View Full Version : Italy


Pages : [1] 2

ZachScape
Aug 31, 2009, 03:59 PM
I was originally going to put this under minor suggestion, but then I was like.... ehhh.... not minor enough.

This is bigger than minor, but smaller than major. I'm not asking for a new civ, but a reconstructed one for 600 AD.
Remove Rome, and put Italy.

Italy (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=284624)
Spawn: 1870-1871
UB: Football Stadium
UU: I don't know what it is called in the picture... but the helicopter
Leader: Garibaldi
UP: [Same as Rome] (for coding reasons)
UHV:
1. Control Tunis/Carthago, Libya, and Ethiopia by 1890 AD
2. No Ottoman cities outside Anatolia ans the Arabian peninsula by 1911 AD.
3. Control the Mediterranean (no other civ's cities, and 6 of your own cities) by 1940.

Better Ideas by Bonci: (I just wanted to get the ball rolling, as long as Italy is added.

Italy

Leader:
Vittorio Emanuele II
Mussolini

Spawn Date
1860

UP
Power of the Opera:
Creates a Theater in every built or conquered city.
or
Power of the Architectonic Heritage(?)
+2 culture and +1 happiness in every city.

UB
Pizzeria: replaces Grocer
+1 Happiness
or
Football Stadium: replaces coliseum
+1 Happiness and 1 more with football (from Wembley)

UU
Alpino: Replaces Rifleman
Starts with Guerrilla and/or Woodsman
or
Carabiniere: Replaces Rifleman
+50% city defense or +2 first strikes

UHV
1: Never lose a city in the european territory until 2000
2: Control at least 2(more?) cities in each Horn of Africa,Etiopia and Libya in 1920(40?)
3: Control Greece and Indochina in 1945 (never achieved)
or
3:Be the most powerful european civilization in 1945 (first in scoreboard)

sorry for bad grammar :)




Dynamic Names: (mostly in English)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!-- edited with XMLSPY v2004 rel. 2 U (http://www.xmlspy.com) by lcollins (Firaxis Games) -->
<!-- Sid Meier's Civilization 4 -->
<!-- -->
<!-- Game Text - Unit Upgrades for Civilopedia -->
<Civ4GameText xmlns="http://www.firaxis.com">
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_CIV_ROME_DESC</Tag>
<English>The Italians</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM00</Tag>
<English>Italic Peoples</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM01</Tag>
<English>Kingdom of Italy</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM02</Tag>
<English> Kingdom of Italy </English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM03</Tag>
<English> Kingdom of Italy </English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM04</Tag>
<English>Italian Empire</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM05</Tag>
<English>Italian Republic</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM06</Tag>
<English>Italian People</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM07</Tag>
<English>Neo Roman Empire</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM08</Tag>
<English>Islamic Italian Empire</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM09</Tag>
<English>Islamic Italian Republic</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM10</Tag>
<English>Satrapy of Italy</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM11</Tag>
<English>Province of Italia</English>
<French>
<Text>Province d'Italie</Text>
<Gender>Female</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Provinz Italien:Provinz Italien:Provinz Italien</Text>
<Gender>Female:Female:Female</Gender>
<Plural>0:0:0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Provincia d'Italia</Text>
<Gender>Female</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Provincia de Italia</Text>
<Gender>Female</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM12</Tag>
<English>Emirate of Italy</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM13</Tag>
<English>Viceroyalty of Italy</English>
<French>
<Text>Vice-Royauté d'Italie</Text>
<Gender>Female</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Vizekönigreich Italien:Vizekönigreich Italien:Vizekönigreich Italien</Text>
<Gender>Neuter:Neuter:Neuter</Gender>
<Plural>0:0:0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Vicereame d'Italia</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Virreinato de Italia</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM14</Tag>
<English>Departments of Italy</English>
<French>
<Text>Départements d'Italie</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>1</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Département Italien:Département Italien:Département Italien</Text>
<Gender>Neuter:Neuter:Neuter</Gender>
<Plural>0:0:0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Dipartimenti d'Italia</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>1</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Departamentos de Italia</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>1</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM15</Tag>
<English>Dominion of Italy</English>
<French>
<Text>Dominion d'Italie</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Dominion Italien:Dominion Italien:Dominion Italien</Text>
<Gender>Neuter:Neuter:Neuter</Gender>
<Plural>0:0:0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Dominion d'Italia</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Dominio de Italia</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM16</Tag>
<English>Italian Social Republic</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM17</Tag>
<English>Soviet Italy</English>
<French>
<Text>Italie Soviétique</Text>
<Gender>Female</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Sowjetitalien:Sowjetitalien:Sowjetitalien</Text>
<Gender>Neuter:Neuter:Neuter</Gender>
<Plural>0:0:0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Italia Sovietica</Text>
<Gender>Female</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Italia Soviética</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM18</Tag>
<English>Ilkhanate of Italy</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM19</Tag>
<English>Eyalet of Italy</English>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM20</Tag>
<English>Tributary Daqin State</English>
<French>
<Text>Etat Daqin Tributaire</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Tributstaat Daqin:Tributstaat Daqin:Tributstaat Daqin</Text>
<Gender>Male:Male:Male</Gender>
<Plural>0:0:0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Stato Daqin Tributario</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Estado Daqin Tributario</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>
<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DN_ROM21</Tag>
<English>Protectorate of Italy</English>
</TEXT>
</Civ4GameText>




EDIT: Could somebody locate the Persian, Ottoman, and Arabic vassal names or Italy for me? I can't figure out what is what and we could replace "Italy" with "Ithaliyya". Thank you.



CCCQ

kairob
Aug 31, 2009, 04:07 PM
I suggested something like this for Rome, Babylon, Cathage etc.. a while ago, I can't remember why but people did like it. :s

I personally think its a good idea. :)

ZachScape
Aug 31, 2009, 04:19 PM
Why wouldn't people like it!? ;)

fireclaw722
Aug 31, 2009, 06:47 PM
I suggested something like this for Rome, Babylon, Cathage etc.. a while ago, I can't remember why but people did like it. :s

I personally think its a good idea. :)



I think that Rome is important to the earlier europeans, but I think that a UU and UB could be added with different Dynamic Names. The major problem with that, is Rome collapses after the Europeans spawn. Same with modernizing other earlier civs, they collapse mid-game. It's a good idea though. :goodjob:

kairob
Aug 31, 2009, 07:40 PM
All these Civs are already gone in the 600AD start.

BurnEmDown
Sep 01, 2009, 03:24 AM
About the UHV's I think you should make each of them 10 years later.
The first is because if they spawn in 1870 it will be really hard to take over Ethiopia in 20 years.
The second is also to make it easier and more historical (also it should be west of Anatolia and Arabian peninsula, what if Turkey manages to conquer Perisa and India? Italy wouldn't stand a chance then).
The third is really really hard, it's basically go to war with anyone who has a city in northern Africa, the Balkans (which I guess is part of the 2nd UHV) and also France and Spain, so maybe add another 10 years to lighten up on the challenge (also more in sync with WW2, if Italy would have won).
Besides all of this the Idea sounds good and I'd quite like if Persia Babylon Egypt and Carthage would also get this make-over for their respawns.

scu98rkr
Sep 01, 2009, 09:09 AM
Personally I see a re spawned Rome as Italy it basically takes up the same space.

There no argument the people of the Italian peninsula had there great influence during the roman period so why should the UB and UU not be from the roman period.

ICNP
Sep 01, 2009, 11:29 AM
Why not just add another leader and let Rome respawn under the Italian name later in the game (1800's)? An Industrial/Modern UU would be nice and would make the game more interesting so that France/Germany/Turkey aren't always ruling the italian Penninsula.

Of course having Independents defend themselves/have more diplomatic options would be nice so they don't always become owned.

synyster
Sep 01, 2009, 12:04 PM
I would like to see Italy & few more modern civs respawn from the older ones, it would certainly add a bit more variety as ICNP said.

onedreamer
Sep 03, 2009, 01:42 AM
maybe, but Garibaldi isn't a civ leader and the Roman up would be fairly useless to a 19th century small civ.

Úmarth
Sep 03, 2009, 02:14 AM
Garibaldi was just a show-off, clearly the leaderhead should be Cavour.

ZachScape
Sep 03, 2009, 08:50 AM
maybe, but Garibaldi isn't a civ leader and the Roman up would be fairly useless to a 19th century small civ.

I thought it would just easier because it seems that it would be harder to code. Because for now, all we have to do really is copy, paste, and tweak from that mod by Strategy only in the OP.
I also don't like that the UU: Legion, will not even get a chance to join the playing field. I guess the UB: Forums, is fine, as it will be used, but I always thought of the UB as fitting for the architecture of the era it was primarily used. It's no biggy IMO.


Garibaldi was just a show-off, clearly the leaderhead should be Cavour.

Garibaldi was the only leader Strategy only had that I knew of, besides Mussolini (but common! I don't think he did that good). He had others though, like 3 more. If you (anyone, as Umarth already suggested Cavour) find one more fitting form the OP, just post. We already have the Wiki entries from his mod.

onedreamer
Sep 04, 2009, 08:34 AM
check this thread for better ideas: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=332765

btw the Islamic Republic in your OP has a spelling error.

ZachScape
Sep 04, 2009, 10:51 AM
I was just throwing out ideas, but this (below) looks better. I just wanted to snow ball it.
Italy

Leader:
Vittorio Emanuele II
Mussolini

Spawn Date
1860

UP
Power of the Opera:
Creates a Theater in every built or conquered city.
or
Power of the Architectonic Heritage(?)
+2 culture and +1 happiness in every city.

UB
Pizzeria: replaces Grocer
+1 Happiness
or
Football Stadium: replaces coliseum
+1 Happiness and 1 more with football (from Wembley)

UU
Alpino: Replaces Rifleman
Starts with Guerrilla and/or Woodsman
or
Carabiniere: Replaces Rifleman
+50% city defense or +2 first strikes

UHV
1: Never lose a city in the european territory until 2000
2: Control at least 2(more?) cities in each Horn of Africa,Etiopia and Libya in 1920(40?)
3: Control Greece and Indochina in 1945 (never achieved)
or
3:Be the most powerful european civilization in 1945 (first in scoreboard)

sorry for bad grammar :)

The OP has a link to the UU/UB/LH, all we need to do is implement these, and code the UHV and UP. Thanks for the heads up onedreamer and thanks for the ideas Bonci.

BTW: Fixed OP typo, thank you. And how do you like the German vassal name: Italian Social Republic?

EDIT: Could somebody locate the Persian, Ottoman, and Arabic vassal names or Italy for me? I can't figure out what is what and we could replace "Italy" with "Ithaliyya". Thank you.

fireclaw722
Sep 04, 2009, 04:05 PM
All these Civs are already gone in the 600AD start.

Well yeah but I play mostly the 3000bc start for more varied results, so do alot of others.

kairob
Sep 04, 2009, 11:10 PM
Yes but the opening post suggested changing it for the 600ad start, so the argument that some of these are still in the game in the 3000bc start is a bit of a non-starter really...

Bonci
Sep 05, 2009, 05:29 AM
yeeeh add Italy to RFC! ^_^

fireclaw722
Sep 05, 2009, 01:37 PM
Oh really(oops)

killerkebab
Sep 06, 2009, 12:04 PM
A rifleman based UU would be a huge mistake for a 1860 spawn imo.

ScavengerType
Sep 07, 2009, 06:13 PM
Roman respawn is Italy. There is no reason that Italy could not be a colony of a stable European empire. It surely has shown a penchant for it in real history but for the lack of an organized European power. If it is easy to have rome respawn under the name Italy, I'd say hellz yea. But I'm a little opposed to any sort of other confangling with these mechanics.

TDK
Sep 08, 2009, 02:04 AM
Roman respawn is Italy. There is no reason that Italy could not be a colony of a stable European empire. It surely has shown a penchant for it in real history but for the lack of an organized European power. If it is easy to have rome respawn under the name Italy, I'd say hellz yea. But I'm a little opposed to any sort of other confangling with these mechanics.Agreed, that would be great.
It's not like the italians ever forgot about the Romans. And the suggestions of Pizzarias, Football Stadiums and Architectonic Heritage suggests to me that Italy doesn't really need a seperate Civ.

Panopticon
Sep 08, 2009, 05:22 AM
Roman respawn is Italy. There is no reason that Italy could not be a colony of a stable European empire. It surely has shown a penchant for it in real history but for the lack of an organized European power. If it is easy to have rome respawn under the name Italy, I'd say hellz yea. But I'm a little opposed to any sort of other confangling with these mechanics.

This is 100% right and it is proven by the often vassal-like position of the Italian Kleinstaaterei around the 1400-1800 period.

It's quite easy to modify the XML/Text file for Rome's dynamic names to change the late names to refer to Italy rather than Rome.

ScavengerType
Sep 08, 2009, 05:42 AM
a pic and leader name change could be easy as well...

onedreamer
Sep 08, 2009, 06:17 AM
Agreed, that would be great.
It's not like the italians ever forgot about the Romans. And the suggestions of Pizzarias, Football Stadiums and Architectonic Heritage suggests to me that Italy doesn't really need a seperate Civ.

To me it suggests that you could use some read about the italian people from 600 AD to 2000 AD... you'll find out how much you're missing if you think that Pizzeria and Football stadium are what represent italians.

TDK
Sep 08, 2009, 06:28 AM
To me it suggests that you could use some read about the italian people from 600 AD to 2000 AD... you'll find out how much you're missing if you think that Pizzeria and Football stadium are what represent italians.But these were the things that were suggested in the thread, and you'll have to come up with something better to convince me.
I just don't think it's justified to put Italy in there as a seperate Civ from Rome, which is not the same as saying that Italic people didn't contribute enormously to european history. It just wasn't Italy.

onedreamer
Sep 08, 2009, 06:44 AM
But these were the things that were suggested in the thread, and you'll have to come up with something better to convince me.

I already came up with something better in that very thread, it's just that you didn't read it carefully.

I just don't think it's justified to put Italy in there as a seperate Civ from Rome, which is not the same as saying that Italic people didn't contribute enormously to european history. It just wasn't Italy.

ITALIAN people, not italic people... it wasn't Italy ? That's your point of view, Germany wasn't a unitary country as well in the middle ages but it's there in RFC as Germany and none ever dreamed to say that it doesn't deserve its national identity. The fact that a civilization isn't unified under a single central nation, doesn't mean that that civilization doesn't exist. The italian civilization exists from after the mixing of romans, ostrogoths and langobards, and is hence in no way represented by the roman civilization. I'm really tired to hear this kind of silly argument, take the time to read up about the history of Italy and you'll realize that a little something has happened here in 1400 years and that italians are italians, not romans.

Bonci
Sep 08, 2009, 06:49 AM
D: I just proposed those things because that is what we are famous for...people tend to forget that Italy has one of the 8 (ok maybe not in this exact moment :rolleyes:)most developed economies in the world or that Italy was one of the first founders of the EU...only to mention economic and politic factors...and there are many other examples.
If you want I can find something more "serious" for an UB/UP :)

EDIT: yeah onedreamer already proposed something better

TDK
Sep 08, 2009, 07:24 AM
I already came up with something better in that very thread, it's just that you didn't read it carefully.That link was for a 5 page thread. You suggestions are much better IMO.
ITALIAN people, not italic people... it wasn't Italy ? That's your point of view, Germany wasn't a unitary country as well in the middle ages but it's there in RFC as Germany and none ever dreamed to say that it doesn't deserve its national identity. The fact that a civilization isn't unified under a single central nation, doesn't mean that that civilization doesn't exist. The italian civilization exists from after the mixing of romans, ostrogoths and langobards, and is hence in no way represented by the roman civilization. I'm really tired to hear this kind of silly argument, take the time to read up about the history of Italy and you'll realize that a little something has happened here in 1400 years and that italians are italians, not romans. Well the Germans represent HRE, preussia and Germany, so isn't it okay for Rome to represent Rome, maybe some city states and Italy?

onedreamer
Sep 08, 2009, 08:49 AM
nope, because the people living in the german area of HRE were called GERMANS, and the people living in the italian area of HRE were called ITALIANS, not Romans.

TDK
Sep 08, 2009, 09:38 AM
nope, because the people living in the german area of HRE were called GERMANS, and the people living in the italian area of HRE were called ITALIANS, not Romans.I don't really believe anyone cared much for the ethnicity or culture of a citizen in those days, so it was probably more a politico-geographic and lingual distinction. I see the civilizations as political entities, not cultures and "peoples", which only makes much sense much later in history.
-The "German" civ starts out a multi-ethnic empire(HRE) and becomes a German nation-state covering the same core area as it's predecessor.
-The "Roman" civ starts out a multi-ethnic empire(Roman Empire), collapses, and respawns as an Italian nation-state in the same core area much later. Or maybe it doens't collapse at all and turns into an Italian nation-state, after the advent of Nationalism?

Rhye
Sep 09, 2009, 03:17 AM
Though I know that it's what most people think from abroad, I'm afraid you all have a wrong perception from outside: Italy isn't ancient Rome.
Re-using its unused slot in 600AD is a good idea, but not to be confused with "they are more or less the same civ", cause Roman state died in 476AD and never came back.
From the mixture of italic and barbarian peoples, a new culture flourished centuries later around Roman ruins, and finally in 1861 evolved into a state, but it has little to do with Rome. Probably one of the few things left in common is hooliganism.

TDK
Sep 09, 2009, 04:25 AM
Though I know that it's what most people think from abroad, I'm afraid you all have a wrong perception from outside: Italy isn't ancient Rome.
Re-using its unused slot in 600AD is a good idea, but not to be confused with "they are more or less the same civ", cause Roman state died in 476AD and never came back.
From the mixture of italic and barbarian peoples, a new culture flourished centuries later around Roman ruins, and finally in 1861 evolved into a state, but it has little to do with Rome. Probably one of the few things left in common is hooliganism.As I said, I think it makes sense to view the civs as political entities rather than cultures or peoples, and as such it makes sense that "Rome" counts as Italy.

Another civ that wouldn't make sense if viewed through the lense of the later "nation" includes England, which was invaded so many times that it only makes sense to view it as a political entity with certain geographical, not cultural or ethnic, features.

ZachScape
Sep 09, 2009, 02:18 PM
I don't think you completely understand this thread, TDK.
This thread suggests an Italian civilization for the 600 AD start and only the 600 AD start.
I think Italian could add some different culture and flavor in the region on a 600 AD game. It rose, or Rhose:D in real life, exactly as portrayed in the game. So I'm not saying add a new civ please, like the Austrians, Polish, Israeli, or Korean suggestion... I am proposing we do away with the Roman civilization all together (in the 600 AD mod ONLY!!!), and replace it, not add it, with Italy.

This is beneficial to gameplay in several ways:

Brand new UHVs
More diversity, and predictability at the same time
And modern UBs and UUs that actually fit towards the Italian civ.
I'm POSITIVE people will want to play as Italy, but they can't in the 600 AD start.
We don't have to add a new civilization, just tweak one.

BTW, the bold isn't me yelling. I use bold to highlight my major points.

TDK
Sep 10, 2009, 01:16 AM
I understand what you want to do and I'm fine with it. I just think we should be consistent.

So we should also replace Greece, India, Carthage in the 600AD. They certainly don't have more in common with their ancient carnations than Italy.

Charles Martel
Sep 10, 2009, 02:43 AM
I think that it’s all right for “Rome” to represent Italy in the game. People who disagree (including Rhye) seem to be confusing two very different questions:

Question 1: “Is ancient Rome the same as modern Italy?” Of course not!
Question 2: “Could ancient Rome re-spawn in the game as modern Italy?” Yes, I don’t see why not.

Even if Italy and ancient Rome “are not the same civilization” (whatever that means), they occupy the same geographical starting location (sort of), so they would fill the same place in Rhye’s map. More to the point, there is no Roman Empire in modern times... so why not have Italy fill the gap in the map? All right, the Italians are “not the same” as the ancient Romans, but so what? The Abbassid caliphate, for example, it’s certainly not the same as modern Saudi Arabia, and yet they RFC represents them as being in the same civilization slot, namely “Arabia”. It's merely a matter of convenience: unlike Europa Universalis, Civ IV has a limited number of civilization slots. So, rather than leaving the "Rome" slot unusued in the 600AD scenario, I would recycle it as Italy.

I think that most people, especially Italians, are against taking Rome to represent Italy for a variety of secondary reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. There’s a mixture of regional pride (somebody from Milan, from example, may not like being referred to as “Roman”), political feelings (nowadays, thinking of modern Italy as the successor of the Roman Empire may have fascist connotations), and some sense of historical identity (any Italian will say that Italy is not just about the Roman Empire, and that they have achieved so much in the Renaissance...). These are all valid reasons for resisting the identification of Italy with ancient Rome, but not for objecting to Rome’s re-spwaning in the game as Italy. After all, that is what dynamic names are for.

Note: In current RFC, Rome gets the dynamic name “New Roman Empire” when running the police state civic. That’s a clear reference to Mussolini’s dream to create what he called “nuovo impero romano”. If police-state Rome civic can be regarded as Fascist Italy, I don’t see why (post-industrial) universal-suffrage Rome cannot be regarded as contemporary Italy.

TDK
Sep 10, 2009, 02:58 AM
I think that it’s all right for “Rome” to represent Italy in the game. People who disagree (including Rhye) seem to be confusing two very different questions:

Question 1: “Is ancient Rome the same as modern Italy?” Of course not!
Question 2: “Could ancient Rome re-spawn in the game as modern Italy?” Yes, I don’t see why not.

Even if Italy and ancient Rome “are not the same civilization” (whatever that means), they occupy the same geographical starting location (sort of), so they would fill the same place in Rhye’s map. More to the point, there is no Roman Empire in modern times... so why not have Italy fill the gap in the map? All right, the Italians are “not the same” as the ancient Romans, but so what? The Abbassid caliphate, for example, it’s certainly not the same as modern Saudi Arabia, and yet they RFC represents them as being in the same civilization slot, namely “Arabia”. It's merely a matter of convenience: unlike Europa Universalis, Civ IV has a limited number of civilization slots. So, rather than leaving the "Rome" slot unusued in the 600AD scenario, I would recycle it as Italy.

I think that most people, especially Italians, are against taking Rome to represent Italy for a variety of secondary reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. There’s a mixture of regional pride (somebody from Milan, from example, may not like being referred to as “Roman”), political feelings (nowadays, thinking of modern Italy as the successor of the Roman Empire may have fascist connotations), and some sense of historical identity (any Italian will say that Italy is not just about the Roman Empire, and that they have achieved so much in the Renaissance...). These are all valid reasons for resisting the identification of Italy with ancient Rome, but not for objecting to Rome’s re-spwaning in the game as Italy. After all, that is what dynamic names are for.

Note: In current RFC, Rome gets the dynamic name “New Roman Empire” when running the police state civic. That’s a clear reference to Mussolini’s dream to create what he called “nuovo impero romano”. If police-state Rome civic can be regarded as Fascist Italy, I don’t see why (post-industrial) universal-suffrage Rome cannot be regarded as contemporary Italy.You said it best.

kairob
Sep 10, 2009, 03:23 AM
I disagree with Rome representing Italy but do not consider myself to be confusing those two questions.

How about these Questions:
Is Rome an appropriate name for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Legionary an appropriate UU for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Forum an appropriate UB for an Italy Civ? No
Are Roman Emperors apropriate leaders for an Italian Civ? No
Do the Roman UHVs represent Italys political aims? No
Are the Roman Settler Maps, Expansion areas or City Names appropriate for an Italian Civ? No

By the same logic lets have the Turks spawn around the time of Greece representing the Hittites as they ocupy the same geographical region. I mean the are no turks in the ancient era so lets have the Turks being Hittites to fill the gap.

I do not think that having Rome representing Italy is a good idea. But I do not object to swapping Rome for Italy in the 600ad start.

TDK
Sep 10, 2009, 03:40 AM
I disagree with Rome representing Italy but do not consider myself to be confusing those two questions.

How about these Questions:
Is Rome an appropriate name for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Legionary an appropriate UU for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Forum an appropriate UB for an Italy Civ? No
Are Roman Emperors apropriate leaders for an Italian Civ? No
Do the Roman UHVs represent Italys political aims? No
Are the Roman Settler Maps, Expansion areas or City Names appropriate for an Italian Civ? No

By the same logic lets have the Turks spawn around the time of Greece representing the Hittites as they ocupy the same geographical region. I mean the are no turks in the ancient era so lets have the Turks being Hittites to fill the gap.

I do not think that having Rome representing Italy is a good idea. But I do not object to swapping Rome for Italy in the 600ad start.So do you find that a re-spawned modern Greece is represented well by Alexander and Phalanx? And what about Egypt, Babylonia etc.?

What you are talking about would amount to removing the entire re-spawn system and make the 600AD and 3000BC games into 2 different things altogether, and that's fine, but let's take the discussion from the beginning then and see what civs we want in there.

As I see it we have at least 6 open slots:
INDIA=Mysore/Mughal/Modern India
GREECE=Korea
ROME=Italy?
EGYPT=Iroquois
BABYLONIA=Zulu
PERSIA=Maori?

Italy could be one, although I think it's quite a late starter. Modern India should definitely be another. Korea and Iroquois has been mentioned. Zulu would be a nice addition.

Charles Martel
Sep 10, 2009, 05:11 AM
Is Rome an appropriate name for an Italy Civ? No.
Dynamic names can take care of that.
Is a Legionary an appropriate UU for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Musketeer an appropriate UU for Napoleonic France? Legionaries are no longer around when Italy spawns, so I don't see what is the problem here. (There is however a related gameplay question, namely should a re-spawned Rome get an Italian UU such as bersaglieri? Similarly, should re-spawned Greece, Babylon, etc. get modernised UUs?)

Is a Forum an appropriate UB for an Italy Civ? No
The game lets Portugal build feitoria in modern times. Those anachronisms are commonplaces in a game such as Civ. Again, the real gameplay question is whether a re-spawned Rome/Babylon/etc. should lose the benefit of forum/garden/etc and get some other UB instead.
Are Roman Emperors appropriate leaders for an Italian Civ? No
No big deal. New leaderheads (say, Cavour) can be added.
Do the Roman UHVs represent Italys political aims? No
Does circumnavigating the globe represent modern Greece’s political aims? UHVs are tied to a time-frame. Ideally, re-spawned Rome/Greece/etc. should get a new set of UHVs conditions, representing their modern achievements and ambitions.

Are the Roman Settler Maps, Expansion areas or City Names appropriate for an Italian Civ? No
By the time Italy spawns most of the preferred areas in Rome's settler maps would be already settled by other civs. Also Italy's historical colonies, Libya and Eritrea, are likely to be already settled by other civs. As to the city names, yeah... it bugs me to see "Mediolanum" in modern times. But that's a more general problem with RFC, by no means specific to Italy. At some point, all city names should be modernised.

By the same logic lets have the Turks spawn around the time of Greece representing the Hittites as they ocupy the same geographical region. I mean the are no turks in the ancient era so lets have the Turks being Hittites to fill the gap.

If Hittites were included in RFC as a full-blown civ as opposed to independents, I would suggest to make them part of a broader "civilization" (understand that word in game terms), including Pontus, Armenia, or even, why not, Turkey. In that case, "Hittites" could be an early dynamic name of Turkey. Of course having two distinct civs would be better. But, as we know, the number of civs is limited, so if you want the Hittites, better conflating Turkey and Hittites than having no Turkey at all.

I do not think that having Rome representing Italy is a good idea. But I do not object to swapping Rome for Italy in the 600ad start.

Then we don't really disagree about the 600AD start. Our only disagreement turns on whether a re-spawned Rome in the 3000BC start represents Italy or not. I think it does, and that some aspects of the game (especially city names) should be changed in order to accommodate that.

Louis XIV
Sep 10, 2009, 06:00 AM
Personally, I would just be happy if the Romans ever spawned in the 600 AD version. I can't remember the last time I saw it happen, as Rome, Venice, etc. are either French, German or Independent in every game I ever play.

