Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Bad Wolf, May 12, 2016.
Both sides have fans. I prefer Joan over Napoleon tbh
Of course. And there's probably a huge group that doesn't care much. I'm in that group.
But I think the number of people that actually dislike that Joan of Arc is in the game (not just because they prefer another leader) is pretty big. My impression is that it's something of a pet peeve. Other people feel that way about the possibly fictional leaders. And there's a huge thread about Gandhi in Civ VI already, so there are others for sure.
What if it's a great gay man?
He probably had an awesome Mum
The only reason Gandhi's been kept on for this long is because he's become a meme and a pop culture icon of the franchise.
There are probably people who would riot if "warmongering, nuke-happy Gandhi" ever stopped being a thing.
You give to much credit to Cleopatria. Also "behind every man stands an even greater woman" is just ridiculous. Behind SOME men stand great woman, certainly not behind every single one of them.
The divine right to rule was pretty much seen in all cultures. Not only ancient Egypt, but also Babylonia, Sumeria, China, Japan, India, Cambodia, Inca Empire had the same concepts.
Cleopatra remains a figure whose accomplishments have been overinflated and the fact remains she was not a very good Pharaoh.
Erm, no, it really wasn't. Medieval kings answered to the aristocracy; they only really had power during wartime and even then that power was chiefly in matters of war. To this day, (as a formality) the Queen of England has to get permission from the mayor of London to leave Buckingham. Yes, it's a formality today, but in the Middle Ages it was not. Divine right only reached Europe in the Renaissance/Enlightenment period. The groundwork was laid with the strengthening of the monarchy in England under the Tudors, but it only really cropped up under the Stuarts in England and the Bourbons in France--and it's worth recalling that both dynasties were ultimately literally decapitated. Divine right came late and stayed briefly in Western Europe; the czars clung to the idea a little longer, but it got them killed too.
I'm admittedly not an expert, Historians have no attributed the rise of the Imperial system in Rome to Cleopatra's influence.
And Rome was well aware of kinhs, they designed a political system against it during the Republican days, and it was no like Persian (Eastern) kingships whom rights to rule derived from divine right were not unknown to them. The Peloponnesian wars would have been studies and well known during the classical era.
I cannot agree to Cleopatra being influential in that way. She was a major character in Caesar's final years , but the man who solidified the Imperial system in Rome was Augustus (in Civ) ; His wife Livia also made it into Civ (i think Civ2 as the female leader of the Romans.)
An outmoded and sexist attitude.
As I already said, he put it inside his own head long before he even met Cleopatra, as did any other dictator from Sulla onwards until Octavius finally succeeded.
I think you're confusing Egyptian culture with ancient Greek culture. No serious historian would say the words you just said, please, let's stick to universally accepted and proven facts.
Caesar was acting as the dutiful servant of Rome and the Senate when he was tasked to take Egypt. He met Cleopatra and triggered a series of events that changed the world. If Julius Caesar was planning to seize power before he met Cleopatra then why did he march 1000 miles away to Egypt? If he wanted dictatorship before meeting Cleopatra he would have just proclaimed it right then and there. His previous achievements in Gaul should have been enough justification to stake a popular claim to rule Rome. He didn't do it thus your assertion is false.
BTW Sulla did not claim to be a divine ruler. Like other Roman dictators he claimed popular opinion giving the right to rule. It is a proven FACT. Populares tradition continued all the way until Caesar met Cleopatra and then it changed to divine rule. The end result is the Roman Republic imploded and was replaced by empire and imperial cults modeled after Cleopatra's own personal cult.
Caesar had never acted as a dutiful servant of Rome or the Senate. He sailed to Egypt on his own volition, chasing a rumour that Pompey has been sighted in Alexandria. When he arrived, he had learned that Ptolemy's soldiers already killed Pompey and they presented him with his head. As a reward, Caesar put Ptolemy and his sister, Cleopatra, on the throne as their father wanted for them to share the throne. Ptolemy didn't like the idea of sharing the throne with his sister, so he attacked Caesar and Caesar defeated him. Thus the romance between Cleopatra and Caesar started.
Also, Caesar had already been a dictator in Rome for more than a year when he met Cleopatra. He didn't proclaim himself as a permanent dictator not because he didn't want it, but he couldn't, yet. At the time he decided to finally move in, he thought that he had secured enough political power to do so, but he hadn't. His achievements in Gaul were enough to make Pompey flee Rome, but it was far from being enough to sway aristocracy in Rome, specially because the Senate ordered him to abandon the campaign and return to Rome, which he disobeyed (this ended up starting a Civil War). As I said, he could have never claimed absolute power in Rome, he never had enough political power to do so and has made too many enemies in the process. You claiming otherwise only proves your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Caesar also never claimed divine rule. Please find credible sources that say otherwise. Caesar was given the right to rule as dictator in perpetuity by the Senate itself, it was a part of the power game between the Senate and Caesar as popular opinion shifted, Cleopatra played little to no part in this (again, please find credible sources that claim otherwise, so far I've been unsuccessful in finding a single source claiming what you claim). However, Caesar did claim, and was thought to be, descendant of Roman goddess Venus (he was even named a special priest of Jupiter when he was a boy). The Roman people thought of him and his family to be divine before he even met Cleopatra. Most, if not all of Roman customs regarding divinity were taken from Ancient Greeks. Ancient Greek city states had a custom to treat the rulers of empires that conquered them as gods, this was a sign of surrender, i.e., that they accept and worship their new rulers just as they worship their own gods. If anyone in Rome claimed divine rule, then that came from that custom and not from Cleopatra. Please do not confuse the fact that people considered Caesar to be a god (and they did long before Cleopatra was even born) with how he perceived his right to rule. When Mark Antony gave him a crown, he refused it and sacrificed it to Jupiter. A gesture which is meant to show that he thinks crowns belong to gods, not him, not Caesar. Also, both the Ptolemaic religion and the Roman Imperial cults were based on the ancient Greek cults and worships (see this and this).
As I said, ever since 133BC, Roman generals commanded the loyalty of their armies, not the state, and most of those generals tried to seize absolute power in Rome one way or another. All but one of them, Octavius, failed. Roman Republic was failing, it was only a matter of time until it would finally break (Cicero, who oversaw most of the Republic's demise and even ruled as consul at one time, had written about the corruption within the Republic on numerous occasions, I suggest you read his speeches) , it is doubtful if Cleopatra even sped up the process, let alone that she started it. Roman aristocracy started that process, their ineptitude and corruption brought instability to Rome.
In all of my years, I've never met a historian, and I've met quite a few radical feminist ones, that claimed that Cleopatra played a major part in the fall of the Roman Republic, never have I also found a source that claimed that. Evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Novu started nice and poetic but this is annoying now.
Again, i must dissent to the "Hellenstic" civilization idea tho. Its stupid, its like saying Lenin should be in a "Sovietic" civ.
Moderator Action: If you wish to have a discussion of history, please use this forum. Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Separate names with a comma.