Why Theodora?

I'm sorry if this topic seems inflammatory in nature. Please rest assured that I intend only to air my concerns, which I personally believe well-founded, and discuss them with a wider audience in the hopes of ultimately being able to more easily resign myself to a rather unfavourable situation.

My question is, why Theodora, as representative figurehead of the Byzantine empire?

My concern with this particular decision rises not from her gender, though that aspect of it may indeed be related, in a manner of speaking. It rises more of my impressions of her largely negative influence on the empire at large during her tenure as it's ruler's close advisor, and her overall lack of true worthiness to be counted alongside such revered figures as Dido of Carthage (whose claim to fame is more than validated by her having founded Carthage, and served as its ruler, after a manner of speaking) and even Wu Zetian, whose rule, while much derided by Chinese historians was ultimately still rule under her (more or less) sole authority.

Firstly, Theodora did not even connive her way to the top in the manner Wu Zetian did. She was chosen, out of affection, by the emperor Justinian I after he saw her performance at what was essentially a burlesque, Theodora being, at the time, a prostitute. It was thus Justinian's hard headed attitude towards chosing his own bride that led to her ascent, rather than any machinations on her part.

Furthermore, Theodora's influence on byzantine court politics can be said to have negatively impacted the empire's ability to function, given her constant stoking of Justinian's inevitable paranoia. Her actions in doing this would lead to Belisarius, who had already proven himself more than loyal in refusing to be hailed as Emperor by his troops while on campaign, being pretty much punished for his faithful service with exile and several interruptions of otherwise successful campaigns. While I do not subscribe to the school of thought that has Belisarius reconquering all of Europe for Justinian had the emperor simply given his general sufficient support, I will posit that Belisarius' holdings could likely have been held far more effectively had Theodora's ultimately self-serving machinations not turned her husband against his champion during a period of time in which Byzantium's armies were also stretched to their limits by the effects of one of the greatest outbreaks of bubonic plague in recorded history. If we are, furthermore, to believe half of Procopius' Secret History, the veracity of which is admittedly dubious at best given his well-known antipathy towards the empress, her worth as a representative of an entire civilisation diminishes even further!

I would have been so happy to have seen as Byzantium's representative the likes of Alexius I Comnenus, Heraclius I, John Tzimisces or Basil II Boulgaroktonos, or any of these lesser known heroes of that empire. I would even have been slightly less miffed to see Irene or Zoe up here. Conniving vipers as they were, at least they had more solid claims to sole rulership and enough influence on Byzantium's theological scene to make sense in the context of this expansion's additions to the game's base mechanics.

So, really, it's not that Theodora's a woman. It's that she is a really, really crappy choice for figurehead for the Byzantine Empire. A thousand-year old civilization deserves a far better figurehead than what was essentially its version of Marie Antoinette.

I am sincerely unable to see any reason for this decision other than one which gravitates towards a ridiculous drive towards equal opportunity avatarhood or arguably even less useful nostalgia for Civ 3, where Theodora was also byzantium's representative. An empire run by Theodora, as far as I can see, would be one steeped in nepotism, cronyism, elitist favouritism, debauchery and tyranny. If the developers are so blinded to this, as Justinian was by Theodora's beauty, by their eagerness to have byzantium's ruler be female, then this situation begins to take upon itself tragic undertones that I am truly sad to see.

The only reason she's in is that she's a woman. I would have liked Justinian best tho'...

D0MIN1C said:

The only reason she's in is that she's a woman. I would have liked Justinian best tho'...

Click to expand...

Yeah & that sucks. Few female leaders deserve to be in like Elizbeth, Isabella etc, atleast they need to be capable enough to be counted as somewhat a good leader. It is like making Darius III the leader of Persia or Bahadur Shah II the leader of India.

In case anyone wants to read about it.

