Why Theodora?

[Louis XXIV]

What about the people who want a "proper" Medieval Byzantine ruler (especially one who didn't bankrupt the empire in wars that ended up leaving no lasting result)? Can we be satisfied somehow?

 

[Asylumer]

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.

If you're going to move the goal posts again, don't move them back to somewhere they've already been. This was already addressed with Gandhi representing India despite never being a ruler, yet you were somehow fine with him there.

All I'm asking for is consistency in complaints, instead of opportunistically going after Theodora for things other included Civ leaders get away with. What's next? Her haircut makes her unfit to be a Civ leader?

 

[Morningcalm]

Gandhi wasn't ever a ruler, either.

True, but he was the spiritual leader of India, and its political leader for a time. Some sources seem to suggest he was a President as well (sources outside of Civ V's India intro screen too).

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?

That's a really cool idea, it would be great if they did that. It's unlikely though, since originally many Civ 5 leader screens were to have other advisers, etc with the leader (i.e. Augustus with the Senate)--and Firaxis cut those people so that the player would focus only on the leader (and probably to save resources).

 

[Agent327]

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.

One might consider Theodora ´the woman behind the man´ Justinian. But, unlike the OP misrepresents, Theodora wasn´t the negative influence attributed to her by Procopius´ later Secret History; his own contemporary Wars of Justinian paints a very different picture indeed, and, given the role she played during the Nika riots, it is even fair to say that without Theodora there might not have been a Justinian the Great at all.

Most citizens of Byzantium wouldn't know the difference between Byzantium and the "Eastern Roman Empire."

Since ´Byzantine´ is effectively a misnomer (as it refers to the pre-Constantine city and the inhabitants of the ´Byzantine Empire´ were unfamiliar with the term) this statement makes no sense at all. The ´Byzantine´ empire was known at its time as the (Eastern) Roman empire, which effectively it was. Its inhabitants weren´t ´Byzantines´, they were (mostly Greek-speaking) Romans. The Seljuk Turks who named their sultanate after if over 500 years after the Western Roman empire had fallen testify to this, calling their reign Rum, after Rome.

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.

Victoria, compared to Elizabeth, was little more than a figurehead though, and one whose actions, such as they were, are nullified by the fact that parliament ruled supreme, while Elizabeth was very much the embodiment of the power that England was to be.

Cleopatra at least ruled in her own name, even if she was just a Roman puppet.

Calling Cleopatra VII ´a Roman puppet´ is as misleading as the OP is about Theodora. While someone like Hatshepsut was much more important to the Egyptian empire than Cleopatra ever could be, given the fact that she ruled when Rome was rising to the zenith of its power, she tried her utmost to ensure Egypts independence - and ultimately failed. But Roman antipathy to her supposedly negative figure (a cliche easily associated with the image of Egyptian ´decadence´) ultimately only led to her becoming the most well-known Egyptian female ruler in history - one of history´s great little ironies.

As per Gandhi never effectively ruling India: India today would be unimaginable without Gandhi´s efforts to ensure its independence - and the Gandhis are very much alive in current political India.

But yes, Joan as leader... *shudder* even her military leadership skills are questionable at best.

Irrelevant. She was the embodiment of French resistance during a crucial period of the Hundred Years War. Whether she was a Saint or a military nitwit is neither here nor there; she´s simply the most famous woman in French history. (By contrast, Marie-Antoinette, to name another well-known female from French history, may make a great movie - though I doubt that personally -, but in hindsight she mostly represented nothing of consequence.)

 

[Guandao]

Don't worry too much about the leader choices
Firaxis just wanted to add more female leaders to the game, prolly as fanservice, I'm not sure if female players really care what the leader's gender is.

I found it quite unusual that Theodora predeceased Justinian. Was it because of cancer?

About Jeanne d'Arc, I would not want to have her as leader. France really doesn't have any great female leaders. So let's keep it guys, like Louis XIV, Napoleon, De Gaulle, Philip Augustus etc.

 

[PreLynMax]

Here's a better question. Why Wu Zetian for China? She did nothing but sponge off the success of her husband through her entire life. I just don't understand why...

 

[Civciv5]

That's a prejudice!
Let's tell it again.

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.

If you do not believe me or know nothing of her, go search on some websites on internet that are going about her life and accomplishments.
She did some bad things,yes,but those who want to be remembered in history have to do great and/or cruel things.

