Skin colours in EB (don't worry, I'm NOT racist!)

I think that all the mediteraninan peoples in EB (greeks, romans, lusitanians, epeiriots) should have slighlty darker skin coulour (like the one the Carthagians are having), since today's mediteraninan peoples are slightly dark skinned (I don't think it has changed that much since the ancient times).
It really irritates me that ancient romans and greeks almost always are portrayed (in movies, for example) as bleach-white aryans à la Hitler. Maybe you guys of the EB-team could change this racist trend?

NOTE: This is based on my personal beliefs and experiences. My claims may or may not be scientifically correct.

I completely agree with you, my friend. I am Greek myself and I can tell you most Mediterranian people have darker skin, as did people in ancient times. In fact, I think people had even darker skin in the past, you know with all that labour and working in the sun and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent_Valentine

I think people had even darker skin in the past, you know with all that labour and working in the sun and such.

---

Except for the rich...

Okay, but why twice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

Okay, but why twice?

---

A mistake... sorry... just delete the other thread!

I am all for that suggestion, myself. However, I don't think the EB team were motivated to make them white because they are white supremacists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cadwalader

I am all for that suggestion, myself. However, I don't think the EB team were motivated to make them white because they are white supremacists.

---

I don't think that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cadwalader

I am all for that suggestion, myself. However, I don't think the EB team were motivated to make them white because they are white supremacists.

---

YOU ARE WRONG!!! WHITE POWA FOR THE WIN!!! HAHAHAA ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US

Actually i think the reason is that skinners are lazy. Especially me. If it depended on me all units would look exactly the same.

It is my understanding that in Ancient Rome, most commoners were white and flabby while a tan was a sign an aristocrat because they had time to sunbathe.

I'm not too worried about it though. I'm with Steven Colbert, I don't see race. :beam:

Michelangelo and De Vinci probably would have skinned these Mediterranean units a little lighter also, I would presume. Especially considering all of their depictions of heavenly beings closely resembling Scandinavians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWFanatic

It is my understanding that in Ancient Rome, most commoners were white and flabby while a tan was a sign an aristocrat because they had time to sunbathe.

I'm not too worried about it though. I'm with Steven Colbert, I don't see race. :beam:

---

Nah in fact it was the opposite. Roman noble women were fair skinned, as they stayed out of the sun. Commoners and peasants had tans, Roman women did not.

I think he was being sarcastic.
:uneasy:

http://www.waldgirmes.de/roemer/grafik/augustus.jpg

Dunno if that's an accurate reconstruction or repaint, but I thought I might throw this in. As in, should they be lighter or darker than this?

You know, for all those of oyu arguing for the change of skin pigment, you might try to find some pictures of what exact tone you think it should be. Its hard for some of us to imagine what you mean by 'mediterranian tan' or 'pasty white.'

In many Ptolemaic documents, the people involved are described, including their skin colour, so that could be some basis for reconstructing the skin colours of soldiers during the EB timeframe (though of course, there would then be debate over what "olive" skin tone would look like...).

I'm more interested in why there is a dude in jeans and trainers on the front of Augustus's armour.

Thats Francesco Totti, the AC Roma player.:laugh4:

Cheers.

Quote:

---

I think he was being sarcastic.

---

I'm serious! I know I've heard in multiple places, but the only one I can recall atm is a BBC Documentary called "The Hidden History of Rome."

Man, what has the world come to if you feel the need to state „don't worry, I'm not racist” in the thread title

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

http://www.waldgirmes.de/roemer/grafik/augustus.jpg

Dunno if that's an accurate reconstruction or repaint, but I thought I might throw this in. As in, should they be lighter or darker than this?

You know, for all those of oyu arguing for the change of skin pigment, you might try to find some pictures of what exact tone you think it should be. Its hard for some of us to imagine what you mean by 'mediterranian tan' or 'pasty white.'

---

Actually, the skin wouldn't have been painted at all except for (IIRC) the lips. Eyes would be detailed as well as everything else.

Bleach white skin? That's beyond pale-skinned, that's Tim Burton.

Most of the skin colours in EB are whiter than they should be by my opinion - do not all, if you just look at hellenic units that point is very clear (the same problem is in vanilla too)

And there is the second problem of the way the soldiers are shaved - it is just too skinny, I cant shave that good not even today :shrug:

Still, if you look at the other mod's - we should all be very happy - EB is trully the best :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blank

Except for the rich...

---

Not necessarily. The Hellenistic aristocracy spend their time working on the fields, hunting, riding their horses and training for war. This all happens under the sun:yes:

Aristocrats don't work the fields, they have servants for that. It's pretty much per definition that they don't engage in - nor have to - in physical labour to support themselves.