Rhye
Sep 10, 2009, 06:27 AM
While I disagree on re-spawned Rome representing Italy (Hittites representing Turkey fits perfectly), I consider replacing Rome with Italy in 600AD start a good idea, under certain conditions.
However, I am currently involved in RFGW, so it has to be some of you for now to make a modmod.

Leoreth
Sep 10, 2009, 10:05 AM
I don't think it's a fitting example.

Even in the time of Turkey's spawn (12th century), there was nearly nothing left of the Hittite's culture in Asia Minor, let alone in the 21th century. The region was taken over by Persian, Greek and Roman culture and when the Turks arrived (coming from the Central Asian steppes), they established their own culture again. Asia Minor's history is one of migration.

I don't want to say that we have a perfect continuity in Italy instead, but it's in no way comparable to Asia Minor. The only migration (that of the Goths) ended with the Goths assimilzed to "Roman" culture and not the other way round. So yes, in the case of Italy there is much more continuity, both ethnical and cultural.

Charles Martel
Sep 10, 2009, 12:30 PM
To those who say: “Ancient Rome is not Italy” I want to ask a simple question. If a re-spawned Rome is not Italy, what is it then? Do you think of this re-spawned Rome as some kind of alternate history reincarnation of the Roman Empire, along the lines of Sophia McDougall’s “what-if” novel Romanitas?

Now, I can vaguely make sense of a modern Roman Empire that exists in some alternate universe where Rome never falls but survives continuously until the modern times (like in McDougall’s novel). But I cannot picture a Roman Empire that exists intermittently... that collapses and then, after centuries, somehow spontaneously re-emerges from its ashes. What would this modern Roman civilization be? Would they be people who speak Latin and who consider themselves “cives romani”? To me it makes much more sense to think of re-spawned Romans as Italians, and not as of some kind of alternate history Romans who somehow make a come-back from the remote past.

As to the Hittites/Turkey example, I think it’s very weak. The continuity from ancient Rome to Italy is undeniable, both culturally and politically. Here are some examples: the medieval Italian politician Cola di Rienzo, who claimed the title of “tribune of the Roman people”, regarded Medieval Rome as a continuous with Ancient Rome. The founders of the 1849 Roman Republic, Armellini, Mazzini and Saffi, saw themselves as a triumvirate re-establishing the ancient Roman republic; the whole ‘Risorgimento’ ideal was that of giving to Italy the unity it had during Roman times. Mussolini saw himself as a dictator of the “New Roman Empire” and he had “SPQR” emblazoned on manhole covers (this practice still goes on today). Even the constitutional fathers of the contemporary Italian Republic regarded some of the new state’s institutions (for example, the “Senato”) as successors of those of the ancient Roman republic.

ZachScape
Sep 10, 2009, 04:23 PM
Look: The work is already done for the most part (the units, LH, ! We just need to update city name maps, stability maps, and settler maps, which is hardly coding, more like filling in the blanks. And of coarse the UP and UHVs, which we crank out if we know what we're doing.

Italy played as a major world power after its unification, or spawn. Greece and Babylon have done nothing on a world scale in modern times. Besides, they spawn way too late in the game, unlike Italy, which has enough turns to play as a couple fun games.

Rome hardly respawns in 600 AD, especially at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, you can't play as them even if they do. And MANY people would love to play as the modern counterpart of the Roman Empire.

If you want, just code the game to pop Rome up at the appropriate year, and be done with it. But because of politics, WE are making this harder than it has to be! Let's just do this for gameplay, as we KNOW 100% that this will be a hit.

A major point I'm stressing to get through to you (I mean that respectfully, as we are in a debate) is we are not taking out or adding a new civilization! We are tweaking one! One that matters in a 600 AD game! It basically IS Rome in the game, yet a playable one! And you guys are keeping throwing the dynamic names out there, well look at the spoiler in the first post. I'm way ahead there.

If you want, I'll make a T Chart comparing 600 AD Rome with 600 AD Italy, game wise. The pros overwhelmingly out way the cons, if there are even any cons at all!

Thank you

EDIT: Also Charles, during the Napoleonic wars, only 200 years ago, name a Province in Northern Italy Etruria! Etruria was around what?... 2800 years ago! You don't think Etruscan culture floated around until then, do you?

AND, why would the Renaissance be needed at all if the Italians had 'Roman culture' stamped on their forehead.

onedreamer
Sep 11, 2009, 03:38 AM
To those who say: “Ancient Rome is not Italy” I want to ask a simple question. If a re-spawned Rome is not Italy, what is it then?

nothing. Just like a respawn Babylon is nothing, in front of History. These civs did not respawn. At best a respawned Rome could be the Byzantines.

Do you think of this re-spawned Rome as some kind of alternate history reincarnation of the Roman Empire, along the lines of Sophia McDougall’s “what-if” novel Romanitas?

this is most obvious, since as we all know the Roman Empire never came back, so it has to be alternate history.

Now, I can vaguely make sense of a modern Roman Empire that exists in some alternate universe where Rome never falls but survives continuously until the modern times (like in McDougall’s novel). But I cannot picture a Roman Empire that exists intermittently... that collapses and then, after centuries, somehow spontaneously re-emerges from its ashes. What would this modern Roman civilization be? Would they be people who speak Latin and who consider themselves “cives romani”? To me it makes much more sense to think of re-spawned Romans as Italians, and not as of some kind of alternate history Romans who somehow make a come-back from the remote past.

You are highly contradicting yourself without even realizing it.
You literally said:
"I cannot picture a Roman Empire that exists intermittently"
"Would they be people who speak Latin and who consider themselves “cives romani”"
"To me it makes much more sense to think of re-spawned Romans as Italians"

None ever said that Italy shouldn't spawn from the Middle Age on, we are saying that Italy and Italians shouldn't respawn as the ROMANS, and your own statement are in line with this opinion.

As to the Hittites/Turkey example, I think it’s very weak. The continuity from ancient Rome to Italy is undeniable, both culturally and politically.

I deny it.

Here are some examples: the medieval Italian politician Cola di Rienzo, who claimed the title of “tribune of the Roman people”, regarded Medieval Rome as a continuous with Ancient Rome.

not at all, you are twisting History here. He was trying to make of Rome a commune like many other italian cities at that time. He styled himself "the last people's tribune". Does this mean that there is Roman continuity from the SPQR to the low Middle Age in Rome ? Sorry, no. Do you also think that Charles Martel's nephew was a Roman Emperor ?

The founders of the 1849 Roman Republic, Armellini, Mazzini and Saffi, saw themselves as a triumvirate re-establishing the ancient Roman republic

"saw themselves" is the key. Did you read my signature ? Silvio Berlusconi sees himself as Superman. He recently stated that he has been the best Council's President (please let's not call him Premier, he is not) in 150 years.

the whole ‘Risorgimento’ ideal was that of giving to Italy the unity it had during Roman times.

nope, look up for the meaning of that word. Besides, the Romans united something more than just Italy.

Mussolini saw himself as a dictator of the “New Roman Empire” and he had “SPQR” emblazoned on manhole covers (this practice still goes on today).

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 with the RIGHTFUL (according to you) claim that this area should have been part of Iraq according to History two thousands years ago. You know, dictators are famous for their nationalistic and ridiculous claims. In fact, Italy and Mussolini, as well as Hussein, failed miserably. Coincidence ?

Even the constitutional fathers of the contemporary Italian Republic regarded some of the new state’s institutions (for example, the “Senato”) as successors of those of the ancient Roman republic.

ahah, the Senate is present in any Republic government, obviously. Yes, it is inspired to the Roman Senate. So what ? This has absolutely no relevance. And besides the Senate was present before the institution of the Italian Republic.

onedreamer
Sep 11, 2009, 03:45 AM
I see the civilizations as political entities, not cultures and "peoples", which only makes much sense much later in history.


If a civilization was a political entity, France, England, Russia, and an endless count of other civs in RFC are a bit ahead of times when spawning. And what political entity is "The Vikings" ?

TDK
Sep 11, 2009, 04:47 AM
If a civilization was a political entity, France, England, Russia, and an endless count of other civs in RFC are a bit ahead of times when spawning. And what political entity is "The Vikings" ?Nobody is reading what the other side is saying.

It's fine that you want to add an Italian civ to RFC, but your lack of interest for the other re-spawned civs betrays your true motivations. Maybe if some of you would answer how Italy and Greece differ in this regard, we would understand what you are saying. Unless, of course, you believe the modern nation-state of Greece is the same culture as classical Greece?

Charles Martel
Sep 11, 2009, 05:08 AM
nothing. Just like a respawn Babylon is nothing, in front of History. These civs did not respawn. At best a respawned Rome could be the Byzantines.
You said it. Literally speaking, re-spawned Rome/Babylon/etc. are nothing, entities that never existed. For that reason, I prefer to think of re-spawned Rome as Italy rather than some mysterious non-entity.
this is most obvious, since as we all know the Roman Empire never came back, so it has to be alternate history.
The re-appearance in modern times of something even remotely resembling ancient Rome makes no sense to me, not even as alternate history. I don’t think it is historically possible for an ancient civilization to magically re-appear after centuries of non-existence.


None ever said that Italy shouldn't spawn from the Middle Age on, we are saying that Italy and Italians shouldn't respawn as the ROMANS, and your own statement are in line with this opinion.

It's the other way round actually, the Romans should re-spawn as the Italians. Which in game terms merely means that the Rome slot ("iRome", whatever that constant name is in python) should be taken over by Italy after Rome collapses. That is mostly a matter of convenience, since the number of civ slots is limited. (And historicallly it makes some sense too, because of the continuity from ancient Rome to Italy).
I deny it.

Allora neghi l'ovvio -- then you deny the obvious.

not at all, you are twisting History here. He was trying to make of Rome a commune like many other italian cities at that time. He styled himself "the last people's tribune". Does this mean that there is Roman continuity from the SPQR to the low Middle Age in Rome ? Sorry, no. Do you also think that Charles Martel's nephew was a Roman Emperor ?

The Cola di Rienzo story shows that medieval Roman politicians did not regard ancient Rome and medieval Rome as culturally discontinuous. Indeed, they took ancient Romans to be their immediate ancestors.


"saw themselves" is the key. Did you read my signature ? Silvio Berlusconi sees himself as Superman. He recently stated that he has been the best Council's President (please let's not call him Premier, he is not) in 150 years.

Oh dear, do you really want to compare Mazzini to Berlusconi now?

nope, look up for the meaning of that word. Besides, the Romans united something more than just Italy.

Any Italian pupil is taught since Scuola Elementare that Italy was unified under the Romans, and that this political unity was lost until the Risorgimento. This is part of Italian folk-history. The propaganda of the Risorgimento looked back at ancient history to create the myth of a lost Roman unity to be regained (in reality, the 19th-century peninsula was culturally heterogeneous, and back then there was indeed little the Italians had in common beyond their shared ancient Roman heritage). Nobody ever questioned that Rome should have been the capital of the newly formed Italian state. (Before "la presa di Roma" in 1870 Turin and Florence were perceived as being only temporary capitals.) Why Rome? It was once the capital of the Roman empire, so it was only natural for it to be the capital of the new Italian state.


Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 with the RIGHTFUL (according to you) claim that this area should have been part of Iraq according to History two thousands years ago.

"According to me"?! I never said anything about Saddam Hussein.

You know, dictators are famous for their nationalistic and ridiculous claims. In fact, Italy and Mussolini, as well as Hussein, failed miserably. Coincidence ?

Let me put it that way: ask Rhye why he’s chosen "Nuovo Impero Romano" as a dynamic name of Rome under police state. Is he implying that Mussolini was right after all? That fascists did really re-establish the Roman Empire?

ahah, the Senate is present in any Republic government, obviously. Yes, it is inspired to the Roman Senate. So what ? This has absolutely no relevance. And besides the Senate was present before the institution of the Italian Republic.

Have you ever been inside Palazzo Madama? In the Sala Maccari, there's a beautiful fresco by Cesare Maccari, showing Cicero talking to senate to denounce Catiline. Now, I can see why you may not want to take Renato Schifani as a successor of Cicero. But the national iconography shows that the senatorial institution itself is supposed to continue the tradition of the ancient Roman Republic.

(By the way, the senate existed before 1948 as "Senato del Regno" not as "Senato della Repubblica", which is anyway beside the point).

The Italian senate is just one among loads of examples. The whole Italian legal tradition is strongly influenced by the diritto romano. I don't really get what your point is: you can't be serious if you deny the close cultural link between ancient Rome and modern Italy. Modern Italy has been influenced by ancient Rome more than any other state.

ZachScape
Sep 11, 2009, 01:39 PM
Nobody is reading what the other side is saying.

It's fine that you want to add an Italian civ to RFC, but your lack of interest for the other re-spawned civs betrays your true motivations. Maybe if some of you would answer how Italy and Greece differ in this regard, we would understand what you are saying. Unless, of course, you believe the modern nation-state of Greece is the same culture as classical Greece?

You're joking, right? I already made this point clear in my previous post.
Italy was a major nation on a world view! The colonization of Africa, Somalia, and Libya is ONE point. What about the defensive pact in the Triple Alliance that brought the 'Balance of Power' to Europe. What about WWI, WWII? Major role there.

To Greece and Iraq, I mean no disrespect to the citizens of these countries, but by the time the respawned, they played little to no role at all in World Affairs, especially with the time left of there respawn.

Do you think anybody would want to play as Iraq, with them starting in 1958? Greece, what are you going to do? It is like adding Kuwait as a civilization in RFC.

TDK
Sep 12, 2009, 03:41 AM
You're joking, right? I already made this point clear in my previous post.
Italy was a major nation on a world view! The colonization of Africa, Somalia, and Libya is ONE point. What about the defensive pact in the Triple Alliance that brought the 'Balance of Power' to Europe. What about WWI, WWII? Major role there.

To Greece and Iraq, I mean no disrespect to the citizens of these countries, but by the time the respawned, they played little to no role at all in World Affairs, especially with the time left of there re-spawn.

Do you think anybody would want to play as Iraq, with them starting in 1958? Greece, what are you going to do? It is like adding Kuwait as a civilization in RFC.The thing is, you are all saying that Italy is a different culture than Rome, which I think is obvious, but if we want to go down that path, viewing the "civs" as cultures, we might as well replace the re-spawned Greece, India, Babylon, Egypt and Persia with later "cultures" or entirely different civs, because they are certainly not anything like their ancient/classical predecessor "cultures".

Like late Rome, none of these "civs" have UHVs, UPs, UBs that make any sense.
I have already suggested this:
As I see it we have at least 6 open slots:
INDIA=Mysore/Mughal/Modern India
GREECE=Korea
ROME=Italy
EGYPT=Iroquois
BABYLONIA=Zulu
PERSIA=Maori?/Brasil?

Zagoroth
Sep 12, 2009, 07:54 AM
I honestly do not see why there is a huge argument over this. I also believe it makes no sense for Rome to represent Italy. Does the argument just go down to, "everyone agrees a 600 C.E. start is okay and not everyone believes the 3000 B.C.E. start is okay"? I think the 600 C.E. start would be be a good idea as Rome can be modified into an Italian civilization. The 3000 B.C.E. just does not make sense to change. Rome already respawns in the game as its own civilization. Changing it to Italy is just aesthetics. Since nobody is going to replace Rome with Italy in the 3000 B.C.E. start, it seems better to just let it stay.

fireclaw722
Sep 12, 2009, 11:37 AM
As I see it we have at least 6 open slots:
INDIA=Mysore/Mughal/Modern India
GREECE=Korea
ROME=Italy
EGYPT=Iroquois
BABYLONIA=Zulu
PERSIA=Maori?/Brasil?:


I would like something like this but Persia, Greece, & Egypt should instead respawn and Maya & Cathrage can then be replaced by Iroquios(whatever the Native American tribe is most wanted), Zulu, Brazil, Korea, or even Canada.

I also can see this isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but still throwing more stuff out there.

ZachScape
Sep 12, 2009, 02:55 PM
The thing is, you are all saying that Italy is a different culture than Rome, which I think is obvious, but if we want to go down that path, viewing the "civs" as cultures, we might as well replace the re-spawned Greece, India, Babylon, Egypt and Persia with later "cultures" or entirely different civs, because they are certainly not anything like their ancient/classical predecessor "cultures".

Like late Rome, none of these "civs" have UHVs, UPs, UBs that make any sense.
I have already suggested this:

This is not about culture. It is about location. The Middle East is a place with a lot of cultures, which it should be. It does not need to be changed IMO. But Italy is where Rome was, and Italy was a major nation.
I agree with Zagoroth, that this should not even be an argument at all. This is an easy concept which we are all unsuccessfully trying to get through to you. This is just about Italy. Not Greece, not Iraq, just Italy.

And you can not have an RFC map without Persia, Babylon, or Egypt, it would just be empty, or an Independent cluster with no competition.

onedreamer
Sep 14, 2009, 06:31 AM
You said it. Literally speaking, re-spawned Rome/Babylon/etc. are nothing, entities that never existed. For that reason, I prefer to think of re-spawned Rome as Italy rather than some mysterious non-entity.

you use the term re-spawn incorrectly then. If a civ re-spawns, it is the same civ, not another civ. If you said spawn from the very beginning there would be no problem. Italy SPAWNS or can spawn from a certain date, with its own UU, UHV, etc.

The re-appearance in modern times of something even remotely resembling ancient Rome makes no sense to me, not even as alternate history. I don’t think it is historically possible for an ancient civilization to magically re-appear after centuries of non-existence.

too bad that it's what you have proposed.

It's the other way round actually, the Romans should re-spawn as the Italians.

ahah, ditto.

Which in game terms merely means that the Rome slot ("iRome", whatever that constant name is in python) should be taken over by Italy after Rome collapses.

No, in other terms it means that Italy spawns, not that Rome re-spawns.


Why Rome? It was once the capital of the Roman empire, so it was only natural for it to be the capital of the new Italian state.

Rome is central, a much better capital than Turin or Florence. And Risorgimento's main ideals were of indipendence from foreign powers and of liberalism first of all. You were maybe a bit distracted at school if you think that they teach that the indipendent movements in the 19th century were inspired from the Roman Empire, movements that I shall remind you were spread accross the whole Europe. The awareness of the italian culture, or civilization, has always been present during the whole Middle Ages; Dante Alighieri speaks of the italian language between the 13th and 14th century, Niccolò Machiavelli hopes for the "Princes" in Italy to unify the peninsula the 15th and 16th, etc etc. With a common culture and a geographically OBVIOUS position, you think that the feeling of indipendence and unity of italian people in the 19th century needed to look at the Romans to have an inspiration ? Please... why was it called Italy in the first place ? During the Roman Empire Italy was only a region of an Empire, ROME was the homeland. All roads take to Rome, not to Italy. Rome (the Papal State) is responsible for the division of Italy throughout the Middle Ages, if the Popes didn't obstacolate in any possible way the unification of Italy from the Langobards, we would have had a unitary Italy much before the 19th century. Only thanks to the skilled political moves of Cavour and the weakened Papal State we now have a Italy, not thanks to the reminiscense of the Roman Empire. Italy was made thanks to favorable political conditions and because it was an area definied by cultural and geographical unity. The same things that make of Spain what it is... although I don't hear people claiming that the spanish people launched the Reconquista because in the Roman Empire, that area was called Hispania.

Let me put it that way: ask Rhye why he’s chosen "Nuovo Impero Romano" as a dynamic name of Rome under police state. Is he implying that Mussolini was right after all? That fascists did really re-establish the Roman Empire?

No, he is implying once more that you are wrong, that the re-spawned civ is in fact that of the Romans, and not Italy, which is ANOTHER, different civ, which therefore can't simply be Rome respawned with a different name.

Have you ever been inside Palazzo Madama? In the Sala Maccari, there's a beautiful fresco by Cesare Maccari, showing Cicero talking to senate to denounce Catiline. Now, I can see why you may not want to take Renato Schifani as a successor of Cicero. But the national iconography shows that the senatorial institution itself is supposed to continue the tradition of the ancient Roman Republic.

I am speechless in front of such blind twisting of reality in order to prove the existance of something that doesn't exist.

onedreamer
Sep 14, 2009, 06:43 AM
Nobody is reading what the other side is saying.

It's fine that you want to add an Italian civ to RFC, but your lack of interest for the other re-spawned civs betrays your true motivations. Maybe if some of you would answer how Italy and Greece differ in this regard, we would understand what you are saying. Unless, of course, you believe the modern nation-state of Greece is the same culture as classical Greece?

They do not differ in any way, actually since we are speaking of Ancient Greece, that was not a political entity either :P
I do not *want* to add the italian civ to RFC, I didn't write the OP. I am merely here to say that a respawned Rome shouldn't be called Italy, and that Italians aren't (direct) discendants of Romans, the Italian culture has of course Roman influences, like most others in Europe, probably more than others being that the Roman culture originated in Rome which is in Italy, and given that the History of other european kingdoms developed differently from that of the italian ones after the fall of the Roman Empire. Mussolini said Italians are descendant from Romans as an (obvious) act of propaganda, something that any totalitarian gov. would do when things aren't going well: distract the public opinion from the current problems to something good that may accomunate them. I don't understand if some people on this forum are still fascists or simply blind.

TDK
Sep 14, 2009, 07:18 AM
Okay, so you agree that if we change Rome to Italy in the 600AD start, we should change Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Babylonia and India as well?

It's just that you are over-selling your argument. If you notice, I never said that Italians were Romans. I just said that Italy and Rome share many things, like: Core territory, the mountains and rivers, olives and wine, the climate, some institutions, law, the language is similar, Christianity, the capital Roma, geo-strategic position and geographic location and so on and so forth. That's why it's silly to create an entirely new civ, when almost all other of the ancient/classical civs are equally disjointed from their later "successor" cultures.

Charles Martel
Sep 14, 2009, 08:40 AM
you use the term re-spawn incorrectly then. If a civ re-spawns, it is the same civ, not another civ. If you said spawn from the very beginning there would be no problem. Italy SPAWNS or can spawn from a certain date, with its own UU, UHV, etc.

I think you have missed the point. The proposal is as follows: to overcome the hard limit on number of civs, ancient civs should re-spawn as modern civs. It’s silly to object that the new and the old civ are not historically the "same" (whatever that means), for that misses the point entirely. As far as I am concerned, Rome could re-spawn as Korea. It is, however, relatively simpler to make Rome re-spawn as Italy: same geographical location, less coding changes to make.

(Note: the term "re-spawn" is used correctly here, for the original and the re-spawned civ are in fact the "same" civilization is coding terms, albeit not in historical terms, in the sense that they take up the same slot and are assigned the same python constant.)

Rome is central, a much better capital than Turin or Florence.

Sure, and Narni (Umbria) is even closer than Rome to the geographical center of Italy. Too bad Narni is not the capital. The main reason why Rome was chosen as capital was because of its historical importance dating back to the time of the Roman empire. Geographical centrality was certainly not the main reason.

you think that the feeling of indipendence and unity of italian people in the 19th century needed to look at the Romans to have an inspiration ?

Of course they did. Haven’t you learnt by heart the Italian national anthem, composed in 1847? It says:

Fratelli d'Italia, l'Italia s'è desta,
dell'elmo di Scipio s'è cinta la testa

Brothers of Italy, Italy has awoken,
Binding her head with Scipio’s helmet

“Scipio” is, of course, the ancient Roman general Scipio Africanus.

Please... why was it called Italy in the first place ? During the Roman Empire Italy was only a region of an Empire, ROME was the homeland.

Italy was not just like any other province of the Empire, it was the core of the Empire. “Italia” was the name given since the time of the Roman Republic to the whole peninsula. Thus Italia included Rome itself. Italic peoples were privileged within the Empire, for example: in the II century BC they were granted full Roman citizenship, a privilege that until 212AD was unique to them. In Roman times, the distinction between “Romans” and the “Italians” (gens italica) was not as sharp as you seem to think it was.

All roads take to Rome, not to Italy. Rome (the Papal State) is responsible for the division of Italy throughout the Middle Ages, if the Popes didn't obstacolate in any possible way the unification of Italy from the Langobards, we would have had a unitary Italy much before the 19th century. Only thanks to the skilled political moves of Cavour and the weakened Papal State we now have a Italy, not thanks to the reminiscense of the Roman Empire. Italy was made thanks to favorable political conditions and because it was an area definied by cultural and geographical unity.

None of this shows that there is no cultural continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy. One of the major discontinuities was the invasion of Lombards that you have mentioned, but their influence was not sufficiently strong to sever the link and create an entirely new dominant culture. The Lombards were quick to covert to the Roman’s religion and adopt their language. Even their laws, such as the edict of King Rotari, were written in Latin.

The same things that make of Spain what it is... although I don't hear people claiming that the spanish people launched the Reconquista because in the Roman Empire, that area was called Hispania.

I don’t think that the cultural closeness between ancient Rome and modern Italy is comparable to that between Rome and modern Spain. True, the Roman influence on Spain was enormous (and some emperors, such as Trajan, were born in modern-day Spain). However, the cultural continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is many ways greater and more marked than that from Rome to Spain. After all Hispania was a collection of more or less peripheral provinces, whereas Italia was the beating heart of the empire.

No, he is implying once more that you are wrong, that the re-spawned civ is in fact that of the Romans, and not Italy, which is ANOTHER, different civ, which therefore can't simply be Rome respawned with a different name.

So why does Rome get the dynamic name “Nuovo Impero Romano”? If Rome and Italy and entirely different civilizations, don’t you think it’s a little strange to name police-state Rome after Mussolini’s dream?

I am speechless in front of such blind twisting of reality in order to prove the existance of something that doesn't exist.

The cultural influence and continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is undeniable. I can’t believe that you want to deny his, so I don’t understand what you are disagreeing about. Perhaps you think that I am claiming that Rome and Italy are the “same civilization”, but, as I have already stressed, I am not saying this (any claim to the effect that “X is (or is not) the same civilization as Y” makes no clear sense to me, for I don’t think that civilizations have well-defined identity conditions.) It seems to me that you are over-reacting: you want to teach us to that Italy and Rome are not the “same”, but in doing so, you needn’t downplay the importance of the Roman heritage.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 14, 2009, 11:48 AM
Cultural continuity is an illusion, if we're talking about millenia.
By that I mean that yes, Italians can think they were descendants of ancient Romans (no doubt genetically admixed with a little Goth, Lombard, Germanic and Gallic DNA, if one can even racially type-cast DNA), and the language wouldn't be there if it weren't for Latin. The institutions (be it senates or laws) might be called the same, but the ideas behind them that make them work on a day-to-day basis are different.
Just another example: I can read classical Chinese, but do I really know what the author meant? The Romance of the Three Kingdoms was written almost a thousand years after the History of the Three Kingdoms, and I'm sure if I compared what I thought of a particular figure (let's say Cao Cao, who's a great statesman) to what people of his time thought of him, it would be different. Heck, we don't even speak the same language (Mandarin is probably not what they spoke).

So yes, by all means Italy should spawn in Rome's spot, but no, it should not be a respawn of Rome.

kairob
Sep 14, 2009, 01:55 PM
AP, I agree, yet another person has expressed this argument very well.

For those who disagree and think that Rome represents Italy fine then why keep posting on a thread about making a modmod to do something you don't want? It seams like a waste of time to me especially as no one seems to be changing their minds...

ZachScape
Sep 14, 2009, 04:04 PM
Uggg... I feel ignored....

But why TDK, are you bringing up Carthage, Babylon, Greece, Egypt, etc? They should be random as they were never major civs in the modern era.
And Onedreamer, I am not asking to *add* a new civ, as that is accepted as REALLY hard. Just tweak one.

Charles Martel
Sep 14, 2009, 04:06 PM
Cultural continuity is an illusion, if we're talking about millenia.

