Female rulers

[Civciv5]

No this is not a joke.

Cleopatra was a major reason for the assassination of Julius Caesar and the downfall of the Roman Republic. This changed the course of history for the entire ancient world. Augustus would have been a nobody if Julius Caesar remained alive. Augustus had no claim to anything before Cleopatra set off a chain of events that upended the Roman Republic.

Caesar was assassinated because he proclaimed himself dictator after he plunged the Roman Republic in a civil war, the Senate was growing tired of him. This would have happened regardless of Cleopatria doing whatever she wanted. That woman was famous mainly because she used her "feminine qualities" to seduce some famous leader.
Despite Cleopatra's pathetic attempts to keep Egypt independent this proved to be futile and Egypt was annexed by Rome. After being defeated she commited suicide in cowardice rather than face her destiny.
Conclusion: She was not a very good Pharaoh.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

...I see no reason why such a history couldn't possibly have more female rulers - preferably attractive and wearing as little as possible.

Seriously? That's all you have to contribute?

 

[GeoModder]

Yes, that's true. Long live the Queen!

Hear hear, let's keep the King out for just a while longer!

 

[Westwall]

Seriously? That's all you have to contribute?

No, there was more but you edited it out.

Not sure why.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

No, there was more but you edited it out.

Not sure why.

You're right. I did you a disservice. I only kept the foolish part.

 

[Westwall]

Apology accepted.

 

[Cyon]

think the discussion about what the leader wear and how they are portrayed are different ones, they could have a bare chested female leader without it being overly sexy like this Hatshepsut sculpture:

Spoiler :

this kind imples she was bare chested some times and clothed other times:

Spoiler :

A lot of parts of the world don't share the US fear of naked bodies and don't sexualize female breast as much. The Egyptians 3 000 years ago certainly did not.

The cleopatra from the civilization board game (which is a very good game) looks ridiculous with her bronze bra, and I think that that is a lot more sexist portrayal than small naked breast and a wooden beard.

Spoiler :

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Let us please not go down this road again. Seems to me that the accomplishments, leadership qualities, stewardship of her subjects and a host of other qualities would be a better measure for inclusion than what they wore or what they exposed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[adcarrymaokai]

This means no Jeanne d'Arc.

I started playing with Civ III, where Joan of Arc represented France, and to this day I associate in-game France with her. I know it is silly, but I also think symbolic representation, historical significance, and worldwide recognition are important for a game in a global market. Most people in the West and even in the world know who Joan of Arc is. Surely, just as many people know of Napoleon, but that doesn't make her any less valid at representing France. Similarly, people hate on Cleopatra, but literally everyone and their mother has heard of Cleopatra, so having someone like Hatshepsut -- while historically accurate -- does not compare in terms of recognizability.

I also understand that some people treat this game from a historical perspective, but at the end of the day it is still only a fantasy game, and just as with many fantasy games, stuff can be made up or even re-imagined. And don't forget that Firaxis is a commercial company. Developers living under the capitalist regime have money to make and families to feed, so revenue does play a part, however cynical this may sound.

 

[m15a]

And don't forget that Firaxis is a commercial company. Developers living under the capitalist regime have money to make and families to feed, so revenue does play a part, however cynical this may sound.

That's true, but there's still the question of how much recognizable figures attract players to the game. I think it's probably a diminishing returns situation - having at least a few recognizable historical (or semi-historical) figures will definitely attract a lot of people. But when you already have a bunch of famous leaders (say, Caesar, Elizabeth, Washington, Isabella, Gandhi), adding another famous leader isn't going to matter quite as much. There will be *some* big Joan of Arc fans that might be attracted to the game, but that can be true of less famous leaders, too. (I remember one of my friends being particularly interested that Hatshepsut was in Civ IV.)

And that group that may be interested by a particular famous historical figure has to be balanced by people that are interested by unexpected choices (I fall into that group more often than not) as well as the people that would be turned off by a non-leader leader. It's a balancing act.

 

[j51]

Yeah, I doubt anyone ever said, "Why would I play this game when I've never heard of ____?"

 

[poom3619]

I started playing with Civ III, where Joan of Arc represented France, and to this day I associate in-game France with her. I know it is silly, but I also think symbolic representation, historical significance, and worldwide recognition are important for a game in a global market. Most people in the West and even in the world know who Joan of Arc is. Surely, just as many people know of Napoleon, but that doesn't make her any less valid at representing France. Similarly, people hate on Cleopatra, but literally everyone and their mother has heard of Cleopatra, so having someone like Hatshepsut -- while historically accurate -- does not compare in terms of recognizability.

I also understand that some people treat this game from a historical perspective, but at the end of the day it is still only a fantasy game, and just as with many fantasy games, stuff can be made up or even re-imagined. And don't forget that Firaxis is a commercial company. Developers living under the capitalist regime have money to make and families to feed, so revenue does play a part, however cynical this may sound.

I start playing with Civ IV BtS, and tried to get into Civ III, where Joan of Arc represented France, and to this day I associate Civ III's feature of having leader having era-appropriate costume with skinhead Joan of Arc.

I agree that Civ could get away from not exactly historical, as I remember a fan of Paradox historical's GSG saying that Civ is "history's Smash Bro.". We do talking about a game where everyone start at 4000 BC, you can destroy Caesar's tanks and
literally everyone from Iroquois to Japan can build Colosseum at their city.

