This is already done in RFC Dawn of Civilization.

Though Football Stadium might not be a good UB (in ref to OP) since the team didn't even beat little old us (NZ)... :D (in 2010 World Cup)

EDIT: In RFC DoC, what is the UB for Italy?

Art Studio (Forge with +1 happiness from marble and dye, one artist slot)

Nice, I might use that for my personal mod (just plain BTS).

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

The other day Roberto Benigni gave an "exegesis" of the Italian anthem on national TV. Apparently, this was watched by 20 million viewers. While commenting on the anthem's beginning ("Brothers of Italy, Italy has awoken, with Scipio's helmet binding her head") Benigni said that "Scipio was an Italian general" and that the battle of Zama was won by the "Italians".

So, there you go: at least one contemporary Italian doesn't share your opinion on the matter. Benigni thinks that ancient Romans were Italians. Moreover, it doesn't seem that his viewers have taken that claim to be eccentric or unhistorical. It looks like Benigni's view is a commonplace one.

ooooh again? :rolleyes:
The fact that such things are being said because of the 150th year anniversary doesn't mean anything.
Apart from geographical location, we have different blood and different values. And different language, though the closest, compared to other neolatin languages.

So, one thing is to say that they are our ancestors. That is reasonable and somehow true. And it's also true for a big part of Europe, actually.
But a different thing is to say Italy = Ancient Rome. Only fascists and nationalists say that. Maybe is this your case?

ooooh again? :rolleyes:
The fact that such things are being said because of the 150th year anniversary doesn't mean anything.
Apart from geographical location, we have different blood and different values. And different language, though the closest, compared to other neolatin languages.

So, one thing is to say that they are our ancestors. That is reasonable and somehow true. And it's also true for a big part of Europe, actually.
But a different thing is to say Italy = Ancient Rome. Only fascists and nationalists say that. Maybe is this your case?

The disputed claim is: “Ancient Romans are Italians”, meaning that ancient Romans and contemporary Italians are the same “people”, sharing a common “Italian” culture and ancestry.

Is that claim true? Maybe. Is it widely *believed* to be true? It certainly is. Many people, including Roberto Benigni, believe that ancient Romans were Italians. These people are certainly not fascists. (In fact, Benigni used to be a well-known sympathizer of the Italian Communist Party).

The fact that these sort of claims are made on national TV to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Italian Unification, gives them even more emphasis. Their purpose is to stress the widely held idea that the “Italian people” existed in ancient times, long before the national unification. Therefore, it is not at all clear to me whether “all Italians share your opinion on this matter”.

So it's more important what people believe than what is fact? Interesting.

So it's more important what people believe than what is fact? Interesting.

The subject of the previous post was “what people believe”. This was brought up by Rhye when he said that all Italians share his belief on the matter.

As to “what is fact”, I don't think there is a clear fact of the matter as to whether ancient Romans were Italians. It is, however, a *fact* that many contemporary Italians believe that, say, Scipio was Italian. That, of course, is not to say that opinions are more “important” that facts.

Do we really have to continue such nonsense? :rolleyes:


Guess so...

Rome = Italy in the same way that Native America = USA and Aztecs = Mexico.

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

Eh... the genetic makeup hasn't VISIBLY changed too much, but it has, beneath the skin.

Rome = Italy in the same way that Native America = USA and Aztecs = Mexico.

The first is a stretch, the second less so. European colonists in what is now America didn't really breed with the Native Americas too much. In Mexico and Latin America, though, they did. Almost every is mezclado there.

Which brings me to my point- that Romans+Various Germanic Tribes= the modern Italians. This is largely the case in many parts of the former Roman Empire (substitute 'German' for whatever 'barbarian' tribe happened to invade there, and substitute 'Italians' for whomever lives there now), although to varying degrees. England, not so much. France, a lot more so, same in Spain, Italy.

Just like Latin America is Spain+Natives.

The subject of the previous post was “what people believe”. This was brought up by Rhye when he said that all Italians share his belief on the matter.

As to “what is fact”, I don't think there is a clear fact of the matter as to whether ancient Romans were Italians. It is, however, a *fact* that many contemporary Italians believe that, say, Scipio was Italian. That, of course, is not to say that opinions are more “important” that facts.
Obviously Rhye wanted to say "everyone who knows something about history agrees that Romans != Italians". That you know cling to the beliefs of uninformed people only shows how lost your argument already is.

