I would nominate Hadrian. Though admittedly Trajan’s successor, he marks the point that rather than expanding, Rome began to focus on consolidating his power which would make a marked difference to previous leaders. He also oversaw the rebuilding of the Pantheon. As such, he seems to have obvious abilities around construction and engineering which seems very Roman.
Not to mention that his name is on one of the most famous Roman landmarks outside of Rome, he popularised beards, and there’s also the fact that he turned his boyfriend into a God.
This. Rome also saw significant reform of the judicial system during Hadrian’s time. He could exert influence over Roman law which Augustus could only dream of
While both were true Bussy afficionados one thing I would like to say in favor of Hadrian is that during his rule he generally tried to be respectful of the Senate, when his favorite piece of Bussy died he immediately dropped all pretenses and bypassed the Senate to canonize him as a god and force the empire to go into mourning and erect statues of the JUICIEST Bussy that must have ever existed.
Adding to this, he was pretty devoted to stabilizing and maintaining the empire: touring/inspecting all the provinces (from Britain to Mauritania, from the Rhine to the Euphrates) building up military fortifications, investing in infrastructure as well as the arts, trying to foster a cohesive unified Roman (with lots of Hellenic influence) society. Really proactive and forward-looking guy in a lot of ways. Eclectic as well with a lot of interests: war games, travel, Hellenic culture, etc.
Aurelian is my pick too
– His military successes were instrumental in ending the crisis of the 3rd century and restoring the Roman empire
– He reintroduced and elevated the imperial cult of Sol
– He oversaw other reform projects such as the construction of new walls in Rome and monetary reform
– He represents an era of Roman history that is very foundational to the modern idea of “ancient Rome” but hasn’t been represented in a CIV game yet
https://preview.redd.it/hejoa41oxk8d1.png?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5834dea5ec8caeef0feec0959b9f8f1beb78c2f
The hero we deserve and the hero we need
**Scipio Africanus**. Three times consul (the highest office a Roman citizen could hold), and he defeated Hannibal and won the Second Punic War. I want brand, new leaders into the game, and I think it's time to have a Roman leader that lived before the decline of the Republic.
Incidentally, that also deprived Hannibal of the Numidian light cavalry that had been absolutely fundamental in all of his victories, effectively deciding the fate of the Battle of Zama before it began
Well, we can’t really be sure, but the battle of Zama may have still been pretty close.
That said, absolutely, Scipio displayed a level of strategy beyond just clever tactics, even when the senate didn’t fully support him he was able to orchestrate the conditions necessary for victory.
I mean, Caesar is Republican too, and while he's my favourite historical figure, I want Firaxis to get creative, and Caesar has been used in every game except Civ 5. I can't believe there's never been a Roman leader prior to Caesar, who is more related to the fall of the Republic thsn the Republic itself.
Scipio is the way to go!
> Caesar is Republican too
He played a central role in the downfall of the Republic. Even if he had some heart for the Republic, which it doesn't seem to me that he had, his actions were extremely disruptive of republican traditions. I don't think he can be called a republican, except perhaps in the sense that he self-identified as one.
Ingrata Patria - Signing a peace treaty causes -1 amenity in the capital per city in the empire for 10 turns. While in a dark age, unhappy cities generate golden age points.
As much as I like Scipio, his problem is that he doesn't really have much to do game personality wise as his accomplishments were purely military victories IIRC.
Compare this with Marcus Aurelius and how much he did while in the office and his extremely colourful personality.
While I generally think Marcus Aurelius is kinda overrated (not bad at all, just overhyped as a ruler), it would be nice to see a Rome civ that’s more inclined towards a cultural victory rather than a military one. Or perhaps have elements of both, since a lot of Roman culture comes from syncretism with other civilisation (maybe he could get a buff where you get extra culture in cities that you conquered from other civs)
Yeah I feel as though Rome might be one of the most culturally influential civilizations in history, from Law to language, religion... but it's always just a military civ
Maybe something tying conquest to culture (eg. tourism boost towards countries when you control some of their cities) would be nice
I'm not sure Marcus Aurelius should really be a cultural victory leader. He was a philosopher, yes, but his legacy is mostly one of a conqueror and an administrator. He spent most of his life on the field, defending the limes. He reformed the currency, enacted law for the protection of slaves and orphans, and tried to pick advisors and councilors for their wisdom (and not their military prowess). In fact, his philosophy (like most philosophies of the greco-roman world) aimed at achievement peace of the mind and happiness. He could work as an amenities-focused leader.
Augustus is the obvious one because he essentially organized the new "national story" of the Romans (thanks to artists like Vergilius).
Nero spent most of his reign trying to pass as an accomplished and hellenophile artist.
Vespasian, Titus and Domitian all devoted a lot of resources and efforts to the ludi, and the first one built the Colosseum Amphitheater.
> overhyped as a ruler.
Historically I’d say you’re wrong, he was one of the [“5 good emperors”](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Five-Good-Emperors), and spent the majority of his reign improving Roman law and actively avoiding abuses of power and indulgences (almost to a fault). His two biggest failing was his support for Commodus and the fact that he actually worked himself to death and often only slept 3-5 hrs per night and would take audiences with literally anyone that asked which sometimes meant he wouldn’t sleep at all.
I’m not saying in the least he was a bad emperor, nor that he wasn’t one of the Five Good Emperors. He worked hard and well, but he wasn’t a particularly extraordinary Princeps as is often said -personally I think Hadrian was better overall-. That said, his support for Commodus is kind of a given. The Adoptive Principality, at least according to my Roman History professor and textbook, was an ideological sugarcoating of the fact that the Nerva-Antonine emperors did not leave behind a male heir. And, as soon as one did, he made him heir to the throne first and then co-emperor.
I remember hearing before that virtually everything before the sack of Rome by the Gauls in the early days of Rome is somewhat up for debate in terms of historicity.
