Why is Cleopatra black?!

[Heraclitus]

From the site.

Saladin (c.1137-1193 AD) was a Kurdish Muslim warrior and self-proclaimed Sultan of Arabia. During his life he was the Defender of Islam and great opponent to the Crusaders.

Of Kurdish descent, born in Mesopotamia, Saladin grew to become a religious warrior. During his youth he studied Sunni theology for ten years and then accompanied his uncle during his battles to conquer Arabia (ca. 1167). After his uncle died, Saladin succeeded him as vizier (minister of state) of Arabia, and he eventually proclaimed himself sultan (sovereign).

During his reign Saladin conquered portions of North Africa, Yemen, Syria and Palestine. He mustered a large force of Muslims to defeat the Christian occupiers and retake the city of Jerusalem. He fought off a spirited attempt to retake the city (the Third Crusade) in 1189; in 1192 Saladin signed a treaty with the Crusaders, leaving them just a small strip of land in Syria on the coast of the Mediterranean.

Saladin had a richly-deserved reputation for generosity and chivalry in battle. He treated his prisoners honorably, and was a man of his word. He was greatly admired by his European opponents, who barely acknowledged other Muslims as human.

It does mention "North Africa" ever so breifly, there is however no mention of Egypt or how it was his power base. Why not make a reference to it in the civilopedia if it was realy their intention to be historicaly correct about "leader" (and incorrect about civ) placement?

[Heraclitus]

Locutus your explanation, while tehnically plausible, is a bit far fetched, since firaxis is probably just going by where the civs are not where the civ leaders come from. Why else would they put Chatarine in the depts of Eurasia (beyond the Ural) and not closer to a center of her power or where she was born ( )?

You are forgetting that CivRev only has one leader per civ, the leader is the civ in some sense. My position on this is further supported by the fact that the part of the website we are looking at is labeled "Civilizations" not "Leaders". Also beneath the name of each ruler is the name of the country under Saladin it says Arabia. It also does not explain the odd placement of the Aztec, Zulu and Mongolian leaders.


On a final note Saladin seems to be placed very south in Egypt, I'm willing to bet well south of Cairo.


Damm, talking to you is like arguing with a church apologist.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
BTW Am I the only one bothered by how the website of CivRev puts Saladin in Africa?

Looking at the map, they didn't just place him in Africa, but in Egypt specifically, which is actually the historically correct thing to do: in popular Western culture many people only know Saladin as the guy who fought in the Crusades in the war for the Holy Land, but in reality that was only a tiny insignicant chapter in Saladin's life. In reality he was Sultan of Egypt, his main power base was in Egypt and Cairo was his capital and the location of his main palaces. In fact, he effectively made Cairo the center of the Islamic world which it would remain for centuries (and basically still is today, although they're been periods Baghdad, Esfahan and especially Istanbul outclassed it).

Most of his military conquests were to expand his empire base in Egypt: he conquered much of North Africa, the area bordering on the Red Sea (esp Yemen) and late in his life Syria, where he encountered Richard the Lionhearted and other Crusaders which made him so famous in the West. But that was not in any way a major accomplishment for him, even if both us Westerners and modern Arabs (who see him as a hero in the struggle for Palestine) want to see it that way. You can still see Saladin's Egyptian roots today: Egypt's modern coat of arms is the Eagle of Saladin.

So here Firaxis (or more likely 2K, who maintain that site from what I can gather) actually did do their homework and did what's historically accurate and not what most people would expect, and yet you still fault them for it. They just can't win with you, can they?

[Heraclitus]

But why dosen't Abraham Lincoln look Native American? It would realy help blance out the 10 or so European looking leaders...


On the second point: In any case go to the CivRev site and go to the civ section, there you have an option to see them on the map.




Also why the hell should they care about a leaders race? It should not! The reason we wanted more african civs in previos civ versions was because they were interesting and because Africa was too empty on the Earth map, not because the civs had black leaders and we felt the need to make civ politicaly correct.


My point: Making Cleopatra look like a tanned Macedonian with pharoaonic symbols would not have hurt sales in any way.
It would ever so slightly improved the educational value of CivRev. Why not do it?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I am not condeming "white Cleopatra" or "black Cleopatra" and you are again obscuring the point. Ancient Greeks were not western European in complexion they were a very mediteranean people, and it is likley that this would be reflected in the apperance of Cleopatra. Also as such she would have been more similar to the egyptians than to a blue-eyed germanian warrior or a subsaharan hunter. I'm trying to say that making her seem "Egyptian" would have been a reasonable compromise, since as you pointed out both the Greeks (and I do consider the Macedonians to be very closley related to Greeks) and Egyptians were diverese in apperances.

"likely", "similar", "diverse". You're already saying yourself you have no clue as to what she looked like, but Firaxis is supposed to magically have the answer?

What you consider to be the 'correct' look for Cleopatra is highly biased, entirely speculative and almost certainly very inaccurate, just like Firaxis's depiction of her. What's the difference? You're welcome to disagree with Firaxis but your reasoning is no more valuable or valid than theirs (whatever that is, we don't even know), you're making a big stink over nothing. It's not like Firaxis will have had hour-long meetings over this puny little issue, it was almost certainly at the discretion of the one artist who happened to be assigned this leaderhead (who undoubtedly did some research but (s)he didn't make it his/her master thesis, (s)he did probably have like 3 other leaderheads to make before the next deadline).

