Designing Egypt in Civ7: Which Ramses should lead?

[pokiehl]

The Ptolemies were not foreign conquerors of Egypt, you say?

No? What does it matter that they were foreign born? Assuming the mantle of Egypt and ruling Egypt from Egypt is far different from a separate state conquering Egypt and ruling it from afar as a province.

Race and ethnicity are quite different concepts, despite being very often disingenuously and irresponsibly conflated in modern polemics.

Not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about?

 

[Patine]

No? What does it matter that they were foreign born? Assuming the mantle of Egypt and ruling Egypt from Egypt is far different from a separate state conquering Egypt and ruling it from afar as a province.

Alexander conquered and ruled it as a separate state ruling a province. The Ptolemies just ended up with only Egypt, unlike the vast domains of Seleucus, in how things unfolded.

Not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about?

Clarifying such counter-productive and ruinous tropes of discussion is always worthwhile.

 

[pokiehl]

Alexander conquered and ruled it as a separate state ruling a province. The Ptolemies just ended up with only Egypt, unlike the vast domains of Seleucus, in how things unfolded.

Yeah but we're not talking about Alexander leading Egypt. We're talking about the Ptolemies. The amount of territory the Ptolemies could have controlled or not controlled from Egypt is immaterial and doesn't change the fact that they were the Egyptian state.

Clarifying such counter-productive and ruinous tropes of discussion is always worthwhile

Huh? I was just saying that I don't think it's wise to focus on ethnicity or race or anything like that when we're assessing the appropriateness of someone being a leader.

 

[Patine]

Yeah but we're not talking about Alexander leading Egypt. We're talking about the Ptolemies. The amount of territory the Ptolemies could have controlled or not controlled from Egypt is immaterial and doesn't change the fact that they were the Egyptian state.

But the Ptolemies are certainly not in a historical void from Alexander's Macedonians. In fact, they WERE Alexander's Macedonians. And, all romanticisization aside, they were just as much the same sort of exploitative, expropriating, cavalier, detached, and elitist foreigners in the land they ruled as the Seleucids.

 

[pokiehl]

And, all romanticisization aside, they were just as much the same sort of exploitative, expropriating, cavalier, detached, and elitist foreigners in the land they ruled as the Seleucids.

No they were not. Your characterization of the Ptolemaic period as tantamount to a modern era exploitative colonial power is absolutely not correct. I would be interested in any sources you have stating otherwise.

 

[Patine]

No they were not. Your characterization of the Ptolemaic period as tantamount to a modern era exploitative colonial power is absolutely not correct. I would be interested in any sources you have stating otherwise.

They've had a tendency to be romanticized and whitewashed in common portrayal for decades.

 

[Dale]

Sorry, but the Ptolemies spoke Greek. They followed Macedonian traditions (including keeping marriage in the family). The Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Greek State in Egypt, and they considered themselves Hellenic first.

Cleopatra was the first Ptolemy who tried to integrate herself into Egyptian society.

Again, why choose a foreign ruler, when so many great native leaders exist?

 

[Dale]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Unlike in your example, the Ptolemies were Egyptian rulers, ruling Egypt from Egypt, immersed in all aspects of the Egyptian state and religious apparatuses. Some of the greatest achievements in all of Egyptian history occurred under their dynasty; the best preserved Egyptian temple dates to their time. In short, Ptolemaic rule of Egypt was of markedly different character than say, Achaemenid dominion.

I think treading down the "native rulers only" path might prove intellectually perilous. The grandchildren and onward of Ptolemy I Soter who took up the mantle of the empire would have been born and raised in Egypt. Should we exclude Saladin from ruling Arabia because he was not ethnically Arab? Napoleon was born in Corsica; does his heritage preclude him from being included as leader of France? Do you similarly dislike Nader Shah, an ethnic Turkoman, leading Persia?

Moreover, focusing this much on race is ahistorical. You are looking at this through a very modern nativist lens.

Firstly, I am not looking at this "through a very modern nativist lens". That's pretty unfair of you to say that, and has nothing to do with this discussion. It's a poor comment to say IMO.

I also didn't say "native rulers only". I said I prefer my Civ leaders be native leaders, specially when there are so many awesome native leaders to choose from. If no good native leaders exist, then sure, look outside that realm. But when good native leaders exist, I don't see why, other than marketing to the masses, we should leave that preference.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sorry, but the Ptolemies spoke Greek. They followed Macedonian traditions (including keeping marriage in the family). The Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Greek State in Egypt, and they considered themselves Hellenic first.