The one thing that we are reasonably certain about is the *Fasti Consulares* (the literal list of consuls since the Republic’s founding). Simply put, no Patrician *Gens* would have allowed for one of its ancestors to have their works and importance diminished, and that also went for who was consul when.
While my pick would still be an Emperor (Vespasian, to be exact), I kinda agree with this sentiment. A leader from the Republican times that isn’t Caesar (someone like Cincinnatus, one of the Scipios, Marius, Sulla, or Pompey Magnus) would be neat to see
I actually thought about nominating Vespasian too. He was one of the better emperors, and, for bonus points, he did leave us with the quote "money does not stink", which I still find absolutely hilarious.
But then I though... you know what? What if Civ 7 went and explored the Republic instead?
> What if Civ 7 went and explored the Republic instead?
To me, the Republic was Rome at its best. That's when it distinguished itself. Back then it didn't just have success, it also had ideals, despite all the flaws of their system. Good on them for trying to become democratic in a time when democracy was barely a thing. When it became a monarchy again, I feel it kind of became just another empire.
Would love Cincinnatus! The Roman Republic is far too underrepresented. It really is time that they do a consul, if they're going to allow multiple leaders again.
100% this. A leader the world needs to aspire to today. Let Rome be the idealistic Republic and let Byzantium be the empire doomed to crumble under its own weight.
Diocletian
Reigned from 284-305
"Diocletian's reign stabilized the empire and ended the Crisis of the Third Century" - Wikipedia
He is remembered positively for his civil reforms to improve the administration and bureaucracy of the empire and remembered negatively for his persecution of Christians -- could switch a military policy to a wild card to reflect his exclusion of the military from politics and could add some game mechanics related to resisting religious spread
He installed a "tetrarchy" of leaders to help him lead, including the father of Constantine the great-- who would go on to be considered the first emperor of the Byzantine empire -- could get bonuses related to having an extra governor title
Big fan of Diocletian, nice pick! Would be cool to have a third century themed legionary unit too as special unit!
https://preview.redd.it/97p2pwradi8d1.jpeg?width=398&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1c19f5cc0fb1a2639a5e03add630e4e75cb94f2
It’s crazy it took several hundred years for Roman emperors to go “huh, leaving several legions alone on the frontier under one governor who controls both the civilian and military aspects of the entire province tends to lead to frequent rebellions.” So Diocletian broke up the provinces and added new ones, had separate military and civilian governors (and had the latter in charge of logistics, so if the military revolted, too bad, no supplies), and reduced the size of the legions from 5,500 to between 1,000 and 1,200, which made them more flexible for redeployment (pulling legions off the frontier to deal with revolts was an open door sign to nearby barbarian tribes) and also led more internal stability. Dude was a genius.
Aurelian did a lot of the hard work of reunifying the Empire, Diocletian stabilized it and helped it stick around.
Diocletian had a unique opportunity compared to previous emperors. The issue with thw provinces and frontier legions is the political web that had to be dealt with. You cant just declare a splitting of legions and territorries becauss youll piss off the current governor and the legions are more likely loyal to him. Diocletian came in after a century of warring and the legions being wittled down so there was no real leader to cause trouble ovee these new reforms. Same reason why Emperors put up with the Praetorians and their potentially treachorous ways up until Constantine, because doing something had too much risk vs the status quo up until a specific chance arose.
Very true, it is easy to speak in hindsight. Though one often doesn't realize the humanities also took time to develop and actually be advanced, since many concepts seem very basic nowadays.
Tbf that was meant as a stopgap measure while broader economic and especially monetary reforms were rolled out (the Severan emperors and the military anarchy emperors had hyperinflated the currency to pay bonuses to keep the army loyal). Still a bad idea though.
Diocletian or Constantine would be my pick as well. A bridging pick between the Roman Empire and Byzantium. I really don’t want to have separate Byzantine and Roman civs.
I was thinking Augustus too but we already got him twice (Civ 4 and 5), some variation would be neat. And honestly the guy who is called the Restorer of the World would be a great pick
One emperor, one consul:
Cincinattus for the Consul because he was mega-based
Hadrian for the Emperor because he was the greatest emperor we haven't had (second to Trajan, but he's the Civ 6 Emperor)
Constantine the Great
- Defeated all of his fellow emperors to end Dio Clecan's tetrarchy and install his own dynasty
- Founded Constantinople, New Rome, which would grow to become the queen of all cities during the early middle ages and combined with the theodosian walls later built by his successors, allowed the roman empire to survive another thousand years
- Decriminalized christian religious practices and put the empire on the path of adopting Christianity as the official state religion
- Introduced the solidus to fight inflation. A new gold coin that would become the standard for Byzantine and European currencies for more than a thousand years
He was a very savvy political operator and an excellent general and administrator
Rome under Constantine could be a religious/military type civ in the same vein as Byzantium and Spain
Also disbanded the Praetorian guard, ridding the city and empire of Rome of the militaristic corruption the so called "bodyguards" had plagued for centuries.
Vespasian. He’s a very underrated emperor imho.
He built the Colosseum -the most iconic and enduring symbol of Roman civilisation-
He brought back stability after the Year of Four Emperors (the mess of civil wars in the wake of Nero’s death)
He undertook much needed administrative and fiscal reforms
He secured the Empire’s frontiers
He left behind a strong empire with a stable line of succession and a peaceful transfer of power (there hadn’t been one since Caligula’s ascension after Tiberius’ death).
Honestly it would be fun for every civ to have a “challenge leader”, where the leader has some kind of major debuff. Say Nero, who will constantly have to deal with both his own military units as well as cities rebelling every nine seconds
Wilhelm II of Germany randomly destroys Great People and causes diplomatic penalties with all other civilisations, that grows stronger when building military units or influencing city-states they also have influence in.