"The Emperor was hissed at in the Circus (11 Jan. 532), and the disturbance spread beyond the boundaries of the hippodrome, and soon reached all quarters of the city. Greens and Blues made common cause against the hated government, and soon to the accompaniment of cries of NIKA (Victory) the crowd was tearing at the railings of the imperial palace, demanding the dismissal of the praefect of the city, and of the two hated ministers, Tribonian and John of Cappadocia. Justinian gave way, but too late. His apparent weakness only encouraged the mob, and the revolt became a revolution. The fires kindled by the rebels raged for three days, and destroyed the finest quarters of the capital. Justinian, almost destitute of means of defense, shut himself up in the palace without attempting to do anything, and the obvious result followed. As might have been expected, the mob proclaimed emperor Hypatius, the nephew of Anastasius, and, swelled by all malcontents, the insurrection became a definite political movement. "The Empire," wrote an eye-witness, "seemed on the verge of its fall." Justinian, in despair of curbing the riot which had continued for six days, lost his head, and thought of saving himself by flight. He had already ordered to load the imperial treasure in ships. It was then that Theodora rose in the Council, to recall to their duty the Emperor and ministers who were abandoning it. She said: “When safety only remains in flight still I will not flee. Those who have worn the crown should not survive its fall. I will never live to see the day when I shall no longer be saluted as Empress. Flee if you wish, Caesar; you have money, the ships await you, the sea is unguarded. As for me, I stay. I hold with the old proverb which says that the purple is a good winding-sheet”. This display of energy revived the courage of all. As soon as discord had been sown among the rebels by a lavish distribution of gold, Belisarius and Mundus with their barbarian mercenaries threw themselves on the crowd collected in the hippodrome. They gave no quarter, but continued their bloody work throughout the night (18 January). More than 30,000 corpses according to one computation, more than 50,000 according to other witnesses, flooded the arena with blood. Hypatius and Pompeius were arrested, and both executed the next morning. Other condemnations followed, and, thanks to the frightful bloodshed which ended this six days' battle, order was established once more in the capital, and thenceforth the imperial power became more absolute than ever. "


This is exactly why there should be two rulers to choose from in CiV, like it was in Civ II. Although, I do not feel there has to always be one man ruler and one woman ruler.

Justinian I was great as we all know. Theodora though did have balls. She was no coward and saved Justinian's reign, by stirring him with her words to stand and fight, during the Nika revolt. He wanted to run away, to save his neck and his gold.

I do not mind her being the ruler of the Byzantine empire. Though she did not rule by herself. She made great strides towards policies that frankly were way ahead of her time. The status of women in the Byzantine empire far exceeded that of women who lived in the Middle East or Europe, due to Theordora's involvement for reform in that regard. She was beautiful, intelligent, had a wordly mind, and was no coward. I don't see a problem having her as the leader of the Byzntines.

Iprotagonist said:

My question is, why Theodora, as representative figurehead of the Byzantine empire?

Click to expand...

She's famous and at a few particular points during Justinian's reign, she seemed more in charge than he was.

such revered figures as Dido of Carthage (whose claim to fame is more than validated by her having founded Carthage, and served as its ruler, after a manner of speaking)

Click to expand...

Dido was semi-mythological. Her fame has to do with the fact that in a Roman propaganda book she killed herself. I don't know if I'd count that as revered.

I like that they choose female leaders, but their choices are really bad. They could have chosen much better female leaders. If they wanted female leaders why not choose Hatshepsut for Egypt and Margaret for Denmark.

I dont really understand why they should make totally idiotic leader choices like choosing Cleopatra for Egypt (in Civ III) just because she is famous for other reasons. Is somebody really going to buy a game just because it has Cleopatra as leader of Egypt.

Why Theodora?

because it is a game.

Civ5 is a game.

if u want history lessons then go back to where ever you learnt about theodora from.

Inhalaattori said:

why not choose Hatshepsut for Egypt and Margaret for Denmark.

Click to expand...

because its a game.

civ5 is a game.



and 99% of people have never heard of Hatshepsut, while Cleopatra is so ingrained in certain markets that its a by word for beauty.

Only 1% of the people on Earth have heard of Hatshepsut! That's disconcerting! I do agree though CiV is just a game. Still I like to associate it with history.

Whatever rulers the devs pick is fine by me. I do like that they pick new ones sometimes. Why have the same old thing over and over with each new version. Some diversity in civs and leaders, I feel is a good thing.

nokmirt said:

Only 1% of the people on Earth have heard of Hatshepsut! That's disconcerting!

Click to expand...

Ha yeah, let's have Michael Jordan rule the United States! EVERYONE has heard of him!

I remember when they were describing leaders for Civ4 civs to someone at gamespot and the gamespot interviewer's face got a glassy look of confusion when Hatshepsut of Egypt got mentioned.

Louis XXIV said:

I remember when they were describing leaders for Civ4 civs to someone at gamespot and the gamespot interviewer's face got a glassy look of confusion when Hatshepsut of Egypt got mentioned.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen the Civ4 spoof with George Bush?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1dn1J5_BwA Interesting, I cannot get the youtube tags to work properly. Oh well!

