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.)