Although I agree that the Italians are not Roman(maybe the same could be said backwards), but I think the best/easiest way to show the Italians late game would be a respawn. And I think that was the original point...

Edit: I remember one game where Rome respawned in 1870(1.186, I think), and it just happened in my game as America. I laughed so hard at that. :p

The subject of the previous post was “what people believe”. This was brought up by Rhye when he said that all Italians share his belief on the matter.

As to “what is fact”, I don't think there is a clear fact of the matter as to whether ancient Romans were Italians. It is, however, a *fact* that many contemporary Italians believe that, say, Scipio was Italian. That, of course, is not to say that opinions are more “important” that facts.


No, it's actually both belief and facts.
When we (Italians) study ancient history at school, we say "them" (the Romans) "bla bla bla conquered Carthage". and when we study modern history, we say "we" (Italians) "bla bla bla lost the war".
Then, fascists and nationalists try to force a connection with silly reasons as the pure italian race and such. Many others (and me too) think that it would be cool if we were "modern Romans" more than we are now. But that's just not based on facts.

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

I'm italian and I'm blond :D

(but i admit that i live in northern italy near austria :P)

Then you are a germanic barbarian :lol:

The point is, the Italians ARE part Germanic barbarians :D

No, it's actually both belief and facts.
When we (Italians) study ancient history at school, we say "them" (the Romans) "bla bla bla conquered Carthage". and when we study modern history, we say "we" (Italians) "bla bla bla lost the war".
Then, fascists and nationalists try to force a connection with silly reasons as the pure italian race and such. Many others (and me too) think that it would be cool if we were "modern Romans" more than we are now. But that's just not based on facts.

Three comments:

(1) “We” vs. “Them”: you point out that your history book doesn’t say “we” when referring to ancient Romans. But you read too much into this, it's just a matter of style. Most contemporary Italian historians wouldn’t use the first person when referring to Risorgimento Italians either. (By the way, my anecdotal evidence doesn’t match yours. I’ve asked a friend of mine who used to teach in scuola media: she says that it’s not uncommon for kids to say or write things like “we won the Punic war”, and that this wouldn’t be marked a mistake).

(2) The identity claim: Your use of the identity sign in “Ancient Rome = Italy” turns the argument into a straw man. The “is” in “Ancient Rome is Italy” is not the “is” of identity. For starters, no ancient Roman can be literally identical to a contemporary Italian, for the simple reason that no dead person can be one and the same as a living person. But, clearly, this is not what is meant. When continuity historians say or imply that Ancient Romans were Italians they don’t make a literal identity claim, but imply something like “Italians are ancient Romans’ successors/closest continuers”.

(3) Nationalism/fascism: You object that “Ancient Romans are Italians” is something that only a nationalist or fascist would say. This is not so. That claim is commonplace both in popular culture and high culture. Recent examples from popular culture include Roberto Benigni, whose speech on Ancient Rome/Italy has been praised by the head of state, Napolitano, and by influential intellectuals such as Eugenio Scalfari. (By the way, a cursory glance to the youtube comments to Benigni’s video shows that none of the viewers has felt the urge to object to the claim that "Scipio was Italian”). Examples form higher culture abound: Petrarch, Leopardi, Macchiavelli, Muratori, and Cavour, to name a few, all believed that Italians are Ancient Romans' direct descendants and that, e.g., Scipio was Italian. These people are neither fascists nor “nationalists” in a derogatory sense. They are first-rate intellectuals and historians.

Petrarch. Funny.

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

OMG NO, not again the american stereotype that italians are black haired dark skinned people. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????? Invasions from Goths, Germanic Tribes, Vikings (Normans), just to mention the ones after the fall of the WRE... can you really be that stubborn to believe this BS and call it "assumed for CERTAIN"? Have you even been in Italy to assume something for certain?

Do we really have to continue such nonsense? :rolleyes:


Guess so...

No you don't have to. Others are interested in the argument though.

The other day Roberto Benigni gave an "exegesis" of the Italian anthem on national TV. Apparently, this was watched by 20 million viewers. While commenting on the anthem's beginning ("Brothers of Italy, Italy has awoken, with Scipio's helmet binding her head") Benigni said that "Scipio was an Italian general" and that the battle of Zama was won by the "Italians".

