Who should be the Leader of the French

[Caesar2760]

Richelieu, no doubt. Why? Well, without him, the Hapsburg hegemony of Europe would have been comparable to China in the far east before the 1700's. France would have been the Korea of European history. Anyway, raison d'etat is plenty reason for me. People seem to be willing to allow Bismark his realpolotik without a flinch, but the rehashing (and, I must add, expert use of) a French idea is no innovation. But my friend Otto is not the point here. Here's to the Cardinal! The pope of the time (not sure which) once said: "If there is a hell, he shall go there. If not, well, he has ruled his country well." I'm sure it sounds better in Latin, but you get the idea.

[Michael7586]

When it comes to "high profile" French leaders, there are only three worth considering and they are Charlemagne, Napoleon and Louis XIV. My vote goes to Louis XIV as the very epitome of a grandoise leader and a perfect embodiment of France at its highest point of world influence.

These leaders aspired to European domination and thus are worthy choices for Civilization game leaders. Joan d'Arc was a peasant nobody whose effect was short-lived and singular. I suspect the reason for her inclusion was to give some form of gender pseudo-equality.

Same goes for Russia - why they chose Catherine over Peter is completely beyond me. Peter was truly a great leader by any definition while Catherine was little more than a tyrant with good PR (Voltaire).

The English choice of Elizabeth on the other hand is indeed worthy. I have always argued that Queen Elizabeth was England's greatest King.

Michael7586

[Barnacle Bill]

My first choice would be Louis XIV - the true Founding Father of modern France. His influence was really huge, and felt to this day.

My second choice is "other", meaning Richelieu. He was largely responsible for the existance of a centralized state (so Louis XIV could become it). Of course, he did not where the crown, but think of him as a French Bismarck.

My third choice is Napoleon (no short jokes!). Of course, he also had an aweful lot to do with how France is today. In a way, although they lived at different times, Napoleon, Richelieu and Louis XIV could be thought of collectively like the Founding Fathers of the US. Plus, he's a lot of fun. He did a lot more than military stuff. While his conquests were all lost in the post-war peace settlement, his reforms of French administration and law still stand today.

Charlemagne was more the founding father of the Holy Roman Empire than of France. Charles Martel, now, just for stopping the Arabs at Tours desirves an honorable mention. He was another Bismarck type - "power behind the throne", but his descendants (including Charlemagne) wore the crown themselves.

De Gaulle only gets the nod if you absolutly, positively must have a 20th Century guy. Clearly he was the most significant French leader of the Century. His anti-Americanism never bugged me, because I always thought he had a lot of credibility generally (while most guys who make of point of knee-jerk Anti-Americanism do so to cover their own lack of ideas). While I personally would like to have seen France stay in NATO, I think it is France's right to withdraw if it thinks its interests are best served that way. Remember what George Washington said about avoiding "entangling Alliances" - I wish we had an American De Gaulle to get us out of the UN (and besides, we won the cold war without blowing up the world even w/o France in NATO, so all's well that ends well). De Gaulle's pre-war book "The Army of the Future" is also a very interesting read (too bad the French brass didn't read it). Clemenceau runs a close second for 20th Century-only guys, though.

Joan is kind of in the Charles Martel category, only less so because really she was just a field commander. She'd be like Turkey's Ataturk would be remembered IF he'd died right after winning the war against Greece (before he also deposed the Sultan and totally reformed Turkish government & society after the war).

Another "dark horse" is Napoleon III. A big loser, but a pompous one who might make a good AI for human players to beat up on.

[HolyWarrior]

The civ's 'persona' should be an actual ruler. Leaders should be the military heroes.

Thus Louis is the obvious choice for 'persona'. Joan and Napoleon would be leaders, along with Charlemagne and De Gaulle.

Similarly with the Americans. Washington is first and foremost a military hero and should be represented in the game as a leader.
Similarly with Eisenhower, Pershing, (Teddy) Roosevelt, MacArthur, Grant.

[Gromit]

See:

- Poll: Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: Existing Civs Round 2 -

For rant as to why Joan should stay.

[d_dudy]

teddy roosevelt, war hero?

i wouldn't say he's a hero. or a great leader

[Caesar2760]

Based on that argument, why should Abraham Lincoln get the nod for American Leader? I mean, if we think that the leader should be somewhat "on the ground level," that is, help to create at least an American country if not an American civ (no comment), then the nod should probably go to John Jay or Thomas Jefferson. This is the reasoning that lead me to Richelieu. Without a Richelieu, there is no France to speak of. He's probably the first Frenchman to have the honor of that title. Maybe the advisors should have civ specific names. All of these people could be easily integrated that way, and a balance of advice between such differing personalities would be interesting to see, even if their modes of thought would be completely ahistorical.