Cleopatra was the first Ptolemy who tried to integrate herself into Egyptian society.

Again, why choose a foreign ruler, when so many great native leaders exist?

Considering Cleopatra was born in Egypt and integrated herself into Egyptian society, I think that should at least override the fact that she was ethnically Macedonian Greek.

I'm not necessarily making an endorsement for her for the next iteration, because I do think it's about time we had another leader for them, including Ramses II. If you count the Civ Rev games, and her extra personas in Civ 6 as well, she's been the leader portrayed the most.

 

[pokiehl]

They've had a tendency to be romanticized and whitewashed in common portrayal for decades.

You'll have to pardon me here: ...what? Who whitewashes them? How? And what does that have to do with what I said, and how does it answer my question?

Sorry, but the Ptolemies spoke Greek. They followed Macedonian traditions (including keeping marriage in the family).

What are you sorry about? So what if they spoke Greek? Napoleon spoke Italian. Also, Ptolemaic tradition of "keeping marriage in the family" by marrying direct siblings and offpsring was distinctively Egyptian...that's like one of the most common things people know about ancient Egyptian royalty: incest. I don't know of any Macedonians who married their parents or married their brother/sister. Can you link me?

So disregarding the incest thing which is very Egyptian, what Macedonian traditions did they follow?

Sorry, but the Ptolemies spoke Greek. They followed Macedonian traditions (including keeping marriage in the family). The Ptolemaic Kingdom was a Greek State in Egypt, and they considered themselves Hellenic first.

They considered themselves a hybrid, syncretic culture from day one.

Cleopatra was the first Ptolemy who tried to integrate herself into Egyptian society.

Well that's not true. The Ptolemies wholesale adopted Egyptian titulary, imagery, and customs; took part in Egyptian society (including important religious ceremonies); built Egyptian temples; adopted Egyptian religion; and overall wholly embraced being an Egyptian state. You guys just keep saying "nuh-uh" but those are all facts.

Again, why choose a foreign ruler, when so many great native leaders exist? ...Firstly, I am not looking at this "through a very modern nativist lens". That's pretty unfair of you to say that, and has nothing to do with this discussion. It's a poor comment to say IMO.

Why does it matter if they were "foreign"? Why does being native born make someone a better choice for Ancient Egypt? Does this dichotomy even make sense? We're talking about people who were born in Egypt and lived their entire lives in Egypt.

I don't know why that seems to have offended you so much; it was not my intent to say anything rude and I hope you're not taking this discussion personally. But you keep focusing on this "foreign vs native" thing--I don't know what else to call it other than that. If you can clue me in on why that was an inappropriate thing to say, I will of course apologize. I'm just confused about this. You reiterate your feelings below:

I also didn't say "native rulers only". I said I prefer my Civ leaders be native leaders, specially when there are so many awesome native leaders to choose from. If no good native leaders exist, then sure, look outside that realm. But when good native leaders exist, I don't see why, other than marketing to the masses, we should leave that preference.

But you clearly prefer 'native rulers.' I feel like we're arguing very minute semantics with that point, but I think you understood my meaning.

But again -- why does foreign vs native matter for ancient Egypt? Why do you prefer it? What difference does it make?

 

[Patine]

You'll have to pardon me here: ...what? Who whitewashes them? How?

Well, claiming the Ptolemies completely and seamlessly integrated and aslymilated themselves into Egyptian society, traditon, and religion, flawleesly, from day one, is OBVIOUSLY from a source of the whitewashing I refer to, right there.

And what does that have to do with what I said, and how does it answer my question?

You have bad habit of always demanding to know the relevance of points made when such is obvious, or, at least can be easily discerned. It comes across (whatever the real intent, which I won't guess or presume) as disingenuous and bad faith arguement.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I would like:
- Hatshepsut, a really notable female leader, not only a great builder but also sponsored expeditions to foreign markets.
- Ramses II, I know there are many more good options but like Victoria(England) or Alexander(Greece) he have many reasons to be THE regular Pharaoh.
- Akhenaten, despite his reforms were later reversed, just the fact that he achieved to implement those changes that still lasted some more time after him was an achievement itself.
His persona is very interesting in a way he can certainly catch players attention and the whole idea of found a new religion fit perfectly for some in-game mechanic about it.