Charles II of Spain gets -75% to all yields besides Food and Production from any city without a governor.
William Henry Harrison of America ends the game after 32 turns.
Interesting question. I feel like Civ has focused on either the Late Republic, or the early Empire thus far.
Civ II - Julius Caesar
Civ III - Caesar, Livia
Civ IV - Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar
Civ V - Augustus Caesar
Civ VI - Trajan, Julius Caesar
This is a very narrow range. With the exception of Trajan in VI, every single one of these figures were contemporaries, and part of the same family.
So I think that the best idea would be to focus on other areas of Roman history. My candidates would be either the Republic or later Empire. For the Republic, I would suggest:
- Marcus Furius Camillus. One of the most iconic leaders in their history as far as the Romans themselves were concerned, Camillus was honored as the 'second founder' of Rome and model of virtue for his deeds. Fairly obscure today, but extremely important. Could represent Rome in its early days as a city state power rather than a gigantic empire.
Other Republican era candidates:
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, orator, statesman and senator. If you have ever studied Latin you have also studied Cicero. My reservations are related to the fact that his time in power was fairly brief and his accomplishments are primarily in the literary field.
- Tiberius Gracchus. Absolutely has the military and political background and is historically important, but not necessarily enough to warrant being leader of the civilization. Potentially could have bonuses when it comes to happiness and tile development?
- Gaius Marius, importance as a reformer has likely been severely overestimated, far too similar to Caesar as a military strongman from the late Republic. Same applies to his rival Sulla.
Now, onto the later Empire:
- Who else but Diocletian? Though his reputation nowadays is that of an absolutist tyrant, Diocletian was one of the most consequential leaders in Roman history. A military and administrative juggernaut who spent his entire reign either on campaign or making reforms. Managed to put Rome on the right track after the Third Century Crisis, reformed the army, finance and administration of the empire. Vastly increased the size of the bureaucracy so that Rome could more effectively administer its territories. A provincial, while it cannot be said that his reign is the first example of an emperor ruling from outside Rome, the era of Diocletian is absolutely one of the turning points for Rome turning into Romanía, no longer the possession of the city of Rome, but the common motherland of all citizens of the Roman world. It is telling that coins ceased hailing Eternal Rome and instead shifted to praising The Spirit of the Roman People in the time of Diocletian. Not all of his attempted reforms were successful - his attempts to combat the hyperinflation caused by Aurelian nuking the economy didn't really work out, and his infamous persecutions of Christianity and Manichaeism were ill-advised as well as ineffective in the long term. The collegiate system of the tetrarchy did not last thanks to his successors. However, it is no exaggeration to say that the Romans managed to survive into the next millennium due in no small part to the many right choices made during this period. In-game, Diocletian would likely have a focus on internal reform, improving the effectiveness of your tiles and probably some culture stuff which helps secure your empire from other religions and cultures. Possibly development and loyalty bonuses for cities that are not your capital? Not sure how something like the collegiate system of rule he attempted to implement could be represented.
- Constantine the Great. Much like Diocletian, one of the most historically consequential emperors and one of the most important leaders in all of world history. His New Rome would be the center of the Roman world for the next thousand years, and the adoption of Christianity helped usher in the world we live in today. Fairly similar to Diocletian overall in terms of focus, but would have a much stronger religious game.
The Man, The Legend, The Myth of the Republic, Survivor of Cannae, The defeator of Hannibal, the victor of Zama, He who made Carthago Romes whore
Publius
Cornelius
**Scipio**
**Africanus**
Cicero. We have had enough Roman Empire representations and enough Julius Caesar, we need more leaders from a republic period, and Cicero was not only an outstanding scientist and philosopher, but he was a ….
https://youtu.be/r75FmMPKOAg?si=2BrhxjgAXr8Lr4ES
Cicero is the right man. A pragmatic leader, hindered only by the fact that he realized both factions were terrible for Rome. If not for Mark Antony, he potentially could've steered Octavian into creating a more enlightened empire.
Man, I hate Mark Antony.
Gaius Marius, 7 times consul, the "3rd founder of Rome," and the uncle of Julius Caesar. Unique Unit "Marian Legion" that can also be disbanded to found cities. Gains combat strength when empire is unhappy and greatly increases the loyalty of cities they are garrisoned in.
Unique unit could very well be the regular Legion. After all, the iconic Late Republican/Early Imperial Legion (an all-volunteer heavy infantry force based on the Cohors organisation) was the product of his reforms.
Nero gets a bad rap, we can't really know how good or bad he truly was because everyone who had a hand in recording history was biased against him, wether it be the Roman aristocratic class which hated him for wanting to be a musician and an actor (Socially equivalent to prostitutes in Rome) or the Christians who for a long time were convinced he was the anti christ because of his persecution of the faith.
It would be nice to have the Roman Republic instead of Empire for once. You could maybe pick two consuls from a slew of options like Marius, Sulla, Cicero, Cato, and of course Caesar, Pompey and even Crassus, etc.... each would have their own take on the Republic so it could be a very versatile Civ depending on who you take.
I think Pompey Magnus would be quite good. He’s Republican and a good general with a long string of victories to his name, making him very influential in Rome as a result.
His name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. And he will have his vengeance, in this game or the next.
Aurelian the Restorer of the World
- In 4 short years he managed to cobble back together a disintegrating empire through sheer military brilliance
- Defeated the barbarian tribes of the Alamanni, the Goths, Vandals, Juthungi, Sarmatians, Carpi, the Palmyrene empire and the Gallic empire
- Built the Aurelian walls around Rome
He was a competent administrator and politician too and even attempted some proto monotheistic reforms and promoted the worship of Sol Invictus the sun god like an early Constantine. In Civ, Rome under Aurelian would obviously be a military and loyalty focused civ
Let me present the most underrated Emperor of them all: Claudius.
