GRM7584
King
No, that happened, in Civ 3 I think. Let us never speak of it again.
EDIT: Civ 3 also had Cleopatra as leader of the Egyptians. Which makes me think: yes, even marketing can go too far.
Why Theodora?
- Thread starter Iprotagonist
- Start date
No, that happened, in Civ 3 I think. Let us never speak of it again.
EDIT: Civ 3 also had Cleopatra as leader of the Egyptians. Which makes me think: yes, even marketing can go too far.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Technically, both Civ2 and Civ3 had Cleopatra and Joan. Civ2 also had Eleanor Roosevelt and Shakala. Who was Shakala you might ask? They made her up 
j51
Blue Star Cadet
The marketability argument regarding the choice of leaders and civs doesn't really make sense if you think about it. The only people who wouldn't by a Civ iteration because of the choices of civs and leaders are people that are interested in history (like this forum's members 
*). The people who would likely be unfamiliar with a leader or civ probably wouldn't care who the developers pick. They would more likely buy the game or not for gameplay and graphical reasons.
The devs might try to make "marketable" decisions, or they might simply be picking people who they think are fun. It would be great, however, if they did pick based on historical importance and competence.
*But then again, most of us will by this anyway in spite of our opinions on Theodora or the Huns.
*). The people who would likely be unfamiliar with a leader or civ probably wouldn't care who the developers pick. They would more likely buy the game or not for gameplay and graphical reasons.The devs might try to make "marketable" decisions, or they might simply be picking people who they think are fun. It would be great, however, if they did pick based on historical importance and competence.
*But then again, most of us will by this anyway in spite of our opinions on Theodora or the Huns.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
While I'm not disagreeing with the argument for Basil II (It would be cool), I do feel that, even thought they spoke Latin, the East Roman emperors were already part of a unique and distinct culture from classical Rome. Frankly, the, admittedly gradual (Constantine to Theodosius), adoption of Christianity really marks a distinct break with the preceding culture. In many ways, Heraclitus was only acknowledging a process that had already happened some two hundred years prior.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I don't think you're quite right. There are people who might buy the game because they have a particular individual they like. Or they might prefer one game over another because they can relate to a certain leader. Or there might be degrees of "cares about history" rather than a black and white thing.
Scaramanga
Brickhead
Byzantium is one of the lesser known civilizations so it has less expectations attached to it when picking a leader. It had a Roman body, a Greek mind, and a mystical Oriental soul; Theodora will add lots o' flavour.
space measurer
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 28
Most citizens of Byzantium wouldn't know the difference between Byzantium and the "Eastern Roman Empire."
Doesn't make it right.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
Cleopatra at least ruled in her own name, even if she was just a Roman puppet.
But yes, Joan as leader... *shudder* even her military leadership skills are questionable at best.
Hard to think of who you would have if you needed a female leader for the French, though. Even Marie-Antoinette would have been better, although she was busy pretending to be a peasant while her country crumbled into anarchy. Probably the nearest thing they had to a ruling female queen was Isabeau of Bavaria...
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 222
Nobody would argue that a bit of originality is a bad thing in Civ. That's why no one complained when they heard Songhai and Siam were going to be in the game, and it's also why people in these forums are currently advocating for an Ethiopia or Kongo civ. However, there are plenty of "new ones" to pick in terms of Byzantine leaders that were actually, you know... Byzantine leaders.
Except, you know, the term Byzantine Empire is a relatively recent invention that appeared after its fall.
The Wikipedia article is sufficient to explain this...
