civ
Year of Daily Civilization Facts, Day 69 - Catherine the Ageless
Discussion
Now this is a chart I can get behind
One again Stalin actually belongs in the horseshoe gap
I like how u/SuedeCiviii is slowly becoming a embassador of the series like u/UrsaRyan
Queen Victoria (who is significantly younger in Civ 6 than she is in Civ 4) and Pedro II (significantly younger in 6 than he is in 5) are also a bit like this.
Personally, if we ever got Henry VIII, I would much prefer if they depicted him younger too.
Wu Zetian looks way younger in 5 than in 6. Historically, she took the throne later in her life.
It’s a historical fact that Catherine The Great had a busty Latina phase
Don't we all.
Haha I was thinking that too, impressive tatas - which civ version is it from?
It is a shame I lost science to her in life during a turn
CivRev Catherine looks suspiciously like the governors' daughters in Pirates (2006).
That one spanish looking Catherine lol
Fun fact suggestion: there are two removed agendas in Civ 6, Flirtatious and Curmudgeon
Oh yeah an interesting one, I vaguely remember being reprimanded by Genghis simply for playing as Wilhelmina back then.
They can be added back with mods on the Steam workshop.
Civ parents: "I love civ. I hope my child will do so, too. What's that, there's a console version that seems made to appeal to younger people? Great, that will be their perfect first civ game. I just hope this won't awaken something in them..."
Civ Rev Catherine:
Have you seen the cleopatra?
I appreciate all your posts bro, but this one is good yes.
Would be cool if your leader aged through the ages. Doesn't make any sense, but I'm curious what teenage confucious would look like.
i wonder what 3000 year-old Catherine would look like ❤️
One thing that bothers me about the TV show The Great is how they portray Catherine as being in her early 20s or something when she's supposed to be 33.
Great show, though.
Man, the way Catherine used to slap the player in Civ IV awakened something in me 🤐
Nice
Wonder why you chose to cover Catherine today... Auspicious day, innit?
CivRev Catherine be looking like an early 00's pop artist
I play since II, from where is that cutie? A console version?
She's from Civilization Revolution, so yes.
Some of those are pretty bad.
Nice
Nice
Nice
I like how only one of them is like a grandma
Civ7 got something wrong? Nooooooo.....
We have a new flair system; please use the correct flair. Read more about it at this link: https://old.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1kuiqwn/do_you_likedislike_the_i_lovehate_civ_vii_posts_a/?ref=share&ref_source=link
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Would
She's so fucking hot. She wants me bad, too, I just know it.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news...
Holy incel
I like how Augustus, who ruled for something like 60 years and died at like 80, is just always portrayed as basically a teenager because his propaganda was so good
It doesn't help that it took until Hadrian for the smooth-shaven, bowl cut emperor look to go out of fashion.
damn that Scipio
Yo Hannibal is that you
Augustus definitely had THE most successful propaganda campaign of the ancient world. Won a brutal civil war on his own people and managed to blame it on everyone else. Became an authoritarian dictator and ended roman democracy but still hailed as its greatest ruler.
Didn't even call himself Emperor. He styled himself as Princeps and let history call him Emperor. Wild how much work historians do for the guy.
Didn't even mention how his anti-Cleopatra propaganda is still the mainstream view of her personality, 2000 years later.
Yep! As well as his glorification of good ol Julius Caesar.
Unfortunately the Republic was toast long before Gaius ever crossed the Rubicon.
Damn you Sulla!
I'll never forgive him for what he did to the Samnites!
Love the Samnites! The Rednecks of ancient Italy!
Agreed, but he sure didn't right that ship.
TBF Historians tend to report on de facto situations.
Not calling themselves Emperor was the style of the time really, Nero didn't do that either, Rome was still a Republic or at least that was the impression its early emperors wanted to give. Which is also why they called themselves "Imperator" instead of "Rex" because the Romans had a dim view of kings after becoming a republic, while Imperator just meant Military Leader. Same reason Stalin only called himself "General Secretary" rather than President, Czar or some other term to qualify himself as the sole and supreme ruler of the Soviet Union.
Well it's because Stalin was the original General Secretary of the Communist Party - Lenin named him to the post in 1922. It's just that Stalin transformed that position to the leader of the country. It was originally intended to be an administrative role - determining party membership and assigning leadership roles... which one can see how you could abuse that power.
Though General Secretary or Secretary General is not an uncommon title for a leader - the United Nations is led by a Secretary General.
What’s interesting is that even the Byzantines, with their straight-up Christian monarchy, referred to Res Publica (or some Greek translation of it) when talking about the Byzantine state. The Roman Republic never legally died, it was just Ship of Theseus’d into several increasingly autocratic regimes.
Agreed. "Why did the Roman Empire fall" used to be my least favourite historical question, but now it's one of my favourites because it opens the door to better historical understanding.
It didn't fall! Ever! Nor are we a direct continuation. It's complicated in such a cool way.
Ship of Theseus is the best explanation for that debate. I'm very much in the camp that the Byzantines weren't the same thing as the Roman Republic/Empire that built itself through Italy, but the debate will live on forever.
I just really don’t think it’s fair to deny the national identity that people obviously had. I get that it’s a fun philosophical quandary, but those people identified as Romans and there’s really no concrete thing you could point to and say this is when they stopped being the Roman state.
To annoy everyone a step further, I'd say the "Roman" wasn't a national identity, but a cultural identity.
Probably learned a thing or two from his uncle / adoptive father. Caesar’s Commentaries are incredible propaganda, portraying himself in an overall positive light while maintaining an air of impartiality (other than being pro-Roman-ness).
Though he does appear more partial in his Civil War, which basically opens with him saying, “Look, I didn’t want to do this, but look at all the terrible things Pompey and co have been doing to me, a former consul! And by the way, when all of this started, I asked to sit down and peacefully talk our issues out, but Pompey refused to meet with me! I mean, really, this is horribly un-Roman and undignified of them to do, so I must fight them to defend myself and my honor, but more importantly, I must defend Rome and her honor!”
Lol if it makes you feel any better, when I was in college, the professor of my antiquity class used Augustus as an example of historic propaganda throughout the entire semester. I actually made a positive reference to Augustus in a paper and he (or in this case, the TA) wrote a big comment about propaganda and such and docked me points. So he was very committed to rewriting history back ha.
Haha hell yeah! That's awesome. Fascist propaganda should always be resisted, even when it's 2000 years old.
It's also important to take into account that this wouldn't have worked for everyone. I'd say the reason Augustus' propagandistic efforts had such good results resided in him being an actually competent leader in the first place.
The Republic was a very old system, and undoubtedly some factions were content with a change in the political dymamics. On top of that, the assassination of Julius Caesar under wrong assumptions had left a bad taste, which, being quick to read the room, allowed Octavian to seize his opportunity. Coupled with military successes against his rivals, it's understandable how he was able to establish the empire. With an effective and relatively unproblematic administration further legimitising his abilities as a statesman, a good reception of his propaganda was much more attainable. It's also the fact that he went so much further than simply advertising himself; for one, the Aeneid is considered one of the greatest poetic works in human history.
That doesn't take away the fact that, of course, Augustus was a totalitarian ruler and morally dubious by today's standards, and that his propagandistic machine may well have been the greatest we've seen, but I wouldn't say he got there by a lack of merit of his own.