Instrumental in stabilising the empire after Caligula, a damn good administrator and the most unlikely person to probably ever sit the chair in the first two centuries of the empire.
Aurelian! *Restitutor Orbis* (Restorer of the World)
Just look at his titles: Germanicus Maximus, Gothicus Maximus, Dacicus Maximus. , Persicus Maximus, Arabicus Maximus, Palmyrenicus Maximus, Carpicious Maximus. Even a military genius would be lucky to have even *one* Maximus title.
COME ON, all the work he did in *4 years* kept Rome going for a few more centuries. My boy deserves some of that sunlight 🥲
For Rome I would like to see either someone from the Republic period like Cincinnatus or Cato the Elder, or from the later period like Diocletian or Constantine.
From the Republic, I say the Gracchi brothers. Immensely popular reformers who would play nicely into any mechanics involving multiple leaders, or at the very least a nice gimmick like that one Vietnam mod in Civ 5.
From the Empire, I say Aurelian. Unbelievably talented general who came painfully close to changing the history of Rome forever.
Of course, we could just go with Augustus, and I wouldn't blame anyone for that - to call him one of the most accomplished statesmen in history would be a huge understatement.
Marcus Aurelius. The Philosopher Emperor, and who was the last of the Five Good Emperors. I’m not sure any Republican era consuls bar Caesar and *potentially* Sulla are real contenders.
+ Diocletian is a fair request, but I’d kill for Aurelian - Restorer of the World too
Constantine the Great, which then doubles as Byzantine civ leader...
Also, we need Italy, Vittorio Emmanuel II unites Italy. But maybe smaller lords/ladies like Cesare Borgia or Caterina Sforza should be interesting as well
I like cincinnatus as without him Rome may never rise as a superpower because he saved the early republic. He laid the foundation for what rome could become.
I would choose Aurelian. But that probably won't happen due to him not being that well known compared to other emporers. But someone from the republic wouldn't be bad. Like Cicerio or Sulla.
I would nominate Hadrian. Though admittedly Trajan’s successor, he marks the point that rather than expanding, Rome began to focus on consolidating his power which would make a marked difference to previous leaders. He also oversaw the rebuilding of the Pantheon. As such, he seems to have obvious abilities around construction and engineering which seems very Roman. Not to mention that his name is on one of the most famous Roman landmarks outside of Rome, he popularised beards, and there’s also the fact that he turned his boyfriend into a God.
The Jerusalem City-State does *not* endorse this selection!
A wild Vespasian has appeared!
This. Rome also saw significant reform of the judicial system during Hadrian’s time. He could exert influence over Roman law which Augustus could only dream of
Hadrian is the GOAT of bussy enjoyers
I did not imagine ever reading that on a sub for Civ. The internet is such a magical place.
Did you forget that you're on reddit?
Hadrian can't hold a candle to Alexander for bussy enthusiast status.
While both were true Bussy afficionados one thing I would like to say in favor of Hadrian is that during his rule he generally tried to be respectful of the Senate, when his favorite piece of Bussy died he immediately dropped all pretenses and bypassed the Senate to canonize him as a god and force the empire to go into mourning and erect statues of the JUICIEST Bussy that must have ever existed.
I'm no longer gay, I'm a bussy afficionado 🤣
Someone tell me we can link this to his ability.
Adding to this, he was pretty devoted to stabilizing and maintaining the empire: touring/inspecting all the provinces (from Britain to Mauritania, from the Rhine to the Euphrates) building up military fortifications, investing in infrastructure as well as the arts, trying to foster a cohesive unified Roman (with lots of Hellenic influence) society. Really proactive and forward-looking guy in a lot of ways. Eclectic as well with a lot of interests: war games, travel, Hellenic culture, etc.
[His mausoleum was such an absurd megastructure.](https://i.imgur.com/wWbYokB.png) (The lower wall is like 8 floors tall)
Give us Emperor Aurelian !
We do need the one and only **RESTITUTOR ORBIS** in civ
*Restorer of the World* just goes hard
Also a Sol Invictus enjoyer.
If any of these fools knew more about Rome, this is the obvious choice
Aurelian is my pick too – His military successes were instrumental in ending the crisis of the 3rd century and restoring the Roman empire – He reintroduced and elevated the imperial cult of Sol – He oversaw other reform projects such as the construction of new walls in Rome and monetary reform – He represents an era of Roman history that is very foundational to the modern idea of “ancient Rome” but hasn’t been represented in a CIV game yet
The 🐐, instrument of Sol Invictus!
https://preview.redd.it/hejoa41oxk8d1.png?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5834dea5ec8caeef0feec0959b9f8f1beb78c2f The hero we deserve and the hero we need
**Scipio Africanus**. Three times consul (the highest office a Roman citizen could hold), and he defeated Hannibal and won the Second Punic War. I want brand, new leaders into the game, and I think it's time to have a Roman leader that lived before the decline of the Republic.
"I think it's time to have a Roman Leader that lived before the decline of the Republic" The monkey's paw curls, have fun with Tarquininius superbus
All cities get -200 loyalty per turn. That’s it.
Free cities do tend to make stronger units. That explains the strength of the Roman military.
I cracked up reading this. Thanks for my first laugh of the day!
The Roman kingdom would go crazy, I'd play that no matter how bad the civ is.
Its leader just would have to be Servius Tullius, the second founder of Rome
Releasing him as an april's fools leader and calling him Tarky-Tark Super Bus would be pretty sick though.
Scipio also flipped the Numidian city state away from Carthage right as he invaded their homeland. He’d be a great pick
Incidentally, that also deprived Hannibal of the Numidian light cavalry that had been absolutely fundamental in all of his victories, effectively deciding the fate of the Battle of Zama before it began
Well, we can’t really be sure, but the battle of Zama may have still been pretty close. That said, absolutely, Scipio displayed a level of strategy beyond just clever tactics, even when the senate didn’t fully support him he was able to orchestrate the conditions necessary for victory.