Anyway, In another end of spectrum. I understand why people don't understand how Wu Zeitian of China and Maria of Portugal end up represent their own civilization. Sure, It is less extreme example compared to Gandhi. But seems like Firaxis couldn't please everyone when they have to make a choice.

 

[Novu]

Caesar was assassinated because he proclaimed himself dictator after he plunged the Roman Republic in a civil war, the Senate was growing tired of him. This would have happened regardless of Cleopatra doing whatever she wanted. That woman was famous mainly because she used her "feminine qualities" to seduce some famous leader.
Despite Cleopatra's pathetic attempts to keep Egypt independent this proved to be futile and Egypt was annexed by Rome. After being defeated she committed suicide in cowardice rather than face her destiny.
Conclusion: She was not a very good Pharaoh.

Behind every great man is an even greater woman. Cleopatra was that woman.

Who do you think put the idea to be dictator in Caesar's head? Cleopatra started calling Julius Caesar a living god who had a divine right to rule. Cleopatra saw herself as a living goddess and she convinced Julius Caesar that he too was divine. No previous Roman ever thought about divine right. It was an idea imported from Egypt.

Even after Julius Caesar died the succeeding Caesars also called themselves divine. During the Roman Republic a leader had to have public support to be dictator. Suddenly Apotheosis (divine right) became the Roman way. It became guiding tradition for the new Empire. Gaius Octavius even changed his name to Augustus to reflect the new divine right to rule. Roman democracy was officially dead and this was no accident.

Culturally Egypt almost kind of conquered Rome. Not all victories are military in nature. This is what a cultural victory looks like in real life. Divine right even outlasted the Roman Empire and was a major part of Medieval Europe. Every European King who claimed divine right to rule has Cleopatra to thank for it.

 

[dexters]

I agree that Civ could get away from not exactly historical, as I remember a fan of Paradox historical's GSG saying that Civ is "history's Smash Bro.". We do talking about a game where everyone start at 4000 BC, you can destroy Caesar's tanks and
literally everyone from Iroquois to Japan can build Colosseum at their city.

Anyway, In another end of spectrum. I understand why people don't understand how Wu Zeitian of China and Maria of Portugal end up represent their own civilization. Sure, It is less extreme example compared to Gandhi. But seems like Firaxis couldn't please everyone when they have to make a choice.

I don't feel particularly strongly about Queen Cleopatra's inclusion or exclusion from Civilization but I think the original game (Civ 1) had a very light hearted almost theme park version of historical leaders. It's something that's kid friendly that as a young person in the mid 90s , I felt totally at home with. This is an element people forget, and CivRev is probably a closer 'sequel' to that original Civilization game than the over serious CIV we're sort of expecting. I mean, the graphics in VI is sending people into a tizzy already.

In the Civ franchise, Cleopatra derives her right for inclusion because she was in the first game, so they may cycle her back in for VI after sitting out V. That said, there's no guarantee she'll be in VI. We don't even know if there will be one or multiple leaders.

I think Firaxis will keep a fairly balanced cast of world leaders as they did with previous versions, so her inclusion or exclusion may very well depend on who gets in for the other world leaders.
But I won't mind either way.

 

[m15a]

I think the original game (Civ 1) had a very light hearted almost theme park version of historical leaders. It's something that's kid friendly that as a young person in the mid 90s , I felt totally at home with.

It is true that even as a 12 or 13 year old playing Civ, I had at least heard of every leader except Frederick the Great. But...

In the Civ franchise, Cleopatra derives her right for inclusion because she was in the first game, so they may cycle her back in for VI after sitting out V.

Cleopatra wasn't in Civ I. Ramesses was. (EDIT: Actually, I might not have heard of Ramesses before playing Civ.)

 

[dexters]

It is true that even as a 12 or 13 year old playing Civ, I had at least heard of every leader except Frederick the Great. But...



Cleopatra wasn't in Civ I. Ramesses was. (EDIT: Actually, I might not have heard of Ramesses before playing Civ.)

You're right, she was in Civ2.

 

[cakes]

Yeah, I doubt anyone ever said, "Why would I play this game when I've never heard of ____?"

similarly i don't think people are going to think less of the game if someone like joan of arc represents france. if it works as a character it works as the game

 

[JFD]

similarly i don't think people are going to think less of the game if someone like joan of arc represents france. if it works as a character it works as the game

Those that care about some semblance of historical/political accuracy certainly might - e.g. myself. It may not impact significantly upon my opinion of the game overall, but it wouldn't be nothing. I would be sorely disappointed and turned away from using France under Joan of Arc - at least until I modded it

 

[Karmah]

[...]
I never really give a second thought to gender equality in Civ, but if I did, I'd probably say that it would be better to have Great People occasionally spawn as female units.
[...]

That's actually a fantastic idea ! and the pool of women to draw from is large enough to even get a balance is that's what the marketing of 2K wants without us even noticing.
(at least I can see it in science and arts , I have some issues finding historically recognized economist to include as great mearchant but I m sure someone else does)

 

[m15a]

Considering people are still complaining about Joan of Arc when the last game she was leader in came out 15 years ago, I'd say the negative (although not universal to all civ players) was not insignificant.