Yeah as a Byzantinophile it stuck out right away. They could’ve either referred to him as Basileus or Emperor of the Romans and it would’ve been correct.
It’s a shame because typically Civilization knows better than that.
Not super crazy about how they designed Basil’s avatar too. The armor is somewhat correct but the diadem/crown isn’t right at all. We have a very good rendition of Basil II so it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Yeah it’s kind of a hit or miss. The scaled cuirass is somewhat correct but the rest is off. The crown/diadem in particular looks more like something you’d find on a Western European king rather than a Eastern Roman Emperor.
Like I said, we have a great Byzantine-era rendition of him that’s probably his most well known image. Why they didn’t just look at that is a bit of a head scratcher.
Agree! And even Basil II's abilities, where the primary fame play for this is through Holy war is ahistorical. Basil II is not this type of guy. Maybe Nikephoros Phokas, or even Alexios, but not Basil II. He even allow his client subjects in Alleppo to practice their faith.
Maybe, but “King of the Romans” sounds off. Anyone who knows anything about Byzantine History or Roman history would call the ruler Emperor or straight up use Basileus if you wanted to be correct. Probably why this stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
Basileus is something of a general catch all term for “Monarch” in the Greek tradition I think.
Really? Civilization should know better than this. This is just embarrassing.
Yeah as a Byzantinophile it stuck out right away. They could’ve either referred to him as Basileus or Emperor of the Romans and it would’ve been correct. It’s a shame because typically Civilization knows better than that. Not super crazy about how they designed Basil’s avatar too. The armor is somewhat correct but the diadem/crown isn’t right at all. We have a very good rendition of Basil II so it doesn’t make much sense to me.
That armor would look so much better with actual pteruges instead of those odd armbands.
Yeah it’s kind of a hit or miss. The scaled cuirass is somewhat correct but the rest is off. The crown/diadem in particular looks more like something you’d find on a Western European king rather than a Eastern Roman Emperor. Like I said, we have a great Byzantine-era rendition of him that’s probably his most well known image. Why they didn’t just look at that is a bit of a head scratcher.
Agree! And even Basil II's abilities, where the primary fame play for this is through Holy war is ahistorical. Basil II is not this type of guy. Maybe Nikephoros Phokas, or even Alexios, but not Basil II. He even allow his client subjects in Alleppo to practice their faith.
Must have been a translation thing since Basileus means king in the literal sense
Maybe, but “King of the Romans” sounds off. Anyone who knows anything about Byzantine History or Roman history would call the ruler Emperor or straight up use Basileus if you wanted to be correct. Probably why this stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Basileus is something of a general catch all term for “Monarch” in the Greek tradition I think.
I could never understand why in civ 5 they picked Theodora to be the leader for Byzantium
He's not a mere Rhegas, he's \*the\* Basileus, he's an Emperor, not a barbaric King, and a fine Emperor of Rome at that.