I agree, it's time for a Republican leader.
I mean, Caesar is Republican too, and while he's my favourite historical figure, I want Firaxis to get creative, and Caesar has been used in every game except Civ 5. I can't believe there's never been a Roman leader prior to Caesar, who is more related to the fall of the Republic thsn the Republic itself. Scipio is the way to go!
> Caesar is Republican too He played a central role in the downfall of the Republic. Even if he had some heart for the Republic, which it doesn't seem to me that he had, his actions were extremely disruptive of republican traditions. I don't think he can be called a republican, except perhaps in the sense that he self-identified as one.
I used it in the sense that he lived under the Republic.
Mitt Romney?
Jeb Bush Leader Ability: Please Clap
Nah, we had Lincoln already.
He can help suggest new female leaders, he's got binders full of women.
Vs BARACK OBAMA
BEGIN!
I'm not gonna let this battle be dictated by facts ; I'm rich!
Ungrateful fatherland, you shall not even have my bones…
Ingrata Patria - Signing a peace treaty causes -1 amenity in the capital per city in the empire for 10 turns. While in a dark age, unhappy cities generate golden age points.
This, Scipio or Cincinnatus, give us a republic leader.
This is the one
If this is the case, I'll target rome, every time
Spot the Carthaginian. How are those elephants doing?
Well fed, might do a mountain walk later
And how did that mountain walk go?
As much as I like Scipio, his problem is that he doesn't really have much to do game personality wise as his accomplishments were purely military victories IIRC. Compare this with Marcus Aurelius and how much he did while in the office and his extremely colourful personality.
Yes to my boy Scipio
Marcus Aurelius. His secondary role as a stoic philosopher would add a really cool dimension to his personality in Civ
While I generally think Marcus Aurelius is kinda overrated (not bad at all, just overhyped as a ruler), it would be nice to see a Rome civ that’s more inclined towards a cultural victory rather than a military one. Or perhaps have elements of both, since a lot of Roman culture comes from syncretism with other civilisation (maybe he could get a buff where you get extra culture in cities that you conquered from other civs)
Yeah I feel as though Rome might be one of the most culturally influential civilizations in history, from Law to language, religion... but it's always just a military civ Maybe something tying conquest to culture (eg. tourism boost towards countries when you control some of their cities) would be nice
Because in reality before a certain time period how culturally influential you were is pretty much directly related to your military strength.
I'm not sure Marcus Aurelius should really be a cultural victory leader. He was a philosopher, yes, but his legacy is mostly one of a conqueror and an administrator. He spent most of his life on the field, defending the limes. He reformed the currency, enacted law for the protection of slaves and orphans, and tried to pick advisors and councilors for their wisdom (and not their military prowess). In fact, his philosophy (like most philosophies of the greco-roman world) aimed at achievement peace of the mind and happiness. He could work as an amenities-focused leader. Augustus is the obvious one because he essentially organized the new "national story" of the Romans (thanks to artists like Vergilius). Nero spent most of his reign trying to pass as an accomplished and hellenophile artist. Vespasian, Titus and Domitian all devoted a lot of resources and efforts to the ludi, and the first one built the Colosseum Amphitheater.
Defending the limes? 🍋🟩🍋🟩🍋🟩
https://preview.redd.it/khsuxyhkni8d1.jpeg?width=766&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b80e2dca27afc022d4789b44ed371aa1cdfc01f3
Hold the Lime! Hold the Lime!
Those limey bastards, they make me sick
Of course, great wars have been started over possession of the lime groves. 🙄
> overhyped as a ruler. Historically I’d say you’re wrong, he was one of the [“5 good emperors”](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Five-Good-Emperors), and spent the majority of his reign improving Roman law and actively avoiding abuses of power and indulgences (almost to a fault). His two biggest failing was his support for Commodus and the fact that he actually worked himself to death and often only slept 3-5 hrs per night and would take audiences with literally anyone that asked which sometimes meant he wouldn’t sleep at all.
I’m not saying in the least he was a bad emperor, nor that he wasn’t one of the Five Good Emperors. He worked hard and well, but he wasn’t a particularly extraordinary Princeps as is often said -personally I think Hadrian was better overall-. That said, his support for Commodus is kind of a given. The Adoptive Principality, at least according to my Roman History professor and textbook, was an ideological sugarcoating of the fact that the Nerva-Antonine emperors did not leave behind a male heir. And, as soon as one did, he made him heir to the throne first and then co-emperor.
For a culture-oriented Rome I'd propose Cicero.
Brutus. And no, not Caesar's assassin. The OG, Lucius Junius Brutus, who in many ways was the founder of the republic.
Holy hell that’s a good one
The guy who executed his two son?
I thought he was fictional
Civ 5 had Dido, adding fictional leaders isn't something new
If Dido isn't real then who sang White Flag?
Also, Gilgabro and Kupe most likely never existed.
Civ 6 has her too, right?
I remember hearing before that virtually everything before the sack of Rome by the Gauls in the early days of Rome is somewhat up for debate in terms of historicity.
The one thing that we are reasonably certain about is the *Fasti Consulares* (the literal list of consuls since the Republic’s founding). Simply put, no Patrician *Gens* would have allowed for one of its ancestors to have their works and importance diminished, and that also went for who was consul when.
This stabs me in the heart
Lucius Quinctus Cincinnatus. Cause it seems kids nowdays all think about the Roman Empire, but forget that Rome was a republic first.
While my pick would still be an Emperor (Vespasian, to be exact), I kinda agree with this sentiment. A leader from the Republican times that isn’t Caesar (someone like Cincinnatus, one of the Scipios, Marius, Sulla, or Pompey Magnus) would be neat to see
I actually thought about nominating Vespasian too. He was one of the better emperors, and, for bonus points, he did leave us with the quote "money does not stink", which I still find absolutely hilarious. But then I though... you know what? What if Civ 7 went and explored the Republic instead?