Why do people always give her an disadvantage?
She was greater then most of the other female leader.
You better ask:"Why is Elizabeth I in Civ?" or "Why is Isabella in Civ?" or "Why is Theodora coming to Civ?" or "Why is Dido coming to Civ?".
She deserves it to be in this game more then any other female leader!
She is even important or more important then most female leaders!

 

[Nyanko]

That's a prejudice!
Let's tell it again.

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.

If you do not believe me or know nothing of her, go search on some websites on internet that are going about her life and accomplishments.
She did some bad things,yes,but those who want to be remembered in history have to do great and/or cruel things.

Why do people always give her an disadvantage?
She was greater then most of the other female leader.
You better ask:"Why is Elizabeth I in Civ?" or "Why is Isabella in Civ?" or "Why is Theodora coming to Civ?" or "Why is Dido coming to Civ?".
She deserves it to be in this game more then any other female leader!
She is even important or more important then most female leaders!

We're not putting down Wu's achievements; but rather there are so many more Chinese rulers that have done greater things for China; Wu is a footnote compared to their achievements. At the very least, they didn't pick Cixi, so maybe thats a positive.

 

[Civciv5]

Wu Zetian is the best female leader that they can choose for China.
And they can't put all the greatest leaders of all nations in the game.
Then it would all be males.
It just has to be a great leader,NOT the greatest.

 

[Lone Wolf]

You'd be surprised how self conscious they actually were over the issue.

Really? Was there a perception that the state of Constantine and Justinian was different then the state of Basil II and Alexios in something other then territorial extent and power? Well, Constantine VII did write that "After Herakleios, the emperors Hellenized even more and cast off their ancestral language", but the majority of Byzantines didn't seem to dwell on it that much. They definitely counted Constantine I as one of their own.

On a side note, it's quite ironic that some icons portray Constantine I as bearded, in accordance with Middle and Late Byzantine customs, considering that in his time, beards were considered to be a sign of pagan sympathies.

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.

The whole Greek-Hellene-Roman broohaha of Byzantine identity is quite complicated.

 

[bhavv]

I would have preferred Justinian for Byzantines and Hannibal for Carthage.

Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella and Boudica are the only female leaders I like. And Hatshepshut but we already have Ramesses.

 

[Xen]

Really? Was there a perception that the state of Constantine and Justinian was different then the state of Basil II and Alexios in something other then territorial extent and power? Well, Constantine VII did write that "After Herakleios, the emperors Hellenized even more and cast off their ancestral language", but the majority of Byzantines didn't seem to dwell on it that much. They definitely counted Constantine I as one of their own.

On a side note, it's quite ironic that some icons portray Constantine I as bearded, in accordance with Middle and Late Byzantine customs, considering that in his time, beards were considered to be a sign of pagan sympathies.


The whole Greek-Hellene-Roman broohaha of Byzantine identity is quite complicated.

You answer the question yourself, largely. That the Greek form of Roman became the ethnic term for the Greeks of the Balkans and Anatolia is as interesting as the Romanians doing the same; there is a linkage of heritage sure. And you can throw legalities around all day. But at the days end, everyone -including the Eastern Romans- knew full well a Rome without Rome is no real Rome at all.

 

[Agent327]

Truthfully, there were serious attempts undertaken to retake at least part of the Western empire. In the end, however, the Eastern Roman empire seemed to be doing okay though on its own.

I would have preferred Justinian for Byzantines and Hannibal for Carthage.

Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella and Boudica are the only female leaders I like. And Hatshepshut but we already have Ramesses.

Who says civs can´t have more than 1 leader?

 

[Lone Wolf]

But at the days end, everyone -including the Eastern Romans- knew full well a Rome without Rome is no real Rome at all.

I've never seen that sentiment expressed by Byzantines. They just proclaimed Constantinople to be the New Rome anyway. Also, according to this criteria, the last Eastern Roman emperor was Constantine V, under the early part of whose reign Rome was still formally subject to the empire. And, of course, the ERE of, say, Anastasius, didn't actually control Rome, but was still recognizably Roman.

Regardless, there is certainly a difference between Late Antique ERE of 4-6th centuries, and its medieval incarnation of following times. Since only one leader per Civ is possible in Civ5, someone like Basil II or Alexios I would've been a better pick, at least for the sake of diversity.