So, there you go: at least one contemporary Italian doesn't share your opinion on the matter. Benigni thinks that ancient Romans were Italians. Moreover, it doesn't seem that his viewers have taken that claim to be eccentric or unhistorical. It looks like Benigni's view is a commonplace one.

No, Benigni explained in a very fantasious and spectacular way the national hymn, which is a national poem written during the Nationalism age to incite people to go die for a not yet existant nation. To make a comparison, the British national hymn says "God save the Queen". Does this prove the existance of God? So to sum up it was a 1) a TV show and 2) an artistic representation of a nationalistic poem, it wasn't an History essay. The predominant theme was dignity, something the italian people as a whole has long lost, Benigni has long talked of past deeds of past people, from Scipio to Cavour, because that's what the hymn does, but in the end he talked about ITALIANS, the people who presently live in Italy, Scipio was Italic not Italian, he said we aren't all to trash away as those who supposedly represent us in the world (but I don't agree that the politician class is the only one representative of italians, there's more, starting from Benigni himself) and that we should start to be proud of us and act accordingly, instead of spending our days on the last news about Bunga Bunga. I share his opinion and like I said previously here, contrary to you, I do not believe that to be proud to be called Italian I should go look to what another people -the Romans- did in the world and in Italy. Once again I think you are looking at things upside down and Benigni isn't support your thesis at all. Until some Italians look and live with what Scipio has done, their dignity as Italians will be mortified.

Agreed. This also shows in the list of "supporters" Charles Martel cites, who are motivated either by the Renaissance, Romanticism or Risorgimento, all movements that liked to play up their continuity with previous eras (in this case Rome) for different reasons.

Three comments:

(1) “We” vs. “Them”: you point out that your history book doesn’t say “we” when referring to ancient Romans. But you read too much into this, it's just a matter of style. Most contemporary Italian historians wouldn’t use the first person when referring to Risorgimento Italians either. (By the way, my anecdotal evidence doesn’t match yours. I’ve asked a friend of mine who used to teach in scuola media: she says that it’s not uncommon for kids to say or write things like “we won the Punic war”, and that this wouldn’t be marked a mistake).

(2) The identity claim: Your use of the identity sign in “Ancient Rome = Italy” turns the argument into a straw man. The “is” in “Ancient Rome is Italy” is not the “is” of identity. For starters, no ancient Roman can be literally identical to a contemporary Italian, for the simple reason that no dead person can be one and the same as a living person. But, clearly, this is not what is meant. When continuity historians say or imply that Ancient Romans were Italians they don’t make a literal identity claim, but imply something like “Italians are ancient Romans’ successors/closest continuers”.

(3) Nationalism/fascism: You object that “Ancient Romans are Italians” is something that only a nationalist or fascist would say. This is not so. That claim is commonplace both in popular culture and high culture. Recent examples from popular culture include Roberto Benigni, whose speech on Ancient Rome/Italy has been praised by the head of state, Napolitano, and by influential intellectuals such as Eugenio Scalfari. (By the way, a cursory glance to the youtube comments to Benigni’s video shows that none of the viewers has felt the urge to object to the claim that "Scipio was Italian”). Examples form higher culture abound: Petrarch, Leopardi, Macchiavelli, Muratori, and Cavour, to name a few, all believed that Italians are Ancient Romans' direct descendants and that, e.g., Scipio was Italian. These people are neither fascists nor “nationalists” in a derogatory sense. They are first-rate intellectuals and historians.

I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree that modern-day Italians are, at least partly, descended from the Romans (genetically, culturally, linguistically, etc). That's really all you can say: it's nonsense to claim that a modern group are a people from the distant past, and thankfully most of us no longer follow the kind of fallacious ideologies that once led people to make such claims. Languages are constantly changing, as are cultural and political forms, and "racial descent" is a meaningless phrase based on 19th century pseudoscience. The most you could claim is transmitted relatively unchanged throughout the centuries is self-applied identity. But that's a really fuzzy and subjective thing. Italians today could plausibly claim continuity with the Italia of antiquity (Metternich probably would have disagreed), but if because of the fascists' abuse of their classical heritage they don't, then they don't - you can't magic a link into existence. I'd be inclined to go with the (living, I presume) Italians we have here on the question of modern Italian identity over classical scholars and 19th century romantic nationalists.