Is it an illusion? Well, the whole game of Civilization is based on the very idea of cultural continuity throughout the millennia. Take the Old Kingdom versus Cleopatra's Egypt. There are three thousand years in between them, yet RFC represents them as being the "same civilization". Illusion? Maybe. But then so is the idea that the game has any historical basis whatsoever.

By that I mean that yes, Italians can think they were descendants of ancient Romans (no doubt genetically admixed with a little Goth, Lombard, Germanic and Gallic DNA, if one can even racially type-cast DNA), and the language wouldn't be there if it weren't for Latin. The institutions (be it senates or laws) might be called the same, but the ideas behind them that make them work on a day-to-day basis are different.

Well, some modern ideas/institutions/etc. are very different the ways of the ancient’s, others less so. Cultural continuity is not an "all-or-nothing" matter, but it comes into degrees. There can be more or less continuity, and nobody ever claimed that the continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is a perfect one. It's a comparative matter: there seems to be more continuity from Rome to Italy than there is, say, from Roman Britain to the United Kingdom.


I can read classical Chinese, but do I really know what the author meant?

I don't buy this idea of cultural incommensurability, whereby we cannot really understand the "cultures of the past". When I read classical Latin I’d like to think that I know (more or less) what the author meant.

So yes, by all means Italy should spawn in Rome's spot, but no, it should not be a respawn of Rome.

Why not? Since Italy spawns in Rome's spot, why not give Rome a face-lift and turn it into Italy? From a coding perspective, that seems a lot easier than adding an entirely new civilization.

sercer88
Sep 14, 2009, 04:33 PM
Sorry, I'm late on getting into this lively debate :mischief: but I don't see the point some of you people have here

To boil this down: One person saw the need to tweak one civ in the 600AD start only because that person thought it would be more accurate and that person brought it up here to presumably ask for someone else to help him/her
Some people agreed with the original poster, but others, who didn't agree, decided to try and persuade the first group that the change wouldn't benefit the game (or were completely confused about the proposed change in the first place :lol: )
In the end, nobody has done anything to help the original poster except for a few posts with related tweaks

Really people, if someone can do the tweaks then why not? If only one person wants the tweaks, then so what?

As for the first post, Zachscape, I'm sorry, I cannot help you with anything you can already do, but I wouldn't mind (and I'm sure you wouldn't either) if someone who can do these tweaks would help a few RFC fanatics out!

(I, too have had a proposal for a new feature for Civ IV shot down because...who knows why...but I know your feeling of being 'ignored')

AnotherPacifist
Sep 14, 2009, 05:32 PM
Why not? Since Italy spawns in Rome's spot, why not give Rome a face-lift and turn it into Italy? From a coding perspective, that seems a lot easier than adding an entirely new civilization.

You mean to keep its UP (a little dated for railroads), UB (excellent for a newly spawned civ) and UU (absolutely useless against rifles)? If not that is more than just a facelift.

I'm happy for you that you knew what, say, Ovid meant (I think I do too), but what you imagine may not be what he meant in the first place, and certainly not the same as what the Renaissance thought of him. What I remember of Foucault and his History of Sexuality made me doubtful that anything other than historicism is the way to read classics.

TDK
Sep 15, 2009, 01:28 AM
Sorry, I'm late on getting into this lively debate but I don't see the point some of you people have here

To boil this down: One person saw the need to tweak one civ in the 600AD start only because that person thought it would be more accurate and that person brought it up here to presumably ask for someone else to help him/her
Some people agreed with the original poster, but others, who didn't agree, decided to try and persuade the first group that the change wouldn't benefit the game (or were completely confused about the proposed change in the first place )
In the end, nobody has done anything to help the original poster except for a few posts with related tweaks

Really people, if someone can do the tweaks then why not? If only one person wants the tweaks, then so what?

As for the first post, Zachscape, I'm sorry, I cannot help you with anything you can already do, but I wouldn't mind (and I'm sure you wouldn't either) if someone who can do these tweaks would help a few RFC fanatics out!

(I, too have had a proposal for a new feature for Civ IV shot down because...who knows why...but I know your feeling of being 'ignored')The reason I'm still discussing this is because Rhye showed an interest in the idea, and I take that to mean that he might implement it in RFC.

You mean to keep its UP (a little dated for railroads), UB (excellent for a newly spawned civ) and UU (absolutely useless against rifles)? If not that is more than just a facelift.

I'm happy for you that you knew what, say, Ovid meant (I think I do too), but what you imagine may not be what he meant in the first place, and certainly not the same as what the Renaissance thought of him. What I remember of Foucault and his History of Sexuality made me doubtful that anything other than historicism is the way to read classics.I have nothing against creating new civs for the 600AD start, but don't you agree that the other "re-spawns" should get new UHVs, UBs and UUs as well then, or be replaced by other civs?
I'm asking this for the 4th time because if it's going to be implemented in RFC, we need consistency in the concepts.

scu98rkr
Sep 15, 2009, 02:54 AM
Personally Im for the argument that a re spawned Rome is Italy again the cultural continuality seems obvious to be. (ie core area, language, religion, capital etc...)

I cant really see why there is an argument even. Many other civs can respawn again and again are considered to be the same CIV ie china / india.

I think the only argument come from 2 perspectives.

1. Most of us arguing here are Europeans and therefore are somewhat ignorant of how other cultures change through time, ie persia, china, egypt, india.
From the outside its looks like a permanent mono culture. I work at a University in London so I know plenty of Indians who've come over to Europe for the first time. I remember one guy saying this after he'd been he for a while
"oh its quite different in different parts of Europe a lot like in India".

2. Rome is somewhat special in that in became a European/Mediterranean superstate and a successor state to many other civ's. But essentially it was a Latin/Italian State with an empire.

And a last point. It HAS to be brought up it can be NO coincidence that this argument always turns up about italy/rome and the creator of the mod and several important contributors ARE ITALIANS. Too much of a coincidence for my liking.

scu98rkr
Sep 15, 2009, 02:56 AM
There has also been a couple of comment that the Roman/Italian UP/UB/UU are useless in the modern age.

Thats the point the Latin culture centered on the Italian peninsular has never reached the heights it did in Roman times. Hence its powers/units/buildings are based in classical times like egypts units are based in ancient times.

kairob
Sep 15, 2009, 02:57 AM
The reason I'm still discussing this is because Rhye showed an interest in the idea, and I take that to mean that he might implement it in RFC.

From Rhye;
I am currently involved in RFGW, so it has to be some of you for now to make a modmod.


I have nothing against creating new civs for the 600AD start, but don't you agree that the other "re-spawns" should get new UHVs, UBs and UUs as well then, or be replaced by other civs? No

TDK
Sep 15, 2009, 04:46 AM
Why not?, in the interest of consistency.

kairob
Sep 15, 2009, 04:58 AM
I just personally don't want them as they would slow down the late period for little gain as not many new civs really need to be added...

Panopticon
Sep 15, 2009, 05:03 AM
Can someone who wants this please just make the mod so that this fruitless discussion can end and discussants can judge for themselves how good the idea is.

onedreamer
Sep 16, 2009, 03:56 AM
Okay, so you agree that if we change Rome to Italy in the 600AD start, we should change Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Babylonia and India as well?

It's just that you are over-selling your argument. If you notice, I never said that Italians were Romans. I just said that Italy and Rome share many things, like: Core territory, the mountains and rivers, olives and wine, the climate, some institutions, law, the language is similar, Christianity, the capital Roma, geo-strategic position and geographic location and so on and so forth. That's why it's silly to create an entirely new civ, when almost all other of the ancient/classical civs are equally disjointed from their later "successor" cultures.

Yes it's silly, I already confirmed this. In fact, this thread was about creating a NEW CIV for the 600 AD start. It isn't about RE-SPAWNING a civ. Also to those who are tired of the discussion on wether Italy can represent the Roman Empire or vice versa: do not read this thread past a certain point. The original thread has been addressed already and Zach said at one point that he was almost done with the mod. He was helped with suggestions, linked to other discussions on the same matter, etc. The thread then took another route since the first one was pretty much dead and it is now a different discussion that is merely a social/historical one, something perfectly normal and acceptable in the forum of a mod that has historical realism as one of its focuses. Again if you don't like the route the thread has taken, don't read it, and if you would like to contribute to the original post I am sure none will try to stop you with comments such as "lively discussion".

onedreamer
Sep 16, 2009, 04:56 AM
I think you have missed the point. The proposal is as follows: to overcome the hard limit on number of civs, ancient civs should re-spawn as modern civs.

And who has determined this ? You ? IMHO civs re-spawn for gameplay reasons and because they historically did. More than one civ lost its indipendence in the course of history, but maintained its cultural indipendence and came back as an indipendent nation. The Roman civilization lost its cultural indipendence and never came back in real History, however in RFC, which is a game, it could be possible for this to happen as much as it is possible for Arabia to found cities in South America.

It’s silly to object that the new and the old civ are not historically the "same" (whatever that means), for that misses the point entirely.

but YOU are the one who is objecting it, LOL. You do not agree that the Roman Empire could respawn as New Roman Empire, and instead ask that it respawns as Italy.

As far as I am concerned, Rome could re-spawn as Korea. It is, however, relatively simpler to make Rome re-spawn as Italy: same geographical location, less coding changes to make.

It's simpler to make it respawn as New Rome as it already does.

(Note: the term "re-spawn" is used correctly here, for the original and the re-spawned civ are in fact the "same" civilization is coding terms, albeit not in historical terms, in the sense that they take up the same slot and are assigned the same python constant.)

sorry but this doesn't hold water.

Sure, and Narni (Umbria) is even closer than Rome to the geographical center of Italy. Too bad Narni is not the capital. The main reason why Rome was chosen as capital was because of its historical importance dating back to the time of the Roman empire. Geographical centrality was certainly not the main reason.

Right. Sources ?

Of course they did. Haven’t you learnt by heart the Italian national anthem, composed in 1847? It says:

Fratelli d'Italia, l'Italia s'è desta,
dell'elmo di Scipio s'è cinta la testa

Brothers of Italy, Italy has awoken,
Binding her head with Scipio’s helmet

“Scipio” is, of course, the ancient Roman general Scipio Africanus.

1) Heh. 19th century, the century of Nationalism. Do you know what is nationalism ?
2) in 1847 Italy was all but united. This song was composed as an inspiration for the people to fight for the indipendence and unity. It is obvious that it quotes (very) past glories of another people since there is nothing else to say to make people's heart burn for "Italy", a country that hasn't existed in 1847 yet. But the fact that a poet, a composer, or a fascist makes such high, patriotic claims, doesn't really change History. They are only words said to inspire people, it is a hymn, not a History essay. You strumentalize this hymn as if it was an essay.
3) In case you haven't heard of it, this hymn is highly criticized exactly because of this content, because it speaks mainly of Rome instead of Italy. The reason is simply, it's outdated, and it was written before the birth of Italy, which is dated 1861, not 1848.


Italy was not just like any other province of the Empire, it was the core of the Empire.

1- Italy was more than one province
2- again the core of the Empire was ROME, not Italy.

“Italia” was the name given since the time of the Roman Republic to the whole peninsula. Thus Italia included Rome itself. Italic peoples were privileged within the Empire, for example: in the II century BC they were granted full Roman citizenship, a privilege that until 212AD was unique to them. In Roman times, the distinction between “Romans” and the “Italians” (gens italica) was not as sharp as you seem to think it was.

- the origins of the name predate the Romans.
- Italia still includes Rome. What's the point ? Even Europe, or Earth includes Rome.
- the citizenzhip should prove you that the core of the Roman Empire was Rome and not Italy.
- the peoples living in Italy in ancient history were Italic peoples, not Italian people. I do not think it, I am certain of it. Can you quote sources stating that Latini, or Romani were Italian peoples, rather than Italic peoples ?

None of this shows that there is no cultural continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy. One of the major discontinuities was the invasion of Lombards that you have mentioned, but their influence was not sufficiently strong to sever the link and create an entirely new dominant culture.

The Longobards DID create a new culture, the one that evolved from the mix of Italic Peoples with Ostrogoths first, and with Logobards then. They couldn't create a unitary nation in Italy as they tried to, that's what I said.

The Lombards were quick to covert to the Roman’s religion and adopt their language. Even their laws, such as the edict of King Rotari, were written in Latin.

Sorry but this is really too much. Christianity now is the Romans' religion ? And in case you weren't aware of it, Latin was spoken throughout the Empire for long after its fall; while written Latin survived for centuries. It was then what is now English, an international language.

I don’t think that the cultural closeness between ancient Rome and modern Italy is comparable to that between Rome and modern Spain. True, the Roman influence on Spain was enormous (and some emperors, such as Trajan, were born in modern-day Spain). However, the cultural continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is many ways greater and more marked than that from Rome to Spain. After all Hispania was a collection of more or less peripheral provinces, whereas Italia was the beating heart of the empire.

only because of its location. You confuse territorial continuity with cultural continuity. Like TDK has said, Romans and Italians have in common, among many other things, olives and wine. Heh.

So why does Rome get the dynamic name “Nuovo Impero Romano”? If Rome and Italy and entirely different civilizations, don’t you think it’s a little strange to name police-state Rome after Mussolini’s dream?

No, I don't. Police State signs a change in era so why not change the name of the Empire ? What other name would you suggest instead ?

The cultural influence and continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is undeniable.

I continue to deny it and I think I have done a pretty good job until now :p
Note that I don't deny the cultural influence of ancient Rome on Italy or any other European country, I deny the cultural continuity and integrity from Rome to Italy. This is nonexistant, they are two different cultures and the results achieved by these two peoples show it pretty well :lol:

you want to teach us to that Italy and Rome are not the “same”, but in doing so, you needn’t downplay the importance of the Roman heritage.

Far from me to have this intention. Again the Roman heritage is something Italians have dear and should have even more dear, since it's stronger in Italy than anywhere else. However, Italians aren't Romans respawned. They didn't *really* put up Sciopio's helm. But I wouldn't want to hurt too much fascists dreams; after all everyone is entitled to have dreams.

scu98rkr
Sep 16, 2009, 05:22 AM
Again it has to be said the people seem to most strongly think Rome and Italy are different Civ, ie onedreamer and Rhye are both Italian !!!! Therefore they see the differences most strongly and the similarities most weakly.

It has to be said to a certain extent defining what a Civ is somewhat arbitrary this is true but any way some arguments against one dreamer.

"1- Italy was more than one province
2- again the core of the Empire was ROME, not Italy."

So this is the same as China/Persia not all chinese or persian empires, centre of power were in the same place.

The Persian empire had many forms with many different capitals ie perepolis, Ctesiphon, Ecbatana, Tehran Tabriz, Qazvin, Esfahan etc ..

The chinese empire/empires again have had many capitals Xianyang, Chang'an , Xuchang, Beijing ,Bianjing etc ..

The point is although the power centre of the each dynasty comes from a different area of the Civ they have been considered to be successor states to the civ and therefore the same civ.

The funny thing is Rome/Italia the captial IS in the same ! So even more continuous than others.

"The Longobards DID create a new culture, the one that evolved from the mix of Italic Peoples with Ostrogoths first, and with Logobards then. They couldn't create a unitary nation in Italy as they tried to, that's what I said."

Again this is the same for other civ's Persia and China even changed religion. And the culture has been influenced from outside groups which are often internalized.

Persia ie arab+mongol influence China Mongol+Manchu infulence etc. Same thing for Rome/Italia taking on some germanic aspects.

"Sorry but this is really too much. Christianity now is the Romans' religion ? And in case you weren't aware of it, Latin was spoken throughout the Empire for long after its fall; while written Latin survived for centuries. It was then what is now English, an international language."

Well Christianity was the religion when the Roman Empire crumbled and it still was was Italy started what is your point ? This shows continuity.

I cant really see how Rome/Italy is different from

Qin/Han/Ming/Qing etc ...
Acaemedic/Parthian/Sassanid/ etc...

Can you please explain how Italy is a special case ?

scu98rkr
Sep 16, 2009, 05:38 AM
Basically my argument is this

People who believe that Rome does not equal Italia probably do not know there Chinese/Persian/India history as well as they know their Italian history.

They therefore mistakenly believe there is more cultural continuity between the various empires in these countries than their really is.

In fact if anything there may well be more in common between Rome and Italy than these various dynasties.

Lone Wolf
Sep 16, 2009, 06:16 AM
Italy is definitely not the new Rome, however, respawned Rome is the closest thing RFC has to Italy, so it has a loose level of representation in it. The level of representation Italy has in RFC is less then the level of representation nations like USA have.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 16, 2009, 06:22 AM
They therefore mistakenly believe there is more cultural continuity between the various empires in these countries than their really is.

In fact there is much discontinuity in Chinese culture between dynasties. From Qin to Western Jin the Han people predominated, then "barbarians" who were allowed to live in the north took over and from then on it's one "barbarian" people after another that took over the north, leading to development of the south as a political and economic "bastion" of Han culture against all these barbs (Jin (not the dynasty name), Mongol, Manchu). Even though these barbs took over the institutions of the Han (e.g. dynasties, examinations for official posts, even calling years by names assigned by emperors), they served more to make governing the local population easier. In fact, if there was something continuous, it was this drive to reestablish the "ideal" of Han peoples predominating again in the north and uniting China again without foreign rule (Tang, Ming, Sung dynasties).

And that's just for China with a continuous written script that has been in use for close to 2000 years (if we discount pre-Han written scripts). Think of how much cultural discontinuity there is between Rome, medieval Italy, Renaissance Italy and modern Italy. They may ASPIRE to recreating Rome just like the Chinese did, but to say that
In fact if anything there may well be more in common between Rome and Italy than these various dynasties.
is just like saying there's more in common between an amphora and a modern replica.

scu98rkr
Sep 16, 2009, 07:42 AM
I really cant make out whether your agreeing or disagreeing with me.

"In fact there is much discontinuity in Chinese culture between dynasties. "

Here your agreeing with me, ok. But your've started the sentence with "In Fact" which normally suggests your taking the opposing point of view which your not.

"is just like saying there's more in common between an amphora and a modern replica. "

Ok there is more in common between an amphora and a modern replica than various Chinese dynasties ? But are you agreeing or disagreeing with me ?

Normally your written English and arguments are far clearer than mine AP but not here.

Charles Martel
Sep 16, 2009, 08:37 AM
You mean to keep its UP (a little dated for railroads), UB (excellent for a newly spawned civ) and UU (absolutely useless against rifles)? If not that is more than just a facelift.

IMO, the minimal essential changes are the aesthetic ones: new dynamic names such as "Repubblica Italiana", modernized city names (Milano, Napoli), a new leaderhead, possibly a new flag. I have already made the textual changes in my custom version of RFC (but not the graphical ones). In addition to those, I'd welcome game play-changes too, such as new UP, UU, UB, and UHVs. However, since Italy as re-spawned Rome would not be playable, I don't think that those game-play changes are essential to the 3000BC start. As to the 600AD state, I agree with the OP that Rome should be replaced with a playable Italy with its own UP, UB, etc.

I'm happy for you that you knew what, say, Ovid meant (I think I do too), but what you imagine may not be what he meant in the first place, and certainly not the same as what the Renaissance thought of him. What I remember of Foucault and his History of Sexuality made me doubtful that anything other than historicism is the way to read classics.

I haven't read the History of Sexuality, but I have read (part of) Madness and Civilization, and, though I have found it to be an interesting read, I personally tend to distrust anything that is associated with the so-called "structuralist" movement. (Well, Foucault dissociated himself from structuralism, but that's where he's coming from). Anyway, I am not convinced that historical conditions and peculiarities make the meaning of ancient texts somehow inaccessible to us.

Charles Martel
Sep 16, 2009, 09:15 AM
Roman civilization lost its cultural indipendence and never came back in real History, however in RFC, which is a game, it could be possible for this to happen as much as it is possible for Arabia to found cities in South America.

I disagree with that comparison. Perhaps it's historically possible for Arabia to have founded cities in South America. But I don't think it is historically possible for an ancient civilization to come back as such after centuries of non-existence. For the sake of historical credibility, I think it's better to turn the long-gone civilization into its closest modern counterpart.

sorry but this doesn't hold water.

Why not? I think we are using the word "re-spawn" in quite different ways. To you, if X re-spawns as Y, then X and Y must be historically the same civilization. To me, the term "re-spawn" merely refers to the game mechanics: X re-spawns as Y just in case Y pops up and takes up the same civ slot (same python constant) as X. If you don't like my use of the term just replace it with "multi-spawn" or whatever.

Right. Sources ?

I will quote Cavour himself on why Rome should be the capital: "Dal tempo dei Cesari al giorno d'oggi e' la storia di una citta la cui importanza si estende infinitamente al di la del suo territorio." ("From Caesars' times to the present day, [Rome's] history is the history of a city whose importance goes infinitely beyond its own territory".) In other words, according to the leading figure in Italian unification, Rome deserves be capital for its historical importance dating back to the time of the Roman empire.

Heh. 19th century, the century of Nationalism. Do you know what is nationalism ?... In case you haven't heard of it, this hymn is highly criticized exactly because of this content, because it speaks mainly of Rome instead of Italy. The reason is simply, it's outdated, and it was written before the birth of Italy, which is dated 1861, not 1848.

No doubt the Italian national anthem might be nationalist, naive, obsolete, or what have you... but the very fact that it's centred on the past glories of Rome proves my point. You said that "Italian people in the 19th century didn't look at the Romans to have an inspiration". That's plain wrong. Just look at the anthem. It was written in the 19th century and it looks at the ancient Romans for an inspiration.

Again the core of the Empire was ROME, not Italy

Form the time of the Republic to the early Empire, Italia (from Calabria to Rubicon) was not even a province, but the very territory of the city of Rome, which gave it special status. The idea that Italy need not have been the core of the Empire only began to develop in late antiquity, after Roman citizenship was granted to all freemen within the Empire. But until them Italia was the center of the Roman state, and very much unlike the peripheral provinces.

Sorry but this is really too much. Christianity now is the Romas' religion?

Yes, it is... since the time of the emperor Constantine, who, in the 4th Century, converted himself to Christianity. That is, at least, how the tradition goes.

the citizenzhip should prove you that the core of the Roman Empire was Rome and not Italy

Not at all. It shows that there was no sharp distinction between freemen living in Rome proper and other roman citizens who lived within the boundary of Italy. Until 212AD, both were supposed to enjoy the same unique privileges, unlike the people who lived in other parts of the empire.

No, I don't. Police State signs a change in era so why not change the name of the Empire ? What other name would you suggest instead ?
Actually, that dynamic name is fine with me. But in my custom version of the mod, police-state Rome is named "Fascist Italy".

after all everyone is entitled to have dreams
What dreams and ambitions you have is part of your culture. If, to take a telling example, Giuseppe Mazzini took himself as re-establishing the ancient Roman republic, then that gives to us a good indication of how the people of the time regarded their own cultural values in relation to those of their ancient predecessors. How else would you judge the cultural influences and continuity from one age to the other? But I can imagine OneDreamer travelling back in time to 1849 and teach Mazzini: "Gooday Giuseppe, congratulations for you efforts. But, you see, you are not *really* part of a triumvirate like those of ancient Rome... you see, Rome and Italy are not the same thing..."

Charles Martel
Sep 16, 2009, 09:24 AM
Italy is definitely not the new Rome, however, respawned Rome is the closest thing RFC has to Italy, so it has a loose level of representation in it.

I agree. RFC only allows for a coarse representation of the evolution from ancient to modern civilizations. Within such a loose and approximate model, there is little space for more detailed historical distinctions.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 16, 2009, 09:28 AM
I really cant make out whether your agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Ok there is more in common between an amphora and a modern replica than various Chinese dynasties ? But are you agreeing or disagreeing with me ?
.

I'm both disagreeing with you and agreeing with you. Yes, most people think there is more continuity in civs like China and Japan, but that's not the case. But I'm disagreeing with the Rome-Italy connection. Onedreamer's views are probably a little extreme, but I agree with him in essence.

I think the operative word Charles Martel is inspiration, which is key. Think of Rome and 19th century Italy (and even Mussolini's Italy) like:
Ancient amphora= probably used for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities in ancient Greece.
Modern replica=most decorative; mass produced; sometimes to deceive archaeologists and collectors to fetch a higher price or to lend a "classical" air to your living room. Probably not for daily use as storage. :lol:

bastillebaston
Sep 16, 2009, 10:31 AM
What's the fuss all about? Ok, let me get it straight: Middle Country of China -> People's Republic of China, Greek League -> Greek Junta, Holy Roman Empire -> Federal Republic of Germany are all fine... but Roman Empire -> Republic of Italy is not ok??? What's so special about Italy? Germany is like the Holy Roman Empire no more than Italy is like the Roman Empire... so why the double standard?

scu98rkr
Sep 16, 2009, 10:58 AM
After rereading through the all the posts I would say the argument is settled.

Rome to Italy is fine.

BurnEmDown
Sep 16, 2009, 12:21 PM
Actually bastille the HRE to modern day Germany is like medieval France to modern day France, yes perhaps the states were seperated but they were all the same peoples (same culture, same language, same ancestors).

synyster
Sep 16, 2009, 01:42 PM
I think the actual point of the thread, has been agreed on
Remove Rome, and put Italy.

As it was never "Rome IS Italy" in the first place

The discussion about wether or not Rome is to Italy as other modern civs are to thier ancient counterparts should really be discussed elsewhere really.

Or at least people should be discussing what UP, UB, UU, UHV's, etc should be used. As this is quite a good suggestion.

Bonci
Sep 16, 2009, 01:43 PM
So make your own modmod where Germany spawns in 1871 or whatever you want...the point here is to make a modmod about Italy to make it playable in the 600 a.d start (now it isn't possible)...I think no one is disagreeing with this.
The rest is only a social/historical discussion how onedreamer already said.

bastillebaston
Sep 17, 2009, 02:13 AM
@ Brunemdown I am no history buff but my mum is from Berlin and I know Germany well and I can tell you HRE isnt anything like modern day Germany. Same people with same ancestors? I don't think so! I've just read on wikipedia that a lot of different people lived in the HRE: German, French, Austrian, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Swiss, Czech and Slavic people... sorry but that doesnt sound at all like todays Germany. Same language? Wikipedia says that HRE languages are Latin, Germanic, Romance and Slavic dialects, and I guess that even those Germanic dialects must have been some kind of medieval language that modern day Germans have trouble understanding... So no, in real history HRE is not Germany. But I am not fussy about that... it's just a game, not real history... so HRE -> Germany and Roman empire -> Italy are ok to me.

BurnEmDown
Sep 17, 2009, 06:11 AM
Well I meant the parts of HRE that were German, I know Austria a lot of lands east of modern day Germany were in the HRE but what I meant was the core of the HRE which was in Germany. (Same as Rome controlled more than Italy itself but we are only talking about the peoples living in Italy, for example one wouldn't say "Rome isn't at all like Italy since Rome had Gauls and Illyric and Greek people in their empire").

scu98rkr
Sep 17, 2009, 06:44 AM
"Same as Rome controlled more than Italy"

Exactly but rome and italy are both Italian/Latin Civilisations basically.

bastillebaston
Sep 17, 2009, 07:00 AM
@ Burnemdown Are you kidding me? Thats' just what I said in the first place! HRE is to Germany as Roman Empire is to Italy... sort of. What I mean that Italy is like the Roman Empire no more than Germany is like HRE. So if HRE->Germany is ok then Roman Empire -> Italy is ok as well. And how about ancient China? Is it same civ as communist China? I don't think so... but Han people -> People's Republic of China is ok to me. I just don't get what's the fuss about ITaly.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 17, 2009, 07:31 AM
It would be really nice to get a new UU/UB/UP for each era of each civ, then the whole argument about which ancient civs should become which modern ones will be moot.

