More XP speculation fun! Predict the Civ leaders!

[monkspider]

Alright, wes some pretty threads going speculating on what civs are most likely to appear. Now let's discuss what leaders are most likely to lead these said civs. Remember, this isn't what you want, but what you feel Firaxis is most likely to do (taking into account need for female leaders, etc).
I will post a list of the most likely civs to appear in the XP, and you call all post your scientific guesses.

Shoe-in Civs
1. Mongols - Genghis (should be little doubt on this one)
2. Spain- Isabella (Good female leader)
3. Inca- Athualpa (my spelling may be off, but my reasoning is not! He will be in the game for the same reason Monty is the leader of the Aztecs, he is the one leader westerners are famillar with)
4. Carthage- Hannibal, nuff said
5. Vikings- This one is a bit tougher, Eric the Red maybe? Leif Ericson?

Other Civs that might appear in the game
-------------------------------
Arabs- Saladin most likely, based on the Civ 2 precedent, but Mohammed could be possible too.
Hebrews- King David
Ethiopians- Need help!
Turks- Need help!
Koreans- Need help!
Celts- King Arthur? The guy that fought Caesar in Gaul? Maybe Boadicea? All three are appealing choices.

[LaRusso]

Turks - Suleiman the Great, Ataturk (more likely actually)

[Jethro83]

My two cents worth...

Spanish - Queen Isabella

Vikings - King Canute

Arabs - King Saladin

As for the others, I agree with previous posts in this thread.

[player1]

They,ll porobably include at least one civ per cultural group.

Lets start:
Native American group: Incas
Europe: Spaniards
Greeko-Roman: Carhtaginans
Far-East: Mongols
Middle east: Turks or Arabs (BUT NOT both of them)

Now, there is still place for 3 civs.

They will probably be a popluar ones.
So one extra europian: VIKINGS

Greeko Roman group has so little civs, so maybe they'll include Phenicians

And last one: lets say Koreans (or maybe Mayans, but they actually lived on same place as Aztec, so they are a little bit redudant)

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by player1
They,ll porobably include at least one civ per cultural group.

Lets start:
Native American group: Incas
Europe: Spaniards
Greeko-Roman: Carhtaginans
Far-East: Mongols
Middle east: Turks or Arabs (BUT NOT both of them)

Now, there is still place for 3 civs.

They will probably be a popluar ones.
So one extra europian: VIKINGS

Greeko Roman group has so little civs, so maybe they'll include Phenicians

And last one: lets say Koreans (or maybe Mayans, but they actually lived on same place as Aztec, so they are a little bit redudant)

But what about leaders? Anyway, they're not likely to include the Phoenicians if they're including the Carthaginians.

But this is a discussion about the possible leaders for said civs.

[Jethro83]

There might be a slight possibility that Dido (legendary founder of Carthage) may be in it to rule the Carthaginians. They'll have to have a few civs with female rulers. As much as everyone would love to be Hannibal, I don't see likely female rulers in many of the other civs (correct me if I'm wrong though).

But its still a tough call, and they'll probably have to flip a coin to decide to either go with political correctness, or to pick the guy most deserving of the place.

As such, Isabella will probably rule Spain. Boadicea, the Celts. The other suggested civs, I can't think of any females to rule them.

[loleod]

I think the fact they are always trying to be PC is really pretty dumb. If Spain has a female leader then we are looking at a european society controlled by females. theres nothing wrong with that , but it is not true. It would be England , Spain , France, and Russia Female , and then Germany and Italy ( Rome rather) Male. As for making ghandi the leader of India , if thats the case lets make Martin Luther King jr the president of the US? Sorry about the rant , but the only female that truely deserves to be in this game is England ( Out of the people in the game right now).

I would like to see Leif Erikson as the leader of the Vikings.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loleod
Sorry about the rant , but the only female that truely deserves to be in this game is England ( Out of the people in the game right now).

In YOUR opinion, but I find Cleopatra and Catherine The Great to be just as reasonable choices as their male counterparts would be. Both are certainly more well-known than comparable Pharoahs/Tsars who would be suitable.

I think this is premature without knowing the civs involved, but here is what I think:

Vikings: Lief Erickson
Mongols: Ghengis
Incas: Atahualpa
Carthage: Hannibal
Mali: ??? (Im hoping they put another African civ)
Arabs: Saladin
Spain: Charles V or Phillip II
Sioux: Sitting Bull

That's what I'd like to see (though I could also sub a South American civ for Spain with Bolivar as the head, though I doubt this would ever happen!).