I do find it highly ironic though that after 1500 years of everyone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii) and his brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire)'s sister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)'s uncle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy Roman Empire)'s nephew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome) claiming to be the Romans, now even the Italians don't want the job :D

I think onedreamer and umarth got what I wanted to say.

I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree that modern-day Italians are, at least partly, descended from the Romans (genetically, culturally, linguistically, etc). That's really all you can say: it's nonsense to claim that a modern group are a people from the distant past

But I don’t see why anyone should interpret “Ancient Romans are Italians” in the strongest possible sense, as a claim of identity between groups of people from different ages. (Not even the fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile would have made such a strong claim). To put it that way is to misrepresent the claim and attack a straw man.

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.

We have three options:

(1) Culturally speaking, ancient Romans have no successors at all: Roman culture is extinct.

(2) There are several different cultures that are equally close descendants of the Romans: anyone, say, who speaks a Romance language.

(3) Modern Italians are Ancient Romans' closest descendants – and, in that sense, we can say things like “Scipio was Italian”.

I take it that Rhye and OneDreamer would go for (2), and would object to (3) on the grounds that it smacks of nationalism and is reminiscent of fascism.

It seems to me that neither (1) or (2) represent the majority opinion amongst Italians, even if we count only living Italians, and discount Romanticism, Risorgimento and all that. The widespread consensus surrounding Benigni’s speech makes me suspect that most Italians would be inclined to agree with (3), and I don’t think that this makes them “nationalists”, “fascists”, or ignorant about history.

That is not to say that Benigni’s speech gives any good historical evidence for (3). I do think, however, that it gives a good indication of what most contemporary Italians actually believe.

Do you guys realize that the last common human ancestor lived around 2000 years ago (barring pure 100% Native Americans), according to geneticists and anthropologists?

That renders any racial argument moot.

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.


wait, wait. You are changing the topic of the discussion here.
In fact, I DO believe that Italians are the closest successors of the Romans.
I am arguing against your claim that ancient Romans are Italians, that is, Italy and ancient Rome are the same civilization.

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.

Is that the real disagreement here? I don't see how the statement "Modern Italians are Ancient Romans' closest descendants" (I don't know about Rhye and onedreamer, but I find that reasonable enough) justifies the statement "Scipio was Italian". As you seem to agree, if you take that in the strongest sense then it's incoherent. If you take it in the weak sense your advocating though--simply implying some sort of continuity--there is no reason to privilege the closest genetic/cultural/linguistic descendent and therefore we can say that Scipio was French, British and Turkish with just as much validity. In which case, isn't it easier to just say "the Italians are descended from the Romans, among others" and leave it at that?

As to which is the most common sentiment among Italians, well, I'm afraid we'd have to start breaking out the statistics to get to the bottom of that one. As I've said, I find the anecdotal from our Italian contingent slightly more convincing than your interpretations of this guy's speech. But in the end they're both completely unsatisfactory ways of answering the question.

Edit: or tl;dr: what Leoreth said :lol:

(3) Modern Italians are Ancient Romans' closest descendants – and, in that sense, we can say things like “Scipio was Italian”.
Following that logic, you could also say the Archaeopteryx was a bird because birds are his closest descendants.

Do you guys realize that the last common human ancestor lived around 2000 years ago (barring pure 100% Native Americans), according to geneticists and anthropologists?

That renders any racial argument moot.

I think you mean 2000 BCE. And you don't have to discount any Native Americans to get that number (which would be a little harsh, don't you think?)

Well....


Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004),[5] using a non-genetic model, estimated that the MRCA of all living humans may have lived within historical times (3rd millennium BC to 1st millennium AD). The paper suggests, "No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu". Rohde (2005)[6] refined the simulation with parameters from estimated historical human migrations and of population densities.

And this:

"Other models reported in Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004)[5] suggest that the MRCA of Western Europeans and people of Western European ancestry lived as recently as AD 1000. "

Hang on. All tigers are cats. That is not the same as saying that all tigers are the same as cats.

So I kinda see Charles Martel's point, people are using the "being"-operator differently here and then arguing about what they think the other person is saying.