For the sake of comparision, Medieval European nobility were pretty much every man jack of 'em warrior aristocrats who spent a lot of time outdoors, hunting for example being both a popular pasttime and regarded as training in skills relevant in war. Yet, do you know where the concept "blue-blooded" comes from ? Because the aristocrats didn't spend enough time under the hot sun to develop the rugged tan the peasants got, instead their skin remained pale enough that the veins vere visible under it.

I thought it was because they looked like lobsters in all that plate.
[/badjoke]

I think romans looked like this:

http://www.livius.org/a/1/legio/legionary_bonn.jpg

That's a nice picture, no LS for a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brynjolfr

I think romans looked like this:

http://www.livius.org/a/1/legio/legionary_bonn.jpg

---

@Brynjolfr
I believe the original romans looked that way too. Just like I believe the southern gauls tended to be darker than the northern gauls as was personified by Caesars description of the Tarbelli vs the Belgae and Celtae. Another example being modern day Northern and Southern France. But I think something else that should be looked at is the roman policy of invading areas that did not belong to them and then mixing with and subjugating the native population and forcing them into roman armies:furious3:. So not everybody in the Roman empire was a true "roman". I would imagine that by the end of the Roman empire you didn't have a lot of romans who could say that they were of 100% pure roman stock.
P.S.
I agree with you I think some of the units are to fair.

It's not like Roman citizenship was terribly difficult to get (at least for your descendants). Heck, I'd say it was one of the main things keeping the whole shebang together that status was desirable and available...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brynjolfr

(I don't think it has changed that much since the ancient times)

---

I'm not so sure about that, with all the migrations, slavery and settling of whole peoples in the meantime.

Just a few examples:
-todays population of spain and portugal has probably somewhat darker skin than before the centuries of moorish presence on the peninsula
-during the ottoman empire, many people descending from turkish tribes probably settled in former hellenic areas
-massive inflows of slaves for centuries. These had children and did not vanish with the end of slavery. I do not know where they came from in large numbers but I would guess that large contingents were darker or lighter than the ruling groups
-roman emperors hired large contingents of foreign soldiers and sent them to faraway places in the empire where some of them settled
-whole tribes relocating, like the goths in parts of spain

So I think to find out the skin colour in the EB timeframe one would have to disentangle all these effects which is probably close to impossible.

Or look for sources from the time like surviving texts, statues, mosaiques etc.

I would have to disagree with you Kham. Not all invaders became assimilated into the people they invaded. One has to look at the circumstances from all angels. The Moors and the Turks, were Muslims ruling over Christian subjects. The fact of the matter is these two do not mix. Especialy 1500-1000 years ago. Much of the gene flow went from the conquered to the conquerer through slaves. (ex. Jannisaries) This can also be seen today. For example, The turkic tribes were a Central Asian people with "Asiatic" features such as the people from the country of Turkmenistan today. Now Many Turks of Turkey resemble the people they once conquered (Greek, Armenian, Serbian Romanian ect.)

I have to disagree with the above comment.

At least in France, Muslims were not only warriors and overlords but also farmers and herders.

When Franks finally put an end to the muslim presence in what would become France, they did not slaughter any living moor they found. They pillaged their holdings and then let them be and taxed them instead. You can find families in France that have traced their ancestry to the middle ages and whose name is "Alrazi". More, apart from the moor issue, one can safely assume than any "racial" theory concerning Europe is doomed to be thrown into the WC of sciences, given that this part of the world has seen permanent migrations for millenias. Lastly, Albert Jacquard has demonstrated in the beginning of the 80ies that there are no races in the human species. Discussing about skin colour on racial basis is thus fruitless.

AFAIK the Iberian Visigoths actually tried to enforce a sort of "apartheid" approach for one reason or another, which no doubt didn't help their popularity one bit. The Moors (who, we may recall, weren't one group but a succession of North African invaders) weren't as stuck-up, sensibly enough; and between all the conversion, trading, intermarrying, slaving, raping, whoring etc. that went on between the various populaces of the peninsula the whole lot oughta have gotten plenty mixed up indeed.

Islam and Christianity are both proselytizing religions, too, with a rather ready willingness to take in converts (the money-grubbing early Islamic reluctance and Early Modern Spanish expulsion of the moriscos nonwithstanding), not even remotely "closed clubs". There was folk jumping ship between the two all the time.

