Why Theodora?

[Steamwerks]

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

You didn't address the most important point, namely that she was more Roman than Byzantine. This kind of runs contrary to your belief (which I share) that "Civ leaders are chosen for being personalities representing their civilization."

 

[blackcatatonic]

I don't have a problem with Theodora's inclusion. There may have been more valid options but I totally get that this was about having another female leader in the game, and she seems like a perfect choice. As has been pointed out, better than Wu Zetian anyway.

They could have chosen much better female leaders. If they wanted female leaders why not choose Hatshepsut for Egypt and Margaret for Denmark.

The Danish Civ is clearly CiV's answer to the Vikings, so I don't think someone who wasn't a Harald or an Erik would have cut it.

When you think about it, all the female leaders in G&K are problematic: not just Theodora, but as has been mentioned, Dido... then we have Boudicca, who was definitely real and definitely a leader, but the people she led were based in Eastern England, and the Civ she is representing in the expansion pack is really a non-historical alliance of people from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, France, central Europe grouped together on vaguely ethnic grounds. Admittedly if you're going to have the Celts in at all, it's hard to think of a better leader, especially if you're looking for a woman.

Even as a historian, although I can see the problems, I just don't think it's worth getting one's knickers in a twist over, so to speak. It's a game.

 

[Asylumer]

You didn't address the most important point, namely that she was more Roman than Byzantine. This kind of runs contrary to your belief (which I share) that "Civ leaders are chosen for being personalities representing their civilization."

Ah, true enough. I was distracted by other things. In this case I'm not sure that Theodora is much worse a representative than other Civ Leaders. For all that most people are concerned, the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium are synonymous. Is there more to the argument than her being from a time closer to when the Empire first split? Personally, I hardly see how that matters when Byzantine retained its belief of being the successors of Rome and, indeed, that relation shapes much of its identity.

I can't recall off-hand if other Civ Leaders manage to be in similar situations. Either way, it seems to be a petty point to push.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

You didn't address the most important point, namely that she was more Roman than Byzantine. This kind of runs contrary to your belief (which I share) that "Civ leaders are chosen for being personalities representing their civilization."

But did the Byzantines ever consider themselves "Byzantines?" I was under the impression that they didn't.

http://www.historytoday.com/alexander-kazhdan/byzantium-emperors-new-clothes

 

[Steamwerks]

Ah, true enough. I was distracted by other things. In this case I'm not sure that Theodora is much worse a representative than other Civ Leaders. For all that most people are concerned, the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantium are synonymous. Is there more to the argument than her being from a time closer to when the Empire first split? Personally, I hardly see how that matters when Byzantine retained its belief of being the successors of Rome and, indeed, that relation shapes much of its identity.

I can't recall off-hand if other Civ Leaders manage to be in similar situations. Either way, it seems to be a petty point to push.

I suppose if you aren't particularly interested in the history, there might be a semblance of pettiness to the discussion, but the state that re-emerged from the Byzantine Dark Ages had undergone a considerable transformation both culturally and politically. To be extremely brief, the (classical) world that Theodora belonged to was still very much Roman in character, while the (medieval) world of say Basil II was decidedly Greek. Furthermore, while there was still a sense of continuity with the Roman past, Byzantium now existed on her own terms; she was no longer a sort of partitioned Roman Empire in quasi-exile. Indeed, reconquering/reunifying/reviving the Roman Empire of antiquity was no longer a goal regarded as feasible or even desirable. I don't think it's a stretch to argue that Theodora may very well have felt more at home in the late Roman Empire of Diocletian than in the Byzantine Greek court of the Komnenids

For the record, understanding that academic rigor doesn't necessarily make sense for corporate backed game development (or movies, tv, etc.), I'm pleased enough with Theodora (can't wait to see her in the throne-room!), but still believe this discussion has its own merits. Dismissing the participants as petty or sexist is rather uncalled for.

 

[Steamwerks]

But did the Byzantines ever consider themselves "Byzantines?" I was under the impression that they didn't.

Correct you are. The nomenclature can be rather convoluted . . "Byzantine" even.


edit: To clarify however, per modern historical convention, Byzantine or Byzantine Greek is often used to distinguish the medieval state from the Eastern Roman Empire of antiquity.

 

[albie_123]

For the record, those who are claiming that Theodora was a good choice for marketing - we know. As well as this, saying that the historically learned are a minority - well, we all know that too. We also all know that no matter how much we whine, it won't change, and Theodora is in.

But the reason for this thread is a reasoned discussion on the merits or lack thereof of her inclusion as a leader of the Byzantines from a historical perspective. What's more, I believe the discussion could be a good one, as Theodora is a controversial choice - not obviously perfect like Augustus, but not undeniably silly like Wu.

 

[GRM7584]

For the record, those who are claiming that Theodora was a good choice for marketing - we know. As well as this, saying that the historically learned are a minority - well, we all know that too. We also all know that no matter how much we whine, it won't change, and Theodora is in.

But the reason for this thread is a reasoned discussion on the merits or lack thereof of her inclusion as a leader of the Byzantines from a historical perspective. What's more, I believe the discussion could be a good one, as Theodora is a controversial choice - not obviously perfect like Augustus, but not undeniably silly like Wu.

Well, if we're discussing a hypothetical alternate universe version of civ that touts historical fidelity and can make a profit selling less than a hundred copies, then I don't see any merits whatsoever to Theodora. Depending on the traits given to the Empire, Basil I (peace-oriented abilities) or Basil II (war-oriented) seem like the obvious choices to me. A vast number of other leaders would also need changing, for such a version of the game, namely the removal of all mythological leaders (was more of an issue with Civ 4 and prior) and other absurd non-leaders (Wu, as an example). If we were representing civs at their "best" then monsters like Stalin (Civ 1,4) would be out (although some monsters, like Temujin, would stay in).