If the argument holds that HRE-->Germany, then why not Rome-->France or Rome-->Spain, since the latter two are Latin cultures too? Or for that matter why not Aztec-->Mexico or Inca-->Peru? Civ 1-4 in general is based on a fallacy that cultures don't change substantially over time and that the "fall" of civs is never simulated (as long as you don't lose the game). New cultures have always been made by diffusion/combination while old cultures were extinguished/merged into new ones. What IS constant is the ethnicity of the people that you're governing, and even that is fluid (what we call China today comprises of 56 official ethnic groups).

To be accurate, the game Civilization should be called Ethnicity. Rhye had the right idea to call them Italic/Slavic/Germanic peoples, if not Han peoples.:lol:

BurnEmDown
Sep 17, 2009, 07:37 AM
Well yes, but what I meant was just like how the Roman Empire controlled lots of other areas outside of Italy and it is OK in my opinion to let them be respawned as Italy, just like the HRE controlled areas outside of modern-day Germany it seems reasonable in the game they would continue to exist into the industrial and modern era as Germany.

scu98rkr
Sep 17, 2009, 08:01 AM
You dont need any more UU/UB/UP. These are meant to help the CIV push on when it was historically at its most powerful.

Therefore all of italy/rome's are from the classical world. Aztecs/inca pre conquest etc etc...

Why does Italy need UU/UB/UP they have not really done anything impressive since reunification except win a few world cups.
Definitely not anything that deserves a UU/UB/UP.

Other CIV's such as russia/germany have their UU/UB/UP spread out over a longer time period as they excelled a little but more often but for Italy/Rome there was obviously one time period for them which stands out over the others.

------------------------------------------------------

If you really think the modern state of italy needs some representation a better idea would be to give civ's ANTI UU/UB/UP !
So times when civ's were weak could be represented.

For instance ITALY/ROME could have riflemen with - 4 strength so Oromo Warriors could beat them to represent Italy's original attempts to colonise Ethiopia. Or tanks with -10 strength to represent their military failures from WWII in greece/north africa.

Their Anti Unique Power could be the Power of Destabilization were by they have to change their government Civic every 10 turns to represent the succession of governments since the 2nd world war.

And there unique building could change radio masts into Berlusconi's TV empire or sommit like that which would give increased happiness but there would be a chance of a sex scandal every turn.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 17, 2009, 09:01 AM
Anti-UP/UU/UB--that's a great idea. Some more examples:
China--banks decreased commerce if adopts Communism
America--the Mall gives unhappiness after 1960 (anybody follow Mad Men?)
Germany--Security Bureau (SS) gives unhappiness
And if Korea ever makes it as a modmod, their missiles (nuclear or not) should have a 80% fail rate.:lol:

Charles Martel
Sep 17, 2009, 09:12 AM
If the argument holds that HRE-->Germany, then why not Rome-->France or Rome-->Spain, since the latter two are Latin cultures too?

By the same token, then why not HRE-->the Netherlands, HRE-->Austria, or even HRE-->Bohemia? The answer is that we needn't go down the slippery slope, whereby (almost) anything goes. Rome-->Italy makes more sense than Rome-->France, for two reasons: firstly, because France is already represented in the game, whereas Italy is not. And secondly, because Italy is not just any "Latin culture", but it's Rome's closest successor. So yes, in a way, France may be regarded as a successor of Rome, but not quite as close as Italy itself.
Or for that matter why not Aztec-->Mexico or Inca-->Peru?

Indeed, in my custom version of the mod, Aztecs get the dynamic names "Mexico" when running universal suffrage. Ironically, that's not so unhistorical as it might seem. The other day I've been to the British Museum's fascinating new exhibition about Montezuma (http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/future_exhibitions/moctezuma.aspx). The exhibition's posters begin by explaining that we shouldn't call the Aztecs "Aztecs" at all. Apparently that name was introduced in the early 19th century, and the correct name is Mexica. So if the Aztecs were still around today they'd be probably called Mexicans!

What IS constant is the ethnicity of the people that you're governing, and even that is fluid (what we call China today comprises of 56 official ethnic groups). To be accurate, the game Civilization should be called Ethnicity.

Are you suggesting that what identifies RFC-civilizations throughout the millennia is not so much cultural continuity, but some kind of genetic blueprint? If so, I disagree. I don't think DNA is the constant factor here. Indeed, there need be no constancy at all. Instead, we have a chain of influences whereby certain cultures influence their successor cultures. I take RFC-"Civilizations" to represent (very loosely and abstractly) these culture-chains. Four observations:

1) Although there has to be some similarity between a culture and its immediate predecessor, there may be little or no similarity between any given culture and its distant ancestors. What matters for the culture's survival is the continuity of the chain (e.g. at any point in the chain there should be at least one close enough successor), and continuity need not imply constancy.

2) Cultures, especially the more influential ones, may have more than one close successor. In that case the closest successor is the only continuator in the chain.

3) Culture A and culture B belong to the same "civilization" just in case there is a unique culture chain that goes from A to B. If A has no close enough successor, or if it has many equally close successors (unlikely), then there is no such chain.

4) What determines the closest successor is based on cultural influences, geographical proximity, shared traditions, language similarities, and other direct causal links. Those are all vague criteria, but that's ok. Civilizations are themselves vague concepts. What counts as the closest successor by loose similarity standards, may not be a successor at all by more strict similarity standards. I believe that in RFC the standard should be set very low, so that even modern Mexico may be seen as a successor of the Aztecs.

scu98rkr
Sep 17, 2009, 09:23 AM
good post I agree on everything you say I just couldnt be bothered to type it out.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 17, 2009, 09:36 AM
If the criteria for belonging to a culture chain, as you call them, should be set low, then both Japan and Khmer should just belong to the same Chinese culture chain and should not exist separately. It's their self-defined ethnicities that separated them as "civilizations."

And the Byzantines (an artificial label itself)? Are they a continuation of the Romans or the Greeks? They regarded themselves as the former while the world thinks the latter (and rightly so ethnically). If they still exist in the 1860's, should Italy be able to spawn as a separate civ with direct lineage from Rome?

The newer civs (like France, Spain, Mali)--did they spring de novo from the earth or do they belong to a chain like Rome-Italy? Or is it because they formed over centuries from self-definition by language, geography and location, i.e. ethnicity?

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.[1][2]

Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups

I always felt that the American UP is a misnomer: you have foreign culture in your cities but some % is always "American." What is American culture anyway other than an amalgamation of English culture with these foreign influences?

Charles Martel
Sep 17, 2009, 10:52 AM
An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups.

I thought that by "ethnicity" you meant something like genetic blueprint. But if you meant the Wikipedia quote, then I agree that, in that sense, ethnic identity is a crucial factor in determining the continuity of what I have called a "culture-chain".

If the criteria for belonging to a culture chain, as you call them, should be set low, then both Japan and Khmer should just belong to the same Chinese culture chain and should not exist separately.

When I said that the criteria should be set low in RFC, I did not meant THAT low. But, yes: in an extremely loose and approximate sense, Japan and China may be said to belong to the same super-civilization, which we may call "East-Asian culture".
And the Byzantines (an artificial label itself)? Are they a continuation of the Romans or the Greeks? They regarded themselves as the former while the world thinks the latter (and rightly so ethnically). If they still exist in the 1860's, should Italy be able to spawn as a separate civ with direct lineage from Rome?

You make a good point there. The answer is that belonging to a "culture-chain", as I have defined the term, is an extrinsic, not an intrinsic property, of a culture group. What this means is that whether X qualifies as the "closest successor" of Y may depend on factors external to X, such as the persistence of other culture-groups which are not directly related to X. So: if Byzantium still existed in the 1860's, and, by that time, they were Rome's closest successor, then yes: Italy could not have belonged to that closest successor chain. But my reply to this apparent problem is that although Byzantium was a close successor, it never was Rome's closest successor to begin with (except, perhaps, under Justinian--but let's ignore this complication for the sake of the argument). Instead, we have a division of the late Roman Empire into a Western and an Eastern part, with the Western Empire being the closest successor of Rome proper. Thus, Italy is the closest successor of the Western Empire, which, in turn, is the early Empire's closest successor.

Note: this is not to deny that the Eastern Empire, as an abstract political institution or ideal (the "Imperium"), was the Roman Empire's closest successor throught the Middle Ages. It may well have been, perhaps ranking higher than its main competitor, the Holy Roman Empire. But here I am not talking about the continuity of abstract political institutions, I am talking about the continuity of (loosely defined) culture groups.

onedreamer
Sep 18, 2009, 09:26 AM
In summary Zach is making a mod to substitute the Roman civ in the 600AD (where it is obsolete) with a more modern civ -Italy- that can spawn in the 19th century. You and others are objecting that this is redundant, since the Roman civ, with its Praetorian UU, Forum UB, (obsolete) roads UP is perfectly acceptable to represent the italian civ, so everying is fine as it is; moreover the current name for the Roman civ adopting Police State in reality means Italy. Since it seems impossible to even reason with you and others on the matter, it's obvious that this discussion has really become futile and we better just ignore certain statements. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a larger project that will substitute all obsolete civs in the 600AD start.

Why does Italy need UU/UB/UP they have not really done anything impressive since reunification except win a few world cups.
Definitely not anything that deserves a UU/UB/UP.


See, this is the real problem in the discussion. The total ignorance on the matter about certain people who feel free to post nonsense like this. As Italian I feel very ashamed of the little consideration my people has for itself, to the point that someone feels compelled to go look into the Roman History to find something to be proud of (and even mistakenly, since the Romans aren't the Italians). Italian self esteem is so low that it even spread abroad to the most naive persons. If you'd take the americans for example, they go around the world convincing everyone how they are the best example of freedom and rightfulness, but they have among the world's highest criminality rate, or that they saved Europe from the nazis when it was the Soviets to give the biggest contribution. Scu98rkr, perhaps you will tell us which 60 million people nation with 150 years history has achieved as much as the italian people did (I am not counting the Middle Ages, only Italy as a unitary country, although technically in CIV terms, the italian civilization exists from long before).
- Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ?
- Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?
- Automobile industry. Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc... renowned in the whole world, are Romans ?
- Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission, with a team of italian scientists. That's a modern age Civ technology. Discovered by Romans ?
- Marconi and the Radio ? Romans ? Another modern age tech.
- Volta ? Roman ?
- There is probably no other country as big (or small) as Italy who has achieved as much in so many different sports; sports playing a big role in today's society.
- Fascism is an italian word. Not the best period in History, still it's yet another tech in Civ.
- what other civ can boast a Silvio Berlusconi ? None I say :D . And he doesn't speak Latin, believe me.

These are just a few things that anyone could find out with a few minutes research. Let's not go into details, and frankly I don't think that discussing with someone claiming that Praetorians are appropriate for an Italian civ UU would serve any purpouse. Probably having a talk on History with my cat would produce more interesting results.

onedreamer
Sep 18, 2009, 09:51 AM
Basically my argument is this

People who believe that Rome does not equal Italia probably do not know there Chinese/Persian/India history as well as they know their Italian history.

They therefore mistakenly believe there is more cultural continuity between the various empires in these countries than their really is.

In fact if anything there may well be more in common between Rome and Italy than these various dynasties.

Culture is strongly tied to peoples, culture and traditions can of course change and evolve following the historical events of a nation or of the whole world, however they are still changes produced by the same people. Even a change like the one that happened in the Russian Empire with the revolution, which strongly influenced Russian culture, is different from what happened in Italy with the fall of the Roman Empire. The peninsula was invaded repeatedly by barbarian peoples who have slaughtered very high percentages of the local populations in their raids, and then settled down, unlike what they had done in the past when they would move over again. Some important cities like Aquileia literally disappeared, or were reduced to villages, while other unimportant outposts became medieval strongholds. Foreign peoples that migrated from an entirely different continent, hence of entirely different ethnicity, invaded Italy in overwhelming numbers resulting in an even mixture of peoples which generated an entirely new people. This is not like one of the chinese kingdoms invading its neighbors, or the mongols hordes invading Persia, or the Russian proletariat kicking the aristocrats away from Russia. It's the history of different peoples that mixed into one. There are more examples of peoples/civs that "disappeared", or do you think that Algeria represents the Carthaginians properly ?

AnotherPacifist
Sep 18, 2009, 10:06 AM
I thought the Manhattan project was American (with lots of scientists from different nationalities contributing).

Foreign peoples that migrated from an entirely different continent, hence of entirely different ethnicity, invaded Italy in overwhelming numbers resulting in an even mixture of peoples which generated an entirely new people.

Maybe it's hybrid vigor that gave the Italians and the Americans their advantages.
As far as criminality, maybe it's because we have a more transparent society that we're able to document more. (God knows how corrupt the rest of the world is, Europe excluded of course)

Pasta originated in China you know. :)

So once and for all, if Italy is to be playable in the 600 AD scenario, it should NOT have Rome's UU/UB/UP, and definitely not Justinian as its leader.

scu98rkr
Sep 18, 2009, 10:08 AM
Alot of the things you list above are not represented in Civ or generally of little importance in the history of the world.

- Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ?

To be honest I dont know, but what other CIV has a UU/UB/UP based on good cooking. The two things Italy is most famous for are pasta and pizza. I would be surprised if there wasnt something about during Roman times similar to pasta. Is there any date for the invention of pasta ?
What date are you suggesting the people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian" ?

- Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?

The romans were famous for mass producing things and probably set the first factories up in Europe so I would imagine the Italian textile textile industry had some connection to this period. Also the reason Italian clothes were seen to be stylish is that even after the collapse of Rome the rest of Europe still looked to italy for inspiration and as the centre of civilization for centuries afterwards. I very much doubt without Rome anyone would of cared about Italy's clothes. Also again what CIV has UP/UB/UU based on being stylish.

- Automobile industry. Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc... renowned in the whole world, are Romans ?

The car was not invented in Italy so you have some good companies so do the Germans, Japs, Americans.

- Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission, with a team of italian scientists. That's a modern age Civ technology. Discovered by Romans ?

Enrico Fermi is a very clever guy.
1 He is Roman born in Rome and spoke a language descended from Latin.
2 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues in ROME studied the results of bombarding uranium with neutrons in 1934.
3 He then left italy

- Marconi and the Radio ? Romans ? Another modern age tech.

Marconi was in England when he commercialized not invented Radio.

- Volta ? Roman ?

I think your missing the point I'm saying the Roman stroke Italian culture are the same culture. May be Italy would be a better name for the Civ than Rome. Or put it another way :-
Julius Caesar, Italian ??? YES!!!!!

- There is probably no other country as big (or small) as Italy who has achieved as much in so many different sports; sports playing a big role in today's society.

I would say the USA and Russia still lead the way in achievement in sport but that simply because their big.
I think Australia has probably achieved the most considering its population base not italy.

- Fascism is an italian word. Not the best period in History, still it's yet another tech in Civ.

ok well done

- what other civ can boast a Silvio Berlusconi ? None I say :D . And he doesn't speak Latin, believe me.

hmm well done


"Scu98rkr, perhaps you will tell us which 60 million people nation with 150 years history has achieved as much as the italian people"

Ok from the unification of mongolia, the mongols managed to have the worlds largest land empire in much less than 150 years. Also they didnt have the advantages of 1000's of years of history on their side.

scu98rkr
Sep 18, 2009, 10:16 AM
"So once and for all, if Italy is to be playable in the 600 AD scenario, it should NOT have Rome's UU/UB/UP, and definitely not Justinian as its leader."

But why not do this for all other CIV's then say greece, egypt, babylon/iraq

Except of course this then leads to the usual argument of who were the Byzantines.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 18, 2009, 10:25 AM
Greece, Egypt, Babylon should definitely not respawn in their original 3000 BC forms. Maybe some intrepid soul can make a super-mod-mod to update these ancient civs so that when they spawn in 600 AD they are not stuck with HR/slavery as their UP. Persia/Iran was definitely not a conqueror in the modern age, and having no resistance from Iraqi conquests is a little anachronistic, no? :lol:

Charles Martel
Sep 18, 2009, 12:37 PM
The Romans aren't the Italians.

The most celebrated poems dedicated to Italy, from Petrarch's (14th century) to Leopardi's (19th century), have one thing in common. Guess what? Yes, they all say that ancient Romans are Italians!

Take, for starters, Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374). This is the man who, together with Dante and Boccaccio, is regarded as the father of the Italian language, so he's not one who can be easily dismissed. His poem to Italy, "Italia Mia", sings Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar as Italian heroes. Italy itself is described as heir and successor of ancient Rome. And in case you are wondering: no, Petrarch does not present this idea as a metaphor or poetic license, he means it quite literally. In fact, he was so obsessed with this theme that he wrote a whole Latin Epic about it: Africa. There he talks about the Punic Wars, portrays Scipio as an Italian hero, and concludes that Italy should be unified in order to resume the civilizing mission of ancient Rome. For that reason, Petrarch is often described as the first Italian "nationalist". By stressing the parallel between Roman unity and Italian unity, he anticipated many key Risorgimento themes.
Anyway, here is what he has to say in the poem Italia mia...:

vertù contra furore
prenderà l’arme, e fia ‘l combatter corto:
chè l’antiquo valore
ne l’italici cor’ non è ancor morto.

"...because the ancient bravery is not yet dead within the Italian hearts," where the Italian heart's bravery is, of course, that of the Romans.

Now let's jump ahead a few centuries, to Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837). This is another heavy weight, the icon of Italian Romanticism. He still basically thinks the same as Petrarch's. Here's the beginning of his famous poem All'Italia, "To Italy":

O patria mia, vedo le mura e gli archi
e le colonne e i simulacri e l'erme
torri degli avi nostri,
ma la gloria non vedo,
non vedo il lauro e il ferro ond'eran carchi
i nostri padri antichi
"O my country, I see the walls and arches,
the columns, the statues, and the deserted
towers of our ancestors;
but their glory I see not,
nor do I see the laurel and the iron which girt
our forefathers."

Who are "our forefathers"? Keep reading and it soon becomes clear. Yes, you guessed it: they are the Romans.

I've chosen just a couple of influential examples, but they are by no means peculiar or isolated cases. Literary works where ancient Romans are described as fellow Italians abound in Italian literature.

The idea that Italy is ancient Rome's successor isn't just a fantasy of a crazy fascist dictator, but it is a belief that was widely held throughout the centuries, by quintessential Italian intellectuals such as Petrarch, Cola di Rienzo, Leopardi and, to some extent, even by the founding fathers of the Italian nation, such as Mazzini and Cavour. Don't you think that we should give these people at least some credit? Or did they all happen to have "the wrong perception of Italy", as Rhye has put it?


In summary Zach is making a mod to substitute the Roman civ in the 600AD ... You and others are objecting that this is redundant

Me? Not at all. On the contrary, I welcome Zachscape's project.

Lone Wolf
Sep 18, 2009, 12:47 PM
Italy isn't Rome, but Italy in RFC has a degree of representation through Rome. That's how I divide the representation of modern countries in RFC:

1. Fully represented - has a RFC civilization that completely corresponds to that country (France, England, USA).
2. The region is represented - the country isn't represented itself, but its main areas are represented by another civ that occupied the same place, with a certain cultural link (Italy-Rome, Azteca-modern Mexico).
3. Represented by conqueror/colonizer/dominant partner, who founds cities in the area (Scotland-England, SE Asian countries-Khmer).
4. The cities of the country are not even usually seen on a RFC map (Polynesian countries).

scu98rkr
Sep 18, 2009, 03:01 PM
Yes there are differences between how Civ are protrayed.

I think alot of this could be improved by

1. Adding many more leaders. I know Rhye is only keen on using the best leaderheads buts if theres any mod that is crying out for more leaders its RFC. Because RFC is trying to represent CIV's through out history they need to act differently at different times. Personally I think most CIV's could quite happily have 4 leaders some of the ancient CIV's could easily have 5 or more. This would also help represent different dynasty's with in CIV's where the leaders were replaced but the CIV didnt collapse.

2. The dynamic naming system could be expanded however this could be a never ending job. It would be nice if this could some how be linked to the number of respawns a CIV has or at the very least time ie Rome would re spawn as Italy. If this can be done to be honest I known think it would be best if we renamed Rome as Italy. And a certain combination of CIVs give roman republic/roman empire or a certain time period.

But to be honest the dynamic naming system could just be expanded and expanded and expanded and I imagine Rhye would not be too keen on this.

kairob
Sep 18, 2009, 03:06 PM
slightly off topic I just wanted to bring up this point;

Maybe it's hybrid vigor that gave the Italians and the Americans their advantages.

I do not believe that americans (from the USA not counting latin america) have a more mixed racial ancestry than Europeans as both Europeans and European Americans have a mix of Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Nordic and Slavic blood. However European Americans, Spanish Americans, Asians Americans and the Black Community generally do not intermarry, (although this is less true since the 1960 and the civil rights movement) as such I think that all Europeans (Britain especially) have a very mixed racial make up.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 18, 2009, 03:26 PM
Well, with hybrid vigor I didn't mean interbreeding, I meant the fusion of different cultures. And the term I'm just using for fun, nothing biological meant by it.

If it's just different faces on the diplo screen it's just a facelift, not changing the essence of the civilization. That's why in the next game (Civ5) it would be great if we have dynamic techs and UP/UU/UB depending on era. That might make later civs more disadvantaged, but maybe you can make it up by giving less benefit to earlier civs and maybe even "anti" UP/UU/UBs for earlier civs as they progress. The possible combinations are mind-boggling though...

Pottery
Sep 19, 2009, 07:55 AM
Nice thread, but some posters greatly exaggerate the impact of the barbarian invasions on the stability of the Latin-Italian culture. I know that many people still think of the barbarian invasion as massive migrations that destroyed classical civilization and forged an entirely new society. But this is an outdate view. Nowadays, historians have overturned it. Rather than large-scale migrations, there are military takeovers by relatively small groups of tribal warriors and their families.
Ultimately, the Germanic tribes that settled in Italy lost their tribal identity: they were absorbed into Latinhood and adopted a form of Roman language, customs and administration. This is more like assimilation than fusion.

I've read one poster claim that barbarians invaded Italy in overwhelming numbers. That is also an exaggeration. The truth is that the Germanic tribes were a minority, if compared to the total Roman/urban and Italian/rural population. The invaders were just tribes of warriors and their families, numbering in the tens of thousands. Even the whole of Alboin's army could fit within Ravenna's walls. He led an estimated 20,000 soldiers (probably not more that 100,000 people, including women and children)... not that many people when compared to the 4-5 million Latin population of Dark Ages Italy.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 19, 2009, 08:58 AM
A quote from wikipedia article on barbarian invasions:
In this regard, profound changes in culture (and language) could occur through the influx of a ruling elite with minimal or no impact on overall population composition.[46], especially if it occurs at a time when the indigenous population is receptive to such changes.

Genes don't change (we're probably the same creatures from 12000 years ago), it's CULTURE that changes, and that should be all what having a distinct civilization in the game means. If the barbarians adopted Roman institutions, it doesn't mean they copied them without significant modifications and transformations.

@ Charles Martel
It might be true that the Italians thought they were emulating Romans, but maybe that's part of their identity (i.e. trying to be Roman without actually being so).

Charles Martel
Sep 19, 2009, 11:51 AM
From the same Wikipedia article:

the Germanic groups in the western Empire were accommodated without dispossessing or overturning indigenous society and maintained a structured and hierarchical form of Roman administration

I agree with Pottery. I don't buy the claim that huge barbarian hordes exterminated the local population and "generated an entirely new people", as onedreamer has put it. True, Aquileia was destroyed by Attila, but its Roman residents fled to the swamps, thus laying down the foundations of Venice. Most Roman cities survived the invasions more or less intact, and are still standing today as major Italian cities. Even Aquileia was soon rebuilt by Latin people under the protection of the Byzantines.

And, by the way, the Carthage-Algeria comparison is no better than the Hittites-Turkey one. The continuity from Carthage to Tunis is very tenuous, almost non-existent, and in no way comparable to the much stronger continuity from ancient Rome to modern Rome. For all the barbarian hordes that supposedly laid Roman culture to rest, contemporary Romans still speak a language that is the direct descendant of Latin, whereas Tunisians speak a language that bears no resemblance whatsoever to Hannibal's mother tongue.

No doubt the barbarian invaders brought deep change to the Italian peninsula. But change, even radical change, is compatible with continuity. Latin culture has no doubt changed radically, but it has also changed continuously, gradually evolving into the Medieval Italian culture of Dante and Petrarch, who, in turn, are the forefathers of contemporary Italians. By contrast, Carthage was annihilated: unlike its Latin counterpart, Punic culture faded into nothingness, and its last remnants probably disappeared during the chaos of the Vandal's invasion. So much so that there probably is more continuity from Rome to Tunis than there is from Punic Carthage to Tunis.

@AnotherPacifist
I don't think that the finest Italian intellectuals, from Petrarca to Leopardi, were somehow deluding themselves in trying to "emulate the Romans", as you put it. Don't forget that these people where extremely smart and knowledgeable. They knew Latin and Greek, they knew their history better than you and me, and were well aware of the changes caused by the Goths and the Lombards' invasions. Even so, they never believed for a second that those invasions had resulted in a new mixed German-Latin ethnicity which had somehow replaced the Romans. Yes, it is part of the Italy's national identity (from the Middle Ages to Risorgimento) to regard the ancient Roman as fellow Italians. I find it hard to believe that this was a systematic and collective delusion of generations of first-rate intellectuals and politicians.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 19, 2009, 12:17 PM
I never said deluded. I just said they THOUGHT that they were emulating the Romans, up to the best of their abilities. They succeeded in some way in their emulation, but is the real thing? Probably not. Was even their pronunciation of Latin the original version. Probably not. When you have enough differences, one starts to call a culture separate, even if related.
they knew their history better than you and me, and were well aware of the changes caused by the Goths and the Lombards' invasions.
This is highly debatable.

Rallas
Sep 19, 2009, 02:26 PM
Carthage to Tunisia is nowhere similar because the region of Carthage was conquered by the Arabs forcing them into a completely different culture from the Roman European culture they once were.

The Italians spoke Italian because unlike Carthage they had no culture or nation forcing a language upon them allowing them to slowly develop a language from the original language that united a continent.

ZachScape
Sep 19, 2009, 05:01 PM
In summary Zach is making a mod to substitute the Roman civ in the 600AD (where it is obsolete) with a more modern civ -Italy- that can spawn in the 19th century.

Embarrassingly, I don’t know how to mod. I was just throwing out the ideas an materials so somebody, or a group of us, could make it. At first, we should make the Italian civ with the LH, UB, UU, UCNs, settler and stability maps, and the Pedia entries first, because they are already made for us. We just have to copy and paste (loosely) from the link I posted in the OP. (the maps are just numbers, they are easy. And I have already done the bulk of the DCNs.

Maybe it's hybrid vigor that gave the Italians and the Americans their advantages.

I have my own philosophy on how the Americans have achieved so much superiority in so many fields, but I doubt any of you would want to here it. It has to do with immigration and Social Darwinism though. :devil:

Charles Martel
Sep 20, 2009, 12:28 AM
I never said deluded. I just said they THOUGHT that they were emulating the Romans, up to the best of their abilities. They succeeded in some way in their emulation, but is the real thing? Probably not. Was even their pronunciation of Latin the original version. Probably not.

You are giving Petrarch and later generations of Italian intellectuals a goal they never had, and you are setting it impossibly high. Their goal was not to parrot the ancients and become exact replicas of the Romans. Rather, they thought it obvious they were the Romans' successors. They did not so much seek emulation of the Romans, but emancipation from the foreign rulers, and they took this right to emancipation to be based on their Roman heritage. Following Petrarch, the "nationalist" Italian intellectuals believed that Roman ancestry gave them both the right and the duty to overcome internal divisions, unite against the foreign powers, and continue Rome's civilizing mission.

(A note on your baffling "pronunciation" remark: are all Chinese scholars good at imitating the pronunciation of ancient China's dialects? If not, would it show that these scholars aren't *really* Chinese?)

When you have enough differences, one starts to call a culture separate, even if related.

When is "enough" enough? Are there enough differences between ancient China and modern China to make them "separate but related"? And what do you mean by "separate but related"? Temporally distant cultures, no matter how different, aren't really separate if they are linked by a continuity relation.

