Why Theodora?

[Agent327]

Do elaborate.

I came to this discussion quite late, and tbh I have only really been reading Jeelen's posts, so sorry about that

Why, thank you.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Errr...ummm.... Marie Antoinette was Austrian. That´s what royalty did (and does): marry dynastically so as to cement (or forge) political relations. (Catherine the Great was German.)

While true, my only point was the name "Medici" is strongly associated with Italy (even if France and Florence were connected at the hip during the time period). Like I said, they were minor concerns.

 

[Agent327]

Fair enough, but the Medici of importance in Italy were male. (Which is, in part, why I mention the Prussian-born Catharine the Great.) Anyone familiar with the history of France has certainly heard of Catherine de Medici - and if not, they might actually learn something.

 

[mitsho]

Yes, you do got a point. Still, she would still be a far better leader than Jeanne d'Arc But I do think, Napoleon, Louis XIV, Charles de Gaulle and even Francois I. should come first.

The nationality issue is really minor, we do already have had Catherine, Stalin, Washington, Kublai (Mongolia or China?). That's the "foreign" ones from the top of my head, I'd guess there'd be more...

As for the two Catherine things, yes, valid point

 

[blackcatatonic]

Yeah, the two Catherines thing would be a bit of a problem. I know they've used other leaders in the past but it seems inconceivable that they would ever consider changing Catherine as the leader of Russia now, even in a later Civ.

Dubious nationality needn't be a problem, though. Wasn't Alexander Macedonian rather than Greek, anyway? Besides, I don't think that nationality/country of birth (if that's how you define nationality) is particularly relevant when you're looking for historical figures who played a major role in shaping the political history of a nation.

Out of interest, what's the question mark over Washington's nationality? I know absolutely nothing about American history.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Dubious nationality needn't be a problem, though. Wasn't Alexander Macedonian rather than Greek, anyway?

Depending on what do you mean by "Macedonian". He had no connections to modern Republic of Macedonia, despite what nationalists from there will tell you.

And according to the definition of "nationality" some people use here, all European aristocracy would be a separate people.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Depending on what do you mean by "Macedonian". He had no connections to modern Republic of Macedonia, despite what nationalists from there will tell you.

I meant that he was from Macedon, which I understand isn't the same as modern Macedonia. It's really more of the use of the adjective 'Greek' rather than his nationality which is the issue, I suppose. Not that it's a debate I particularly want to get into, my only knowledge on the subject coming from the medieval literary character of Alexander as one of the Nine Worthies rather than the historical figure.

And according to the definition of "nationality" some people use here, all European aristocracy would be a separate people.

Good point

 

[mitsho]

Out of interest, what's the question mark over Washington's nationality? I know absolutely nothing about American history.

I was just trolling. (Washington wasn't born in the US which would make him inelegible for President but there was a clause which addresses that since there was no US when he was born and allows those immigrant born before there was a US to become President That clause lead to tensions with Britain later on due to marines/seamen deserting and so on)

My argument rather was that it doesn't really matter where the leaders are from, but what "civilization" they ruled.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I was just trolling. (Washington wasn't born in the US which would make him inelegible for President but there was a clause which addresses that since there was no US when he was born and allows those immigrant born before there was a US to become President That clause lead to tensions with Britain later on due to marines/seamen deserting and so on)

Ah, of course. Duh. Thanks for explaining.

My argument rather was that it doesn't really matter where the leaders are from, but what "civilization" they ruled.

Agreed.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, the two Catherines thing would be a bit of a problem. I know they've used other leaders in the past but it seems inconceivable that they would ever consider changing Catherine as the leader of Russia now, even in a later Civ.

This would also defeat the point of adding a new female leader if we take away an old meritorious one.

Dubious nationality needn't be a problem, though. Wasn't Alexander Macedonian rather than Greek, anyway? Besides, I don't think that nationality/country of birth (if that's how you define nationality) is particularly relevant when you're looking for historical figures who played a major role in shaping the political history of a nation.

The southern Greek city-states had a bias where they thought Macedonia wasn't Greek because they were ruled by a king. They also had a bias against the western Greek city-states in Italy and Sicily. However, ethnically, all these groups were Greek. The language spoken in Macedonia was a dialect of Greek (even if they did have Thracian loan words) and they were invited to participate in the Olympic games. I'd say he's Greek enough. Plus, he did lead an army of unified Greeks to conquer much of the known world.