By the way I dont see where is the problem with the Atenism leader when the traditional "*Kemetism*" wasnt really represented in-game as its own thing in CIV games. I think CIV's tendency to represent and characterized only religions that are significative now (relatively exceptions like Tengri and Zoroastranism) is a weak point for some interesting scenarios like Manichaean or Atenist civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

- Ramses II, I know there are many more good options but like Victoria(England) or Alexander(Greece) he have many reasons to be THE regular Pharaoh.

You meant to say Elizabeth instead of Victoria, right?
He's second to Cleopatra, in terms of appearances, so I think he could sit out an iteration as well. I agree with your other choices.

 

[BuchiTaton]

You meant to say Elizabeth instead of Victoria, right?
He's second to Cleopatra, in terms of appearances, so I think he could sit out an iteration as well. I agree with your other choices.

To be honest I have no problem with both Elizabeth and Victoria being regular English leaders every CIV game, I think they deserve it and being each game >5 years apart and increasing most people would also want to see them again.

 

[Dale]

@pokiehl I suggest you google "were the ptolemies greek or egyptian" and have a read of what historians have concluded. Even wikipedia, in all its unreliability, has this to say on the question:

"The Ptolemaic Kingdom (/ˌtɒlɪˈmeɪ.ɪk/; Koinē Greek: Πτολεμαϊκὴ βασιλεία, romanized: Ptolemaïkḕ basileía)[6] or Ptolemaic Empire[7] was an Ancient Greek state based in Egypt during the Hellenistic period."

And further down:

"To legitimize their rule and gain recognition from native Egyptians, the Ptolemies adopted the title of pharaoh,[9] alongside the Greek title of basileus,[3][4] and had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress; otherwise, the monarchy rigorously maintained its Hellenistic character and traditions.[9] The kingdom had a complex government bureaucracy that exploited the country's vast economic resources to the benefit of a Greek ruling class, which dominated military, political, and economic affairs, and which rarely integrated into Egyptian society and culture. Native Egyptians maintained power over local and religious institutions, and only gradually accrued power in the bureaucracy, provided they Hellenized."

Sounds quite like an occupying foreign power if you ask me.

Anyways, I still feel Egypt would be better represented by any of many Pharaohs from the 2800 years of native rule, than the 280 years of Ptolemaic rule. Even if you remove the whole 'native or foreign' equation, there were so many more worthy native Pharaohs, than there were Ptolemaic rulers.

 

[pokiehl]

Well, claiming the Ptolemies completely and seamlessly integrated and aslymilated themselves into Egyptian society, traditon, and religion, flawleesly, from day one, is OBVIOUSLY from a source of the whitewashing I refer to, right there.


You have bad habit of always demanding to know the relevance of points made when such is obvious, or, at least can be easily discerned. It comes across (whatever the real intent, which I won't guess or presume) as disingenuous and bad faith arguement.

My questions to you were genuine: I am truly having a hard time following the points you're making. You ignore what I've asked you, don't acknowledge any counterpoints, change the subject with non-sequitur claims, and keep begging the question without any evidence (your argument here about the whitewashing or whatever assumes your very conclusion in its premise).

On top of all that, your tone is getting increasingly hostile. I don't think I have much to gain by continuing the conversation.

 

[pokiehl]

@pokiehl I suggest you google "were the ptolemies greek or egyptian" and have a read of what historians have concluded. Even wikipedia, in all its unreliability, has this to say on the question:

"The Ptolemaic Kingdom (/ˌtɒlɪˈmeɪ.ɪk/; Koinē Greek: Πτολεμαϊκὴ βασιλεία, romanized: Ptolemaïkḕ basileía)[6] or Ptolemaic Empire[7] was an Ancient Greek state based in Egypt during the Hellenistic period."

And further down:

"To legitimize their rule and gain recognition from native Egyptians, the Ptolemies adopted the title of pharaoh,[9] alongside the Greek title of basileus,[3][4] and had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress; otherwise, the monarchy rigorously maintained its Hellenistic character and traditions.[9] The kingdom had a complex government bureaucracy that exploited the country's vast economic resources to the benefit of a Greek ruling class, which dominated military, political, and economic affairs, and which rarely integrated into Egyptian society and culture. Native Egyptians maintained power over local and religious institutions, and only gradually accrued power in the bureaucracy, provided they Hellenized."

