Why Theodora?

[GRM7584]

...where the figurehead is supposed to at least tangentially represent what is best of the civilization in question...

No. They are not.

The purpose of civ is not:
1) To correct popular misconceptions about history
2) To educate individuals about history
3) To accurately portray history

The purpose of civ is:
1) To entertain
2) To appeal to the widest audience possible
3) To sell as many copies as possible

These are frequently in direct opposition to the first set of priorities above. People don't want to hear "Well, what really happened was..." because their brains will shut off. A huge percentage of the U.S. still thinks of Columbus as a heroic figure who 'discovered' America because he was the only one who thought the world was round. If you try to tell them the reality of the situation, people (especially the ones who annually celebrate the discovery as a holiday) aren't going to say "Wow that is fascinating tell me more" they are going to nod and promptly forget what you said, because that's not what everyone else thinks.

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not saying that we should all go with the flow and live in pretend-history land, I am just saying that it is absurd to think that a best-selling strategy game with an enormous budget is going to risk sales by being the one to proclaim "What really happened". Look to a more niche market like Paradox for that.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm telling you . . . Michael Jordan of the USA.

 

[janboruta]

While Theodora isn't the best nor the most accurate leader for the Byzantines, she evokes the SPIRIT of Byzantium. There are no remarkable Theodoras OUTSIDE of the Byzantine Empire. Theodora is a woman and therefore she will bring som freshness to the Civ world, which - in female terms - is dominated by Elizabeth, Isabella nad Catherine.

As the evocation of a spirit of a civilization, Theodora is more than appropriate.

 

[bcaiko]

I understand that historical accuracy is hardly the prime concern of Civilization. I just don't understand why everyone on the forums is okay with the idea of an advisor who gave some pretty bad advice on occasion being chosen over all the other competent leaders of the Byzantine Empire. The choice of Theodora doesn't give you a better game, or a more fun one. It just gives you a historically innaccurate one. Why is that okay?

Theodora isn't the best choice, but she's a reasonable one. And there is some good to be had in representing women as leaders in this game.

 

[Dragonflow]

Let's just hope they don't make her a second Catherine, another female leader that act like a girl going through puberty would be very horrible. But knowing Theodoras background I have the fear that they're going to make her similar to Catherine.

 

[Exterminas]

I actually like a mix in leadership. I already met Justinian in Civ IV, it is nice to meet someone new.

As others have pointed out CIV is not a scientific paper that demands any further explanation other than "We think it would be cool to play"

 

[Louis XXIV]

Let's just hope they don't make her a second Catherine, another female leader that act like a girl going through puberty would be very horrible. But knowing Theodoras background I have the fear that they're going to make her similar to Catherine.

Both have had historical literature describing them as having these types of personalities. Of course, they might have been written by their enemies.

Justinian and Theodora are interesting because a historian wrote an official history of them that was very flattering. Then he wrote a secret history of them that was very, very critical. Which one is actual true isn't provable, but I kind of wonder what the Emperor and Empress would have done to him had they found out about his secret history.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

GRM7584:

The purpose of civ is not:
1) To correct popular misconceptions about history
2) To educate individuals about history
3) To accurately portray history

The purpose of civ is:
1) To entertain
2) To appeal to the widest audience possible
3) To sell as many copies as possible

For starters:
Your saying that the purpose of Civ is not to provide an accurate view of history, but rather to entertain. But I fail to see why these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Can something not be both factual and entertaining? I fail to see why this game will be somehow more entertaining because of an illogical leader choice. I would be much more "entertained" by this game if the leader of the Byzantine Empire was an actual leader of the Byzantine Empire.

Another point: "The purpose of civ is to appeal to the widest audience possible". What audience is reached by choosing Theodora? Women? They're already well represented in this game. In fact, they're represented disproportionately already. The woman:man ratio in this game is already far higher than in real life. I have no problem with that, so long as they're choosing female leaders that make sense. Catherine, Elizabeth, and Dido all make sense (and I don't know enough about Wu Zetian to comment). However, choosing Theodora just because she's a woman is hardly going to appeal to a wider audience.