[QUOTE=Watchman]AFAIK the Iberian Visigoths actually tried to enforce a sort of "apartheid" approach for one reason or another, which no doubt didn't help their popularity one bit. The Moors (who, we may recall, weren't one group but a succession of North African invaders) weren't as stuck-up, sensibly enough; and between all the conversion, trading, intermarrying, slaving, raping, whoring etc. that went on between the various populaces of the peninsula the whole lot oughta have gotten plenty mixed up indeed.

Islam and Christianity are both proselytizing religions, too, with a rather ready willingness to take in converts (the money-grubbing early Islamic reluctance and Early Modern Spanish expulsion of the moriscos nonwithstanding), not even remotely "closed clubs". There was folk jumping ship between the two all the time.[/QUOTE]


Depending on what part of the world we are talking about. These types of issues should not be generalized. Even though as you stated Christianity is willing to take in converts, that same religion acted as a shield in the East in perserving certain ethnic groups. (Greeks, Armenians, and other Christians under Ottoman rule)

Muslims normally weren't big on forced conversion you know. (Neither, actually, were the Christians for the most part.) No particular skin off their noses if some bunch wanted to stick to Christianity or Judaism, just more taxes.

I'm not quite seeing your point here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brynjolfr

I think romans looked like this:

http://www.livius.org/a/1/legio/legionary_bonn.jpg

---

too..... shiney.......
lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brynjolfr

I think that all the mediteraninan peoples in EB (greeks, romans, lusitanians, epeiriots) should have slighlty darker skin coulour (like the one the Carthagians are having), since today's mediteraninan peoples are slightly dark skinned (I don't think it has changed that much since the ancient times).
It really irritates me that ancient romans and greeks almost always are portrayed (in movies, for example) as bleach-white aryans à la Hitler. Maybe you guys of the EB-team could change this racist trend?

NOTE: This is based on my personal beliefs and experiences. My claims may or may not be scientifically correct.

---

:dizzy2:
do you really believe that the Romans looked like Carthaginians ?? lol

1) Carthaginians = Semitic who came frome Palestine

2) Romans = Indoeuropeans who came from Central Europe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brynjolfr

I think romans looked like this:

http://www.livius.org/a/1/legio/legionary_bonn.jpg

---

naahhh:inquisitive:

they looked like this ....Have you ever been in Pompei ?..the 90% of the subjects in the frescos have reddish-brown hair and ligth skin...

http://digilander.libero.it/agenziag...%20AGRIPPA.jpg

http://www.archart.it/archart/mostre.../rompic141.jpg

anyway the italians differently from greeks,portoguese and spaniards , have the same skin tone of the central europeans (except the southern:sicilians,calabrians etc..)

http://www.vitalgraphics.net/ozone/g...lor-map_cl.jpg

so the romans in Eb are perfects..:2thumbsup:

I like that map Vorenus87. I really enjoy studing about physical anthropology. I have always found Iberians (spain and portugal) Greeks, souhern italians, armenians, and northern iranians very similar in appearance. That map shows the same thing. Now going further east, into what is today turkmenistan you might find the skin tone being similar to the above people that I mentioned, but now we will have a change from caucasian features to "asiatic" mongol/tatar features.

Although that map dates from, you know, 2007 AD rather than 250 BC. People were sort of moving around a fair bit inbetween in some parts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

I like that map Vorenus87. I really enjoy studing about physical anthropology. I have always found Iberians (spain and portugal) Greeks, souhern italians, armenians, and northern iranians very similar in appearance. That map shows the same thing. Now going further east, into what is today turkmenistan you might find the skin tone being similar to the above people that I mentioned, but now we will have a change from caucasian features to "asiatic" mongol/tatar features.

---

Well dunno about that. I can probably spot eastern Caucasians 9 times out of ten.

What do you mean by eastern caucasians? If you are refering to Arabs, they look diffrent from say Greeks Armenians and Northern Iranians. Now as you go up into Lebanon and northern syria, you would have some similar apearences, but down into Palestine, and Jordan and Iraq and down into the Arabian penninsula their appearence is VERY diffrent than Greeks Armenians and Northern Iranians.

Well, I meant Eastern Caucasians. Did I stutter?

I can tell a difference between an Armenian, Greek, Lebanese and Northern Iranians (won't even get into certain Afghans or Arabs) and an Iberian 9 times out of ten.

It's another thing though, if we're talking about Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and even southern French.

I am not saying they look identical to the point where you would think they all come from the same place, but in general the appearence of those people ( excluding arabs,) is similar. For example Im Armenian, and I have had many people think Im a Spaniard, or Italian. Ofcourse if an Armenian and a Portugese stand next to eachother I would be able to spot the Armenian from the Portugese very easily and Im sure you can do the same as well. However a "Northerner" would have trouble with it.