This is highly debatable.

What is debatable? That the fathers of the Italian Nation knew Italian history better than you and me? That they were well aware the changes brought by the Goths and Lombards' invasions?

Take Alessandro Manzoni (1785-1873), the quintessential Italian novelist. He knew well about the Lombards, and wrote an epic (Aldelchi) and an historical treaty about them: Discorso sopra alcuni punti della storia longobardica in Italia ("A Discourse on Some Points of Lombard History"). Manzoni's main contention is that the Lombard's invasion did not result in a mixed Germanic-Roman ethnicity. At the time, the two main theories on the Lombard-Roman relationship were as follows:

The Manzoni view: the Lombard invaders did not "mix" with the Romans. Instead we have two peoples: the subjugated Romans (aka the Italians) and the Lombard rulers, each existing as a separate nation.
The Macchiavelli-Muratori view: the Lombard's did not generate a uniquely new culture. Instead they were quickly integrated into the Roman culture.

Now, I don't actually believe that Manzoni's extreme view is correct, and I find something like the Macchiavelli-Muratori's view to be more plausible. But notice that, on both theories, there is no fusion of Germanic and Latin identities resulting in a genuinely new ethnicity.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 20, 2009, 08:35 AM
In fact we don't really know how ancient Chinese is pronounced. Modern Chinese dialects are diverse and Standard Mandarin is actually a 4th generation dialect. The original meaning of the Chinese classics have been amplified by commentary (just like the Latin classics). And in some respects, the culture of the the Warring Kingdoms is markedly different from, say, the Yuan Dynasty, so one would call them different, even if related and we all call them "Chinese" cultures.

When I'm saying their knowledge of Italian history is debatable, I'm saying that the Italians aren't more objective than modern historians simply because of their technology. Of course they can use their erudition in historical texts to justify their nationalist goals. Do they have the benefit of modern archaeology, genetics and literary criticism?

And maybe you can enlighten us on the views of the Turin native Gioberti (who, I read in the wiki, wanted Papal rather than secular dominance in Italy) and Pius IX. Would they have maintained that the Italians are Romans?

scu98rkr
Sep 20, 2009, 10:33 AM
People keep getting it the wrong way round its not Italians are Roman its that Rome is an Italian Civilization therefore the Romans are Italians.

usi
Sep 20, 2009, 11:49 AM
In fact we don't really know how ancient Chinese is pronounced. Modern Chinese dialects are diverse and Standard Mandarin is actually a 4th generation dialect. The original meaning of the Chinese classics have been amplified by commentary (just like the Latin classics). And in some respects, the culture of the the Warring Kingdoms is markedly different from, say, the Yuan Dynasty, so one would call them different, even if related and we all call them "Chinese" cultures.


Yeah, Westerns feel that many Asians are alike, and Asians feel that many Westerns are alike.
That's called the outgroup homogeneity bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity_bias).
The biggest thing I learned from the long debate in this thread is that people really love Rome and Italy.:lol:

AnotherPacifist
Sep 20, 2009, 12:58 PM
People keep getting it the wrong way round its not Italians are Roman its that Rome is an Italian Civilization therefore the Romans are Italians.

I thought the whole point of this argument was that
A. Italy should not equal Rome when (and if) they spawn in the 1800's
B. Rome itself is not Italy, even if the Romans were geographically Italians, if not temperamentally Italian as we know the term today.
C. Medieval and Modern Italian civilization should not equal Roman civilization.

I've typed the word Italy so many times it now looks funny to me.:crazyeye:

dragodon64
Sep 20, 2009, 02:55 PM
While reading through 3 pages of this thread today, I actually forgot what the word Italy meant for a while because I read it so many times. I was rereading the sentence for at least a few minutes before I figured it out.

scu98rkr
Sep 20, 2009, 05:20 PM
I thought the whole point of this argument was that
A. Italy should not equal Rome when (and if) they spawn in the 1800's
B. Rome itself is not Italy, even if the Romans were geographically Italians, if not temperamentally Italian as we know the term today.
C. Medieval and Modern Italian civilization should not equal Roman civilization.

I've typed the word Italy so many times it now looks funny to me.:crazyeye:

This may explain why we're not getting a concencus and this has gone on for 7 pages.

I thought some people were arguing that Rome and Italy are 2 distinct and different Civ's.

My point of view and I think Charles martels is that rome and italy should be represented by 1 civ. Rome is probably not the best name for this Civ in fact a better name would be Italy how ever all the UU/UB/UP should be from Roman times as this is when this Civ was most successful.

Therefore italy should not get an special treatment in the 600AD start if you start adding UU/UB/UP for Italy in 600AD this also has to be done for Greeks/Egyptians/Babylonia.

Personally I am not a fan of the 600AD start Im still not sure why the appropriate iran/persia empire the Sassanid's are not there ! As they are probably at the height of their power at 600AD ish.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 20, 2009, 05:32 PM
OK, so now we're getting to the question of whether a civ deserve 2 or more formulations. Rome/Italy had its heyday with the Roman Empire, and France/Spain/England each had their own much later, with an appropriate UB/UU. If that is the case, then the cases of the Byzantines (with respect to Romans) and HRE (Germany) are a little problematic. What is needed is more civs (Sweden for Vikings for example) to represent those that had 2 distinct golden ages. Does Rome/Italy deserve a third civ? Probably not then, when compared to civs like China.

Charles Martel
Sep 21, 2009, 06:25 AM
When I'm saying their knowledge of Italian history is debatable, I'm saying that the Italians aren't more objective than modern historians simply because of their technology. Of course they can use their erudition in historical texts to justify their nationalist goals. Do they have the benefit of modern archaeology, genetics and literary criticism?

Well, ok: by today's standards, the views of 19th-century Italian erudites are somewhat lacking in objectivity and sophistication (for example, Manzoni's treatise on the Lombards was in part dictated by his political agenda: although he doesn't says it explicitly, the underlying idea was that the Lombard domination was analogous to the Austrian rule in Northern Italy). Even so, their views are especially authoritative because they are partly constitutive of the Italian sense of national identity. Also, their views have themselves become part of Italian's history: they belong to the Italian historiography of ancient Rome. So, any modern historians who intends to investigate the Rome/Italy connection with more sophisticated tools, will still have to pay serious attention to that historiography.

And maybe you can enlighten us on the views of the Turin native Gioberti (who, I read in the wiki, wanted Papal rather than secular dominance in Italy) and Pius IX. Would they have maintained that the Italians are Romans?
Gioberti describes Julius Cesar as a fellow Italian: he's "a most distinguished model of Italic genius." On Gioberti's view, Italians are primarily descendants of the people of "Vetusta Italia" (Old Italy), namely Romans, Latins, Etruscans, Ligurians, Sabines, Samnites and other Latin people. (See, for example, the list on page 166 of his On the Moral and Civil Superiority of the Italians: in that list he refrains from including any Celtic or Germanic ethnicities.)

Having said that, it must be admitted that, on Gioberti's view, pagan Rome and Catholic Italy can't quite belong to the same "civilization" as he uses the term, because, according to Gioberti, civilization is the basically the same as religion (or, less roughly: civilization is a tendency towards religious perfection).


@Sku98rkr
Yes, I do agree with most of your points.

Rossiya
Sep 24, 2009, 01:04 PM
I know that this discussion has become very detailed, but I think that the solution is very simple. Do whatever the Italian says.

I am assuming here that "Charles Martel" is not a pseudonym of a Signor Carlo Martella.

Panopticon
Sep 24, 2009, 01:32 PM
I know that this discussion has become very detailed, but I think that the solution is very simple. Do whatever the Italian says.

I am assuming here that "Charles Martel" is not a pseudonym of a Signor Carlo Martella.

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!"

- often an outside view is the sound one.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 24, 2009, 01:33 PM
Which Italian are you talking about?
So if that's the case, we should give the Koreans and Persians their nuclear warheads too.:D

fireclaw722
Sep 24, 2009, 02:30 PM
I say that if the civ is wanted a sub-mod(for lack of a better word) could be created with the civ in it and if someone doesn't like it then they just don't have to download it(personally I would like to have it in there).

ZachScape
Sep 25, 2009, 02:53 PM
That's what I intended.

civ_king
Sep 25, 2009, 09:02 PM
I say that if the civ is wanted a sub-mod(for lack of a better word) could be created with the civ in it and if someone doesn't like it then they just don't have to download it(personally I would like to have it in there).

correct term is modmod, over in FFH we have modmodmodmods :crazyeye:

kairob
Sep 26, 2009, 08:32 AM
I still prefer the term minimod. :( Its a shame that name didn't go further...

Rhye
Sep 27, 2009, 06:51 PM
oh man, this thread is getting long! Last time I remember an argue like this was at the England/Britain issue, which was, curiously, solved by dynamic names which are causing so many controversies here.

My 2 or 3 cents, again:

No doubt Rome and Italy have strong ties. Italy has the strongest ties to Rome compared to France and the other neo-latin civs.
But...

...there's a hole in the middle!!!


What date are you suggesting the people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian" ?


Very simple. If there were a date in which people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian", then you would be right. But there can't be 1 date, there are 2.

Rome ceased to exist in 476 AD.
The Roman State ceased to exist. Barbaric rulers followed. Barbs didn't slaughter the whole population, but slowly settled down and were absorbed.
However, there weren't just barbs. Byzantines played a big role in destabilizing.
So, population fell, especially in cities. Tired from pillagings and wars, without a state economy and not even a clear ruler, population fled to the countryside, a safer place.
In other words, society collapsed.

Repopulation took place centuries later, after a few centuries void. Communes begun to spawn and gain importance (note that cities were different from Roman times cities). This will later lead to Rinascimento, in which, we know, there was a shared feeling in all the mini states to be part of Italian civilization (not Roman).
I'd say 1176 may be, although a bit early, a proper date for the beginning of "Italy" as a civ. It's the victory of italian communes against Barbarossa. That is, italian cities gaines independence from the HRE.

There wasn't any void of this kind from the HRE to the 2nd Reich, for example. But there was in France, and for this reason France isn't Gaul.

Rhye
Sep 27, 2009, 06:59 PM
And by the way, although the dynamic names show the "Mexican" adjective, Mexico is not Aztecs for me, if we intend both as "civs".
In that case, population was really decimated by plague and by the Spanish.
Survivors adapted to Spanish customs, beginning with religion and language.
The first daughter of La Malinche is considered the first Mexican to be born, with Spanish father and Aztec mother.

AnotherPacifist
Sep 27, 2009, 07:01 PM
The Italian has spoken. :bowdown:
But does he want a separate Italian civ?

Nor'easter
Sep 27, 2009, 07:34 PM
Italy seems to me to be sufficiently different from Rome to be considered a separate civ, at least in part based on Rhye's post.

In game terms, however, I think it would make sense to have Italy as a separate civ only if we knew that Rome was going to always collapse. If the Roman Empire had endured, it would have developed, the language would have evolved -- spawning a separate Italian civ in the middle of the Roman Empire would be completely ahistorical and wouldn't really fit this mod, I don't think.

If Italy were to be added, maybe their spawn could be conditional on the Romans losing control of the Italian peninsula? Then it would make some sense. IF Rome collapses and the Italian peninsula is conquered by other powers, THEN a separate Italian civ can spawn on the peninsula.

Just a thought.

Leoreth
Sep 28, 2009, 02:17 AM
Thanks for the statement, Rhye, I thought this argument would never stop :)

So we won't have Rome respawning as Italy, right? But what are we going to do with a respawned Rome? It DOES respawn sometimes, and a 18th century Rome looks rather silly to me.

Charles Martel
Sep 28, 2009, 04:26 AM
Rome ceased to exist in 476 AD. The Roman State ceased to exist.

But did it? If anything ceased to exist, that was the Western Roman Empire in its traditional from. But Roman culture and administration lived on, not just in the Eastern empire, but in the West as well: having deposed the emperor, the Goths maintained most Roman institutions, from the Roman Senate to the Coliseum games.

Let us not confuse between political entities (empires, states, nations, etc.) and civilizations. Most Roman institutions and traditions survived the fall of the empire: in 6-7th century Italy, Roman civilization was still alive and kicking. The typical example is that of Severinus Boethius, born in Rome in ca. 480 from an ancient and powerful Roman family. He was consul of the Roman senate during Theodoric’s reign, and wrote a number of philosophical works which had enormous influence on all later generations of Italian intellectuals. For that reason Boethius is regarded as one of the key continuity figures that link classical antiquity to Medieval Italy.

(In game terms: although Rome is no longer controlled by the Romans, Roman culture is still dominant. But, unfortuntely, the game as no real way of simulating the assimilation of the conquerors by the conquered, which is really quite common in history.)

I'd say 1176 may be, although a bit early, a proper date for the beginning of "Italy" as a civ ... There wasn't any void of this kind from the HRE to the 2nd Reich

I see. So the earlier Barbarian argument (“From the mixture of italic and barbarian peoples, a new culture flourished centuries later around Roman ruins”) seems to have been replaced by quite a different sort of argument, the “void” argument: we are now told that there was a big gap between Rome and Italy (lasting from 476 to 1176 AD), but that no such gap divides, say, the HRE from Germany...

I don’t think that this “void” argument is any better than the earlier Barbarian argument. Between 476 and 1176 there really was no gap or “void”. It’s more like a slow transition phase, whereby classic Roman culture gradually turns into something closer to modern Italian culture. To us, the Dark Ages look like a sort of void only because written information is much scarcer than that from the later Middle Ages.

It’s true that population fell and stagnated throughout the Dark Ages, but this demographic crisis wasn’t unique to Italy, it affected the whole of Europe. Anyway, the population decay (even at its worst, during the Goth-Byzantine war) wasn’t catastrophic enough to destroy Roman civilization (and it’s not comparable, for instance, to the 80% de-population that almost led to the extinction of the Aztec civilization).

I don’t think that we can pick dates (not even approximate ones) which mark the end of Roman civilization and the beginning of Italian civilization: the former continued to mature well beyond the fall of the empire, gradually turning into the latter. I see this as a more or less continuous process with no real gaps.

Note: I find it somewhat ironic that you have picked 1176 AD as Italy’s birth date. To the supporters of the secessionist party “Lega Nord” (Northern League), who reject the very idea of Italian cultural identity, 1176 is the Lombard League’s, not Italy’s, birth date! Anyway, if I had to pick a date at all, I would choose an even earlier one: the earliest recorder texts written in Italian (vernacular) date from 960 AD.

Rhye
Sep 28, 2009, 05:17 AM
Void and barbarian argument are the same thing. Void was caused mainly by barbarians.
Theodoric’s reign was a period of relative peace (although he was King of Italy, and not Roman Emperor). But after that, new invasions (Byzantines, Longobards, Franks, Arabs, Byzantines again, Normans) came and, besides destroying the social system, divided Italy. You could postpone the end of Roman civilization from the end of the West Roman Emprie to the beginning of those invasions, but doens't make much difference.



It’s true that population fell and stagnated throughout the Dark Ages, but this demographic crisis wasn’t unique to Italy, it affected the whole of Europe.

And not only demographic. That's why there's discontinuity from Gaul to France, from Roman Britain to England, from Iberia to Spain, etc.

I don’t think that we can pick dates (not even approximate ones) which mark the end of Roman civilization and the beginning of Italian civilization: the former continued to mature well beyond the fall of the empire, gradually turning into the latter. I see this as a more or less continuous process with no real gaps.

Your point would be reasonable in other cases.
Roman Monarchy -> Roman Republic -> Roman Empire -> West and East Late Roman (Christian) Empire -> East Roman Empire -> Byzantine Empire.

A line can be traced directly between two very different entities: Early Rome and Byzantium. (and after that, another discontinuity occurred, with Turks)

Same can be said for
Charlemagne's HRE -> Germanic HRE -> Prussia+mini states -> German Reich -> Weimar Republic -> Third Reich -> West and East Germany -> United Germany
But I wouldn't trace a line between Cimbri and Teutons' Germany and the HRE.


It's clear where the gap is. You won't convince me that it was a continuous evolution.
Of course, nothing changed drastically in 1 day or 1 week, but come on. This isn't Zeno's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_arrow_paradox), this is History.

Rhye
Sep 28, 2009, 05:29 AM
Note: I find it somewhat ironic that you have picked 1176 AD as Italy’s birth date. To the supporters of the secessionist party “Lega Nord” (Northern League), who reject the very idea of Italian cultural identity, 1176 is the Lombard League’s, not Italy’s, birth date! Anyway, if I had to pick a date at all, I would choose an even earlier one: the earliest recorder texts written in Italian (vernacular) date from 960 AD.

Actually, they think they are Celts. I don't give credit to those idiot "green flags" fanatics.

1176 is an early date among the possible ones, in my opinion. Could be as well pushed later to Dante's times

Charles Martel
Sep 28, 2009, 06:45 AM
You could postpone the end of Roman civilization from the end of the West Roman Empire to those invasions, but doens't make much difference.

But I am not postponing the end of the Roman civilization. What I’m saying is that it really never disappeared (unlike, say, Punic culture) but gradually turned into Medieval Italian culture. Transition figures such as Boethius and Cassiodorus show the sort of continuity I’m talking about.

that's why there's discontinuity from Gaul to France, from Roman Britain to England, from Iberia to Spain, etc.

Actually, there is some continuity from Iberia to Spain, from Roman Britain to England, etc. only it’s not as good as that from Rome to Italy. Anyway, the point was that the Dark Ages’ crisis (which, I agree, wasn't just demographic) was not catastrophic enough to make Roman civilization utterly collapse, as your post seemed to suggest.

Your point would be reasonable in other cases.
Roman Monarchy -> Roman Republic -> Roman Empire -> West and East Late Roman (Christian) Empire -> East Roman Empire -> Byzantine Empire.

Well, ok: that’s a continuity chain. But my whole point is that modern Italy is ancient Rome’s closest continuer. Sure, Byzantium is one of Rome’s continuer, but is it the closest continuer? I don’t think so. (I won’t go into the details as to why, as I have partly discussed that point in a previous post.)

It's clear where the gap is. You won't convince me that it was a continuous evolution.


In this case, the most obvious proof of continuity is language. You speak Italian, the Romance language which, according to linguists, is the closest to Latin, both grammatically and lexically. If that does not convince you, I do not know what will. If there really had been a “hole” or “void” between 5-th century Rome and 12-th century Italy, you couldn’t speak anything resembling your actual mother tongue.

Of course, nothing changed drastically in 1 day or 1 week, but come on. This isn't Zeno's paradox, this is History.

Zeno's paradox? Sorry, but my point has nothing to do with that :)

Actually, they think they are Celts. I don't give credit to those idiot "green flags" fanatics.

I didn’t mean in any way to suggest that you had any sympathy for Umberto Bossi’s Northern League. Knowing your (justifiable) dislike of Mr Berlusconi, I could guess that you wouldn’t like Bossi either. I was just noting that, ironically enough, the date you had picked as Italy’s birth date (1176) coincides with the victory of the Lombard League, which is regarded by Bossi’s followers as the precursor of the Northern League. That, and the alleged Celtic heritage you have mentioned, are the main myths surrounding the Northern League’s ideology.

1176 is an early date among the possible ones, in my opinion. Could be as well pushed later to Dante's times.

Well, all the possible dates you may care to choose are IMO equally arbitrary. At no period in time did Rome cease to exist and Italy begin to flourish.

Rhye
Sep 28, 2009, 07:41 AM
I think we've arrived to a situation where we can't convince each other, because your proofs are my counterproofs.
Such as language: while the lexicon followed a gradual evolution, syntax was completely wiped out. Latin has a syntax that in some aspects resembles Japanese. Nothing to do with Italian, which is one of the Romance languages. Differentiation between them were caused by mixing vulgar Latin with local population.

But I am not postponing the end of the Roman civilization. What I’m saying is that it really never disappeared (unlike, say, Punic culture) but gradually turned into Medieval Italian culture. Transition figures such as Boethius and Cassiodorus show the sort of continuity I’m talking about.

Anyway, the point was that the Dark Ages’ crisis (which, I agree, wasn't just demographic) was not catastrophic enough to make Roman civilization utterly collapse, as your post seemed to suggest.

Zeno's paradox? Sorry, but my point has nothing to do with that :)

Well, all the possible dates you may care to choose are IMO equally arbitrary. At no period in time did Rome cease to exist and Italy begin to flourish.

If 700 years of barbarian invasions weren't enough, then I wonder what is necessary to break a continuity?
If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?
If we consider day-by-day changes, then nothing in enough to reckon a sudden change. Just like in the paradox. We need some abstaction.



I didn’t mean in any way to suggest that you had any sympathy for Umberto Bossi’s Northern League. Knowing your (justifiable) dislike of Mr Berlusconi, I could guess that you wouldn’t like Bossi either.

No offence taken. Actually, Lega Nord isn't just a collection of bollocks. Occasionally, they seem to have a point in what they say. If they've reached 12%, it's not a coincidence. But that's another story.

Bonci
Sep 28, 2009, 09:42 AM
If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?


I lol'd XD

onedreamer
Sep 28, 2009, 10:15 AM
Pasta originated in China you know. :)

yeah. Hopefully this doesn't mean that italians are slightly chinese ? ;)
However, I doubt that the chinese cook pasta as we do in the west of the globe. Anyways pasta is food for the poor, we have much more renowned food. Even I can easily cook a decent pasta :lol:


Alot of the things you list above are not represented in Civ or generally of little importance in the history of the world.

says who ?

Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ? To be honest I dont know

normally I wouldn't speak of stuff I don't know, especially if I am to contradict someone.

but what other CIV has a UU/UB/UP based on good cooking

boy do I need to explain everything in detail. Food is part of culture, a STRONG part of culture of any nation. What I meant then is that in Civ terms, the italian civ has a strong cultural influence - a bonus in culture per turn, hmmkay ?

The two things Italy is most famous for are pasta and pizza.

In America, the land of gross approximation, stereotypes and fast food, yes. Pasta and Pizza are ready in 5-10 minutes, that's why they are famous, in America.

I would be surprised if there wasnt something about during Roman times similar to pasta. Is there any date for the invention of pasta ?

you would be very suprised then. I really wonder: why are you arguing on everything if you don't know details by your own admission ? Most of the food we eat today is cooked with ingredients from other continents, especially pasta (tomatoes are from America). The Romans ate very basic food with little preparation. Mostly fruit or vegetables present in Europe.

What date are you suggesting the people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian" ?

the fall of the Roman Empire seems reasonable, if a precise date must be found.

Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?

Yep. The Romans were famous for exporting their leather sandals in all the known world. And the chinese would resell crappy linen trousers as if they were "Made in Latium by Versacem".

The romans were famous for mass producing things and probably set the first factories up in Europe so I would imagine the Italian textile textile industry had some connection to this period.

we should move the assembly line tech just after currency then.

Also the reason Italian clothes were seen to be stylish is that even after the collapse of Rome the rest of Europe still looked to italy for inspiration and as the centre of civilization for centuries afterwards. I very much doubt without Rome anyone would of cared about Italy's clothes. Also again what CIV has UP/UB/UU based on being stylish.

I see. Too bad that the italian stylists are renowned from the 20th century, not the 8th century.

The car was not invented in Italy so you have some good companies so do the Germans, Japs, Americans.

This doesn't answer the question. Is Ferrari Roman in origins ? Perhaps since the Romans were the first to pave roads in a lot of regions, there must be a connection. Definitely so.

Enrico Fermi is a very clever guy.
1 He is Roman born in Rome and spoke a language descended from Latin.
2 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues in ROME studied the results of bombarding uranium with neutrons in 1934.
3 He then left italy

pardon. I missed the fact that Fermi is Roman.

Marconi was in England when he commercialized not invented Radio.

Julius Caesar was in France when he conquered Gallia.

- There is probably no other country as big (or small) as Italy who has achieved as much in so many different sports; sports playing a big role in today's society.

I would say the USA and Russia still lead the way in achievement in sport but that simply because their big.
I think Australia has probably achieved the most considering its population base not italy.

can you show us some numbers ?

Ok from the unification of mongolia, the mongols managed to have the worlds largest land empire in much less than 150 years. Also they didnt have the advantages of 1000's of years of history on their side.

I knew that we would come down to this. Because this is a forum that is mostly visited by americans (obviously), the importance of a nation is measured on how much they have conquered. It doesn't matter if in conquering half the world the mongols have destroyed more than they created, they are definitely more important than Italy. For the same reason, since Rome conquered most of the known world, it is more important than Italy, which is to be laughed at because they lost their first war vs. Ethiopia. Hence, Italy can be just said to be the same as Rome, since it didn't achieve anything in particular. Lost pretty much any war where they had to put real efforts in. Yes, that's the sad truth on the american line of thought. The americans, the fighters for freedom and liberalism, yet the only nation responsible for actually using nukes and that had to go through a bloody civil war just to abolish slavery.

Take, for starters, Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374). This is the man who, together with Dante and Boccaccio, is regarded as the father of the Italian language, so he's not one who can be easily dismissed. His poem to Italy, "Italia Mia", sings Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar as Italian heroes. Italy itself is described as heir and successor of ancient Rome. And in case you are wondering: no, Petrarch does not present this idea as a metaphor or poetic license, he means it quite literally. [...]

What can I say ? He is a nostalgic like you and Mussolini. They were the first to write poems in italian, not the fathers of italian. The fathers of italian language are common people, the "vulgus" who changed Latin into Italian.

vertù contra furore
prenderà l’arme, e fia ‘l combatter corto:
chè l’antiquo valore
ne l’italici cor’ non è ancor morto.

"...because the ancient bravery is not yet dead within the Italian hearts," where the Italian heart's bravery is, of course, that of the Romans.

Wrong translation. As you can clearly see, he says "ITALIC hearts", not italian hearts. I have been telling you of the difference for 3 posts in a row now, starts getting tyring...

Who are "our forefathers"? Keep reading and it soon becomes clear. Yes, you guessed it: they are the Romans.

Ahah, if I had to claim who my forefathers are in a poem, I would certainly chose the Romans, not the Ostrogoths. However, he obviously can not know for sure, and you are again strumentalizing words in poems and hymns. Besides, even the (greek) byzantines called themselves "Romans". So perhaps Greece should respawn as Rome too ? We had a long discussion about this and again it is a matter of "I claim to be this and that" vs. what really a person is. Just because Berlusconi claims to be Superman it doesn't mean he is. Thankfully he didn't claim to be Roman, yet :rolleyes:

The idea that Italy is ancient Rome's successor isn't just a fantasy of a crazy fascist dictator, but it is a belief that was widely held throughout the centuries, by quintessential Italian intellectuals such as Petrarch, Cola di Rienzo, Leopardi and, to some extent, even by the founding fathers of the Italian nation, such as Mazzini and Cavour. Don't you think that we should give these people at least some credit? Or did they all happen to have "the wrong perception of Italy", as Rhye has put it?

I give them credit and I do agree that the italian culture is a successor of the roman one. But it isn't the same, it is a different one. Just like the French and Spanish ones. The italian culture has more ties with the Roman one than those two because it developed on the same geographical center, however no matter how many things these two cultures have in common, the fact and problem here is that there are more things NOT in common.
Bottom line: Obama is the successor of Bush to the presidence of the USA. Is he the same ? They have a lot of things in common, yes, but they aren't the same. They probably have more things not in common.

Me? Not at all. On the contrary, I welcome Zachscape's project.

he is doing the exact contrary of what you suggest.

Lone Wolf
Sep 28, 2009, 10:18 AM
Again: Italy is not Rome, but Italy in RFC has a degree of representation through Rome. Italy in RFC has a lesser degree of representation then USA but a larger degree of representation then Tuvalu.

Same with modern Mexico and Peru.

Charles Martel
Sep 28, 2009, 10:21 AM
while the lexicon followed a gradual evolution, syntax was completely wiped out. Latin has a syntax that in some aspects resembles Japanese. Nothing to do with Italian, which is one of the Romance languages. Differentiation between them were caused by mixing vulgar Latin with local population.