Also, I want to eliminate your misconception that Civ is "no meant to accurately portray history". Yes, it's not meant to follow history precisely, but history is meant to provide context for the game. See: http://www.playthepast.org/?p=593

And I'm not a salesman, but will historical innaccurracy really sell more copies just because it portrays a female "leader" that most people haven't heard of, and those that have know wasn't a leader?

 

[Xen]

Because she lived before Emperor Heraclius, shes not actually Byzantine. The Byzantines did have a few female rulers to choose from (Like Zoe), but Theodora is like making the wife of King George the leader of America. Shes the ruler of the predecessor state to Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire.

Really though, I'd prefer Basil "the Bulgar Slayer", or Nikophoros "The pale death of the Saracens" Phokas. Yes, those were really their epithets.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

Shes the ruler of the predecessor state to Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire.

Your comment raises a valid point, but one minor correction: she was not a ruler. She was an advisor.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, she didn't have title, but she might still have been the one who ruled

 

[The Almighty dF]

Well, she didn't have title, but she might still have been the one who ruled

Justinian himself even allegedly felt that she was more the ruler of the people than he was, simply because it seemed as though her spirit was driving the empire, and the empire loved her.

Again, Theodora... isn't an odd choice. If you want a case of Firaxis randomly going with a lesser known arguable ruler just to add an extra woman, we've got that, and only one case of it: China. The lesser-known wife of one of China's best leaders, who herself ruled only briefly and was actually pretty awful.

At least Theodora's well known, was loved by her people, and you can argue over ways in which she helped her empire. This is not true for the woman whose only claims to fame are trying to ruin the nation that her husband brought to its largest size. And that's not a joke. Look up Taizong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Taizong_of_Tang

That man is basically China's Peter the Great, and instead we get his concubine!

 

[GRM7584]

For starters:
Your saying that the purpose of Civ is not to provide an accurate view of history, but rather to entertain. But I fail to see why these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Can something not be both factual and entertaining? I fail to see why this game will be somehow more entertaining because of an illogical leader choice. I would be much more "entertained" by this game if the leader of the Byzantine Empire was an actual leader of the Byzantine Empire.

Another point: "The purpose of civ is to appeal to the widest audience possible". What audience is reached by choosing Theodora? Women? They're already well represented in this game. In fact, they're represented disproportionately already. The woman:man ratio in this game is already far higher than in real life. I have no problem with that, so long as they're choosing female leaders that make sense. Catherine, Elizabeth, and Dido all make sense (and I don't know enough about Wu Zetian to comment). However, choosing Theodora just because she's a woman is hardly going to appeal to a wider audience.

Also, I want to eliminate your misconception that Civ is "no meant to accurately portray history". Yes, it's not meant to follow history precisely, but history is meant to provide context for the game. See: http://www.playthepast.org/?p=593

And I'm not a salesman, but will historical innaccurracy really sell more copies just because it portrays a female "leader" that most people haven't heard of, and those that have know wasn't a leader?

I think the rest of my post already covered these things, but ok:

You would certainly be more entertained by more historically accurate or relevant gameplay. So would I. We are a tiny, microscopic minority. As I said before: Most people in the US get their historical perspective from things like TV shows and movies. Can you reconcile popular history with actual history? Entertainment with reality? Very, very, rarely. People don't go to theatres to see an accurate portrayal of the Battle at Thermopylae, they go to see a ridiculous over-the-top drama (a very entertaining one, mind you!) Most people aren't going to stop and say "But, that's illogical! It didn't happen that way!". You might! Which is good, I am glad for you. But most people are completely ignorant when it comes to, for instance, the leadership qualities of Eastern Roman Emperors and Empresses. These sorts of people are not excited by the prospect of learning about actual historical events or personas. They are interested in, for instance, watching brief, biased (and entertaining) documentaries and then trying to come off like an expert on the subject the next day at the office.