Yeah, I saw that. Civ Anon was a good campaign strategy that worked well because fandom was at its height.

Civ has never been a series particularly well known for choosing the most "appropriate" leaders, or for representing them fairly.

Usually, Civ leaders are ones that:
1) Are the most likely to be widely known in the U.S.
2) Have some sort of visual representation in art (the more popular the piece, the better)
3) Can be given a unique spin in describing their rule or leadership style
4) Can be played for comedy (This last one has been reduced drastically from civ 4, I think)

You can definitely argue the point that none of these points for inclusion are historically accurate, realistic, or fair. You would be correct. Historical accuracy is a low priority for civilization games. That isn't an excuse or a failing of the series, it is an aspect of marketability that is working as designed.

In the case of Theodora, well, Byzantium in general I don't think is widely known in the U.S. But, if it were known, and someone did pop out an average American history book, Constantine, Justinian, and Theodora are likely the only names included. Out of the three, Theodora is the easiest to put a spin to. She influenced or manipulated Justinian into a wide array of actions, many of which (but certainly not all) had negative consequences, and is considered a feminist icon in some circles (it would be easy to argue about this, and also pointless); I don't think it is fair to paint her as being utterly poisonous to the empire.

So, no, Theodora isn't included just to "balance the genders", as it was pointed out you could pick other perfectly respectable female leaders of Byzantium, or female leaders for many other civs, if that was the case. The issue is: Of the (very short list of) Byzantine leaders that average U.S. gamers are likely to know about, it was probably decided that she was the most unique and memorable. Honestly? I wouldn't blink if Marie Antoinette was ever included as a leader. Her image and story are widely known, and competence isn't a reason for inclusion as a leader in civ as a series.

My main problem with Theodora is that she wasn't a ruler. I understand that she was (very) influential. Hell, she's the one who convinced Justinian to stay during the Nika revolt, when he was about to flee. She also is the one who convinced Justinian to grant better rights to woman. She actually did a lot more than that, those are just two important points.

But like I said, she wasn't a ruler. It would be like making Benjamin Franklin the leader of the US. She was a trusted and influential advisor, but an advisor nonetheless. This decision would be a little more acceptable if their really weren't any other choices for leader of the Byzantine Empire. But their were plenty, including Justinian, who was a great leader in his own right.

CivilizedPlayer said:

My main problem with Theodora is that she wasn't a ruler.

Click to expand...

And Ghandi was never the technical ruler of India. Just such an influential figure that his name in synonymous with India. There is room for such figures at times in Civilization games. And it is important to acknowledge that though women were at a disadvantage for much of history, several women played historically important roles.

Ghandi I'm more okay with. Although he was never the "ruler", he was still the sole most powerful political figure of his time, and could quite well have become the ruler if it weren't for his assassination. He is the reason that India even exists, and (most importantly to this discussion), he was second to no one in India at that time. On the other hand, Theodora was just an influential advisor.

bcaiko said:

And Ghandi was never the technical ruler of India. Just such an influential figure that his name in synonymous with India. There is room for such figures at times in Civilization games. And it is important to acknowledge that though women were at a disadvantage for much of history, several women played historically important roles.

Click to expand...

lol owned. I like the woman leader more than Justinian.

CivilizedPlayer said:

My main problem with Theodora is that she wasn't a ruler.

Click to expand...

CivilizedPlayer said:

Ghandi I'm more okay with. Although he was never the "ruler"...

Click to expand...

Your original statement should be appended to "My main problem is that she wasn't a ruler, and wasn't adequately competent or historically significant to be considered a valid substitute", since that is the exception you're making for Gandhi. To that, I say again: Historical significance and competence do not even come close to making it on the list of potential reasons to include someone as a leader for a commercial release of a game in the civ series. Leaders are included for being well known or interesting.

This is the chief reason why the Zulu are a staple of the series, despite being completely irrelevant when placed on the scales of "all human history"; Shaka didn't build a mighty empire to stand the test of time, he resisted British Colonialism using sound tactics for a short period of time before being wiped out, and is comparatively well known for it in western history.

Louis XXIV said:

Dido was semi-mythological. Her fame has to do with the fact that in a Roman propaganda book she killed herself. I don't know if I'd count that as revered.

Click to expand...

According to Greek tellings of the Dido legend, she commits suicide too. But not because she was a jilted lover, but rather because she wished to avoid marring a Numidian chief.
Or something
On Theo; shes decent, not the Byzantine leader I would have chosen (Basil I); but not a choice I would complain about.