Sounds quite like an occupying foreign power if you ask me.

Anyways, I still feel Egypt would be better represented by any of many Pharaohs from the 2800 years of native rule, than the 280 years of Ptolemaic rule. Even if you remove the whole 'native or foreign' equation, there were so many more worthy native Pharaohs, than there were Ptolemaic rulers.

Dale, I am pretty disappointed that you've resorted to flippantly quoting Wikipedia at me, out of context and ignoring everything I've said. It feels condescending. In your own post you alluded to Wikipedia's unreliability (which makes me wonder why you bothered referencing it here), and indeed, I followed the source of most of those claims (cited as 9), and unfortunately found that it was Encyclopedia Britannica, a tertiary source (Wikipedia's gold standard is secondary sources; ideally the writer of this section on Wikipedia would have followed Encyclopedia Britannica's own sources, verified them, and cited them). Perusing the Encyclopedia Britannica article they cited, I could not verify the statement in the Wikipedia article. Interestingly, that same article reports that Alexander and the Macedonians were welcomed as liberators by the Egyptians, having thrown off the oppressive yoke of Achaemenid domination. That is what I have been saying this entire time: that Ptolemaic rule of Egypt was of very different character than that of one state subjugating a different state.

That said, as the problems of Wikipedia are clear to you, I suggest you check out these actual books instead: "Ethinicity in Ptolemaic Egypt" by Goudriaan and "Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture" by Bingen. They're really interesting and will probably help you see my points better.

If you think I was saying the Ptolemies were not Greek, then you've misread my entire intent. I don't think their "Greekness" erases and subsumes their "Egyptianness."

I've tried to give your arguments respect by going through point-by-point, but I think you've made up your mind long ago--you haven't addressed a single thing I've brought up, or answered any of my questions. That tells me you're not interested in this conversation anymore, and I don't think I am either.

Agree to disagree. I think Ptolemaic rulers make excellent choices for Egyptian leaders in Civ, and I'd be very excited to see Ptolemy I himself.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The point is, even if Cleopatra was of Greek origin, she was the most well know Pharaoh of Egypt and make sense to become a civ leader.
Despite I agree we need to have new names, just because she was a leader before it should open room for new leaders to appear.

What I don't understand why Ramsés II should be a stable civ leader? What he made of so important? I was seraching a bit of his history on Youtube and didn't found anything that special who make him a stable civ leader as it is now.

For me the best leader to Egypt should be Akhenaton, he at least have something special with his changing the religious system of Egypt.
Hatshepsut is also a good name, because we need to endorse female leader ever as possible.
And Piye should be a dual leader of Egypt and Nubia. If this mechanics come back.

So, Egypt should have at least 3 leaders since it's very important civ. Akhenaton, Hatshepsut and Piye.
Piye would be not necessary if Fireaxis made the native egyptian at least not white, but since Ramsés is whiter in each iteration of this game, so I think very hard to Fireaxis do a black Ramsés. So Piye should be a solution to the issue of an african kingdom be lead just by whites. (What is a lie made by hollywood and fireaxis, who decapited the pharaos as white, I know they aren't exactly black as we know today, but wans't also white and it's decapited as white, so, to be fair, it can have an iteration where it's decapited as black too)

 

[pineappledan]

What are you sorry about? So what if they spoke Greek? Napoleon spoke Italian. Also, Ptolemaic tradition of "keeping marriage in the family" by marrying direct siblings and offpsring was distinctively Egyptian...that's like one of the most common things people know about ancient Egyptian royalty: incest. I don't know of any Macedonians who married their parents or married their brother/sister. Can you link me?

So disregarding the incest thing which is very Egyptian, what Macedonian traditions did they follow?

Oh boy, that’s it! Obviously the ptolemies are the best candidate for video game leader because of all the incest. It’s all so clear to me now.

But you clearly prefer 'native rulers.'

To simply ask the opposite of your position, Why do you want a civ to be ruled so badly by foreigners?

 

[pokiehl]

Oh boy, that’s it! Obviously the ptolemies are the best candidate for video game leader because of all the incest. It’s all so clear to me now.

Come on man. That's not what I said and you know it. You've missed the entire point of that exchange to cherry pick some quote and be snide to me. You don't need to be rude or sarcastic.