Prof. Pedia takes a bit of a liberty with the sources there. But yeah, Rohde's most recent date is 3500 +/- 1500 BP so I suppose your date was (just) in the range. I misremembered. Personally I think that method is still far too coarse to produce meaningful results though, promising as it is. It's based on modelling migrations between continents with reference to known dates and then assuming genes will spread through the continental population uniformly based on certain parameters - that grossly underestimates the degree to which populations within a continent can be reproductively isolated (think the Amazon, Polynesia).

But since this is completely off topic...

Following that logic, you could also say the Archaeopteryx was a bird because birds are his closest descendants.

But that is not the logic of the statement. Rather, the logic is as follows:

Both primitive birds and living birds belong the same evolutionary chain, call it the "bird-chain" (or the "Aves" class). So the Archaeopteryx is an early member of the bird-chain (or, as taxonomers say, it belongs to the Aves class, as all birds do).

Similarly, both ancient Romans and modern Italians belong to the same culture-chain, call it the "Italian" group. So, in that sense, ancient Romans are early Italians. That is a perfectly legitimate way of putting it.

No, you're deliberately copping out here by claiming that "Italians" means something different to what it means usually. No one interprets the sentence "Romans = Italians" as "Roman = (group of all people forming a cultural relation with Italians)".

Which reminds me of this (http://xkcd.com/169/).

No, you're deliberately copping out here by claiming that "Italians" means something different to what it means usually. No one interprets the sentence "Romans = Italians" as "Roman = (group of all people forming a cultural relation with Italians)".

Which reminds me of this (http://xkcd.com/169/).

:lol::lol:

Indeed.

No, you're deliberately copping out here by claiming that "Italians" means something different to what it means usually. No one interprets the sentence "Romans = Italians" as "Roman = (group of all people forming a cultural relation with Italians)".

When people say that "Scipio was Italian" they are obviously giving the word "Italian" a wider meaning, so that it comes to mean: "member of a group that comprises ancient Italic peoples , medieval Italians, and modern Italians". This is, roughly, what Petrarch meant by "people of Italy". Which is, in fact, the original Medieval meaning of the word "italico".

If you choose to interpret the word "Italian" in a narrower sense (say, "somebody whose native language is modern Italian"), then "Scipio was Italian" comes out as trivially false. But then you'd misinterpret the claim. Clearly, in the context of the assertion that "Scipio was Italian", the narrower meaning of the word "Italian" cannot be the intended meaning.

...Why is this even important?

But I don’t see why anyone should interpret “Ancient Romans are Italians” in the strongest possible sense, as a claim of identity between groups of people from different ages. (Not even the fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile would have made such a strong claim). To put it that way is to misrepresent the claim and attack a straw man.

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.

We have three options:

(1) Culturally speaking, ancient Romans have no successors at all: Roman culture is extinct.

(2) There are several different cultures that are equally close descendants of the Romans: anyone, say, who speaks a Romance language.

(3) Modern Italians are Ancient Romans' closest descendants – and, in that sense, we can say things like “Scipio was Italian”.

I take it that Rhye and OneDreamer would go for (2), and would object to (3) on the grounds that it smacks of nationalism and is reminiscent of fascism.

It seems to me that neither (1) or (2) represent the majority opinion amongst Italians, even if we count only living Italians, and discount Romanticism, Risorgimento and all that. The widespread consensus surrounding Benigni’s speech makes me suspect that most Italians would be inclined to agree with (3), and I don’t think that this makes them “nationalists”, “fascists”, or ignorant about history.

That is not to say that Benigni’s speech gives any good historical evidence for (3). I do think, however, that it gives a good indication of what most contemporary Italians actually believe.


Almost nothing of what you write is correct CM. Are you really Italian?
1) The national hymn, even with its nationalistic verve, in no way claims that Scipio was Italian. You are beyond the border limit of nationalism, and this alone should ring some bells. The national hymn claims that Italy has put up Scipio's helmet, the helmet of victory, the helmet of a General that with his winning campaign changed the fate of his current world and of the future of a good part of the planet. This is not the same as saying "Come on Italians, Scipio was Italian!", at least not in my book.