I'm not saying that you can't reconcile Entertainment and History. There are definitely forms of popular media that show relative respect towards historical consistency. They don't make much money. They target a very small niche audience, and they do it well on a modest budget. Civ is not that. Civ is a big, Hollywood epic in the world of PC gaming, and it cannot afford to pander exclusively to a niche audience.

Theodora being female has very, very little to do with choosing her as a leader; like you said, there are other, more interesting ladies around. Her being a figure surrounded by drama and intrigue, known for efforts to advance womens' rights in an era long before feminism, and for being one of very few Byzantine personas that Americans are likely to know about are the factors that make her the leader of choice for Civ 5 (also, she was in Civ 3; having a precedent is another important priority for leaders in the civ series). Are these "fair" reasons for inclusion? No. They are marketable. Is Theodora more marketable than a more competent leader would be? Yes.

That article, if anything, reinforces what I said. Historical accuracy is an extremely low priority for the civ series; it is a historically themed series, in much the same way that the Alternate History genre is historically themed. Civ takes loosely historical concepts, like cities and governments, and then goes on ridiculous tangents, like "Build museums and the Sydney Opera House to gain culture for the Utopia Project" or "Send your Pikemen, Horse Archers, and Riflemen on a 20 year trip across the ocean so you can conquer Gandhi the immortal warmonger before he builds nukes". If you consider these as harmless abstractions but have a serious problem with a less-than-ideal representative being chosen as the leader of a civ (which is itself a tradition dating back to civ 1), then I am not entirely sure what to tell you.

Because she lived before Emperor Heraclius, shes not actually Byzantine. The Byzantines did have a few female rulers to choose from (Like Zoe), but Theodora is like making the wife of King George the leader of America. Shes the ruler of the predecessor state to Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire.

Most Americans would not know the difference between Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire. Most Americans do know the difference between England and their own country (if only at a very basic level). So, no, it isn't like that. It's more like, say, having "The Golden Horde" as a civ and making Genghis Khan the leader. Most Americans wouldn't notice: "He was that Mongol guy, right? Cool."

 

[Louis XXIV]

They're already well represented in this game. In fact, they're represented disproportionately already. The woman:man ratio in this game is already far higher than in real life.

I think it depends on what you mean by disproportionately. Certainly, if the ratio were the real world gender population, they would not be over represented (if you go with percentage of female gamers, that number would still be in the 40s). If you just mean over represented out of important leaders, I'd agree. But, then again, what is the correct ratio? It's currently at 22% When the game was released, it was 20%. Let's not forget, in Civ2, the ratio was 50%. Not only did that include leaders who were poor choices, they literally just made people up!

I think a number between 15-25% makes a lot of sense. For an initial expansion pack, it actually does make a lot of sense to aim higher. The reason is we don't know if there will be DLC or who it will be. It might turn out that none of the chosen DLC civs can even suggest a female leader with a straight face. For example, perhaps none are known. In which case, they'll have to just make someone up, which no one wants.

 

[Steamwerks]

On the topic of Theodora poisoning Justinian against Belisarius, I'd have to disagree. On many occasions she was an important check against Justinian's suspicions, essentially functioning as Belisarius's greatest ally at court.

Because she lived before Emperor Heraclius, shes not actually Byzantine. The Byzantines did have a few female rulers to choose from (Like Zoe), but Theodora is like making the wife of King George the leader of America. Shes the ruler of the predecessor state to Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire.

Really though, I'd prefer Basil "the Bulgar Slayer", or Nikophoros "The pale death of the Saracens" Phokas. Yes, those were really their epithets.

The issue, as you point out, with choosing rulers such as Justinian, Constantine, or Theodora is that they were decidedly Latin in worldview; to really represent Byzantium, one has to look towards the the emperors of the Middle and Late Byzantine state. So, I agree with you wholeheartedly on Basil II "Boulgaroktonos"; he really is the perfect (historical) choice, though Alexius Komnenos would also be a worthy and eminently Byzantine pick. Certainly, he's fairly well known in the west (insofar as a Byzantine ruler can be) owing to his role in the First Crusade.