Are you suggesting that Latin grammar resembles Japanese more than it resembles Italian? I know very little Japanese, so can’t really argue with that, but I find it hard to believe. Anyway, you might be right about that: maybe Latin’s syntax is not close enough to Italian’s to prove continuity. But lexicography is another matter: here continuity is obvious. Write an Italian sentence at random, remove any word that originates from Latin, and you’ll probably be left with few or no words at all. The preservation of the Latin lexicon suggest the following succession chain:

Classical Latin --> Vulgar Latin --> Vernacular --> Italian

There are similar chains for Latin to French, or Latin to Spanish, but they aren’t as continuous as the above chain: clearly, Italian is *the * successor of Latin. In many ways, language is one of the distinguishing mark of an ethnicity (I do not want to say the only one, but a crucial one). So, isn’t the above chain strong enough evidence of cultural continuity?

If 700 years of barbarian invasions weren't enough, then I wonder what is necessary to break a continuity? If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?

That’s a cheap joke. The so-called “Barbarian” invaders were no aliens to the Romans. They were already partly Romanized people, and when they settled in Italy they were almost wholly assimilated into Latin culture. For example Theodoric grew up in Constantinople and was given a Roman education. The Ostrogoths themselves were already largely Romanized even before the invasion.

“700 years of Barbarian invasions” is an overstatement. Consider Alessandro Manoni’s view. He believed that invasions such as that of the Lombards or that of the Franks mainly affected the ruling classes, merely causing power to exchange hands. But the life of the local populace – the “subjugated Romans” – went on more or less as before, with no radical changes. If we think that the invasions caused big changes, it’s only because we neglect the ordinary poorer classes, which made up the bulk of the population, but whose lives aren’t well recorded by the official historical documents. In Manzoni’s view, the main changes brought by the “foreign rulers” were not so much cultural or ethnical, but political. Now, Manzoni’s view is probably too extreme, but I think he’s basically right in playing down the changes the “Barbarians” supposedly brought to the lives of local Latin communities.

What is necessary to break continuity? Here are some examples, none of which applies to Rome-->Italy:

• Extermination of the local population, causing a decay of, say, 70-80% in a relatively short time-span, such in the Aztecs’ case. That breaks continuity, but it never happened in Italy. In 6-10th century Italy, there are a number of demographic crises (caused by prolonged wars, plague, etc.) but no sudden extermination.

• Assimilation of the conquered natives by the conquerors. That also breaks continuity, albeit less sharply than in the previous case. But the conquered Latins who lived in Italy were never assimilated by the “Barbarian” invaders. Quite the opposite, in fact.

• Total destruction of the major centres of powers. That may give a fatal blow to continuity--such was Carthage’s fate. Although some Punic culture survived Carthage’s destruction, it became so weak as to disappear during the Vandal’s invasions. By contrast, Rome was sacked but never razed to the ground.

• Forcing the natives to migrate en masse. That breaks geographical (but not necessarily cultural) continuity. An example of that might be the Jewish diaspora. By contrast, Italy was repeatedly invaded and some villages temporarily evacuated, but the local Latin population was never displaced from the peninsula.

But we don’t really need to look for extreme cases of discontinuity. Continuity is a matter of degree, so it’s best judged comparatively. For example:

1. Louis XIV’s France --> Napoleon’s France: very strong
2. HRE --> Second Reich: strong
3. Rome --> Medieval Italy: fairly strong
4. Roman Britain --> United Kingdom: weak
5. Aztec --> Mexico : very weak
6. Carthage --> Tunisia: none

If we consider day-by-day changes, then nothing in enough to reckon a sudden change. Just like in the paradox. We need some abstaction.

Indeed. Sometimes we need to abstract and generalise. If we can’t have Italy as a separate civ (no room for more), I suggest that we abstract the differences away and take a re-spawned Rome to be Italy.

onedreamer
Sep 28, 2009, 10:36 AM
What is necessary to break continuity? Here are some examples, none of which applies to Rome-->Italy:

• Extermination of the local population, causing a decay of, say, 70-80% in a relatively short time-span, such in the Aztecs’ case. That breaks continuity, but it never happened in Italy. In 6-10th century Italy, there are a number of demographic crises (caused by prolonged wars, plague, etc.) but no sudden extermination.

• Assimilation of the conquered natives by the conquerors. That also breaks continuity, albeit less sharply than in the previous case. But the conquered Latins who lived in Italy were never assimilated by the “Barbarian” invaders. Quite the opposite, in fact.


Here are the two points where you are sorely wrong. The percentages aren't that high but close to 50%, which is enough to provoke a significant change. And since the number of barbarians who settled in Italy was very high, yes they didn't assimilate the Romans, but they assimilated each other, creating a new civ.

Rossiya
Sep 28, 2009, 11:00 AM
If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?

I don't think the people that invaded Italy back in the day were aliens... Or at least, I didn't think so...

kairob
Sep 28, 2009, 11:02 AM
Indeed. Sometimes we need to abstract and generalise. If we can’t have Italy as a separate civ (no room for more), I suggest that we abstract the differences away and take a re-spawned Rome to be Italy.

Did you even bother reading the opening post?
The suggestion is to swap Rome for Italy in the 600AD start. So the is room for Italy.

Charles Martel
Sep 28, 2009, 11:18 AM
Did you even bother reading the opening post? The suggestion is to swap Rome for Italy in the 600AD start. So the is room for Italy.

Did *you* even bother reading my posts? There is no room for Italy in the 3000BC start. So what Zachscape suggests for the 600AD should be done, IMO, in the 3000BC start as well: e.g. replace a re-spawned Rome with Italy.

Charles Martel
Sep 28, 2009, 11:34 AM
What can I say ? He is a nostalgic like you and Mussolini.

So now it turns out that Petrarch is a proto-fascist! :lol: How about Leopardi and the generations of intellectuals who followed in Petrarch's footsteps? How about the major thinkers of Risorgimento? Were all of them “nostalgic” like the fascists?

(And by the way, please don’t compare me to Mussolini... luckily, I can tell the difference between fascist and Petrarchan ideology. That reminds of me Godwin's Law: “As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”. Replace “Hitler” with “Mussolini” and here you have a confirmation of a variant of that Law!)

They were the first to write poems in italian, not the fathers of italian. The fathers of italian language are common people, the "vulgus" who changed Latin into Italian.

The “vulgus” spoke a plethora of diverse dialects. Petrarch and others were the first to give Italian its literary dignity, paving the way for a unified national language.

Wrong translation. As you can clearly see, he says "ITALIC hearts", not italian hearts

I was almost certain you would quibble about that. As a matter of fact, Petrarch did not distinguish between Italic people and Italian people in the way you do. In the context of his poem, “Italic” it’s just an old fashioned way of saying “Italian”, so my translation is correct. By stressing in translation a distinction between Italic and Italian ethnicity you’d be attributing to Petrarch an ideology he did not have.

I do agree that the italian culture is a successor of the roman one. But it isn't the same, it is a different one. Just like the French and Spanish ones.

So you agree that Italian culture is a successor of Roman culture (and if you agree with that, you should also agree that there was at least some continuity). Now, I never said that they were the "same" culture. What I argued for is that Italian culture isn't just "a successor", but is Roman culture's *closest* successor (closer than France, Spain or Byzantium).

However, he obviously can not know for sure, and you are again strumentalizing words in poems and hymns. Besides, even the (greek) byzantines called themselves "Romans". So perhaps Greece should respawn as Rome too ? We had a long discussion about this and again it is a matter of "I claim to be this and that" vs. what really a person is.

As far as I can tell, no modern Greek nationalist has ever claimed that ancient Romans were the Greek’s “forefathers”. Anyway, Byzantium is a complex case. I think that there we should apply something like AnotherPacifist’s distinction: Byzantium may be Rome’ closest continuer from a political, but not from an ethnical, point of view.

Just because Berlusconi claims to be Superman it doesn't mean he is. Thankfully he didn't claim to be Roman,

The people I have quoted are not Berlusconi. Their works are constitutive of Italian identity: they contributed to construct the very idea of a unified Italian nation. This confers their views a special authority. I don’t think we can’t just dismiss them like that and say: “But that’s only what *they* think...”


he is doing the exact contrary of what you suggest

Is he? How so? I didn’t suggest to scrap Zachscape’ project. Quite the contrary, I like it a lot.

The percentages aren't that high but close to 50%, which is enough to provoke a significant change.

An estimate is actually very hard to come by, but I doubt that the percentages were higher, overall, than 20-30%. The change was no doubt “significant”, but was it radical enough to support the discontinuity view? I don’t think so.

And since the number of barbarians who settled in Italy was very high, yes they didn't assimilate the Romans, but they assimilated each other, creating a new civ.

I wonder what makes you so certain about that, to the point that you don’t even feel compelled to provide a real argument in support of it. (The argument you've just given is not so good: the barbarians who settled in Italy were vastly outnumbered by the local Latin population). Manzoni, Macchiavelli and Muratori, to name a few, would have all rejected your statement: they denied mutual assimilation. Where they proto-fascists too? I have already stated several arguments for the one-way assimilation view and some against the fusion view, and I don’t think they deserve such a quick dismissal.

fireclaw722
Sep 28, 2009, 01:23 PM
I like how a simple suggestion became a huge arguement that is getting NOWHERE!!!!!

AnotherPacifist
Sep 28, 2009, 02:54 PM
Once and for all, here's the proposal for RFC, independent of all cultural arguments:
3000 BC: Rome is in its rightful place
600 AD: a respawned Rome is anachronistic, and should be replaced by a playable, SEPARATE (UU, UB, UP, and UHV included) civ in Rome's spot.

Same can be said for Babylon (Iraq but really doesn't deserve a separate civ), Persia (Iran), Egypt (shouldn't respawn at all as a major civ), Classical/Hellenistic Greece (modern Greece), Ethiopia (?Zulu), Maya (?native American tribes) for gameplay purposes. They don't really have to be successor civs, we just need their spots freed up for more year-appropriate civs. (Unfortunately that leaves out Vikings/Sweden, unless Rhye decides to create a much later scenario)

ZachScape
Sep 28, 2009, 06:15 PM
Well for 600 AD, we now have playable Byzantium and playable Korea. The next shall be this: Italy.

THANK YOU AP!!! I would have put this in the minor suggestions, as I wouldn't make this mod myself (I can't), but it is not minor. I don't know why it turned into this argument in the first place.

All the work except the UP and UHV is done (settler and city name maps should be easy enough).

bastillebaston
Sep 28, 2009, 11:57 PM
@onedreamer "Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission, with a team of italian scientists. That's a modern age Civ technology. Discovered by Romans ?"

Are you serious? What is that supposed to prove? Einstein discovered relativity (and emigrated to America like Fermi). That’s a modern age technology. Discovered by Holy Roman Empire? No, but HRE->Germany is ok. Comrade Popov discovered .... whatever modern age technology. Discovered by Tsardom of Russia? No, but Tsardom of Russia->USSR is ok.

Charles Martel
Sep 29, 2009, 02:35 AM
3000 BC: Rome is in its rightful place
600 AD: a respawned Rome is anachronistic, and should be replaced by a playable, SEPARATE (UU, UB, UP, and UHV included) civ in Rome's spot.

A re-spawned Roman Empire is equally anachronistic in the 3000BC start. In that respect, I see no big difference between the 3000BC and the 600AD starts (except for the fact that, in the 3000BC start, Rome is playable and may never collapse). If a re-spawned Roman Empire can be replaced by a modern civ (with new dynamic names, leaderhead, etc.), it should be so replaced, regardless of when the game starts. Whatever replaces Rome could then be made playable in the 3000BC start too, not at the beginning, but in mid-game: just ask the player if he wants to switch when Rome re-spawns as Italy or whatever.

So, here’s a better proposal:

• 3000 BC: Rome is playable as usual. But if Rome collapses and then re-spawns, it should be replaced by Italy, with players being given the option to switch on re-spawn.
• 600 AD: Playable Italy always replaces Rome, as per Zachscape’s suggestion.

They don't really have to be successor civs, we just need their spots freed up for more year-appropriate civs.

That’s why the complaint “but Rome is not Italy!” is doubly misplaced. Firstly, it’s entirely reasonable to claim that Italy is, in fact, Rome’s successor (many illustrious Italian thinkers made that claim), and that’s all that matters for dynamic naming. Secondly, even if Italy weren’t Rome successor, it wouldn’t really matter either: RFC-civs are just pieces of code, and we can make them represent whatever we want... if a re-spawned Rome can be re-coded as Korea or whatever, so be it.

scu98rkr
Sep 29, 2009, 03:22 AM
"Alot of the things you list above are not represented in Civ or generally of little importance in the history of the world."
says who ?

There not name another CIV whoose UB/UU/UP are based on cooking nice food.

"Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ? To be honest I dont know
normally I wouldn't speak of stuff I don't know, especially if I am to contradict someone."

Im trying to get you to provide some evidence that pasta or an equivalent didnt exist in Roman times.

but what other CIV has a UU/UB/UP based on good cooking
"boy do I need to explain everything in detail. Food is part of culture, a STRONG part of culture of any nation. What I meant then is that in Civ terms, the italian civ has a strong cultural influence - a bonus in culture per turn, hmmkay ?"

My point stands

"The two things Italy is most famous for are pasta and pizza."
In America, the land of gross approximation, stereotypes and fast food, yes. Pasta and Pizza are ready in 5-10 minutes, that's why they are famous, in America.

Therefore what I said is true, must of the CIV are based on people preconceptions Im sure most mongolians dont go around razing cities but thats the UP because thats the preconception.

I would be surprised if there wasnt something about during Roman times similar to pasta. Is there any date for the invention of pasta ?
you would be very suprised then. I really wonder: why are you arguing on everything if you don't know details by your own admission ? Most of the food we eat today is cooked with ingredients from other continents, especially pasta (tomatoes are from America). The Romans ate very basic food with little preparation. Mostly fruit or vegetables present in Europe.

"What date are you suggesting the people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian" ?
the fall of the Roman Empire seems reasonable, if a precise date must be found."

Well thats clearly wrong as Charles Martel has outlined previously.

"Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?
Yep. The Romans were famous for exporting their leather sandals in all the known world. And the chinese would resell crappy linen trousers as if they were "Made in Latium by Versacem"."

The Romans would have exported their leather sandals in all the known world. Thanks for agreeing with me.

"The romans were famous for mass producing things and probably set the first factories up in Europe so I would imagine the Italian textile textile industry had some connection to this period.
we should move the assembly line tech just after currency then."

The assembly line tech obviously represents 19th factories not roman factories what is your point ?

"Also the reason Italian clothes were seen to be stylish is that even after the collapse of Rome the rest of Europe still looked to italy for inspiration and as the centre of civilization for centuries afterwards. I very much doubt without Rome anyone would of cared about Italy's clothes. Also again what CIV has UP/UB/UU based on being stylish."
I see. Too bad that the italian stylists are renowned from the 20th century, not the 8th century.


The car was not invented in Italy so you have some good companies so do the Germans, Japs, Americans.
This doesn't answer the question. Is Ferrari Roman in origins ? Perhaps since the Romans were the first to pave roads in a lot of regions, there must be a connection. Definitely so.

Im not arguing these makes of cars are Italian but thats the romans are also Italians.

Enrico Fermi is a very clever guy.
1 He is Roman born in Rome and spoke a language descended from Latin.
2 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues in ROME studied the results of bombarding uranium with neutrons in 1934.
3 He then left italy
I missed the fact that Fermi is Roman

Enrico Fermi is an Italian born in Rome which also makes him a Roman Italian. Romans are ITALIAN.

Marconi was in England when he commercialized not invented Radio.
Julius Caesar was in France when he conquered Gallia.

Ok fair point still he didnt invent Radio.

"- There is probably no other country as big (or small) as Italy who has achieved as much in so many different sports; sports playing a big role in today's society.

I would say the USA and Russia still lead the way in achievement in sport but that simply because their big.
I think Australia has probably achieved the most considering its population base not italy."

"can you show us some numbers ?"

You seem to be missing the point you made the original statement can YOU sure me some numbers!!!!!

Ok link to All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table

It would appear Italy lags behind both France and UK with approximately the same population apporx 60 million at the moment.

Australia currently has a population of 21 million. 1/3 of Italy's but it has 432 medals to Italys 522 and UKs 715. Even as a Brit I have to admit in comparison to its population Australia is probably the most successful sporting nation.

"Ok from the unification of mongolia, the mongols managed to have the worlds largest land empire in much less than 150 years. Also they didnt have the advantages of 1000's of years of history on their side.
I knew that we would come down to this. Because this is a forum that is mostly visited by americans (obviously), the importance of a nation is measured on how much they have conquered. It doesn't matter if in conquering half the world the mongols have destroyed more than they created, they are definitely more important than Italy. For the same reason, since Rome conquered most of the known world, it is more important than Italy, which is to be laughed at because they lost their first war vs. Ethiopia. Hence, Italy can be just said to be the same as Rome, since it didn't achieve anything in particular. Lost pretty much any war where they had to put real efforts in. Yes, that's the sad truth on the american line of thought. The americans, the fighters for freedom and liberalism, yet the only nation responsible for actually using nukes and that had to go through a bloody civil war just to abolish slavery."

PS Im not American. This is generally how the CIVs in civilization are selected what is your point ?

scu98rkr
Sep 29, 2009, 03:23 AM
Ok im all for Rome respawning as Italy but I see no need for new UU/UP/UB unless you are going to include new UU/UP/UB for iraq, egypt etc ...

The italian civ's greatest moment was Rome UU/UP/UB are from that age seems reasonable to me.

Charles Martel
Sep 29, 2009, 03:46 AM
Bottom line: Obama is the successor of Bush to the presidence of the USA. Is he the same ? They have a lot of things in common, yes, but they aren't the same. They probably have more things not in common.

I had missed that bit. It deserves attention, because it betrays a subtle fallacy that is a cause of much misunderstanding in this thread.

I think it’s fair to summarise your objection as follows: “Succession is not proof of identity (=“sameness”). Obama is Bush’s successor, but that does not prove that they are the same person. Equally, Italy might well be Rome’s successor, but that does not prove that they are the same culture.”

The answer to your objection is that a property like “being the successor of Bush” was never supposed to supply a criterion of personal identity, but one of identity of office roles: even if Bush and Obama are not the *same* person, they occupy the *same* offices at different times (e.g. the US presidency). So a succession relation (or more generally, a continuity relation) can indeed supply a criterion of identity, albeit not necessarily one of personal identity.

(But, in fact, according to the philosopher John Locke, there is a continuity relation which grounds personal identity, namely psychological continuity. If Old Obama is young Obama’s psychological successor, then Old Obama and Young Obama are the same individual, no matter how psychologically different.)

Now, back to the Rome/Italy case. Continuity (of an ethnical/geographical/linguistic/etc. sort) does not supply a criterion of identity of cultures, but it does supply a criterion of identity of culture-chains. So if Italy is Rome’s successor, then Rome and Italy are two *different* culture-stages of the *same* culture-chain. If we think of RFC-civilizations as representing such culture-chains, then there is a loose and approximate, but reasonable, sense in which Late Antiquity Rome and Early Medieval Italy can be said to belong to the same “civilization”.

TDK
Sep 29, 2009, 06:30 AM
• 3000 BC: Rome is playable as usual. But if Rome collapses and then re-spawns, it should be replaced by Italy, with players being given the option to switch on re-spawn.
• 600 AD: Playable Italy always replaces Rome, as per Zachscape’s suggestion.But is that even possible? Is there room for another version of the same civ in the 3000BC, with an early start and late start conditioned UHV, UB, UP, UU, settler map, etc.? Or are you just talking about changing the dynamic names, leaderheads etc.?

Sandry
Sep 29, 2009, 07:03 AM
Hi. I am a history student from Rome and I like Rhye’s and fall mod a lot. I hope I will not offend anyone but in my humble opinion Rhye’s description of the barbaric invasion is a bit simplistic. The real situation was much more complicated. I am studying for an exam a book by the great Belgian historian Henri Pirenne. Pirenne says that the fall of Rome did not really happen in 476! He says that barbaric invaders did not want to destroy roman civilization but to become romans. He thinks that the roman civilization continued to dominate the Mediterranean until the Muslim invasion!
My message for Rhye:
ROMA CAPITALE, LIVORNO SUCCURSALE! ;) (<<< silly italian joke)

bastillebaston
Sep 29, 2009, 07:20 AM
@ Sandry. What, haven’t you heard? Barbarians were ALIENS. The God hath said so, so it must be true. Burn your worthless history books. People are already working on a modcomp or minimod... whatever these things are called... where barbarian spaceships from the Final Frontier scenario pop up all over your place for SEVEN HUNDRED years. :crazyeye:

Rhye
Sep 29, 2009, 07:46 AM
@ Sandry. What, haven’t you heard? Barbarians were ALIENS. The God hath said so, so it must be true. Burn your worthless history books. People are already working on a modcomp or minimod... whatever these things are called... where barbarian spaceships from the Final Frontier scenario pop up all over your place for SEVEN HUNDRED years. :crazyeye:

oh please. This is not funny. You're clearly missing the point.

HI am studying for an exam a book by the great Belgian historian Henri Pirenne. Pirenne says that the fall of Rome did not really happen in 476! He says that barbaric invaders did not want to destroy roman civilization but to become romans. He thinks that the roman civilization continued to dominate the Mediterranean until the Muslim invasion!

I've studied Pirenne too. His thesis was debated, and in fact proved wrong by arab sources

kairob
Sep 29, 2009, 10:27 AM
The argument that the foreign invaders who destroyed the Roman Empire suddenly became the Roman Empire by carrying on with Roman Culture and Tradition seams like a pretty flawed argument to me. If you look at the Byzantines and Turks and apply the same logic there then we could just as boldly say that the Ottoman Empire is the Byzantine Empire.

The Q-Meister
Sep 29, 2009, 10:41 AM
Or how about Alexander's Empire being an extension of the Persian Empire?

Alexander's empire was basically the Persian Empire at its greatest height and Alexander arguably became more and more "Persian" (increasingly adopting Persian customs and rituals as his own) as time went on.

Charles Martel
Sep 30, 2009, 03:35 AM
But is that even possible? Is there room for another version of the same civ in the 3000BC, with an early start and late start conditioned UHV, UB, UP, UU, settler map, etc.? Or are you just talking about changing the dynamic names, leaderheads etc.?

Dynamic conversion of Rome into Italy for the 3000BC start is not impossible, but it does present some additional difficulties that do not arise for the 600AD start.

• Dynamic names/leaderhead: easy, no problem there.

• Flag/colour borders: problematic. It would be nice to have dynamic flags and see the tricolore. Failing that, Italy will have to stick with SPQR. (Of course, one could change the Roman flag instead, but I can’t think of any ‘neutral’ flag that may apply both to ancient Rome and modern Italy.)

• UU & UB: those shouldn’t be difficult to add, just make it so that the Rome-Italy combo gets a couple of UUs, an early one (legionary) and late one (bersagliere). But I agree with sku98rkr that this creates a precedent. If Rome-Italy gets multiple UUs, then it seems that Iran-Persia, HRE-Germany, etc. should also enjoy the same benefit. Same for the UB.

• UP: as far as I can tell, the UP is difficult to change even in the 600AD start. Italy is not particularly renowned for its rail network, but it seems that we’ll have to go with “the Italian power of infrastructure”.

• UHV: I have no idea how UHVs are coded. But the basic idea is that the Rome-Italy combo will have in total six UHVs conditions: if you satisfy the first three conditions you win as Rome, if you satisfy the later conditions you win as Italy.

• Settlers/stability map: Italy and Rome will have to use the same maps. Not ideal, but no huge problem there that I can see. Ideally, Italy should aim at colonizing Libya and Eritrea... but, by the time Italy spawns, those areas will be already settled anyway.

• Spawn-date: in the 3000BC start, Italy’s spawning must be made conditional on Rome’s having collapsed. That shouldn’t be a difficult piece of coding. The question is: provided that Rome has collapsed, when should Italy spawn? Will it spawn randomly after the world discovers Nationalism/Liberalism/Constitution? Or will it have a fixed spawn-date (say, 1860)? I’d prefer random spawn, though that would create balance problem.

The argument that the foreign invaders who destroyed the Roman Empire suddenly became the Roman Empire by carrying on with Roman Culture and Tradition seams like a pretty flawed argument to me.
That’s a caricature of the argument. It does not say that the invaders “suddenly became the Roman Empire”. Rather, the argument distinguishes between Roman empire and Roman civilization: although the (Western) Roman Empire came formally to an end with the deposition of Romulus Augustus, the Roman civilization lived on because the invaders were gradually (not suddenly!) absorbed into Roman culture. That makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the invaders were already partly Romanised even before the invasions.

Unfortunately, Sid Meier’s Civilization, unlike Europa Universalis: Rome, does not have a game mechanics that simulates well the phenomenon of the assimilation of the conqueror by the conquered.

If you look at the Byzantines and Turks and apply the same logic there then we could just as boldly say that the Ottoman Empire is the Byzantine Empire

But why would anyone want to apply the same logic to the Byzantines/Ottomans? The argument that Roman civilization survived the barbarian invasions is not supposed to be a general theory of invasion dynamics. We have to judge on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, the Ottoman invasion of the Eastern Empire is not comparable to the barbarian invasion of the West (Many Byzantine scholars migrated elsewhere and the Ottomans were not absorbed into Greek-Byzantine culture, by contrast the Goths kept Romans intellectuals as political advisors and were absorbed into Latin culture). Even then, it is reasonable to say that a good deal of Greek-Byzantine culture survived the fall of Constantinople.

Heathcliff
Sep 30, 2009, 07:02 PM
I do not think Italy is an important country enough during the timeperiod 1860-2000, to respawn at that time with new UVH and such. Not because, it isn't a large country enough, but because both the Roman times and the citystates during medival ages and renessance "achieved" more in an historical perspective.

But all the italian city states Papalstate, Genoa, Venice, Florence .... Very important throurough history during the middelages and the renessance.

My suggestion is that italy respawn at 1000 AD. Which will also break up the Roman empire, which is abit silly sometimes when it lasts to the modern times in the 3000 BC start.

Goal 1. "Crusade" Control Jerusalem 1100-1300.

Will also put some pressure on Arabia that always get's way to powerful.

Goal 2. "Merchants and Marco Polo" Get 6 000 gold by 1400 and have contact with China.

Goal 3. "Pope" Spread Christianity to 50% of the world by the latest of 1550.

The goal cooperate nice such that you must get through Arabia (do it so Russia wont open border with you). To get Marco Polo to China. Which the invasion of Jerusalem helps you with.

Italy should be hit hard by stability penalty at around 1600 and collapse then.

UB: Market: "Trading Centre" and give city one free merchant.
UU: Crusader: Replace Maceman and also gives +50% against mounted units.

Unique Power: "Negotiations of the Pope": All European Civilizations will always accept peace with you until 1500 (if you want peace of course).

Leaders:
1000-1300: The Pope
1300-: The Doge (Duke)

Bonci
Oct 01, 2009, 02:07 AM
very ahistorical *_* if you want to have an italian state in the middle ages then it's better to have one that actually existed like venice or milan

onedreamer
Oct 01, 2009, 07:04 AM
A re-spawned Roman Empire is equally anachronistic in the 3000BC start

not really, because since this is a game, a respawning Roman civilization in the 20th century can make sense given the alternative history path taken by the game. If Rome collapsed mostly due to the fractioning of the empire and internal problems (stability) and wasn't invaded by the barbarian hordes, and this is what happens most of the times in RFC, then it is not that absurd for Rome to respawn as Rome. Sure, anachronistic, but at the same time more realistic than an Italian civ. that would not have a reason to exist; besides alot other things will also be anachronistic in the 3000BC start due to all the variables present; and quite frankly I welcome this open end chances, without which I would have dismissed RFC after 2-3 games out of sheer boredom.