 

[Iprotagonist]

One might consider Theodora ´the woman behind the man´ Justinian. But, unlike the OP misrepresents, Theodora wasn´t the negative influence attributed to her by Procopius´ later Secret History; his own contemporary Wars of Justinian paints a very different picture indeed, and, given the role she played during the Nika riots, it is even fair to say that without Theodora there might not have been a Justinian the Great at all.

I really don't think I'm misrepresenting her. The only reliable anecdote people fall back on in defending her is the one you used; the Nika riot, where Theodora ostensibly told Justinian to man up. While this is now widely accepted as having actually occurred, there are scholars who claim that the event was something invented by her supporters. I'm personally not going to dispute the event in question but I am going to point out that other than that, we really can't point to her having done anything positive for the empire as a whole, apart from her feminist reforms.

Other than that, Theodora is accused of having whispered in her husband's ear about people she didn't like (i.e. Belisarius, who did not count her an 'ally' by any sense of the word.) and diverting much needed resources to her favourites (i.e. Narses, who consolidated the gains made by Belisarius in Italy with troops the former general had begged and pleaded for from Justinian). Why else was Belisarius fully reconciled with Justinian only upon Theodora's demise?

Even if we do not rely on the secret histories which, honestly, is itself crippling in understanding the situation as a whole, Theodora still comes off as being conniving, deceitful and cruel. She may have saved Justinian the great from dethronement, but it was Justinian's own initiative and energy that allowed his empire to expand beyond its boundaries. Saying that her actions at the Nika riot absolve her of her later crimes and make her a fitting representative of Byzantium is like saying that A mass-murderer who was a good and pious church-goer before he went homicidal is a fitting representative of the Anglican church.

My understanding of the situation is, of course, incomplete and I'll not claim to be an in-depth scholar of Byzantium. If anyone has anything other than what has been mentioned, that might yet justify Theodora being Byzantium's figurehead, i'd be glad to hear it. But from my current understanding of her actions and the books I've read (Gibbons, Norwich, Herrin) , I truly, honestly do not believe I misrepresent her when I say that she was a cruel and capricious individual whose influence on the empire was too negative to justify what few positives she managed to involve herself in. Ultimately, there are always schools of thought regarding her influence on court affairs, but don't you all think that the interpretation of history that has her being the puppetmaster behind the emperor is a tiny bit... overdramatic? A bit like the 'livia-poisons-everyone' school of thought regarding early roman imperial history. Sensational but unsubstantiated and largely hypothetical in nature.


Anyway, I certainly agree that dwelling on the immediately post-roman period of byzantine history for leaders is quite shortsighted. I personally wouldn't even want to see Justinian there. I WOULD really enjoy seeing Basil II. But I suppose you're all right, and mass appeal wins out over everything else... Which actually kind of doesn't make sense, given Dido's (who I am ashamed to say I'd never heard of until recently) inclusion... but, meh.

All this really leads me to believe that Firaxis is being *really* short-sighted in planning all of this... ._.

 

[Alexastor]

Who says civs can´t have more than 1 leader?

Because the leader screen with audio is the most expensive thing about a civilization. Compared to that, a UU model and a UB picture are peanuts.

Instead of doing a second leader, they could just go for a completely new civ instead and make more $$$.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Calling Cleopatra VII ´a Roman puppet´ is as misleading as the OP is about Theodora. While someone like Hatshepsut was much more important to the Egyptian empire than Cleopatra ever could be, given the fact that she ruled when Rome was rising to the zenith of its power, she tried her utmost to ensure Egypts independence - and ultimately failed. But Roman antipathy to her supposedly negative figure (a cliche easily associated with the image of Egyptian ´decadence´) ultimately only led to her becoming the most well-known Egyptian female ruler in history - one of history´s great little ironies.

I don't know much about Cleopatra, but my understanding of her has always been that she was effectively a Roman puppet. Shacking up with one Roman leader and then another seems a bizarre way of working to ensure your country's independence.

I should also point out that I haven't actually questioned Cleopatra's suitability as an Egyptian leader.

Irrelevant. She was the embodiment of French resistance during a crucial period of the Hundred Years War. Whether she was a Saint or a military nitwit is neither here nor there; she´s simply the most famous woman in French history. (By contrast, Marie-Antoinette, to name another well-known female from French history, may make a great movie - though I doubt that personally -, but in hindsight she mostly represented nothing of consequence.)