2) The widespread consensus about Benigni regards the dignity of a people that is currently N/A around the world thanks especially -but not only- to some despicable person voted by less than 14 millions (among 60) who claims to represent all Italians. It does not regard the battle of Zama which happened well over 2k years ago, before French, Germans, English, Dutch, Americans etc who are currently laughing at our stupidity as a people even existed.

3) As everyone in this forum by now knows, I would go with 1) the Roman culture is extint and transformed in several other cultures. I'd like to point out that a host of Historians (not Philosophers and certainly not Fascists) are backing my thought on this.

4) How would you call Emperor Trajan? Was he Italian? It is interesting to note he was born in "Italica" :D How would you call Septimus Severus? Is Septimus Severus Lybian, Carthaginian, Italian or simply Roman? Don't you think that Scipio was an Italic (adj. pertinent to the Italian peninsula) Roman, Trajan an Iberian (adj. pertinent to the Iberian peninsula) Roman and Septimus Severus a Tripolitanian (adj. pertient to modern day western Lybia) Roman?

5) I do not know a difference between modern Italian and "something else" Italian. The Italian culture and people existed long before the unification of the present day country, actually this unification wouldn't have happened if an Italian culture and nationalistic sentiment didn't exist. Do the Dutch call themselves "modern Dutch" as opposed to the Dutch people that were under Spanish or Austrian rule prior to Dutch indipendence? I don't know. Do the Japanese call themselves "modern Japanese" to distinguish themselves from the Japanese that lived in different clans during Middle Ages? I doubt it. Italian sentiment existed already with Dante Alighieri or Machiavelli, but bear in mind that even if most missinformed americans (a good slice of this forum population) will mock Italy because of its late unification and because of its famous losses during World Wars (that is how far the avg american person can go when thinking of "History"), despite the common belief that Italy was "slave" to European powers and not independent, the various Italian reigns and republics were de facto independent and very important in Europe financially, culturally and politically. Present day Italy is in the G8 and is the smallest of the 8 countries, and even those countries near in population and land area (UK and France) have the advantage to have been colonial empires during industrialization. Even after unification, in what you call "modern Italy" great scientists, artists, merchants, engineers (ok maybe not spies and prophets) were born and grown; we have a beautiful country, best food in the world, a monumental heritage (not just expression of the Romans) worst leading class after Lybia but this can "easily" be improved, at least compared to the other things I mentioned. One should be amazed (personally, I am) to what Italy and Italians can and could do nowadays. No, we do not need Scipio's helmet these days.

edit
6) The words Italy and Italic predate Petrarch. Since he is not the "inventor" of these terms, the meaning he gives to these words isn't anything to take as a fact, rather as an opinion, not different from yours or mine.

When people say that "Scipio was Italian" they are obviously giving the word "Italian" a wider meaning, so that it comes to mean: "member of a group that comprises ancient Italic peoples , medieval Italians, and modern Italians". This is, roughly, what Petrarch meant by "people of Italy". Which is, in fact, the original Medieval meaning of the word "italico".

If you choose to interpret the word "Italian" in a narrower sense (say, "somebody whose native language is modern Italian"), then "Scipio was Italian" comes out as trivially false. But then you'd misinterpret the claim. Clearly, in the context of the assertion that "Scipio was Italian", the narrower meaning of the word "Italian" cannot be the intended meaning.
Assuming this is true, then the sentence is so meaningless that it's not worth saying it, much less arguing over it. Take your example "Scipio was Italian". With your definition of "Italian", the statement becomes so broad it has no actual meaning to contemporary Italians. But this is clearly not what the national anthem is trying to convey, not what Risorgimento nationalists were trying to convey, and also not what Renaissance thinkers were trying to convey when they said Italians are Romans.

In fact, I DO believe that Italians are the closest successors of the Romans. I am arguing against your claim that ancient Romans are Italians, that is, Italy and ancient Rome are the same civilization.

Then we disagree about what it means, in game terms, to say that X is the “same civilization” as Y.

In my view, X can be taken as the same civilization/country as Y just in case there is good enough continuity from X to Y (and there is no Z such that the continuity from X to Z is better than that from X to Y). What counts as “good enough” depends on the scope of the game.