The purpose of civ is:
1) To entertain
2) To appeal to the widest audience possible
3) To sell as many copies as possible

That second point only holds true for Revolution/V, so while I don't think appealing to the widest possible audience is necessarily part of Civ's overall mission statement, you are correct in this case. As others and yourself have pointed out, this was ultimately a marketing decision.

 

[MARDUK80]

I think a number between 15-25% makes a lot of sense. For an initial expansion pack, it actually does make a lot of sense to aim higher. The reason is we don't know if there will be DLC or who it will be. It might turn out that none of the chosen DLC civs can even suggest a female leader with a straight face. For example, perhaps none are known. In which case, they'll have to just make someone up, which no one wants.

Yeah, I agree. I can not come up with any more decent female leaders after inclusion of Dido, Theodora and Boudicea. Over at the Civilizations/Leaders Wanted! list there isn't anyone else than those three. Maria Theresa for Austria might be, but Franz Joseph I is much stronger choice.

Only one that would be cool is Queen Nzinga Mbande of Kongo (big thanks to Cyon for the excellent mod) a female leader from Africa - that would be highly exceptional! But I think Nkuwu Nzinga would be better choice; "The ManiKongo, which was called Nzinga a Nkuwu, staged a royal welcome that fits the most lavish stereotype of a first meeting between white and black. Surrounded by his various wifes, princes and courtiers, the ManiKongo sat on a wooden throne inlaid with Ivory, which had been placed on a raised platform. He dressed in cloth woven from Raffia, and the Portugese visitors noticed that he was also wearing a piece of damask, a remnant of the tribute left for him by Cao a decade earlier. In a gesture of welcome to the Portugese group, he bent down, picked up a handful of dust, and pressed it against his chest."

 

[Steamwerks]

"The ManiKongo, which was called Nzinga a Nkuwu, staged a royal welcome that fits the most lavish stereotype of a first meeting between white and black. Surrounded by his various wifes, princes and courtiers, the ManiKongo sat on a wooden throne inlaid with Ivory, which had been placed on a raised platform. He dressed in cloth woven from Raffia, and the Portugese visitors noticed that he was also wearing a piece of damask, a remnant of the tribute left for him by Cao a decade earlier. In a gesture of welcome to the Portugese group, he bent down, picked up a handful of dust, and pressed it against his chest."

Awesome quote! Was the dust gesture gesture typical of these sorts of occasions?

 

[Asylumer]

I'm not seeing any merit to the opposition against Theodora's inclusion.

Historically accurate? All Civilizations beginning with a settlement in 4000BC with no regard to the history behind them already puts that argument on poor footing. Nevermind the immortal god-emperor thing... No, any rational person realizes that Civilization doesn't pick its leaders based on how well they ruled.

Civ leaders are chosen for being personalities representing their civilization (see Gandhi) instead of being chosen for their effectiveness as rulers. They are abstract representations that help govern AI personality. Whether Theodora was the best or worst influential figure in history is irrelevant. Honestly, given how some posters are shifting their goalposts when rebutted, I get the feeling that despite reassurances, this really is about her gender. If reasons that haven't been a problem for male leaders in the past are suddenly becoming a big deal, I can't conclude anything else.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

Asylumer: This discussion is perfectly cordial right now. Please don't ruin it with any allegations of sexism That's not going to settle anything, and it's innaccurate. Did you just miss the part about her not being a ruler, not being Byzantine, and not being a particularly good advisor at times?

Now at this point, I'm going to surrender. She's a bad (very bad!) choice, but I'm just going to agree to bask in the historical silliness. She was, at the very least, a very influential advisor, and after her death, Justinian was basically useless (he made no more major decisions after that). So she was an important advisor, and I'm just going to hope that she has a pretty leader screen.

 

[Asylumer]

Asylumer: This discussion is perfectly cordial right now. Please don't ruin it with any allegations of sexism That's not going to settle anything, and it's innaccurate. Did you just miss the part about her not being a ruler, not being Byzantine, and not being a particularly good advisor at times?

Considering that my post was focused on those, no, I didn't miss them...