Out of interest, what's the question mark over Washington's nationality? I know absolutely nothing about American history.

He was born in Virginia, so he's as American as possible considering the country didn't technically exist when he was born.

ETA: Of course, the biggest debate is always Napoleon. He's kind of the opposite. He grew up in a land that wasn't traditionally French, but he was a French subject his entire life because it became part of France before he was born (by a year or two, but still). Still, he was the Emperor of France and is culturally seen as very much part of that nation.

 

[blackcatatonic]

This would also defeat the point of adding a new female leader if we take away an old meritorious one.

Agreed; I wasn't actually suggesting that they ought to remove Catherine from the game. Just that I don't think they would ever even consider it.

The southern Greek city-states had a bias where they thought Macedonia wasn't Greek because they were ruled by a king. They also had a bias against the western Greek city-states in Italy and Sicily. However, ethnically, all these groups were Greek. The language spoken in Macedonia was a dialect of Greek (even if they did have Thracian loan words) and they were invited to participate in the Olympic games. I'd say he's Greek enough.

Right; I was never sure how culturally distinct Macedon was. Thanks for that.

ETA: Of course, the biggest debate is always Napoleon. He's kind of the opposite. He grew up in a land that wasn't traditionally French, but he was a French subject his entire life because it became part of France before he was born (by a year or two, but still). Still, he was the Emperor of France and is culturally seen as very much part of that nation.

Napoleon is a perfect example of how irrelevant 'nationality' (defined by country of birth) can be when it comes to selecting a leader. He was born to Genoese parents in a part of France which hadn't been French for very long. Yet he would probably be the first person who comes to mind when Joe Bloggs on the street in most parts of the world is asked to name a famous French leader.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I would divide Greece into a couple of distinct areas. The City-States of southern Greece, which were either democratic (as understood at the time) or oligarchic, the northern Greek territories like Thessaly and Macedonia which became less collaborative and more authoritarian the more north you went, and the "colonies," especially in the west, which were viewed as part of the Greek world when it was in the interests of the city-states, but never truly accepted as equal.

 

[Marklevi]

She's HOT.. So who cares

 

[Cicerosaurus]

If you're going to get rid of the people who weren't actually leaders (Gandhi has been mentioned a few times) then Bismark has to go. William I or even Kaiser Wilhelm II would be obvious choices (excluding Hitler for sensitivity reasons).

 

[Louis XXIV]

The problem was that Bismark was more influential and actually more in charge than either of the Kaisers. The reason was that there was a legislature that passed laws. He acted more or less as prime minister and influenced those laws. Sure, his boss was the Kaiser, but he handled day-to-day affairs. If there were a WWI scenario, would you pick King George V or the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George.

I agree about Gandhi. Indira Gandhi would make more sense, actually.

 

[Cicerosaurus]

The problem was that Bismark was more influential and actually more in charge than either of the Kaisers. The reason was that there was a legislature that passed laws. He acted more or less as prime minister and influenced those laws. Sure, his boss was the Kaiser, but he handled day-to-day affairs. If there were a WWI scenario, would you pick King George V or the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George.

I agree about Gandhi. Indira Gandhi would make more sense, actually.

Well, if I needed a Prime Minister for the majority of the war I would go for Asquith. Especially in preference to the mendacious self serving Lloyd George.

 

[Dragonflow]

The problem was that Bismark was more influential and actually more in charge than either of the Kaisers. The reason was that there was a legislature that passed laws. He acted more or less as prime minister and influenced those laws. Sure, his boss was the Kaiser, but he handled day-to-day affairs. If there were a WWI scenario, would you pick King George V or the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George.

I agree about Gandhi. Indira Gandhi would make more sense, actually.

He was actually the Prime Minister, it's just that in Germany the term Chancellor is used instead.
I agree that Gandhi should have been replaced by somebody else, maybe Ashoka or Indhira Gandhi. In the case of Theodora I believe it would have been fine if they used some emperor instead maybe Justinian,Basil or Manuel II.

 

[Tachii]

She's definitely the most attractive sprite in Civ5. :>

 

[DutchJob]

Because games are just not the same without her...sigh.

 

[azzaman333]

She's HOT.. So who cares

She's definitely the most attractive sprite in Civ5. :>

Really? I can never decide if she looks more like a hooker or a transvestite. Or a transvestite hooker.