Firstly, it’s entirely reasonable to claim that Italy is, in fact, Rome’s successor (many illustrious Italian thinkers made that claim)

I think we would all be happier if you started quoting historians as your sources rather than poets, popular hymns and nationalistic fanatics. Is it a case that you named a dozeen persons as sources and none of them is a historian ?

Secondly, even if Italy weren’t Rome successor, it wouldn’t really matter either: RFC-civs are just pieces of code, and we can make them represent whatever we want... if a re-spawned Rome can be re-coded as Korea or whatever, so be it.

As long as it doesn't have Praetorians as UU.

onedreamer
Oct 01, 2009, 07:09 AM
@onedreamer "Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission, with a team of italian scientists. That's a modern age Civ technology. Discovered by Romans ?"

Are you serious? What is that supposed to prove? Einstein discovered relativity (and emigrated to America like Fermi). That’s a modern age technology. Discovered by Holy Roman Empire? No, but HRE->Germany is ok. Comrade Popov discovered .... whatever modern age technology. Discovered by Tsardom of Russia? No, but Tsardom of Russia->USSR is ok.

can you explain what is this supposed to mean ? Are you seriously saying that Russian Empire stands to Sovietic Union like Roman Empire stands to Italy ?

Heathcliff
Oct 01, 2009, 08:24 AM
Bonci wrote:
"very ahistorical *_* if you want to have an italian state in the middle ages then it's better to have one that actually existed like venice or milan"

I think you have to explain further what is ahistorical. During the medival time most countries in Europe was organized in city states, instead of a united country. Some examples: Spain was Aragon and Castille, Germany was Preussia, Saxony, Brandenburg.... Russia was Novgorod, Kiev... Also Dutch and Italy was like that. But in RFC all others is representeted as one country, where they in fact was many states. And that should be done for Italy too of course (!).

Italy has had two Golden Ages: Roman Empire and Medival, Renssance Italy.

Leoreth
Oct 01, 2009, 10:47 AM
Every example you name developed a common authority during the time of their UHV (e.g. Spain had one king when they started colonising, Russia had its tzar when they started settling Siberia etc.).

The medieval city-states didn't have such an authority when they (most prominently Venice and Genoa) were controlling the European trade.
And even more importantly, they cannot simply be mixed up with the Pope. The Pope was a complex political/religious institution that is best left represented only with the Apostolic Palace.

onedreamer
Oct 02, 2009, 04:14 AM
The Papal State is responsible for preventing the formation of that common authority.
Btw, the Greek city states of the ancient/classic era are comparable to the medieval states in Italy.

Charles Martel
Oct 02, 2009, 04:21 AM
not really, because since this is a game, a respawning Roman civilization in the 20th century can make sense given the alternative history path taken by the game. If Rome collapsed mostly due to the fractioning of the empire and internal problems (stability) and wasn't invaded by the barbarian hordes, and this is what happens most of the times in RFC, then it is not that absurd for Rome to respawn as Rome. Sure, anachronistic, but at the same time more realistic than an Italian civ.

How can a reborn Roman Empire be more realistic than Italy? I don’t see how long-gone cultures could possibly make a comeback in modern times. That’s not even alternate history... I think we are now in the realm of sheer fantasy. Well, the Roman Empire did make a sort of comeback during Justinian’s time, and I could even imagine a 11-century Byzantine emperor restoring the empire to its former glory. But that’s not what we are talking about. Instead, we are talking about a fallen Roman Empire that may spontaneosly reappear more more than one thousand years after its fall! Isn’t that nonsense?

I think we would all be happier if you started quoting historians as your sources rather than poets, popular hymns and nationalistic fanatics. Is it a case that you named a dozeen persons as sources and none of them is a historian ?

In fact, nearly all the writers I have quoted were historians (including Petrarch and Manzoni, who aren’t just poets, but wrote well-informed historical works where Medieval Italians are described as the Romans' successors). None of them was a “fanatic nationalist”.

I have already mentioned Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750), who was the leading historian of his age. So let’s focus on him. In order to locate his view, we have to divide Italian historians into two camps:

• The Romanist (discontinuity) school: This is the view that the Roman civilization was utterly destroyed by the barbarians invaders. A dark age ensued, which had little or nothing in common with the classical age.

• The Germanist (continuity) school: This is the view that the Roman empire was weak even before the invasion. However, the barbarians invaders did not destroy classic civilization but were assimilated into Roman life. As a result, the Roman civilization was revitalized and lived on as the Italian civilization.

Well, that’s a very rough bit of historiography, but it will do for now. Muratori vigorously defends the Germanistic/continuity thesis. This is how two contemporary Italian historiographers put it:

“We find in Muratori the typical Germanistc thesis, which usually are continuity theses – they affirm, e.g., that the Germanic people did not act as a disruptive factor, but were assimilated into Roman civilization, enriching and continuing it. Thus, according to Muratori, even if the Lombards might seem to break Italian unity, they are in fact quickly assimilated by the Roman population and thus act as an element of continuity.” (A Ambrosioni & P Zerbi, Problemi di Storia Mediovale, 1992, the translation is mine).

Now, I do not actually believe that the Germanist view is definitely right and that the Romanist view is definitely wrong (in fact, both views seem rather extreme to me). My point is that it is *entirely reasonable* to say that Medieval Italy is the cultural successor of ancient Rome because an entire school of Italian historians made that claim. Indeed, that was the standard view during the Risorgimento (although many Risorgimento thinkers rejected the Germanist school, they still did argue for a modified version of the continuity thesis, and regarded ancient Romans ans fellow Italians).

I think that I have quoted more than enough sources to shift the burden of proof. Perhaps it’s about time that *you* quote some sources in defence of your claims.

(Note: “we would all be happier”? Who are “we”? Is “onedreamer” a shared account?)

As long as it doesn't have Praetorians as UU

I don’t see what is the problem here. By the time Italy spawns, legionaries are obsolete and cannot be build. So there is no anachronism there, whether Italy gets its own UU or not.

Charles Martel
Oct 02, 2009, 04:23 AM
But all the italian city states Papalstate, Genoa, Venice, Florence .... Very important throurough history during the middelages and the renessance. My suggestion is that italy respawn at 1000 AD. Which will also break up the Roman empire, which is abit silly sometimes when it lasts to the modern times in the 3000 BC start.

You do have a point there. After all, in RFC, the Holy Roman Empire and the Greek League are represented as being a unified entity (in reality, they were politically fragmented). If the multiplicity of Greek city-states counts as one civilization, then why not take the same approach to the Italian communes?

onedreamer
Oct 02, 2009, 06:24 AM
How can a reborn Roman Empire be more realistic than Italy? I don’t see how long-gone cultures could possibly make a comeback in modern times.

Because I am speaking in terms of game play and in the game the culture is not gone, it is THERE, indipendent states without a unitary or strong central administration.

That’s not even alternate history... I think we are now in the realm of sheer fantasy.

Uh ? We are in the realm of RFC, I have not dreamed or imagined anything.

But that’s not what we are talking about. Instead, we are talking about a fallen Roman Empire that may spontaneosly reappear more more than one thousand years after its fall! Isn’t that nonsense?

No (short answer). The long answer is too long and already discussed, as you know it regards wether or not a culture maintains its identity or not. One thing is when a culture evolves and changes, one thing is when it merges with others to form a different one.

In fact, nearly all the writers I have quoted were historians (including Petrarch and Manzoni, who aren’t just poets, but wrote well-informed historical works where Medieval Italians are described as the Romans' successors). None of them was a “fanatic nationalist”. I have already mentioned Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750), who was the leading historian of his age. So let’s focus on him.

No. I don't care of historians who lived in the 13th or 17th century. They obviously didn't have the picture we have now.

This is how two contemporary Italian historiographers put it:

“We find in Muratori the typical Germanistc thesis, which usually are continuity theses – they affirm, e.g., that the Germanic people did not act as a disruptive factor, but were assimilated into Roman civilization, enriching and continuing it. Thus, according to Muratori, even if the Lombards might seem to break Italian unity, they are in fact quickly assimilated by the Roman population and thus act as an element of continuity.” (A Ambrosioni & P Zerbi, Problemi di Storia Mediovale, 1992, the translation is mine).

Now, I do not actually believe that the Germanist view is definitely right and that the Romanist view is definitely wrong (in fact, both views seem rather extreme to me). My point is that it is *entirely reasonable* to say that Medieval Italy is the cultural successor of ancient Rome because an entire school of Italian historians made that claim.

But your point is completely baseless because the Western Roman Empire was inhabited by a huge number of peoples besides the Romans, so that 16th century claim that all inhabitants in Italy were Romans and would assimilate the barbarian invaders is ridiculous, because the same should then apply to any other region of the WRE. As a matter of fact you are ignoring that the Romans themselves didn't even complete the process of mutual assimilation with the other italic peoples, especially in the north and in west Sicily and Sardinia. As a matter of fact you are ignoring the fact that the Romans were different from other ancient colonizing Empires exactly because of their mutual assimilation with conquered peoples. The Romans were very interested in the traditions and uses of other peoples and in History in general, we have Roman historians interviewing neighboring peoples like Etruscans and Germans, can you say the same of, for example, the Persians ? What I am saying with this is that there is, from a cultural point of view, pratically no difference from the invasions that regarded, say, Marseille, or Milan. Actually, the Germans would focus more on Italy because it was reacher, it was nearer, and it was beautiful and fertile compared to their homelands. Italy has been literally invaded by migrations, we are talking of migrations here, not of immigration, or conquest. The western european countries managed to colonize all of America with a pronounced emigration which in numbers (percentages) can't even be compared to the migrations that contributed the disappearance of the Roman Civilization. Right now in Italy 10% of the population or more are foreign immigrants, and this without any people migrating, and you are trying to hold on a thesis that assumes numbers around 20% of barbarians would invade Italy ? This is beyond ridiculous, especially because, again, you consider Italy in 600AD as an homogenous entity when it was actually all the contrary. The majority of the population was concentrated in the center-south. In the north the Langobards contributed heavily to the expansion of villages into towns, yet we are here to discuss how the Romans have assimilated them ?
And btw, the two contemporary historiographers, are just commenting the version given by Muratori, this does not make them supporters of that version, as the title clearly suggests "Problemi di storia medievale".

I think that I have quoted more than enough sources to shift the burden of proof. Perhaps it’s about time that *you* quote some sources in defence of your claims.

You have quoted no contemporary historian whatsoever, which would be about the only source on which we could make a serious discussion. You want sources, even an approximate tool like Wikipedia knows the difference between Italic and Italian.

(Note: “we would all be happier”? Who are “we”? Is “onedreamer” a shared account?)

"We" are the users of this forum, who, in case you haven't noticed, have shown that couldn't care less about this discussion; and since it's based on thin air and poems, let alone being ridiculous, I really can't blame them.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 07:34 AM
I totally agree with Charles Martel so at least one "we" is siding with him

Rhye
Oct 02, 2009, 07:35 AM
According to my History books, the complete ruin of the Ancient World came with the Gothic-Byzantine war. In that occasion, Italian territory was completely devastated. For instance, the whole city of Milan was...emptied. All the male population was killed; women and children were sold as slaves. Procopius from Caesarea described these times.

Before that, Goths and Romans lived in peace for a short period (under Theodoric), but didn't mix up as you (Charles Martel) were saying.
And after that instead, we've got the rise of the Church, who supported Byzantines, we've got Longobards, reckoned as "Barbarians among barbarians", who enstablished a primitive regime of discrimination, we've got the Franks intervention and then the Holy Roman dominion on the north, and the Spanish one on the south. Oh, and I forgot the Arabs and the Normans.

Overall, I find this thesis of "quasi-peaceful assimilation of already Romanized peoples" very silly. A gross approximation.
Romanized peoples could have been late West Roman Empire's Germanic tribes at the borders. On the other hand, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Huns, Longobards, Arabs, Normans were metaphorically "aliens" to the Romans.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 07:39 AM
Anyway Onedreamer you keep missing the main point. We arent saying the Italians are all Romans we are same the Romans were all Italians(or at least from the Italian culture group).

Therefore was the greatest Italian empire was the Roman empire like the Greatest Iranian/Persian empire was the Achaemenid Empire. Or Asoka's Empire was an Indian Empire etc etc etc...

Do you disagree with this statement.

In your view were the Romans were Italians ?

Rhye
Oct 02, 2009, 07:41 AM
Romans never considered theirselves "italians".
Italic peoples were for them the ones coming from the rest of modern centre/south Italy. Then there were Etruscans, there were Celts, and so on.
There was even a civil war to ensure that "italians" had same rights as the Romans.
For the Romans, the state is ROME, not Italy. Gallia Cisalpina (northern Italy) were to be treated the same way as Gallia Narbonensis, or as Acaia, Africa or Lusitania.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 07:46 AM
Yes but the old fashioned view used to be the Anglo-Saxons came over to England and killed all the Celts. I for one dont believe this and genetic evidence seems to be proving this untrue.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer#Origins_of_the_British

I would imagine the same is true for Italy. This is certainly not true in the modern sense of reporting the news.

"For instance, the whole city of Milan was...emptied. All the male population was killed; women and children were sold as slaves. Procopius from Caesarea described these times."

Historians from the past rarely felt the needed to tell the exact truth. There stories are full of exaggerations and this no doubt is one. Do you honestly think the whole male population of Milan was killed ??

However it tells a story a large number of the male population was killed.

Do you think the goths would have the resources time and energy to carry out mass genocide on that level ? The second world war proves that carry out mass genocide actually is a time consuming business and requires an extraordinary will and an almost factory line organisation.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 07:48 AM
"Romans never considered theirselves "italians".
Italic peoples were for them the ones coming from the rest of modern centre/south Italy. Then there were Etruscans, there were Celts, and so on."

So people from the south and north and west of britain never considered them selves English or Anglish ie Angles. But the Term Angle=English came to dominate people of the same culture wether they were really saxon angles jutes celts etc...

In fact some people were still speaking welsh in Shropshire/Herefordshire at the turn of the century.

This comes back to my original point. The only reason this argument continues is because the creator of the mod (with the largest voice and rightly so Rhye you've done some more than excellent work) is Italian.

Therefore you see the differences between the various Italian groups as being larger than they are. If you were Swedish the discussion would be should there be a separate Swedish Civ after the Vikings have collapsed.

Charles Martel
Oct 02, 2009, 07:53 AM
You have quoted no contemporary historian whatsoever

As a matter of fact, I have just quoted two contemporary Italian historiographers (and also gave my own translation, which apparently you didn’t bother to read). Form this and your other remarks it’s clear that you are replying to my posts without even trying to understand what I’m actually saying.

But then, I wonder, why do you insist that I quote only contemporary historians? What’s wrong, for example, with Muratori? Perhaps you could care to explain why you disapprove so strongly of Muratori’s continuity view? Your insistence that I provide bibliographical sources is rather odd, considering that I have already given plenty in support of my view, whereas yourself have so far provided no source whatsoever in support of yours. Perhaps you don’t event feel the need to give sources because you think that your view is obviously true. This is not so. In declining to take into account the views of thinkers such as Petrarch, Manzoni and Muratori you are doing the mistake of projecting your own contemporary viewpoint onto that of Medieval and Risorgimento Italians. You feel strongly that “Romans are not Italians”. But that’s not how many Medieval and Risorgimento Italian intellectuals actually felt.

In an earlier post, for example, you denied that Risorgimento Italians needed to look at ancient Rome for an inspiration. It’s easy to prove that wrong: just take the Italian national anthem, which is based on the very idea that ancient Romans like Scipio were inspiring Italian figures. You now reply that this is only “thin air and poems”. Well, let me quote Wikipedia then:

from Wikipedia: "The Roman Empire's territorial legacy of controlling the Italian peninsula would serve as an influence to Italian nationalism and the unification(Risorgimento) of Italy in 1861." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire)

Now, I am not quoting this because I think that Wikipedia is an especially authoritative source. I just want you to notice that the wikipedians who wrote that passage did not even feel the need to provide sources, because their statement is uncontroversial commonplace among historians.

But your point is completely baseless because the Western Roman Empire was inhabited by a huge number of peoples besides the Romans... [etc.]

Everything that you wrote in the above paragraph shows a systematic misunderstanding of my main points. For example, I never said that “Italy in 600AD was an homogenous entity”, nor does it follow from my view. Also, I am not at all “ignoring the process of mutual assimilation”, rather I am positively arguing against some of its implications, in order to show that the rival “one-way assimilation” view is a plausible and respectable alternative.

"We" are the users of this forum, who, in case you haven't noticed, have shown that couldn't care less about this discussion; and since it's based on thin air and poems, let alone being ridiculous, I really can't blame them

Right. So, having elected yourself as the forum’s spokesperson, you now state that you have no interest in this discussion. So what is the point of your increasingly hostile replies?

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 08:02 AM
From Stephen Oppenheimer origins of the British.

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

This suggests that even is the area's considered English or Anglo Saxon at least 60% of the genetic material comes from the same place as the Welsh Scottish Irish and Cornish.

Ie the anglosaxon invasion was mainly a cultural invasion. And here there was a change of language and much more cultural change than there ever was in italy due to the "Barbarian" invasions.


I would agree that just because the Genetics of area hasnt changed that the doesnt mean the civ cant change, I only brought this point up to illustrate how ridiculous it is to suggest the whole male population of milan was killed.

On the other hand I just cant see any major cultural changes. Not more so than between various dynasties/empires in other CIVs. Obviously Rhye and OneDreamer can see them but Im sure an Indian would find the idea of a single Indian CIV laughable.

Charles Martel
Oct 02, 2009, 08:20 AM
Overall, I find this thesis of "assimilation of already Romanized peoples" very silly. A gross approximation.

The claim that the either the Goths or the Lombards utterly destroyed Roman civilization and generated an entirely new culture/ethnicity seems even sillier to me. When I compare Late Antiquity Italy to Early Medieval Italy I see more similarities than differences. Earlier on, an Italian poster aptly mentioned Henri Pirenne, an influential representative of the continuity view. If I'd have to choose between Edward Gibbon and Pirenne, I would side with Pirenne. I suspect that you have in mind only a caricature of Pirenne's thesis. That thesis is much more sophisticated and accurate than you seem to think it is. I certainly don’t think that Pirenne can be quickly dismissed on the basis of some unspecified “Arab sources”.

Romans never considered theirselves "italians".

Well, they didn’t have the benefit of hindsight :) But the prevalent view among Medieval Italian thinkers was that ancient Romans were indeed fellow Italians. This became a standard view during the Risorgimento.

But, I wonder, is it even true that the Romans did not consider themselves Italians? What is that claim supposed to mean, from an ancient Roman's point of view? If we take “Italian” to mean “inhabitant of Italia” (the name of the region from the strait of Messina to the Rubicon), then the Romans did not always feel that there was a strong distinction between them and the rest of Italy. It is true that, initially, Romans considered themselves to be the rulers of other Italic peoples. But gradually, as Roman citizenship was granted to all freemen within the boundaries of “Italia”, that distinction between Romans and other inhabitants of the peninsula became to fade away.

Rhye
Oct 02, 2009, 08:57 AM
I certainly don’t think that Pirenne can be quickly dismissed on the basis of some unspecified “Arab sources”.


Pirenne justified his thesis with the sudden break of commerce after the rise of Islam. This is proven untrue by Arab sources that prove that commerce kept flourishing even in a divided Mediterranean.


It is true that, initially, Romans considered themselves to be the rulers of other Italic peoples. But gradually, as Roman citizenship was granted to all freemen within the boundaries of “Italia”, that distinction between Romans and other inhabitants of the peninsula became to fade away.

Incomplete statement. ....and it was later extended to all the Empire.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 09:01 AM
Romans never considered them selves "italians".

I dont see how this can be true as the Romans called the province Italia in the later Empire.
Therefore Rome must have been in Italia and therefore people from Rome must have been both Italian and Roman. The same as the people who lived in Britannia were Britons and the people who lives in Germania were Germans.

Rhye
Oct 02, 2009, 09:04 AM
I only brought this point up to illustrate how ridiculous it is to suggest the whole male population of milan was killed.


When you use "Slavery" as civic, it doesn't need a Nazi organization to do that.
At any rate, I quoted Procopius. So it's his facts against your opinion?

Rhye
Oct 02, 2009, 09:07 AM
Romans never considered them selves "italians".

I dont see how this can be true as the Romans called the province Italia in the later Empire.
Therefore Rome must have been in Italia and therefore people from Rome must have been both Italian and Roman. The same as the people who lived in Britannia were Britons and the people who lives in Germania were Germans.

Then why didn't they call themselves italians, and didn't call their state "Senatus Populusque Italicus"?

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 09:17 AM
"When you use "Slavery" as civic, it doesn't need a Nazi organization to do that."

Have can you possibly compare a mechanism in a computer game to real life ??? And you dont really want your slaves to die in real life then they're useless.

"At any rate, I quoted Procopius. So it's his facts against your opinion? "

I tried to compare the English situation to the Italian one. Several British ie Gildas and English ie Bede authors suggest there was some replacement of the British by the Anglo Saxons but modern Genetics is refuting this. As put forward in Stephen Oppenheimer books. Personally Im not upto date with the latest Italian writers however I would imagine the situation will be similar and Charles Martel is saying the same thing and he does appear to be more much up to date and is quoting more recent studies than either you or Onedreamer.

Anyway according to wikipedia Procopius wrote two sets of histories the official and the secret history. Therefore even he is saying that not everything in the official histories is true.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 09:23 AM
Then why didn't they call themselves italians, and didn't call their state "Senatus Populusque Italicus"?

For the same reasons that England isnt called Saxony.

Or that Scotland isnt called Pictland anymore.

They named the state after the dominate group in that culture.

Ie Scotland could have had several names ie Pictland, alba, Caledonia. However around 1000 AD the gaelic speaking scots (orginally a term for Irish) were in the ascendancy. The kingdom became known as scotland and the name stuck.

scu98rkr
Oct 02, 2009, 09:27 AM
This comes back to my original point although you and onedreamer know something about Italian history and culture. Both of you do not seem to realise how diverse cultures are in other areas of the world. Therefore you assume that Italy is somehow a more complex and special example than other cultures when it is not.

Although I agree CIV is somewhat eurocentric. If Martians came to earth they would probably have CIV's Europe, China, India, Persia, Middle East, Africa etc etc

Charles Martel
Oct 02, 2009, 09:49 AM
the whole city of Milan was...emptied. All the male population was killed; women and children were sold as slaves. Procopius from Caesarea described these times.

Milan was besieged and sacked in 539, but it cannot be true that it was entirely razed to the ground, for a number of Roman buildings and structures, and the city itself, were still standing when the Lombards conquered it in 569 (we know this because the Lombards used those buildings).

It is not true that all the male population was killed: the garrison, for example, was spared (Procopius himself says so). Procopius claims that 300,000 males were slain, but no contemporary historian actually believes it, that number is incredibly high! A more accurate estimate is that some tens of thousands were either killed or enslaved.

So, yes: There was a nasty war going on, and Milan was sacked and lot of people were massacred or captured. But this is still a far cry from showing that an entire civilization was destroyed only to be replaced by a new one.

Pirenne justified his thesis with the sudden break of commerce after the rise of Islam. This is proven untrue by Arab sources that prove that commerce kept flourishing even in a divided Mediterranean

I don't think that this was the only (and not even the main) justification of Pirenne's thesis. There are a great deal of things that Pirenne has to say that can't have been possibly disproved by the Arab sources you mention.

Incomplete statement. ....and it was later extended to all the Empire

I don’t see how further extension of Roman citizenship is supposed to show that Romans did not “consider themselves Italians.” If anything, it shows that the concept of “Roman citizen” (as opposed to “inhabitant of Italia”) lost even more its original significance.

Before that, Goths and Romans lived in peace for a short period (under Theodoric), but didn't mix up as you (Charles Martel) were saying

The Goths belonged to the Arian Christian aristocracy whereas most Romans were Chalcedonian Christians. So, yes: from a religious point of view, they "didn't mix up", at least initially. But: i) There was, under the Ostrogoths, and unusually high degree of religious tolerance which led to progressive integration. ii) The Ostroghots adopted most Roman laws and traditions, and maintained Roman institutions, including the Senate, iii) Their rulers kept Roman intellectuals as main political advisors. So I think it's fair to say that, ultimately, the Goths did not create a distinctively new culture, and, despite the initial religious differences, they were gradually and progressively assimilated into Roman culture.

ZachScape
Oct 02, 2009, 08:38 PM
I'm starting to lose my patience with you guys. You're like shouting at the top of your... umm... keyboards about a topic that is irrelevant to this thread!

I don't care if Italy=Rome
I don't care about modern Greece or Babylon, or Egypt, or Persia or whatever!!!

This thread is about a mod for Italy. Not a history of it!

Now I can wait as long as it takes for the mod to be made, but I can not wait for you guys to stop your pointless bickering! [See Spoiler]
229798

Now, would you guys STFU about the history or GTFO, because I, along with other members of this forum, would like to have an Italy mod for 600 AD.

Thanks for the history lessons, all of you. Now let's get to work. Is anyone willing to help?


Long story short!:
No more about the history of Italy.
Start discussing the basics of the mod: getting the assets from the link in the OP to the RFC sub folder. You can also make Stability maps, war maps, settler maps, and city name maps. The balancing, the UP and UHVs will come last.

Flame me all you want about me typing all of the above, but it was needed. All of you are getting VERY frustrated... as am I!

fireclaw722
Oct 02, 2009, 09:17 PM
I'm starting to lose my patience with you guys.

Now, would you guys STFU about the history or GTFO, because I, along with other members of this forum, would like to have an Italy mod for 600 AD.

Long story short!:
No more about the history of Italy.
Start discussing the basics of the mod: getting the assets from the link in the OP to the RFC sub folder. You can also make Stability maps, war maps, settler maps, and city name maps. The balancing, the UP and UHVs will come last.

Flame me all you want about me typing all of the above, but it was needed. All of you are getting VERY frustrated... as am I!

I thought I was the only one who was going to say anything:).
Now let's get to work. Is anyone willing to help?

I would love to help. I also got an "Rome to Italy" Dynamic names TXT file posted below(These are ENGLISH only).

onedreamer
Oct 03, 2009, 02:56 AM
As a matter of fact, I have just quoted two contemporary Italian historiographers (and also gave my own translation, which apparently you didn’t bother to read). Form this and your other remarks it’s clear that you are replying to my posts without even trying to understand what I’m actually saying.

So we have come to this point where when one part is left without arguments, it starts with baseless accuses . I have read and replied to that translation, it was not a study about what *really* happened with the barbaric invasion, it was a study on a -wrong and updated- thesis of what might have happened. There is a big difference. I do understand what you say but you are too blind to see that you are wrong and you are yet again without any historian backing up your thesis.

But then, I wonder, why do you insist that I quote only contemporary historians? What’s wrong, for example, with Muratori?

Because it's wrong and outdated. He didn't have half the elements we have today. I already explained it (again).

You feel strongly that “Romans are not Italians”. But that’s not how many Medieval and Risorgimento Italian intellectuals actually felt.

So now you come to twist my words also. Well done... (but it was Italians aren't Romans, as we all know).

In an earlier post, for example, you denied that Risorgimento Italians needed to look at ancient Rome for an inspiration.

What ?? I said the exact contrary. Who is it that doesn't even understand what the other is writing ?

Everything that you wrote in the above paragraph shows a systematic misunderstanding of my main points. For example, I never said that “Italy in 600AD was an homogenous entity”, nor does it follow from my view.

And I never said you said it, or can you quote I did ?

Right. So, having elected yourself as the forum’s spokesperson, you now state that you have no interest in this discussion. So what is the point of your increasingly hostile replies?

I have no interest to discuss with a wall.

For the Romans, the state is ROME, not Italy.