My point is that having a black phararo or two is not beyond the scope of possiblity (the Nubian ones were black), and having a Egyptian looking Cleopatra is not beyond the scope either. But having Cleopatra look black will just not cut it.

So first you say both are equally likely and then you say one just doesn't cut it while the other is the only correct view in your book? Sorry, you're not making any kind of sense here yourself, certainly no more than Firaxis.

Also I would just like to know what is this you keep mentioning about my backround, and please explain why it matters?

Your cultural background affects your world view. A black African is more likely to view Cleopatra as black, a white American will likely cosider her white, etc. We REALLY have NO CLUE as to what she looked like so how you (and I and everyone else) view her depends on what kind of books you've read, places you've been, movies you've seen, etc and all kinds of other life experiences. She looks different to different people depending on their cultural background because we can all only speculate about her appearance (and there has been plenty of speculation over the centuries).

[UnOrthOdOx]

I haven't really looked at the website since it first launched, let alone in detail to point out flaws. Didn't know they had a map, honestly.

As for why is the "black" Cleopatra in Civ Rev, I'm not saying it SHOULD be, but don't have a problem with it. They could put in blue skin and hot pink hair for all I care.

I'm guessing it's either purely artistic license, whoever made it favors that look, or for balance, as previously stated. No, adding another civ in really isn't an option, that's more work. Here they can get a black looking female leader in, and have plenty of precidence to site as sources of inspiration for that decision. Probably somewhere between those two.

[Heraclitus]

BTW Am I the only one bothered by how the website of CivRev puts Saladin in Africa?

I can excuse them putting the Aztecs, Russians, Mongolians in the wrong place, but at least they aren't on the wrong continent!

/they may have fixed it by now since I have sent an email pointing out the eror/

[Heraclitus]

I am not condeming "white Cleopatra" or "black Cleopatra" and you are again obscuring the point. Ancient Greeks were not western European in complexion they were a very mediteranean people, and it is likley that this would be reflected in the apperance of Cleopatra. Also as such she would have been more similar to the egyptians than to a blue-eyed germanian warrior or a subsaharan hunter. I'm trying to say that making her seem "Egyptian" would have been a reasonable compromise, since as you pointed out both the Greeks (and I do consider the Macedonians to be very closley related to Greeks) and Egyptians were diverese in apperances.

My point is that having a black phararo or two is not beyond the scope of possiblity (the Nubian ones were black), and having a Egyptian looking Cleopatra is not beyond the scope either. But having Cleopatra look black will just not cut it.



Also I would just like to know what is this you keep mentioning about my backround, and please explain why it matters?

@UnOrthOdOx: Why should the more recent depiction be the one to make it into civ? I can tell you right now that there are many people who will pick up civ who have not seen any of the recent stuff, in fact it is more likley for them to have seen old Elizabeth in the classic movie.

Also my point was that when they were casting Cleopatra they were looking for talent, somewhat widening the criteria of apperances. That is why we can have a blue-eyed man acting as Jesus in a movie or why a Itallian can play the role of King Arthur or why Ghandi could perhaps be portrayed by a Afro-American.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I'm sorry I don't see how the old gameplay vs. realism comes into play here Locutus. The appearances of a leader have nothing to do with gameplay. Sure people can enjoy the game if the leader pics are pretty but that is also not covered under "gameplay". I'm very dissapointed that you have brought something like that up, when it makes no sense.

You're taking gameplay very literally here. A game is a full experience, in which sound and graphics are VERY important elements. A key point for a game like Civ is that players can recognise history in it, which trumps making an actual accurate depiction of history, which would be completely impossible anyway: again, we have NO CLUE what Cleopatra really looked like.

If you insist that gameplay must be taken in the most literal sense, then we can simply replace my quote with 'graphics trumps realism'. And when it becomes relevant 'sound trumps realism', 'user-friendliness trumps realism', etc, etc. Historic realism is pretty close to the bottom of the list when it comes to game design (and this is coming from a guy who passionately cares about history and who came up with over 50% of the historic elements (UUs, Wonders, leaders, flags, great people, city names, etc) in Warlords and BtS, and a good number of the ones in vanilla Civ4 -- I love that stuff but in the scheme of things it's not what sells the game (in every possible meaning of the word)).

I'm not arguning she should look Greek! I'm arguing she should look Egyptian (since a very tanned Greek might pass as an Egyptian).

Based on the most sound and widely-accepted scientific theories she should definitely look Greek (or more accurate, Macedonian), there wasn't a drop of Egyptian blood in her heritage going by conventional history. Again, the fact that you seem to disagree says more about your own cultural background than about Firaxis. There is every bit as much historical base for depicting her as black or very dark-skinned as there is to depict her as 'Egyptian', both are more or less equally historically (in)plausible.

