was a great power in its own right even if the word Rome were never mentioned.

 

[Gucumatz]

That's Roman propaganda. Specifically, 1st Century BC, 1st Century AD propaganda by Livy among others. Carthage was an ancient superpower that had a dominant Mediterranean trade. Their goal had been, for centuries, to control Sicily. That's why they fought with Syracuse for centuries before fighting Rome. Rome only jumped in to what had been the historic Carthaginian fight over Sicily for questionable reasons (you can tell it was questionable because Roman historians said the Senate couldn't vote to do it, so they had to turn to the people instead).

Carthage wasn't the gateway to Roman dominance. Carthage was a great power in its own right even if the word Rome were never mentioned.

This is fascinating. I think I well spend some time researching about the issue regarding Syracuse (this period of history never been my strongest). That is after Bayern Münich beats Chelsea tomorrow.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's a fascinating period of history. When Athens decided to invade Syracuse during the Pelopponesian War, one of the things Niceas pointed to was that Syracuse held their own against Carthage, which had a navy and army at least as great if not greater than the Athenian-controlled Delian League.

Unfortunately, we don't have as much information here. They normally say history was written by the victors, but even more so, history was written by the Romans. Even the mainland Greeks didn't care so much what happened out west.