To me Greeks, Armenians and Southern Italians look very similar

A practiced observer can recognize individual gulls from a flock that to the average person appears flat out identical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

A practiced observer can recognize individual gulls from a flock that to the average person appears flat out identical.

---

I know. However people are generaly merely average and not practiced.

What were you refering to with that statement?

Mostly that it doesn't really say much how well a practiced observer can tell things apart by very minor clues. The main reason a "Northerner" might have trouble telling the aforementioned Portugese and Armenian apart (which frankly isn't something I'd bet too heavily on either) is simply that the average specimen has generally seen rather little of either and thus doesn't know what clues to look for - but conversely he's pretty good at telling different groups of "Northerners" from each other via similarly subtle hints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Mostly that it doesn't really say much how well a practiced observer can tell things apart by very minor clues. The main reason a "Northerner" might have trouble telling the aforementioned Portugese and Armenian apart (which frankly isn't something I'd bet too heavily on either) is simply that the average specimen has generally seen rather little of either and thus doesn't know what clues to look for - but conversely he's pretty good at telling different groups of "Northerners" from each other via similarly subtle hints.

---

Cant agree with you more. For example I can the diffrence in appearance of Northern Slavs from Germans and the reason for that is that I have seen many russians on TV or in person.

I also agree that it would be far easier to tell a Portugese apart from an Armenian, than say tell an armenian apart from a Greek or even Southern Italian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

Cant agree with you more. For example I can the diffrence in appearance of Northern Slavs from Germans and the reason for that is that I have seen many russians on TV or in person.

I also agree that it would be far easier to tell a Portugese apart from an Armenian, than say tell an armenian apart from a Greek or even Southern Italian.

---

That depends on your experience with various people. I can tell between your average spaniard, italian and greek because I've been to Spain, Italy and Greece at least twice for a significant amount of time. But facial features that distinguish people of the same skin color aren't the object of the original post (skin color correctness in EB).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayce

That depends on your experience with various people. I can tell between your average spaniard, italian and greek because I've been to Spain, Italy and Greece at least twice for a significant amount of time. But facial features that distinguish people of the same skin color aren't the object of the original post (skin color correctness in EB).

---

Skin color is fine in EB now in EB2 we can give some of the individuals in the group more of a tan than others or give some lighter hair color than others but for now with EB skin tone is fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Mostly that it doesn't really say much how well a practiced observer can tell things apart by very minor clues. The main reason a "Northerner" might have trouble telling the aforementioned Portugese and Armenian apart (which frankly isn't something I'd bet too heavily on either) is simply that the average specimen has generally seen rather little of either and thus doesn't know what clues to look for - but conversely he's pretty good at telling different groups of "Northerners" from each other via similarly subtle hints.

---

Nice theory.

When it comes to practice, it gets a bit messed up. I am 6 feet tall, blonde with blue hairs and very pale skin. No one would ever guess i am of jew descent, an ashkenaz in direct mother line ; which, as far as jewish people trace their ancestry, makes me 100% ashkenaz. Isn't that funny ? I can show you a red head armenian, and also a sefarad jew that looks like he was from Maghreb, and people from Maghreb who are blonde with blue eyes. The marvels of genetics and gene transfers from one pool to another.

Trying to tell who is from what part of the world just by guessing by their features is doomed to failure. It has been long demonstrated that such practices are based on nothing but wind that smells of a nauseous past.

(Just for your information, an injection of foreign genes every 20 generations is far sufficient to completely destroy the effects of isolation. Perhaps i'll look for references in my archives, right now i have other matters, far more pressing.

The last I heard, being a Jew was a matter of confessional affilation. "Jewish race" was a nonsensical artifact of early 1900s anti-Semitism pretty thoroughly disconnected from reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenrhyl

Nice theory.

When it comes to practice, it gets a bit messed up. I am 6 feet tall, blonde with blue hairs and very pale skin. No one would ever guess i am of jew descent, an ashkenaz in direct mother line ; which, as far as jewish people trace their ancestry, makes me 100% ashkenaz. Isn't that funny ? I can show you a red head armenian, and also a sefarad jew that looks like he was from Maghreb, and people from Maghreb who are blonde with blue eyes. The marvels of genetics and gene transfers from one pool to another.

Trying to tell who is from what part of the world just by guessing by their features is doomed to failure. It has been long demonstrated that such practices are based on nothing but wind that smells of a nauseous past.