The designation of the Empire as "Byzantine" began in 1557, when German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources. The term comes from "Byzantium", the name of the city of Constantinople before it became the capital of Constantine. This older name of the city would rarely be used from this point onward except in historical or poetic contexts. The publication in 1648 of the Byzantine du Louvre (Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ), and in 1680 of Du Cange's Historia Byzantina further popularised the use of "Byzantine" among French authors, such as Montesquieu.[7] However, it was until the mid-19th century that the term came into general use in the Western world. As regards the English historiography in particular, the first occasion of the "Byzantine Empire" appears in a 1857 work of George Finlay (History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057).[8]
The Byzantine Empire was known to its inhabitants as the "Roman Empire", the "Empire of the Romans" (Latin: "Imperium Romanum"', "Imperium Romanorum", Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn", Ἀρχὴ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, "Arche tôn Rhōmaíōn"), "Romania" (Latin: "Romania", Greek: Ῥωμανία, "Rhōmanía"),[n 2] the "Roman Republic" (Latin: "Res Publica Romana", Greek: Πολιτεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, "Politeίa tôn Rhōmaíōn"), "Graikía" (Greek: Γραικία
Although the Byzantine Empire had a multi-ethnic character during most of its history[12] and preserved Romano-Hellenistic traditions,[13] it became identified by its western and northern contemporaries' with its increasingly predominant Greek element.[14] The occasional use of the term "Empire of the Greeks" (Latin: Imperium Graecorum) in the West to refer to the Eastern Roman Empire and of the Byzantine Emperor as "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks)[15] were also used to separate it from the prestige of the Roman Empire within the new kingdoms of the West.[16] The authority of the Byzantine emperor as the legitimate Roman emperor, was challenged by the coronation of Charlemagne as Imperator Augustus by Pope Leo III in the year 800. Needing Charlemagne's support in his struggle against his enemies in Rome, Leo used the lack of a male occupant of the throne of the Roman Empire at the time to claim that it was vacant and that he could therefore crown a new Emperor himself.[17] Whenever the Popes or the rulers of the West made use of the name Roman to refer to the Eastern Roman Emperors, they usually preferred the term Imperator Romaniæ instead of Imperator Romanorum, a title that they applied only to Charlemagne and his successors.[n 3]
No such distinction existed in the Persian, Islamic, and Slavic worlds, where the Empire was more straightforwardly seen as the continuation of the Roman Empire. In the Islamic world it was known primarily as روم (Rûm "Rome").[19]
The objection is mostly manufactured. Unless the developers have outright stated that they're going for late Byzantine you have not sufficient cause to claim one period of time and its leaders are more "Byzantine" than another.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think as a matter of "would be interesting," the Byzantine empire of the Middle Ages is more interesting. Although I will concede that it still isn't Classical Rome. If anything, we're talking about the period of transition between the two where no other civ really has their golden age except the Huns.
Except pretty early on the switch to Greek as the official language marks a clear delineation that the empire has entered a "new period" of its life, and continually the recognition by the Byzantines that they are indeed Greeks who are Romans who no longer control Rome equating to an "in everything but name" moment. When you have a spade, why not call it such?
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 222
I'm not referring to the whole nationality issue. I'm inclined to agree that that's really splitting hairs, and it's not a serious issue. What I was referring to is the fact that she wasn't a leader, she was an advisor and wife of Justinian who never held the throne herself.
mitsho
Deity
Catherine de Medici for a French Leader, and the Bartholomew Night would make an incredible leader background, someone murdered in their bed or a blood dripping sword. They could go way overboard with it. It's a game after all, not a historical simulation, so this discussion who "deserves" to be in and who doesn't isn't really fruitful, because you can't answer that in any case in a game. Besides, what function do the leaders have in civ5 beyond the leader personality (which is as often modeled after the civ itself and not the leader), nothing. UA, UU and UB are mostly chosen otherwise. So it ends up what would be a "cool" leaderscreen. And a theatrical, angry, melodramatic Theodora is certainly more fun to haggle with than Basil II.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Exactly. This is quite unlike the selection of Boadicea, who was an actual queen and held the throne after her husband died. Or the selection of Queen Dido, in fact. Theodora, while an interesting leader, simply wasn't a "ruler" in the way Civ V is likely to represent her. Are they going to have Theodora mention her husband in the opening intro speech for her leader screen? I would hope so.
On a side note, why is Boadicea considered Celtic? Wikipedia defines the Iceni tribe as "British" and I see few links to Celtic culture among them.
seasnake
Conquistador
Gandhi wasn't ever a ruler, either.
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 222
Alright, on the whole Theodora thing, here's my solution to the whole mess:
Why not have Justinian and Theodora as the joint rulers in the game? It would be an accurate portrayal of history while simultaneously being new and original. Thus the "Theodora's OK because she's interesting" camp would be satisfied, and the "Theodora's not OK because she was never the real ruler" camp would also have their whole historical accuracy thing settled. Furthermore, joint rulers are something we've never seen before, and it would be kind of cool. Imagine negotiating with them: make a trade proposal, Justinian starts nodding, Theodora whispers something in his ear, and then he suddenly says "This isn't in our best interests". Wouldn't that be cool?
Why not have Justinian and Theodora as the joint rulers in the game? It would be an accurate portrayal of history while simultaneously being new and original. Thus the "Theodora's OK because she's interesting" camp would be satisfied, and the "Theodora's not OK because she was never the real ruler" camp would also have their whole historical accuracy thing settled. Furthermore, joint rulers are something we've never seen before, and it would be kind of cool. Imagine negotiating with them: make a trade proposal, Justinian starts nodding, Theodora whispers something in his ear, and then he suddenly says "This isn't in our best interests". Wouldn't that be cool?