Now Joan, I do know a lot about.

How is the fact that she didn't actually lead the armies, let alone the country's government, make that irrelevant? Not to mention the fact that she was only around for 2 years, and the French recovery of the Hundred Years War in the fifteenth century (which, by the way, wasn't fully achieved for another 20 years after Joan's death) owed a lot more to Charles VII's leadership, Henry V's early death, Henry VI's ineffectual leadership and the squabbling between his regents that eventually led to the War of the Roses. Yes, she was a figurehead for the French, but that doesn't make her a leader. It makes her a mascot. Since, as you yourself dismiss Victoria over Elizabeth on the grounds of her being 'little more than a figurehead', I think that rules Joan out, too.

Marilyn Monroe is simply the most famous woman in American history; does that mean she should be leader of the American Civ?

Oh, and on the subject of Marie Antoinette making a great movie - they've tried, most recently with Sofia Coppola directing and Kirsten Dunst as the lead. Spare yourself the effort if you haven't already seen it!

 

[Uberfrog]

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.

Because the term "Celtic", a bit like "Polynesian", refers to a group of separate tribes all over Europe who were linked by shared languages and cultures. British (Insular) tribes like the Iceni, as well as the Gauls in France, Cisalpine tribes in Italy and Iberian Celts all fall under this umbrella.

The Civ that's appearing in G&K is a bit of an amalgamation, but seems to be focussing on the Insular Celts, with cities taken from Scotland, Ireland and Wales (which are three of the "six Celtic nations" which effectively managed to remain Celtic until the modern age), a Pictish UU and a British leader (who we can imagine was chosen for being the most recognisable).

 

[Agent327]

I really don't think I'm misrepresenting her. The only reliable anecdote people fall back on in defending her is the one you used; the Nika riot, where Theodora ostensibly told Justinian to man up. While this is now widely accepted as having actually occurred, there are scholars who claim that the event was something invented by her supporters. I'm personally not going to dispute the event in question but I am going to point out that other than that, we really can't point to her having done anything positive for the empire as a whole, apart from her feminist reforms.

Since the later Secret History clearly contradicts the contemprarily Wars of Justinian, it´s genrally accepted that the Wars are more reliable I wasn´t going to discuss Theodora in detail, which is why I only mentioned the Nika riot, but you yourself mention her ´feminist´ reforms, which gave Eastern Roman women a better legal position than in any empire of the time - and many later ones. Not to mention that these were not the only reforms she was responsible for.

Other than that, Theodora is accused of having whispered in her husband's ear about people she didn't like (i.e. Belisarius, who did not count her an 'ally' by any sense of the word.) and diverting much needed resources to her favourites (i.e. Narses, who consolidated the gains made by Belisarius in Italy with troops the former general had begged and pleaded for from Justinian). Why else was Belisarius fully reconciled with Justinian only upon Theodora's demise?

Even if we do not rely on the secret histories which, honestly, is itself crippling in understanding the situation as a whole, Theodora still comes off as being conniving, deceitful and cruel. She may have saved Justinian the great from dethronement, but it was Justinian's own initiative and energy that allowed his empire to expand beyond its boundaries. Saying that her actions at the Nika riot absolve her of her later crimes and make her a fitting representative of Byzantium is like saying that A mass-murderer who was a good and pious church-goer before he went homicidal is a fitting representative of the Anglican church.

Indeed. Only I didn´t say that, now did I? And Byzantine intrigues are nothing out of the ordinary. Or would you have posterity judge Theodora differently on account of her gender? She is generally referred to as being a prostitute, which is hugely inaccurate: by the time Justinian met her, she was actually a spinster of sorts. Had indeed Justinian married a woman from his own circle, we might never have heard of any woman behind the man - a man who might have been just another short-ruling Byzantine, as they are frequent in the latter period of the empire.

My understanding of the situation is, of course, incomplete and I'll not claim to be an in-depth scholar of Byzantium. If anyone has anything other than what has been mentioned, that might yet justify Theodora being Byzantium's figurehead, i'd be glad to hear it. But from my current understanding of her actions and the books I've read (Gibbons, Norwich, Herrin) , I truly, honestly do not believe I misrepresent her when I say that she was a cruel and capricious individual whose influence on the empire was too negative to justify what few positives she managed to involve herself in. Ultimately, there are always schools of thought regarding her influence on court affairs, but don't you all think that the interpretation of history that has her being the puppetmaster behind the emperor is a tiny bit... overdramatic? A bit like the 'livia-poisons-everyone' school of thought regarding early roman imperial history. Sensational but unsubstantiated and largely hypothetical in nature.