(Just for your information, an injection of foreign genes every 20 generations is far sufficient to completely destroy the effects of isolation. Perhaps i'll look for references in my archives, right now i have other matters, far more pressing.

---

Well I can still tell if a person is Armenian regardless of them having red hair or blond hair or being brunette.10-15% of Armenians have blondish hair and lighter colored eyes. There are many blond Armenians, but by looking at them I can tell very easily the person is Armenian. Armenians are a very homogeniouse people. Now Jewish Identity is a little bit more difficult, because there are those who say it is an ethnicity, and their are those who say it is only a religion.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_makstyle.jpg

Jewish IDF trooper.

Now that looks like an afro-american. Should I have been able to tell that he was Jewish just by looking at him? Perhaps, but I didn´t.
I think it depends a bit on a persons experience on how easily he can recognise from where a certain person come. For example, I can with some certainity tell the difference between the regular Dane and the regular Norwegian (too bad that about 50% of their population aren´t "regular"), and also between most English, Scotts, Wales, Irish, Poles, Russiand, Balts (can´t really distuingish between Latvians and Estonians, though Lithuanians look a bit different), Finns, Germans, Italians, Spanish, French, Yugoslavian, Greek, Turkish, Egyptian and many other "races", mainly because I have daily interaction with them, either through real-life or TV.
However, when it comes to the difference between a Somalian and a Ethiopian, things become more difficult. This could be somewhat like zebras, to us they all look mostly the same but to each other they look very different, because they are "trained" to see that difference. Surely had I grown up in Somalia I would have been able to tell the difference between a Somalian and Ethiopian person.

No, you weren't supposed to recognize he was Jewish (not from his face anyway, though his equipment might give him away), and that's was sorta the whole point of that post - about looking 'Jewish'. It's a religion and does not overlap completely with certain ethnicities, if you know what I mean.

But you're right it might be difficult to actually pin-point certain ethnicities, let alone in Ethiopia, Africa, where you have very small populations (8000 people even) that are relatively distinct nevertheless. You can however still recognize a few like the Oromo, which have less pronounced 'African' characteristics, if you're familiar with the region. And that was the whole point of Watchman's posts, and of mine too, namely that it's a mistake to make such over-encompassing statements without concrete knowledge of the regions' populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

No, you weren't supposed to recognize he was Jewish (not from his face anyway, though his equipment might give him away), and that's was sorta the whole point of that post - about looking 'Jewish'. It's a religion and does not overlap completely with certain ethnicities, if you know what I mean.

But you're right it might be difficult to actually pin-point certain ethnicities, let alone in Ethiopia, Africa, where you have very small populations (8000 people even) that are relatively distinct nevertheless. You can however still recognize a few like the Oromo, which have less pronounced 'African' characteristics, if you're familiar with the region. And that was the whole point of Watchman's posts, and of mine too, namely that it's a mistake to make such over-encompassing statements without concrete knowledge of the regions' populations.

---

Guys its actually easy to see the diffrence between an Ethiopian and a Somalian. Ethiopians have more "Caucasian" features. They resemble Yemenis but with ofcourse darker skin. The Somalis have more of the sub saharan African look.

Ethiopian:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/...os/0707_03.jpg

Somali:

http://www.geeskaafrika.com/ethiopia...s/image001.jpg

Hmm....my post was about specific ethnicities within 'Ethiopians' which isn't even a proper ethnicity in itself. More like a nationality.

Relating to what you said, I did say the Oromo (which are the major ethnic group in Ethiopia), were of less pronounced African look. Obviously, comparing to whomever they border/relate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

Now that looks like an afro-american. Should I have been able to tell that he was Jewish just by looking at him? Perhaps, but I didn´t.
I think it depends a bit on a persons experience on how easily he can recognise from where a certain person come. For example, I can with some certainity tell the difference between the regular Dane and the regular Norwegian (too bad that about 50% of their population aren´t "regular"), and also between most English, Scotts, Wales, Irish, Poles, Russiand, Balts (can´t really distuingish between Latvians and Estonians, though Lithuanians look a bit different), Finns, Germans, Italians, Spanish, French, Yugoslavian, Greek, Turkish, Egyptian and many other "races", mainly because I have daily interaction with them, either through real-life or TV.
However, when it comes to the difference between a Somalian and a Ethiopian, things become more difficult. This could be somewhat like zebras, to us they all look mostly the same but to each other they look very different, because they are "trained" to see that difference. Surely had I grown up in Somalia I would have been able to tell the difference between a Somalian and Ethiopian person.

---

This is why I don't like the term "African American".

Although the things you said make a lot of sense, hence all the "All ___ look the same" stuff going around.