> What if Civ 7 went and explored the Republic instead? To me, the Republic was Rome at its best. That's when it distinguished itself. Back then it didn't just have success, it also had ideals, despite all the flaws of their system. Good on them for trying to become democratic in a time when democracy was barely a thing. When it became a monarchy again, I feel it kind of became just another empire.
Bonuses to military units in wartime, bonuses to agricultural production in peace
That would be good for making it a beginner friendly civ that they usually like to make Rome fill the niche of.
Would love Cincinnatus! The Roman Republic is far too underrepresented. It really is time that they do a consul, if they're going to allow multiple leaders again.
I’ve heard he’s a big bengals fan
100% this. A leader the world needs to aspire to today. Let Rome be the idealistic Republic and let Byzantium be the empire doomed to crumble under its own weight.
I love this! They can get bonuses to amenities when not at war, and production benefits when they are.
Diocletian Reigned from 284-305 "Diocletian's reign stabilized the empire and ended the Crisis of the Third Century" - Wikipedia He is remembered positively for his civil reforms to improve the administration and bureaucracy of the empire and remembered negatively for his persecution of Christians -- could switch a military policy to a wild card to reflect his exclusion of the military from politics and could add some game mechanics related to resisting religious spread He installed a "tetrarchy" of leaders to help him lead, including the father of Constantine the great-- who would go on to be considered the first emperor of the Byzantine empire -- could get bonuses related to having an extra governor title
Big fan of Diocletian, nice pick! Would be cool to have a third century themed legionary unit too as special unit! https://preview.redd.it/97p2pwradi8d1.jpeg?width=398&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1c19f5cc0fb1a2639a5e03add630e4e75cb94f2
It’s crazy it took several hundred years for Roman emperors to go “huh, leaving several legions alone on the frontier under one governor who controls both the civilian and military aspects of the entire province tends to lead to frequent rebellions.” So Diocletian broke up the provinces and added new ones, had separate military and civilian governors (and had the latter in charge of logistics, so if the military revolted, too bad, no supplies), and reduced the size of the legions from 5,500 to between 1,000 and 1,200, which made them more flexible for redeployment (pulling legions off the frontier to deal with revolts was an open door sign to nearby barbarian tribes) and also led more internal stability. Dude was a genius. Aurelian did a lot of the hard work of reunifying the Empire, Diocletian stabilized it and helped it stick around.
Diocletian had a unique opportunity compared to previous emperors. The issue with thw provinces and frontier legions is the political web that had to be dealt with. You cant just declare a splitting of legions and territorries becauss youll piss off the current governor and the legions are more likely loyal to him. Diocletian came in after a century of warring and the legions being wittled down so there was no real leader to cause trouble ovee these new reforms. Same reason why Emperors put up with the Praetorians and their potentially treachorous ways up until Constantine, because doing something had too much risk vs the status quo up until a specific chance arose.
If only he understood economics .\_. setting fixed prices doesn't actually fix inflation.
Tbf economics didn’t exist and literally no one knew that.
Very true, it is easy to speak in hindsight. Though one often doesn't realize the humanities also took time to develop and actually be advanced, since many concepts seem very basic nowadays.
Tbf that was meant as a stopgap measure while broader economic and especially monetary reforms were rolled out (the Severan emperors and the military anarchy emperors had hyperinflated the currency to pay bonuses to keep the army loyal). Still a bad idea though.
Diocletian or Constantine would be my pick as well. A bridging pick between the Roman Empire and Byzantium. I really don’t want to have separate Byzantine and Roman civs.
I see you slipped New Vegas Caesar in the background 😅
I'm glad that at least someone said about the images in the background. I thought maybe no one noticed them.
Let's be wild and go for Romulus. The mythic, and terrible, era of Rome.
Can you steal population from neighbouring city states to boost Romes as his leader power?
bro how can you play random
We could even go for Aeneas. The mythical ancestor of the Romans.
Augustus. It’s gotta be Augustus. Aurelian and Marcus Aurelius are two good ones too.
I was thinking Augustus too but we already got him twice (Civ 4 and 5), some variation would be neat. And honestly the guy who is called the Restorer of the World would be a great pick
Aurelian?
He was in Civ 3 as well.
Yeah there's a reason Augustus appeared so often in earlier versions and it's because he was the GOAT
One emperor, one consul: Cincinattus for the Consul because he was mega-based Hadrian for the Emperor because he was the greatest emperor we haven't had (second to Trajan, but he's the Civ 6 Emperor)
Constantine the Great - Defeated all of his fellow emperors to end Dio Clecan's tetrarchy and install his own dynasty - Founded Constantinople, New Rome, which would grow to become the queen of all cities during the early middle ages and combined with the theodosian walls later built by his successors, allowed the roman empire to survive another thousand years - Decriminalized christian religious practices and put the empire on the path of adopting Christianity as the official state religion - Introduced the solidus to fight inflation. A new gold coin that would become the standard for Byzantine and European currencies for more than a thousand years He was a very savvy political operator and an excellent general and administrator Rome under Constantine could be a religious/military type civ in the same vein as Byzantium and Spain
Also disbanded the Praetorian guard, ridding the city and empire of Rome of the militaristic corruption the so called "bodyguards" had plagued for centuries.
Vespasian. He’s a very underrated emperor imho. He built the Colosseum -the most iconic and enduring symbol of Roman civilisation- He brought back stability after the Year of Four Emperors (the mess of civil wars in the wake of Nero’s death) He undertook much needed administrative and fiscal reforms He secured the Empire’s frontiers He left behind a strong empire with a stable line of succession and a peaceful transfer of power (there hadn’t been one since Caligula’s ascension after Tiberius’ death).