Depicting her as Greek would make the most sense if you go by historic accuracy alone, but I think for many people it would merely be confusing if Cleopatra looked like a Christina Onassis-lookalike -- she should actually probably look a lot more like the 'white' Cleopatras you condemn than like a traditional native 'Egyptian' as you seem to envision it (Egypt's always been a very heterogeneous society, it's on the crossroads between the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East and the native Egyptians can have the physical attributes common to all three of those regions, there isn't really a standard 'Egyptian' racial profile).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Doesn't matter which is more or less. I'm only stating that it is far from unique, and it falls under artistic license. As all the game art does.

I find this as silly as someone complaining that the banana graphic was innacurate back when CIV first came out.

Why does it matter?

[edit] And I'm quite certain, the "black Cleopatra" pics are fairly more recent than the Elizabeth Taylor one you post there.

(though most certainly, the Elizabeth Taylor one is a better film)

[Heraclitus]

What are you on about? I'm trying to point out that pop-culture refernces are more in favor of a "white Cleopatra" which is just as silly as a "black Cleopatra". You are just trying to make it seem I am arguing something I am not.



Example of a "white Cleopatra"

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
@ UnOrthOdOx: A google search is not always a good parameter, but if you insist on making it. Then Cleopatra appearently looked European.

The only two pics showing a "black" Cleopatra are the ones where she is depicted by African-American actresses (one of those being Tinat Turner).

Now looking at they paypirus, that dosen't seem subsaharna african to me, it looks like people from north africa or India. Also it is a very generic representation, since the Egyptians were not concerned with realism.

I've never claimed to know what she looked like, or that anything was an accurate perception of what she looked like, or that she SHOULD be looking a particular way. I have only claimed that Civ Rev is far from the first to depict a black Cleopatra. It is fairly old-hat, frankly, and not really at all surprising. It is a bit surprising to me you have never really seen such references before, or that you consider it an issue.

And, frankly, google image IS the place to go looking for pop culture references, which is all I've ever claimed. Yes, the pictures are from African-American actresses. As I stated above in the first post, Hollywood had depicted a black Cleopatra, that would likely mean African American actresses.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Locutus
And on top of that, as always, gameplay trumps reality: Firaxis has to make sure she's recognisable to all players, so their depiction has to take into account what most people with little or no knowledge of history expect Cleopatra to look like, and not many of such people would expect her to look Greek.

I'm sorry I don't see how the old gameplay vs. realism comes into play here Locutus. The appearances of a leader have nothing to do with gameplay. Sure people can enjoy the game if the leader pics are pretty but that is also not covered under "gameplay". I'm very dissapointed that you have brought something like that up, when it makes no sense.



I'm not arguning she should look Greek! I'm arguing she should look Egyptian (since a very tanned Greek might pass as an Egyptian). But if you think we should submit to stuff like that, why shouldn't we rewrite the civilopedia entry about oh, lets say a mongolian leader or about Islam according to what the average consol player expects to find there.

[Heraclitus]

Well, to be completley honest I have seen a black Cleopatra but it was in the same book that claimed that white people werent really people, it was quite Afrocentric.

But even this book had the decency to at least explain away Cleopatras ancestry as a hoax. I must say Firaxis has done an aweful job, why didn't they simply make her dark skinned but with mediternaean/arab features like they did with Hachepsut? If all they really wanted was for the pic to be instantly recognisable?


@ UnOrthOdOx: A google search is not always a good parameter, but if you insist on making it. Then Cleopatra appearently looked European.

The only two pics showing a "black" Cleopatra are the ones where she is depicted by African-American actresses (one of those being Tinat Turner).

Now looking at they paypirus, that dosen't seem subsaharna african to me, it looks like people from north africa or India. Also it is a very generic representation, since the Egyptians were not concerned with realism.

[Locutus]

We don't have any reliable historic depictions of Cleopatra, we have zero hard evidence of what she *really* looked like. There are many theories, some better than others, but they're all merely theories in the end.

The depictions of her in Western culture that Firaxis frequently draws from for much of their artwork of ancient leaders have changed quite a lot over time. Until the 18th c. Cleopatra always looked distinctly Western European (not even Greek, more like English or French) as that was what people identified with, in the 18th and 19th c. she was usually portrayed as very dark-skinned (but not usually outright black) as that was exotic and that was all the rage back then, and in the 20th c. her depictions have been all over the map, from black to Middle Eastern/Mediterranean to white and just about everything in between -- and a lot of the time political motivations played into the decision making process there. If you've never seen any depictions of a dark/black Cleopatra then that frankly says far more about your own cultural background than about Cleopatra or Firaxis.

Firaxis tends not to just completely make sh*t up with their artwork, they need to use something as basis for their models. So they have to go with *something* and they happened to go with a depiction of Cleopatra in which she has a fairly dark skin (although not nearly as dark as in some depictions I've seen). Not sure that you can really fault them for that, or for anything else they could've chosen as their basis -- while some depictions are better than others, every single one of them is far more based on conjecture than on fact.

And on top of that, as always, gameplay trumps reality: Firaxis has to make sure she's recognisable to all players, so their depiction has to take into account what most people with little or no knowledge of history expect Cleopatra to look like, and not many of such people would expect her to look Greek.