For a game such as Civ4, where the scope is broad and civilizations span millennia, the continuity standards must be coarse grained. If X is Y’s closest successors, then, to me, this is good enough reason for lumping X and Y together. So, it’s ok for the Old Kingdom to be the same civ as Cleopatra’s Egypt, even if there are three thousand years between them! All the more so, it’s ok for Germany to be the same civ a the Holy Roman Empire, it’s ok for Qin’s China to be the same civ as Mao’s China, and it’s ok for Rome to be same civ as Italy. I don’t see why Caesar’s Italy --> Mussolini’s Italy is any less plausible than, say, Qin’s China --> Mao’s China. Why the double standards? At any rate, dynamic names (or the “re-birth” mechanism introduced by certain mods) can take care of the finer distinctions.

By contrast, games such as Europa Universalis can have fine-grained standards. For example, EU distinguishes between “Sardinia-Piedmont” and “Italy” as two countries with separate tags. That’s ok, because EU is more focussed in scope and its game engine allows for more variety and historical detail.

This I agree with (and else I'd be hypocritical considering the features of my modmod :D).

the roman empire and the italian republic are definitely not the same civilization, but for game purposes, i still wouldn't mind a more modern leader for rfc only for some of the ancient civilizations that tend to respawn more often, like egypt and rome, since india and china are already covered.
or maybe it should just have some reference to modern italy in one or more of its names (italian republic instead of spqr? fascist kingdom of italy instead of whatever it's called now when running police state?)

The current fascist Roman name even includes an allusion to Mussolini (iirc it's "New Roman Empire").

i just tested and it is, indeed, "new roman empire".
also, they're known as the italic peoples before settling a city, but that probably refers more to the language family, though that's obviously named after the penninsula

Aren't the various people that lived on the peninsula in pre-Roman times called Italic?

probably, i have to admit that i don't know too much about italy before rome, except for the basics.
so maybe the penninsula was named after the language instead of the other way around.

italic means simply that they lived in the italian peninsula

I thought it meant this

hehe yeah, means that too :)

italic means simply that they lived in the italian peninsula

well, yeah, of course. but the name came from somewhere, so either they're named after the peninsula or the peninsula is named after them. like i said, i don't know too much about pre-roman italy, except that the greeks had colonies and that the latins and etrsucans were there. i guess it's not really all that important, but either it was like germany where the place was named after the people, or it was like america where the people were named after the place.

So, it’s ok for the Old Kingdom to be the same civ as Cleopatra’s Egypt, even if there are three thousand years between them!

The egyptian civ ingame changes name.

it’s ok for Germany to be the same civ a the Holy Roman Empire

are you comparing the cultural and linguistical differences between the Roman Empire and Italy with Germany and HRE?

it’s ok for Qin’s China to be the same civ as Mao’s China

maybe because they are the same civilization, although changed of course, but still chinese. We aren't Romans or Latins.

and it’s ok for Rome to be same civ as Italy

Nope. It's ok if, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, a new civ called Italy is spawned, or -technically, in purely coding terms- the same civ called differently is spawned, but city names would have to change. Note that other city names accross the world in RFC already do change.
The reason why Italy exists is that the Roman Empire has fallen, with consequent mix of cultures from foreign invaders and from the existing Roman and also pre-Roman cultures. If the Roman Empire didn't fall, Italy as we know it today would not exist, therefore it is very wrong to say that Rome and Italy are the same thing, even in game terms. Why would you dinamically change name to the Romans in modern age if the civ never collapsed? There is no reason to back up this theory.

By contrast, games such as Europa Universalis can have fine-grained standards. For example, EU distinguishes between “Sardinia-Piedmont” and “Italy” as two countries with separate tags. That’s ok, because EU is more focussed in scope and its game engine allows for more variety and historical detail.

the second part is the only real reason. I doubt that without the number of civs limit Rhye would have refrained from making Italy.

well, yeah, of course. but the name came from somewhere, so either they're named after the peninsula or the peninsula is named after them. like i said, i don't know too much about pre-roman italy, except that the greeks had colonies and that the latins and etrsucans were there. i guess it's not really all that important, but either it was like germany where the place was named after the people, or it was like america where the people were named after the place.

oh yes the term italic comes from the "Itali" a pre-roman population from Calabria. It's believed that the name comes from the ancient word Vitlu that means calf °_° (veal? don't know wich one is right XD i mean the animal alive *_*)

so...the place was named after those people by greek colonists :)

good to know, thanks