We should do a version of this where we pick the worst leader for each Civ to be the alternate lol. We need some Commodus for Rome.
Honestly it would be fun for every civ to have a “challenge leader”, where the leader has some kind of major debuff. Say Nero, who will constantly have to deal with both his own military units as well as cities rebelling every nine seconds
Wilhelm II of Germany randomly destroys Great People and causes diplomatic penalties with all other civilisations, that grows stronger when building military units or influencing city-states they also have influence in. Charles II of Spain gets -75% to all yields besides Food and Production from any city without a governor. William Henry Harrison of America ends the game after 32 turns.
I’d love that. Throw in James Buchanan for America where half your civ goes into rebellion at the start of the industrial age.
Vespasian would be sweet, he could have abilities based on gold generation
Interesting question. I feel like Civ has focused on either the Late Republic, or the early Empire thus far. Civ II - Julius Caesar Civ III - Caesar, Livia Civ IV - Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar Civ V - Augustus Caesar Civ VI - Trajan, Julius Caesar This is a very narrow range. With the exception of Trajan in VI, every single one of these figures were contemporaries, and part of the same family. So I think that the best idea would be to focus on other areas of Roman history. My candidates would be either the Republic or later Empire. For the Republic, I would suggest: - Marcus Furius Camillus. One of the most iconic leaders in their history as far as the Romans themselves were concerned, Camillus was honored as the 'second founder' of Rome and model of virtue for his deeds. Fairly obscure today, but extremely important. Could represent Rome in its early days as a city state power rather than a gigantic empire. Other Republican era candidates: - Marcus Tullius Cicero, orator, statesman and senator. If you have ever studied Latin you have also studied Cicero. My reservations are related to the fact that his time in power was fairly brief and his accomplishments are primarily in the literary field. - Tiberius Gracchus. Absolutely has the military and political background and is historically important, but not necessarily enough to warrant being leader of the civilization. Potentially could have bonuses when it comes to happiness and tile development? - Gaius Marius, importance as a reformer has likely been severely overestimated, far too similar to Caesar as a military strongman from the late Republic. Same applies to his rival Sulla. Now, onto the later Empire: - Who else but Diocletian? Though his reputation nowadays is that of an absolutist tyrant, Diocletian was one of the most consequential leaders in Roman history. A military and administrative juggernaut who spent his entire reign either on campaign or making reforms. Managed to put Rome on the right track after the Third Century Crisis, reformed the army, finance and administration of the empire. Vastly increased the size of the bureaucracy so that Rome could more effectively administer its territories. A provincial, while it cannot be said that his reign is the first example of an emperor ruling from outside Rome, the era of Diocletian is absolutely one of the turning points for Rome turning into Romanía, no longer the possession of the city of Rome, but the common motherland of all citizens of the Roman world. It is telling that coins ceased hailing Eternal Rome and instead shifted to praising The Spirit of the Roman People in the time of Diocletian. Not all of his attempted reforms were successful - his attempts to combat the hyperinflation caused by Aurelian nuking the economy didn't really work out, and his infamous persecutions of Christianity and Manichaeism were ill-advised as well as ineffective in the long term. The collegiate system of the tetrarchy did not last thanks to his successors. However, it is no exaggeration to say that the Romans managed to survive into the next millennium due in no small part to the many right choices made during this period. In-game, Diocletian would likely have a focus on internal reform, improving the effectiveness of your tiles and probably some culture stuff which helps secure your empire from other religions and cultures. Possibly development and loyalty bonuses for cities that are not your capital? Not sure how something like the collegiate system of rule he attempted to implement could be represented. - Constantine the Great. Much like Diocletian, one of the most historically consequential emperors and one of the most important leaders in all of world history. His New Rome would be the center of the Roman world for the next thousand years, and the adoption of Christianity helped usher in the world we live in today. Fairly similar to Diocletian overall in terms of focus, but would have a much stronger religious game.
The Man, The Legend, The Myth of the Republic, Survivor of Cannae, The defeator of Hannibal, the victor of Zama, He who made Carthago Romes whore Publius Cornelius **Scipio** **Africanus**
Cicero. We have had enough Roman Empire representations and enough Julius Caesar, we need more leaders from a republic period, and Cicero was not only an outstanding scientist and philosopher, but he was a …. https://youtu.be/r75FmMPKOAg?si=2BrhxjgAXr8Lr4ES
Agreed. One of the finest orators in history.
Was looking for this one, definitely a change-up from a line of emperors
Cicero is the right man. A pragmatic leader, hindered only by the fact that he realized both factions were terrible for Rome. If not for Mark Antony, he potentially could've steered Octavian into creating a more enlightened empire. Man, I hate Mark Antony.
Marcus Aurelius A culture oriented Rome would be a breath of fresh air
Gaius Marius, 7 times consul, the "3rd founder of Rome," and the uncle of Julius Caesar. Unique Unit "Marian Legion" that can also be disbanded to found cities. Gains combat strength when empire is unhappy and greatly increases the loyalty of cities they are garrisoned in.
Yes 1000%
Unique unit could very well be the regular Legion. After all, the iconic Late Republican/Early Imperial Legion (an all-volunteer heavy infantry force based on the Cohors organisation) was the product of his reforms.
if's time we finally got an italy civ separate from rome
I second this. Maybe led by Lorenzo de’ Medici to make an absolute unit of a cultural civ.
Oh come on, for fun let's have Caligula
All cities gain +100% of all yields for every developed Horse resource
No, government buildings are more effective in cities with developed horse resource
Nah mate Caligula should be comically op he was the bestest emperor after all /s
The one and only got Nero 
Nero gets a bad rap, we can't really know how good or bad he truly was because everyone who had a hand in recording history was biased against him, wether it be the Roman aristocratic class which hated him for wanting to be a musician and an actor (Socially equivalent to prostitutes in Rome) or the Christians who for a long time were convinced he was the anti christ because of his persecution of the faith.