Theodora, along with at least half of the other leaders, would be laughably ridiculous as choices in a series that prided itself on being historically sound and 'fair' to all civs to the same degree that the Civ series has been 'fair' to America and Rome. But, Civ is not that series, and I suspect it never will be.

 

[Civciv5]

other absurd non-leaders (Wu, as an example)

Wu Zetian was NOT a terrible leader,sure she wasn't the best leader in Chinese history,but she was great.
These are my arguments:
She was the first great empress of China.
She reconquered some territories that Taizong conquered and were lost.
She provided better equality.
She was great at administration,she appointed people by looking at their talents and not by social status.
She built many temples and pagodas.
She was fair to the lower classes and lowered taxes.
She reduced the size of the army,which saved lots of money.
She did a lot of great things,but she was cruel,yes,but those who want to achieve greatness must sometimes do cruel things.
She improved agriculture and placed a lot of importance it.
The empire prospered and there was peace.
By my opinion she is the best choice of a female leader in the entire game,before Catherine.
She deserves the title "the Great",Wu Zetian the Great.
If you think Wu Zetian is an absurd leader,then all female leaders are absurd too.

I think they just chose Theodora,because they need more female leaders.
Justinian I would be the best choice,but they are foolish.

 

[GRM7584]

Being male or female really has very little to do with anything, actual civ or theoretical historically accurate civ. Wu would be absurd not because she did nothing or is female, but because her accomplishments and historical relevance are completely eclipsed by other leaders, like Qin Shi Huang. It would be similarly absurd (for an alternate universe version of civ that cared about history) to choose Edward III over Queen Victoria as the leader of England. Does that mean Edward did nothing? Of course not! But Queen Victoria would be far more fitting as a representation of the English (even though, in this case, she was the leader of a successor state of "England").

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the problem is the absolute best leader is not required. For example, I don't think Queen Victoria is the best leader choice either.

 

[Civciv5]

Then Catherine is absurd,because Peter and Ivan IV were greater leaders
Isabella is absurd,because Philip II was better..
Elizabeth I is absurd,because George III was better
Wu Zetian is a good choice for a Chinese leader,it doesn't always has to be the greatest leader in history of a country,just a well-known and one who did some good things.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

I can't recall off-hand if other Civ Leaders manage to be in similar situations. Either way, it seems to be a petty point to push.

Well really, Alexander the Great is in a similar situation. He was Macedonian, not Greek. I would much prefer Pericles as the leader of Greece, but I think this is another situation where marketing plays heavily into the decision.

Then Catherine is absurd,because Peter and Ivan IV were greater leaders

Catherine ruled in one of Russia's golden ages, and she was one of the greatest leaders of Russia, well, ever. Ivan IV (quite accurately nicknamed "Ivan the Terrible", on the other hand, was a deranged madman who killed his own son, thus ending the line of succession of his empire. Perhaps you are referring the to the other 3 Ivans who came before him? The first one liberated Russia from the Mongols, and the other two were also very effective rulers.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm sure Sparta wouldn't be a fan of Pericles being their leader

 

[bonafide11]

I think the problem is the absolute best leader is not required. For example, I don't think Queen Victoria is the best leader choice either.

Well, we actually have Queen Elizabeth for England, but I would prefer Queen Victoria personally (though people would then complain that she was the Queen of Great Britain, not England). Both are great choices for England though, and I don't see why anyone would complain about Elizabeth representing England. She is probably one of the most deserving female leaders in the game.

 

[The_J]

...I think the whole thing was solved in Civ4 best, with multiple leaders, so you don't have to go the way to figure out who is exactly the best.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, we actually have Queen Elizabeth for England, but I would prefer Queen Victoria personally (though people would then complain that she was the Queen of Great Britain, not England).

I complain that she had no real authority and the actual ruler of the time was either Benjamin Disraeli or William Gladstone.

 

[Alexastor]

So, no, Theodora isn't included just to "balance the genders", as it was pointed out you could pick other perfectly respectable female leaders of Byzantium, or female leaders for many other civs, if that was the case. The issue is: Of the (very short list of) Byzantine leaders that average U.S. gamers are likely to know about, it was probably decided that she was the most unique and memorable. Honestly? I wouldn't blink if Marie Antoinette was ever included as a leader. Her image and story are widely known, and competence isn't a reason for inclusion as a leader in civ as a series.

Darn you. I now want Marie Antoniette as the leader of France

I'd be too awesome to hear her talking about wanting to feed her people cake, while they're starving

 

[blackcatatonic]

Am I making this up, or did they not have Joan of Arc as a French leader at one time?

 

[GRM7584]

Darn you. I now want Marie Antoniette as the leader of France

I'd be too awesome to hear her talking about wanting to feed her people cake, while they're starving

UA: Peasants' Cake-of-the-Month Club, +1 Food on Sugar, Wheat, Cattle

Alternative UA: Misattributed Quotes, +1 Derp in all diplomatic relations

...I think the whole thing was solved in Civ4 best, with multiple leaders, so you don't have to go the way to figure out who is exactly the best.

I kind of hope they go back to this, for the next installment. I think, given the choice, I'd prefer an array of static LHs for each civ instead of one really good one. But, going back to marketing, its easier to sell civ with one leader done very well (or at least with lots of effort put in) rather than a load of options that might confuse new players. A way to alleviate that would be to make it strictly an aesthetic point, and leave the 'traits' tied exclusively to the civs.