Norwich in particular focuses entirely on Byzantine intrigue and isn´t the best source for an analytic overview of the Eastern Roman empire. And again, I made no mention of a ´puppet master´; I merely pointed out that, hadn´t Theodora saved Justinian´s hiny, there might never have been a Justinian the Great. On which note: the conquests made during Justinian stretched the imperial resources pretty far and most of these were lost after his reign - the only lasting ones being those in Italy, hardly an asset for the empire. Also, as usual, they could only be achieved because of peace with the Sassanids - who took over Egypt, Syria and other eastern territory in the decades that followed, when the peace no longer suited them. In fact one might argue that the Roman-Persian mutual stranglehold made both empires weak to the 7th century Arabian onslaught, which saw Egypt and Syria lost forever - as well as the Justinian conquests outside of Italy. So in retrospect, the miltary efforts of Justinian´s reign turned out to be a huge waste of resources with ultimately mainly negative results.

Anyway, I certainly agree that dwelling on the immediately post-roman period of byzantine history for leaders is quite shortsighted. I personally wouldn't even want to see Justinian there. I WOULD really enjoy seeing Basil II. But I suppose you're all right, and mass appeal wins out over everything else... Which actually kind of doesn't make sense, given Dido's (who I am ashamed to say I'd never heard of until recently) inclusion... but, meh.

Don´t be too ashamed, as Dido features primarily in mythology and, indeed, the dramatic arts of songs and opera.

I don't know much about Cleopatra, but my understanding of her has always been that she was effectively a Roman puppet. Shacking up with one Roman leader and then another seems a bizarre way of working to ensure your country's independence.

You seem to conveniently forget that while Egypt was possibly the richest empire of the time, Rome was the most powerful. The only way for Cleopatra to keep her country from becoming a Roman province was to work with what she had - which was plenty, even according to the anti-Cleopatra Roman histories we have to rely on. Not to mention that her early reign was far from indisputed in Egypt itself.

Now Joan, I do know a lot about.

How is the fact that she didn't actually lead the armies, let alone the country's government, make that irrelevant? Not to mention the fact that she was only around for 2 years, and the French recovery of the Hundred Years War in the fifteenth century (which, by the way, wasn't fully achieved for another 20 years after Joan's death) owed a lot more to Charles VII's leadership, Henry V's early death, Henry VI's ineffectual leadership and the squabbling between his regents that eventually led to the War of the Roses. Yes, she was a figurehead for the French, but that doesn't make her a leader. It makes her a mascot. Since, as you yourself dismiss Victoria over Elizabeth on the grounds of her being 'little more than a figurehead', I think that rules Joan out, too.

Marilyn Monroe is simply the most famous woman in American history; does that mean she should be leader of the American Civ?

Apart from making movies miss Monroe hardly played a part in US history. Going back to Joan and Victoria: I didn´t dispute Joan´s questionable military leadership, but, unlike Victoria, she actually inspired the French in a crucial part of history. Was she a leader? Not in the traditional sense, and I persoanlly wouldn´t have picked as a leader of the French at all - but that wasn´t the argument.

Oh, and on the subject of Marie Antoinette making a great movie - they've tried, most recently with Sofia Coppola directing and Kirsten Dunst as the lead. Spare yourself the effort if you haven't already seen it!

... which was what I was referring to.

Because the leader screen with audio is the most expensive thing about a civilization. Compared to that, a UU model and a UB picture are peanuts.

Instead of doing a second leader, they could just go for a completely new civ instead and make more $$$.

If - and that´s a big if - CiV is going to do as well as Civ 4, I don´t see an argument here, really. Civ 4 also started out with all civs having a single leader, if memory serves, and additional leaders only came along with the expansions.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Because the leader screen with audio is the most expensive thing about a civilization. Compared to that, a UU model and a UB picture are peanuts.

Instead of doing a second leader, they could just go for a completely new civ instead and make more $$$.

Who said extra leaders cannot be DLCs?
Though I agree that it's quite unlikely