[siredgar]

1. Spanish - King Philip
2. Vikings - Leif Ericsson
3. Mongols - Ghenghis Khan
4. Inca - ? (What did they do??? What a space filler.)
5. Carthaginians (Phoenicians) - Hannibal
6. Koreans - King Sejong
7. Turks - Ataturk
8. Ethiopians - Queen Sheeba

One woman leader is enough for eight expansion civs, partly because I agree that there are too many woman leaders in Europe. The Spanish leader should be male.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, I personally have gotten a little annoyed with all of the leader Joan bashing I've seen... I mean, everybody says "No, she wasn't the real leader!"... While that maybe true, you're playing a fictional game that is supposed to be rewriting history. They picked Joan of Arc because she's a French folk hero and one of those high-profile leaders... when you think of France, you usually think of her or Napoleon. It's just a game! I mean, if we're going to get this technical, the Americans shouldn't be allowed to appear on the map until 1776 AD. (Boy, and we thought they had a tough time winning before...). But its not just Joan though, its any leader who wasn't really a political leader. The civs are, in reality, more like place holders if anything. You could just do away with names altogether... it could be the Unga Bunga civilization with the legendary leader King Knutz Tu Yu, and its still the same game.


Secondly, to completely contradict EVERYTHING I just said ... I think Kublai Khan's a better choice for leader of Mongolia. I mean, Ghenghis Khan, I think, is a better great leader: big time military conqueror, but not the more famous administrator. But of what I think WILL be the choice is good ol Ghenghis. On a side note, what will be his unique title? Will he address himself as "Khan Ghenghis Khan"? He'll sound like 007.

With regards to Spain, I have to say I'm 99% sure it'll be Isabella, as I think it should be for the same reason as Kublai Khan for the Mongols. King Philip II makes for a good Great Leader. If he's bumped up to leader, who's left for Spanish Great Leaders? Ferdinand and... Franco? I can't say I like the idea of a fascist getting a "Great Leader" title nevermind the fact that his greatness is dubious at best...

Thus concludes my rant...

[Boris Godunov]

Well, I hope you fell better getting that out of your system!

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II


Ok, I personally have gotten a little annoyed with all of the leader Joan bashing I've seen... I mean, everybody says "No, she wasn't the real leader!"

Agreed, Joan bashing should end. She's just a gal trying to get along!

They picked Joan of Arc because she's a French folk hero and one of those high-profile leaders... when you think of France, you usually think of her or Napoleon.

Uh...not quite. I mean, I think of Napoleon, Louis XIV, Charlemagne, Robespierre and De Gaulle before thinking of her in terms of French leaders. That's not to say she wasn't important...but I doubt most people think of her as you say.

It's just a game!

Blasphemy!!!

I think your points are valid, but I also tend to think those who gripe that it should be real rulers and non-PC choices have a point as well.

With regards to Spain, I have to say I'm 99% sure it'll be Isabella, as I think it should be for the same reason as Kublai Khan for the Mongols. King Philip II makes for a good Great Leader. If he's bumped up to leader, who's left for Spanish Great Leaders? Ferdinand and... Franco? I can't say I like the idea of a fascist getting a "Great Leader" title nevermind the fact that his greatness is dubious at best...

I still say, will always say, Charles V is the most influential Spanish ruler. I think it's indisputable. Other Spanish great leaders could include some of the Conquistadors and explorers. While not upstanding models of humanity, who said that was required?

Thus concludes my rant...

Andsoitshallbeforeverandeveramen.

[Jon Shafer]

As for Spain, I'd say either Isabella/Charles/Philip, but due to the whole poltically correct "equal number of civs from every culture with a diverse collection of leaders", I would probably say that Isabella will be the ruler.

As for France, I agree with you Boris, except for the fact that Cardinal Richelieu also comes to mind. Oh, and Napoleon should most definately have been in charge of France.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Trip
As for France, I agree with you Boris, except for the fact that Cardinal Richelieu also comes to mind. Oh, and Napoleon should most definately have been in charge of France.

Ahh-ah-ah...Richelieu never actually ruled France! So he doesn't count. Right? Right.

[Jon Shafer]

*Looks at your sig*
*Nods and smiles and continues on with life*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Trip
*Looks at your sig*
*Nods and smiles and continues on with life*

Yeah, yeah, everyone's a comedian.

Richelieu is one of my favorite historical personages, but it really irks me when the movies like the 3 Musketeers shows him as somehow plotting against the King. He was FOR the king and strengthened the king's power against the nobility.

Bah...

Back on topic, is it Saladin vs. Sulayman for the Arabs? Which would be better, more appropriate?

[monkspider]

Give me Saladin any day Boris.
Also, there is no way they will pick Dido over Hannibal. That would be like picking Joan of Arc over Napoleon...oh wait a minute...

[Miznia]

I say Isabella for Spanish, especially if she can be depicted as hot.
I'd prefer Suleiman to Ataturk for the Turks, just because of the timeframe... Ataturk is too modern...
I think the Korean leader should be female. A website on one queen Sondok; admittedly I don't know anything myself, but this site makes the notion palatable:
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/heroine7.html
I will spit if there is no Korea

Mali leader (if they're used) should be Sundiata Keita or Mansa Musa. My Shaka is presently renamed Sundjata.

