Why is Theodora choosen to represent the Byzantines?

[classical_hero]

Yeah, I've heard a few complaints at various boards about the inability to choose gender like you could in Civ2. There was one guy who seemed to have this as a main complaint, right up there with tanks and spears. I don't see how the gender thing could be game-breaking for anyone, but to each their own...

It would have been nice to have that option.

 

[Elrohir]

Why her and not her husband who actually did something?

This has kinda bugged me to....I always thought it should've been Justinian. I mean he's the more famous leader. It doesn't ruin the game or anything, but it's a little annoying.

If they'd had had two heads for each civ, a male and a female, that would've been much better.

 

[eldar]

If they'd had had two heads for each civ, a male and a female, that would've been much better.

Now there's an idea! You could have Napoleon or Joan... Phillip or Isabelle... and so on.

Neil.

 

[warpstorm]

Yes, it would have, but the costs were prohibitive. Those leaderheads take a while to make and take up huge amounts of disk space.

 

[Alpha Infantry]

who cares
if the game gets under your skin THAT much, dont play it.

 

[DBear]

If they'd had had two heads for each civ, a male and a female, that would've been much better.

Perhaps, but it's hard to come up with a female leader for some of the early civs. Hittites? Sumerians? Mayans?

Like I hinted at earlier, if a leaderhead upsets you THAT much, switch 'em out with one of the ones available. Napoleon for the French or Justianian for the Byzantines. I'm thinking of using Boudicca for the Celts--easy on the eyes

 

[Necromancer]

who cares why she was chosen? all they were tryin to do was choose a female who was relatively known among civvers. honestly the gender of the leader in the game shouldn't be so gamebreaking as to not play the game itself.

 

[spankey]

Also, in defence of Theodora...
In Byzantine history, especially after the battle of Manzikert, there were several empresses named Theodora. It was a very significant and historical name to the Byzantine aristocracy. Several of these Theodoras wielded much more power than their husbands. If there were looking for female representation in historical civs, the Byzantines were a good choice as their women had much greater political and social influence as compared to other civs at the time.

 

[AA-battery]

Well I think they just chose her to help open up the Civ market to female players, along with other female civ leaders. I don't care what gender I play as, but I know my mother and other women I know would both rather play as a female leader to start with. This only lasts for a short while, but seeing that female civ leaders are included is enough to get some women to buy the game off the shelves.

As I see it including Theodora has nothing to do with history.

 

[Princeps]

Theodora was important, but you can hardly say that Justinian was just a figurehead who took all the credit!

I think that if they wanted a female ruler for the Byzantines they should have had Irene, who was the first woman to rule the Roman empire in her own name and an extremely important and powerful ruler too. If her plan to marry Charlemagne hadn't been thwarted by the Byzantine court who knows how history might have turned out...

We would all be learning to speak latin

.... i mean creek

 

[Akka]

Yes, it would have, but the costs were prohibitive. Those leaderheads take a while to make and take up huge amounts of disk space.

Well, they could then perhaps learn the marvels of compression.

I mean, one hundred of barely animated pictures being a major point of costs and disk space ? 0_o
That's insane...

 

[Jason Fliegel]

You probably mean Louis XIV, he was the good one. His son was competent but uninterested and his grandson was just a gluttonous pig who ran the country into the ground.

Louis XIV was the Sun King and represents the height of the power of France's Monarchy. He regined for 72 years. Toward the end of Louis XIV's reign, France began a financial decline.

Louis XV was the great-grandson of Louis XIV. He reigned for about 60 years. He was an ineffective monarch who did little to stem the financial decline begun under his rpedecessor's reign. He also ignored the anti-monarchist sentiment that grew throughout the 18th century. Finally, he was, as you note, extremely uninterested in the responsibilities of his office, prefering to hunt and have sex with young women.

Louis XVI was the grandson of Louis XV. He reigned for about 15 years, and then got his head chopped off in the French Revolution. He had many of the same sins as his grandfather -- he was an indecisive monarch who was ill-suited to deal with France's monetary problems and the anti-monarchist sentiment. But I wouldn't give Louis XVI all the blame for running France into the ground -- the problem really goes back about a century before the French Revolution to the end of the Sun King's reign.

All else being equal, I would pick Charlemagne as France's leader head, although I can see where a case could be made that Charlemagne's Frankish Empire is too far removed from France. You could go with Hugh Capet or Henri IV, I suppose, but how many people have ever heard of either of those guys?

 

[LionQ]

... All else being equal, I would pick Charlemagne as France's leader head, although I can see where a case could be made that Charlemagne's Frankish Empire is too far removed from France. You could go with Hugh Capet or Henri IV, I suppose, but how many people have ever heard of either of those guys?

Charlemagne should not be the leader of France, but of Francia. However, the Franks are not in Civilization III, so leave Charlemagne out of it, too.

Joan of Arc as leader of France is fine to me, but Louis XIV would be another good option. Even better may be Cardinal Richelieu...