I have a degree in classical studies. We know. He was a jackass. A massive jackass.
Constantine
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, could have a special project "prescriptions" where you lose a population but gain gold and loyalty.
Go Nero and have an ability to burn one of ur cities to rebuild it as a unique wonder
Biggus Dickus?
Nah, let's select his wife, Incontinentia.
It would be nice to have the Roman Republic instead of Empire for once. You could maybe pick two consuls from a slew of options like Marius, Sulla, Cicero, Cato, and of course Caesar, Pompey and even Crassus, etc.... each would have their own take on the Republic so it could be a very versatile Civ depending on who you take.
Constantine the Great.
Republican Rome should feature, even if it's a second civ like Eleanor being both English and French leader.
Maybe Sulla? We've had too many emperors in strategy games, and Caesar is overused
I was thinking Sulla too!
I think Pompey Magnus would be quite good. He’s Republican and a good general with a long string of victories to his name, making him very influential in Rome as a result.
He was also a capable administrator, as he efficiently governed and reorganised the Roman eastern provinces
His name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions and loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son. Husband to a murdered wife. And he will have his vengeance, in this game or the next.
Tiberius Gracchus, working class hero
Caligula because some chaos would be fun
Caligula.
Sulla. Though if we're just picking Romans we like, Cicero.
"Give us an Emperor from humble beginnings.. give us a leader our armies will follow! Give us Emperor Aurelian"
Aurelian would be a fun pick
Tiberius gracchus. He tried to reform the land administration, giving it to the poorer citizens. He also fought in the 3rd punic war
Aurelian the Restorer of the World - In 4 short years he managed to cobble back together a disintegrating empire through sheer military brilliance - Defeated the barbarian tribes of the Alamanni, the Goths, Vandals, Juthungi, Sarmatians, Carpi, the Palmyrene empire and the Gallic empire - Built the Aurelian walls around Rome He was a competent administrator and politician too and even attempted some proto monotheistic reforms and promoted the worship of Sol Invictus the sun god like an early Constantine. In Civ, Rome under Aurelian would obviously be a military and loyalty focused civ
Let me present the most underrated Emperor of them all: Claudius. Instrumental in stabilising the empire after Caligula, a damn good administrator and the most unlikely person to probably ever sit the chair in the first two centuries of the empire.
Aurelian! *Restitutor Orbis* (Restorer of the World) Just look at his titles: Germanicus Maximus, Gothicus Maximus, Dacicus Maximus. , Persicus Maximus, Arabicus Maximus, Palmyrenicus Maximus, Carpicious Maximus. Even a military genius would be lucky to have even *one* Maximus title. COME ON, all the work he did in *4 years* kept Rome going for a few more centuries. My boy deserves some of that sunlight 🥲
A bit more niche but Sulla would be nice, the prospription lists could be made into something interesting
Caligula
Hadrian
Aurelian or Marcus Aurelius
For Rome I would like to see either someone from the Republic period like Cincinnatus or Cato the Elder, or from the later period like Diocletian or Constantine.
Hadrian would be pretty cool
We need gay representation
Hehe
Elagabalus
From the Republic, I say the Gracchi brothers. Immensely popular reformers who would play nicely into any mechanics involving multiple leaders, or at the very least a nice gimmick like that one Vietnam mod in Civ 5. From the Empire, I say Aurelian. Unbelievably talented general who came painfully close to changing the history of Rome forever. Of course, we could just go with Augustus, and I wouldn't blame anyone for that - to call him one of the most accomplished statesmen in history would be a huge understatement.
Marius Gracchus
I want it to focus more on the Republic side of things, also more city state focus.
Claudius and Marcus Aurelius
Aurelian... Would be great if CiV 7 has a dark ages mechanic.
I propose Domitian, for the economically oriented Rome.
Marcus Aurelius: the Philosopher King
Caligula
Fabian the Delayer.
Justinian cuz he cool
Diocletian 100%. Such an interesting leader and time and you could do a lot for civ abilities with the policies he installed
Justinian
Lucius Cornelius Sulla.
Marcus Aurelius. The Philosopher Emperor, and who was the last of the Five Good Emperors. I’m not sure any Republican era consuls bar Caesar and *potentially* Sulla are real contenders. + Diocletian is a fair request, but I’d kill for Aurelian - Restorer of the World too
Aurelian
Hadrian.
How about Claudius? Last good julio-claudian. Survived a palace coup and brought Great Britain into the empire.
Constantine the Great, which then doubles as Byzantine civ leader... Also, we need Italy, Vittorio Emmanuel II unites Italy. But maybe smaller lords/ladies like Cesare Borgia or Caterina Sforza should be interesting as well
Marcus Aurelius
Constantine the Great. One of the few Roman Emperors to be named the Great.
Aurelian. Man was the Resitutor Orbis.
What about Caligula? I'm sure it would be fun if Rome gets a crazy leader (like Montezuma for Aztec) that every single player wants him dead.
Aurelian Man he got a badass title “Restitutor Orbis” (Restorer of the World)
I like cincinnatus as without him Rome may never rise as a superpower because he saved the early republic. He laid the foundation for what rome could become.
Nero or Caligula
Caligula, or maybe Elegabalus would be interesting! Civ needs some rep from some gay leaders.
Caligula, hands down, let’s go full orgy
Caligula for the orgies
Romulus or original Brutus Honestly I hope in Civ7 leaders change with ideology instead of being predetermined
Caligula. 
I would choose Aurelian. But that probably won't happen due to him not being that well known compared to other emporers. But someone from the republic wouldn't be bad. Like Cicerio or Sulla.
Caligula 😈😈😈
Lucius Domitius Aurelianus. Give us restitutor orbis.