(quoted)
***The historical founder of Mali was the magician, Sundjata, one of the most legendary figures in African history. Sundjata, who ruled Mali from 1230-1255, began as a royal slave and magician among the Soso who had inherited the Ghanaian empire. According to African oral histories, Sundjata seized the major territories through which gold was traded and so built the foundation off of which Mali would be built. He also introduced into the region the cultivation and weaving of cotton.
***The most significant of the Mali kings was Mansa Musa (1312-1337) who expanded Mali influence over the large Niger city-states of Timbuctu, Gao, and Djenné. Mansa Musa was a devout Muslim who built magnificent mosques all throughout the Mali sphere of influence; his gold-laden pilgrimage to Mecca made him an historical figure even in European history writing.
***It was under Mansa Musa that Timbuctu became one of the major cultural centers not only of Africa but of the entire world. Under Mansa Musa's patronage, vast libraries were built and madrasas (Islamic universities) were endowed; Timbuctu became a meeting-place of the finest poets, scholars, and artists of Africa and the Middle East. Even after the power of Mali declined, Timbuctu remained the major Islamic center of sub-Saharan Africa.

Miznia

[Dom Pedro II]

Charles V could certainly be argued as a great leader of Spain, but the trouble is that he was the leader of Spain, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, the colonies, the Holy Roman Empire, etc... He's not really as much of a Spanish leader as he is a Hapsburg leader.

And when I meant that when you think of France you think of Joan of Arc, I didn't necessarily mean as a leader but just as a French figure. She's a folk hero really. But a very famous folk hero.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, but Charles V was the King of Spain and the seat of his empire was Spain, so I figured by default he had to be considered Spanish.

Certainly better than his son, Phillip II...

[nato]

Vercingetorix was the guy who fought Caesar in France. I'd put my guesses, but I think Monkspider got them all already.

I'd like to say I think Muhammed would be a really cool, almost daring choice for Arab leader, but I think Saladin would be more likely.

Also, about Joan ... I like Joan but would much rather have Napoleon. I don't think this has anything to do with Joan being female ... I think it has to do with Napoleon being one of the biggest, "coolest" great leaders that Civ players would like to be. Removing him would be like removing Caesar...

Joan is fine, but not at the expense of Napoleon. Thats why there aren't any Catherine or Cleopatra "bashing" threads ... Stalin and Ramses are not nearly so big or popular as Napoleon.

[Carver]

Originally posted by siredgar

8. Ethiopians - Queen Sheeba

One woman leader is enough for eight expansion civs, partly because I agree that there are too many woman leaders in Europe.

Absolutely, women should be sex slaves not leaders.

[Carver]

Ethiopia's leader would probably be Menelik I, the traditional founder of the Empire; Menelik II, who defeated the Italians at Adowa and kept Ethiopia independent; or Haile Salaisse, becuase he's just well known.

Miznia has Mali nailed, Mansa Musa (King Musa), who caused a drop in the price of gold around Cairo as his pilgramage made its way to the holy sites.

[nato]

Absolutely, women should be sex slaves not leaders.

Sounds like my Civ2 mod.

I'm joking, of course.

[Grrr]

They're adding Ethiopia?

[Boris Godunov]

No, Grrr, we don't know who they're adding yet...we're just speculating.

[Mikhail]

Far as Genghis Khan's title, probably "Lord". "We love the Great Khan day". LOL.

Player1: Actually, Mayans and Aztecs didn't occupy the same territory. Mayans were further south, in central America, while Aztecs were in Mexico. They weren't that far, no, but the Iroquis and Americans DIRECTLY overlap, no?

Siredgar: Also, the Incans would NOT be just a space filler. They were a large South American empire, which had a large military (I'm sure you've heard how the Spanish killed 80,000 Incan warriors, without losing a single man).

I'm not familliar with Incan culture myself, but I believe they invented a complex system of roads, some of the paths they carved into the desert are still visible from the air today above South America.

There culture wasn't near that of the Mayans (who's calendar was even more accurate than the European's, and is only off by a miniscule amount of time even today) but at least they were a UNIFIED people, instead of tribals like the Iroquis (which, as I've said before, have no purpose in the game since the Americans civ includes them in terms of culture.)

Personally, if I were Firaxis, I wouldn't have even thought to add Iroquis, and especially not Sioux as everyone is suggesting, until Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs were in. They were the big 3.

[Grrr]

I actually think it is a good idea. And let them hack down as many forests as possible, and beg the world for money. Wait, all Civ3 civs do that .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Mikhail
) but at least they were a UNIFIED people, instead of tribals like the Iroquis (which, as I've said before, have no purpose in the game since the Americans civ includes them in terms of culture.)

Tell that to an Iroquois, and you won't like the reaction you get.

The Iroquois were united under a Constitution that bound the 5 tribes together.

Besides, Firaxis has said the Iroquois represent all North American Natives. It would be shameful to omit these cultures in the game. Saying the Iroquois were just a part of "American" culture is painfully Eurocentric. "American" culture is, at its roots, very European. Native American is very different.

I suggest reading more about North America pre-1492, you might find it surprising how rich the culture was.

[monkspider]

*agrees with Boris whole-heartedly*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
*agrees with Boris whole-heartedly*

LOL, Oh I remember my foolish, impetuous days when I was once in the anti-Iroquois crowd...seems like so long ago...