Nevermind Rhye, let's just say that at least contemporary Italians know this. There isn't much to be happy of my people nowadays, and even such a small point looks like... something.
ROMA caput mundi
All roads take to ROME
ROMAN Empire
ROMAN Republic

And like I already said, the term Italia predates the Romans. The Greek called (the south of) the peninsula Italia, not the Romans.

@Zach. My last comment, I owe you >_>

Heathcliff
Oct 03, 2009, 03:27 AM
So what is the consensus?

Do you think Rhye and Onedreamer lives in the country where Julius Caesar and Cicero once lived?

Charles Martel
Oct 03, 2009, 05:44 AM
So we have come to this point where when one part is left without arguments, it starts with baseless accuses.

Well, in this thread you have already compared me to Mussolini and Saddam Hussein, so, yes: there have been some "baseless accusations" going on. But, please let’s refrain from the flamish replies, and let’s concentrate on the actual arguments and sources. As a matter of fact, I have already given several arguments and bibliographic evidence, including contemporary sources. Now that I have satisfied your request to give my sources, I am waiting to hear more about yours.

I have read and replied to that translation, it was not a study about what *really* happened with the barbaric invasion, it was a study on a -wrong and updated- thesis of what might have happened. There is a big difference.

Why do you think that the contemporary study I’ve quoted is about a “wrong thesis”? And why do you think that the passage I have translated does not count as a relevant source? So far you have only said that Muratori’s view is “wrong” and “outdated”, but you have said nothing to justify that criticism. No doubt some aspects of Muratori’s work are somewhat old-fashioned, but that doesn’t mean that his whole work has become unworthy of attention. On the contrary, I think he has given strong evidence and arguments for the sort of continuity view I have been arguing for all along. At any rate, I found his Germanist approach to be much more plausible that the rival Romanist view.

I would also like to make a more general point to explain why I think that Muratori and other historians from his age are relevant. I don’t think that a question like “Are ancient Romans Italians?” has a definite answer from an historical point of view. It’s not a well-posed historical question with a clear meaning. A better, more meaningful question is: “Did Italians ever regard ancient Romans as fellow countrymen?” To establish an answer to that sort of question we need to engage in historiography, so, in that respect, the views of past Italians historians are crucial and shouldn’t be quickly dismissed as “outdated”.

So now you come to twist my words also. Well done... (but it was Italians aren't Romans, as we all know).

You did say: “The Romans aren't the Italians.” (I am quoting you word by word, same as I did earlier, so I really cannot see how you can seriously accuse me of having “twisted your words”). Now, that statement is not as uncontroversial as you seem to think it is. Most renowned Italian intellectuals, from Petrarch to Risorgimento thinkers, believed the exact opposite.

What ?? I said the exact contrary. Who is it that doesn't even understand what the other is writing ?

You did put to me the following rhetorical question: “Do you think that the feeling of indipendence and unity of Italian people in the 19th century needed to look at the Romans to have an inspiration?”. To which my answer is “Yes, of course!” The fact that, during the Risorgimento, characters such as Scipio were widely regarded as inspiring figures, only reinforces that my point that Risorgimento Italian took ancient Romans to be fellow Italians.

And I never said you said it, or can you quote I did ?

Here’s is the quote: ”you consider Italy in 600AD as an homogenous entity when it was actually all the contrary”. (again, I am quoting your post word by word). I assume that the pronoun “you” was referred to me. So, here is the exchange so far:

You: “You consider Italy in 600 AD as a homogeneous entity”
Me: I never said that Italy in 600 AD was a homogeneous entity!
You: “I never said you said it.”

I have no interest to discuss with a wall.

You are not interested in this discussion? What is your point then? I’m not a “wall” (please, avoid this kind of personal accusations). I very much like historical debates, and I'm open to discussing any kind of source you or others may care to quote.

Nevermind Rhye, let's just say that at least contemporary Italians know this

Do they? What makes you so certain about that? So now it turns out that you are also the spokesperson for all contemporary Italians. :)

Even if contemporary Italians “knew” that ancient Romans were not Italians (I very much doubt that most Italians would claim that they “know” such a thing) that’s not what many Medieval and Risorgimento Italians actually believed, and I’ve already given sufficient evidence to show this. In that respect, Petrarch’s work is especially significant and influential, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it as “thin air and poems”.

TDK
Oct 03, 2009, 06:43 AM
What does the Italian schoolbooks have to say on this topic? Wipe-out or assimilation?

Martell, I have enjoyed the sources you have quoted, and I find them completely legitimate. It is not often one sees primary sources presented so well in this realm of Internet debate.

Rhye
Oct 03, 2009, 08:07 AM
Alright, I'm quitting from this discussion, cause we're hijacking the thread, but though I'm tempted, I won't open a new one, cause I see more arguing pointless.
Don't take offence, Charles Martel, if you're labeled "a wall": it's not an insult, it's just a common italian metaphore to mean that someone doesn't listen. I'm sure onedreamer didn't mean to offend you.

Indeed, my attempts too have been useless, cause for instance, the evidence i brought (Romans not willing to share privileges, and later extending citizenship not only to Italy, but to the rest of the empire) was turned somehow into a proof of the contrary, cause my words were changed (I never said Milan was sacked, I said it was emptied), and cause my own sources (Procopius) were considered "unlikely" without the counterproofs other than opinions.

To answer your questions: yes, all italians share mine and onedreamer's opinion on this matter. We are taught that way in our history books. Maybe we may see differences bigger than they are, but we actually study Roman history in depth, thus for sure we know what we are talking about.

That said, this was my last post on this argument on this thread. Please let's not hijack anymore.

Charles Martel
Oct 03, 2009, 11:11 AM
Don't take offence, Charles Martel, if you're labeled "a wall": it's not an insult, it's just a common italian metaphore to mean that someone doesn't listen. I'm sure onedreamer didn't mean to offend you.

I do speak Italian and the expression “Sei un muro” (“you are a wall”) is indeed mildly derogatory. It means something like “you’re stubborn/pigheaded”. It is therefore a remark of a personal nature, targeted at the arguer and not the arguments. I am not “someone who doesn’t listen”. I am more willing to listen to what people have say on the subject. (Anyway, I am not offended by that. I found it much more offensive being compared to Mussolini just because I happen to believe that there is a fairly strong continuity from Late Antiquity Rome to Early Medieval Italy.)

Indeed, my attempts too have been useless, cause for instance, the evidence i brought (Romans not willing to share privileges, and later extending citizenship not only to Italy, but to the rest of the empire) was turned somehow into a proof of the contrary.

I just wondered why, in your view, further extension of Roman citizenship should undermine my argument. My argument was that the Romans did not always distinguish sharply between themselves qua Romans and other inhabitants of Italia. This is all the more true in Late Antiquity, after citizenship was further extended to all freemen within the empire. Also, Italia had a unique status (which it partly preserved even in the Late Empire): Italia was never officially a province, like those, say, in Gallia or Hispania, but was treated as the very territory of the city of Rome, both from a juridical and administrative point of view. I'm sorry if all of this gives you the impression of turning your "evidence in a counterproof", but, as you can see, I am not merely contradicting you, I am positively arguing for my own views.

cause my words were changed (I never said Milan was sacked, I said it was emptied), and cause my own sources (Procopius) were considered "unlikely" without the counterproofs other than opinions.

Milan was indeed sacked (or “emptied”, if you prefer, I don’t think that this particular choice of words is what really matters here). Procopius, however, wildly exaggerates the destruction caused by the sack of Milan, and I have already explained why this is so. It would be unfair to say that this is just my opinion against Procopius's "facts". Not everything in Procopius's accounts need to be blindly trusted as factual. Since you want even more counterproof, I will cite J B Bury’s influential book, History of the Later Roman Empire (MacMillian & co), who explains in more detail why and to what extent Procopius’ accounts of the Gothic wars is not wholly reliable. (The following is a sample quote from Bury’s book: “150,000 is given by Procopius as the number of Ostroghots who besieged Rome in AD 537. This can be shown from the circumstances to be incredible.”)

To answer your questions: yes, all italians share mine and onedreamer's opinion on this matter.

I don’t think that all contemporary Italians share either yours or onedreamer’s opinion on the matter. I don’t even think that most Italians have any definite opinion as to whether "Julius Caesar is Italian" or not. If you ask the layman that sort of question he'd probably be baffled and go like: "What do you mean?" And even if all contemporary Italians somehow came to believe that Julius Caesar was definitely not Italian, that would hardly coincide with the belief of a great deal of Medieval and Risorgimento Italian thinkers.

We are taught that way in our history books.

That is true only to an extent. For example, the idea that the Roman civilization was destroyed by the barbarian invasions only to be followed by the “void” of “gap” of the Dark Ages is taught by scuola elementare (primary school) and scuola media's (middle school) schoolbooks. But the schoolbooks used in, say, Liceo Classico or Scientifico (secondary education) are usually more sophisticated, and introduce the contrast between discontinuity and continuity views I have been talking about. In fact, most Liceo schoolbooks I know of tend to favour the continuity view. (Once we get at University level, of course, everything gets much more detailed. From my personal experience I have found that many contemporary Italian Medievists tend to adopt continuity approaches, and that is likely to influence the way they teach the subject to undergraduates).

ZachScape
Oct 03, 2009, 11:53 AM
Seriously Charles!!! <snip>
I hope this doesn't hurt our friendship

And thank you Rhye and OneDreamer.
I hope these weren't your last comments on this thread though. You're help on this minimod;) would be very much appreciated.

Pottery
Oct 03, 2009, 12:37 PM
Charles Martel, I have much enjoyed the debate so far and I think that at the end of the day you are essentially right. But it's probably a waste of time to reply to the angry posters. Some posters can get quite vocal but aren't that much interested in history, let alone historiography! If I were you I'd ignore the angry posters. After all, this is only a gaming forum and you cannot expect to engage in a detailed historical discussion with any civfanatic who doesn't agree with you.

ZachScape
Oct 03, 2009, 12:46 PM
Pottery, I hope what you said was a joke. Not about him being right, but the angry poster stuff. Nobody who is arguing with him is angry. Just the people trying to get him to shut up on this topic unless he is discussing the mod.

usi
Oct 03, 2009, 01:27 PM
Actually, the debate did become informative, and I kinda appreciate both sides.
But at least I don't like some comments like "STFU." That's not a very...

ZachScape
Oct 03, 2009, 01:37 PM
I know. I realised I would have offended people. But I was like that little guy in the corner that when he does talk, gets ignored. So I said something explosively so people would pay attention. I mean, I have been trying to calm people down the entire thread, which got really big. 200 out of 205 posts so far have been about history, which wasn't needed on the thread.
I didn't mind reading the history, especially seeing two points of view, but I'd rather see it somewhere else.

Now when I tried to hush them down last page, Ondedreamer and Rhye said they would stop, but Charles kept on going. It was a slap on the face, really. And although typing "stfu" was a little much, it was needed. I'm sorry to offend you. Know that I neither think little of you, Charles, nor do I dislike you, but you (along with others) became a pain on this thread... (a) very knowledgeable pain(s).

I'm just frustrated, and I'm sure people understand. Out of 500+ posts, this was the first time I have done this (lose my temper in text. I usually just yell at the computer like this kid (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=yIq&q=youtube&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv&start=0#q=crazy+german+kid&hl=en&emb=0&client=firefox-a)).

fireclaw722
Oct 03, 2009, 01:39 PM
Come on, after 11 pages of arguing I'd think that this "debate" would get old by now.:shake:

blizzrd
Oct 04, 2009, 02:44 AM
I must say that I am impressed with this thread, even if it is now heading back on topic.

In 11 pages of circular argument, there were nine mentions for Korea but no mentions of Ukraine? What is going on people?

:eek: :crazyeye: :mischief: :confused:

scu98rkr
Oct 04, 2009, 04:11 AM
I cant believe how rude some of you are being to Charles Martel, the STFU comment was well out of order.

Also I cant see how Charles has gone off target the original point of this thread is are italy deserving of their own civilization in the 600AD start and I think charles has quite comprehensively shown that italy and rome are the same civ.

The reason that he has not agreed to end the argument is that he has repeatably backed up his opinions with sources in organised and coherent manner where as some other posters only come back is ok lets call an end to this.

Right if you want to get back to what to do to the game I would suggest that if any official changes are to be made then we really need to keep in mind the 3000BC start rather then the 600AD start which I see as more of a scenario. If the changes are going to unofficial ie a ModMod why doesnt the person who suggested it just get on with it ?

Hence I would suggest the dynamic naming system some how needs to keep in mind the number of respawns. Ie first spawn of italian CIV known as Romans second or more spawns known as Italy.

This would also be of great advantage to several other CIVs ie Perisa first spawn Persian, Second Parthians, Third Sassinids etc etc etc to Iranians. Babylonia to Iraq.

Or some how the dyanmic naming system links the spawn date to the calendar date to choice how to name the CIV.

As mentioned in another thread a larger number of leaderheads would also be of use.

The only Civ this leaves this are Aztecs, Incas and Maya. Personally Im not sure what this respawned CIVs are meant to represent. Are they meant to represent the Indepedance of Colonies ie Mexico, Peru, Guatamela/Belieze or something else.

These Civ are radically different from thier parent CIV and although there is some cultural continuarity. For instance unlike the italians who dont speak german and arent arians these CIV's have taken on the conquerors languages and religion ie spanish and christainity (catholism).

Possibly these CIV's could do with new UU/UB/UP.

Sandry
Oct 04, 2009, 04:31 AM
I only want to say this: I am italian and I do NOT share Rhye’s opinion on this argument. I respect a lot Rhye for his great mod but I think that his opinion on Italy's history after the barbaric invasions is a bit simplistic. Rhye you are a great modder but please do not pretend to speak in the name of all italians. :) I hope I will not offend anyone... this is only my humble opinion.

scu98rkr
Oct 04, 2009, 04:42 AM
Yes obviously this is another point it is Ryhe's mod he's done some great work.
If he chooses to do something then frankly in the end its his choice whether its right/wrong or with the community or against.

Bonci
Oct 04, 2009, 05:26 AM
Also I cant see how Charles has gone off target the original point of this thread is are italy deserving of their own civilization in the 600AD start
here is where you are wrong :)
this thread is about creating a modmod that adds Italy for the 600AD start...Zach never asked if Italy deserves it or not...

ZachScape
Oct 04, 2009, 10:04 AM
I cant believe how rude some of you are being to Charles Martel, the STFU comment was well out of order.

Some of you? It was just me. Everyone was debating with him properly, probably mumbling to themselves at the computer about how EACH person thought the other was a "wall". I didn't say shut up to his points, but to the debating all together. And I only said it to him because he is the only one who didn't wrap his argument up. He wouldn't stop. He just kept going "like the itty-bitty energizer bunny from hell."* He deserved what I typed, possibly even more than.


Also I cant see how Charles has gone off target the original point of this thread is are italy deserving of their own civilization in the 600AD start and I think charles has quite comprehensively shown that italy and rome are the same civ.

This is where you are both wrong. This thread was about MAKING a mod for Italy, not DECIDING if Italy deserved their own civ. Whether or not he is right or wrong on if Rome=Italy doesn’t matter to me (well it does, but I am not going to take sides on THIS thread).


Right if you want to get back to what to do to the game I would suggest that if any official changes are to be made then we really need to keep in mind the 3000BC start rather then the 600AD start which I see as more of a scenario. If the changes are going to unofficial ie a ModMod why doesnt the person who suggested it just get on with it ?

For about 2 years, I would almost always play the 3000 BC start. I even went as far as deleting the 600 AD start from the folder to save room. But recently, 600 AD was all that I’ve been playing (I guess just a change of interest). So I suggested a playable version of Rome in the 600 AD start. There is enough diversity without one, and there is absolutely no reason to not replace Rome with Italy if you want a definite spawn (for 600 AD). It is just coding, not rewriting a whole $%&#ing text book; like what you (not just you and Charles, but a lot of people) made it out to be. Italy spawned in 1870 when it Unified. I don’t remember Rome unifying, do you? And we can pretend it is Rome, but the difference is replacing the four letters of R-O-M-E with I-T-A-L-Y. I don’t understand how that is so hard to understand. If you want more of an explanation of this, I will type one (but I warn you, I am very frustrated right now and I will jam it down your throat).


Hence I would suggest the dynamic naming system some how needs to keep in mind the number of respawns. Ie first spawn of italian CIV known as Romans second or more spawns known as Italy.
[and the very rest of your post]

Do you have any idea how easy this is? Now what you are probably thinking is to add it to the 3000BC start (which is a completely separate mod from 600 AD. 600 AD got rid of Celts and put the Byzantines in if that is enough evidence for you). Why can’t we just give Rome a makeover? And don’t get started with Greece or Babylon or Persia or Egypt, because I really don’t care (in this thread at least)! We are not rewriting history, just a wee-bit of the code! Why are you giving such a fight with this?!??


Now, I just want to discuss the mod!

And thanks Bonci.

And by now, I think I have a right to be frustrated! If you think I am normally like this, read all of my other 560 posts. Don't think I am an just because I'm getting fed up with a couple people on this particular thread.

[I]*gotta love the Tuturro quote

fireclaw722
Oct 05, 2009, 02:08 PM
Here's a few ideas.

I thought I was the only one who was going to say anything:).

UP:
Power of Italian Renniasance:
Great Person Points are doubled.



As for UHV's:

1.)Control Ethiopia, Libya, and Italy(if the core area would only be Rome) by 1920's
2.)Have Roma, or Rome, the most cultural city in Europe by 1970's(or should it be 1980's or 1990's)
3.)Control Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt by 1940's

blizzrd
Oct 05, 2009, 03:26 PM
And I only said it to him because he is the only one who didn't wrap his argument up. He wouldn't stop. He just kept going "like the itty-bitty energizer bunny from hell."*

I sympathise and agree with you Zach. <snip>

AnotherPacifist
Oct 05, 2009, 03:39 PM
I can say the same for myself and onedreamer. Hopefully both of us have matured enough. :D

TDK
Oct 06, 2009, 01:47 AM
Well, all ZachScape earned from me was the first entry on my ignore list. It's completely legitimate to discuss things like this, especially when Rhye participates and general principles in the mod are discussed. The title of the thread is just Italy, plain and simple, and the discussion clearly went in another direction than the OP suggested it should - so what? That the OP somehow sets the exact limits for what you can say in a thread is childish, especially when there is clearly more interest in discussing other things.

Throwing pearls to pigs...

blizzrd
Oct 06, 2009, 02:04 AM
It's completely legitimate to discuss things like this,
Not when you're asked not to, repeatedly. Not legitimate.

There were many requests to bring the circular discussions to an end and most (including Rhye) heeded those requests and wrapped up their arguments. Some did not.
especially when Rhye participates and general principles in the mod are discussed.

I fail to see how Rhye's involvement in an OT discussion makes any difference. At least Rhye was able to stop when enough was enough.

especially when there is clearly more interest in discussing other things.

Start your own thread if you want to "discuss other things".

You clearly acknowledge by this concluding comment that even you agree that the discussion was not on topic, but was "other things".

TDK
Oct 06, 2009, 02:35 AM
But now we are discussing "other things" again, including you! So why don't you STFU! See? It's like a small child with a VERY good idea sitting in the corner screaming.

bastillebaston
Oct 06, 2009, 03:05 AM
I totally agree with TDK. I can't believe that the flaming is still going on... where is the "report to the mods" button? At least I appreciated the discussion... up to the STFU! and I-slap-your-face! comments that ruined everything.

Let's lighten up guys! At least thanks to this thread we have gained precious insight into SIX DOGMAS OF RHYEISM :)

I. Romans are not Italians!

II. Holy Romans are Germans!

III Latin is like Japanese!

IV. Barbarians are like... aliens... but not quite, sort of...

V. Whatever Porcopius said is fact!

VI. None of the above is open to dispute... the heretic, he who "does not listen" shall be called "The Wall" :crazyeye:

And before any STFU bully jumps at me too... I’m just kidding to throw some water on the flames. :D

Mekajiki
Oct 06, 2009, 11:10 AM
>.>

lol

fireclaw722
Oct 06, 2009, 01:21 PM
Again, this isn't a history lesson but a modmod of adding Italy to RFC so to TDK:
When it's asked to be a mod it doesn't mean disscus history. I didn't really mind it when it took up 3 pages but now it's taking up 11 pages of this "Lesson in Italian History".
To everyone(thats helping) we should probably get to work on this modmod.

ZachScape
Oct 06, 2009, 01:49 PM
Thanks Blizzrd and Fireclaw.
Now TDK and Bastille- Try to understand this (not in a condescending tone, but how else would you say that? Another example of jumping to conclusions on a text based forum):
When on an internet forum, you can't yell. You type. When words at a size to font wont help, you make it bigger. STFU was a way to emphasize the meaning, that clearly wasn't getting through to some posters. Now I have repeatedly said that the STFU pointed towards Charles was not a childish whim, or a disagreement with his argument, but a way to get through to him (which so far worked). I have apologized in advance in case I hurt his feelings. And I am not 'banning' him from the thread, as I would appreciate anyone's input on the mod, but this thread wasn't asking if it should be made, but more 'let's work on it' with anyone interested. But instead, you probably ignored me before you read anything else...

Now if anyone wishes to ignore me, I do not mind, nor am I mad. However, because the above part of my post was directed to those that ignored me, I would appreciate if somebody would C&P that part of the post onto another.

dragodon64
Oct 06, 2009, 09:52 PM
I haven't actually participated in the discussion (I've been checking CFC before bed last couple of weeks, too tired to counter), but I certainly think that Charles, Onedreamer, Rhye and anyone else have the right to argue as much as they want. A thread doesn't belong to the OP, their discussion is hardly off-topic.

Unfortunately, the trend of shutting people up when they say complicated (that some find boring) things is virulent on internet forums. But, hopefully the greatest development in the history of free speech won't be too hampered by the annoyance of bystanders.

fetabobar
Oct 07, 2009, 02:01 AM
Unfortunately internet forums are the playground of childish screamers and attention seekers :(
please don't feed the trolls!

fireclaw722
Oct 07, 2009, 01:21 PM
I haven't actually participated in the discussion (I've been checking CFC before bed last couple of weeks, too tired to counter), but I certainly think that Charles, Onedreamer, Rhye and anyone else have the right to argue as much as they want. A thread doesn't belong to the OP, their discussion is hardly off-topic.

Unfortunately, the trend of shutting people up when they say complicated (that some find boring) things is virulent on internet forums. But, hopefully the greatest development in the history of free speech won't be too hampered by the annoyance of bystanders.

Free Speech is in a very complicated aspect of the World(mostly becuase,not to point anyone out, people don't know when they talked 'till they are annoying people).
Plus, If you want to listen to weather or not Italy deserves the modmod then make your own tread, If you want to help make this mod please use this thread, AND please refrain from talking about Italian histroy.

Thank You and let's get back to the completely origanal topic(Italy replaced as Rome in RFC as a Modmod)

blizzrd
Oct 07, 2009, 02:32 PM
For those who didn't already know, this is a quote from the Forum Rules v4.3:

"Your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply here."

ZachScape
Oct 07, 2009, 03:05 PM
Thanks again guys, you are officially my best friends on this forum.
But I find it funny that I am called a troll just because I typed a bad word, or I hurt someone's feelings. A lot on this forum are pretty uptight. Now when you go to AltHist, people curse at each other all the time, and insult them. But it is like that one post, the next post they are best friends, they get over it, and they appreciate the honesty.

And trolls are lurkers on a forum, that are just creepy and insult people on every turn, usually about a topic that does not apply to them. Yes, these people must go. But how am I in anyway a troll? 4 letters, and suddenly I am a troll. I have nearly 600 posts, and I challenge anyone of you to find even one of them that is disrespectful, besides 'that' one of course.

Once again, I did not attack him on a personal issue, or that I wanted him to agree that Italy should be a civ. He was so wrapped up in the debate, that he had to respond, not once again after my polite, courteous post, but twice! What in the world am I supposed to type? I have already done everything I could, in a polite fashion, which obviously wasn't working. So I stepped it up a notch. If any of you find that I was trolling, you really are way too sensitive (not the good kind).

Some of you find it that a thread can go off topic. While this is true, it should not turn into another topic. Probably a 20 post discussion, but this was a 200 post discussion! Now tell me that does not waste someone's time if they are looking for what the thread, not the OP, is about. Should I make a new thread? No. Should the discussion, especially such a raging one? Yes.

Now, I am tired of THIS discussion. We went from one to another, which shows OUR, not YOURs' short attention span. If anyone wants to create a topic that discusses how Charles was unfairly 'typed' at, be my guest. I am even more frustrated now, than when I was when I typed to Charles in the first place.

Now let us please, discuss the ITALY MOD.

Mekajiki
Oct 07, 2009, 07:20 PM
Why are you getting so worked up over the fact that people are calling you a troll? You had the momentum moving back towards the topic you wanted(creating the modmod) and you personally moved it back away into an entirely different discussion over trolling and whether or not you were justified.

This is an internet forum, stop caring about what other people here think of you and carry on the topic that you started this thread for.

fireclaw722
Oct 07, 2009, 08:08 PM
Things I've suggested previously.

Here's a few ideas.

I thought I was the only one who was going to say anything:).

UP:
Power of Italian Renniasance:
Great Person Points are doubled.



As for UHV's:

1.)Control Ethiopia, Libya, and Italy(if the core area would only be Rome) by 1920's
2.)Have Roma, or Rome, the most cultural city in Europe by 1970's(or should it be 1980's or 1990's)
3.)Control Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt by 1940's
Just in case no one saw it(wouldn't be to suprising).

bastillebaston
Oct 08, 2009, 03:07 AM
Already two pages of please-shut-up-and-refrain-from-talking-about-history :rolleyes: I disagree with people saying that history talk is off topic. Isn't alt history what RFC is all about? Personally I like to roleplay which means that I enjoy playing a civ more if I know some of their actual history.

@ Onedreamer, Charles, Rhye (when you are back from Japan) I appreciated your discussion it got me interested into playing as Italy. Do you know of any good history book (but not too thick!) that's available in English and covers all the basics for beginners like me?

Padma
Oct 08, 2009, 09:13 AM
Re-Opened.

Unfortunately internet forums are the playground of childish screamers and attention seekers :(
please don't feed the trolls!

Better yet, report problematic posts. We can't be everywhere at once. ;)

And now, lets cease the discussion of who's right, who's a troll, etc., and discuss the Italy Mod

fireclaw722
Oct 08, 2009, 01:31 PM
Another sugestion for the UP:

Power of Roman Civil War:
Units get +5 XP points until the Idustrial Era.


A UB idea:

Keep the Forum from the Romans and add:
and give the Italians the Rathus(since it isn't bieng used by any civ)


UU:

Condottiere:
Replaces Cuirassier
13 attack
2 movement
100 cost
Can flank attack cannon, trebuchet, and catapult
10% city attack

Dumanios
Oct 08, 2009, 01:45 PM
My Ideas
Italy
Spawns in 1750
Led by Benito Mussolini
UU:Bersaglieri(Replaces Rifleman,Starts with Guerrilla 1)
UB:Pizzaria(Replaces Granary,+1 :food:)
UHV Goals:
1: Defeat Ethiopia by 1900
2:Lose no cities until 1914
3:Rebuild the Roman Empire by 1960

blizzrd
Oct 08, 2009, 01:49 PM
My Ideas
Italy
Spawns in 1750
Led by Benito Mussolini
UU:Bersaglieri(Replaces Rifleman,Starts with Guerrilla 1)
UB:Pizzaria(Replaces Granary,+1 :food:)
UHV Goals:
1: Defeat Ethiopia by 1900
2:Lose no cities until 1914
3:Rebuild the Roman Empire by 1960

The issue with destroy Ethiopia by 1900 is that there is no guarantee that Ethiopia will exist to actually be destroyed in a 600AD start game. Only way would be a respawn before Italy's spawn, which relies on a lot of "what ifs" such as an unstable AI power conquering Aksum. Hardly certain to occur.

But I like the feel of the 3rd UHV that you have suggested.

ZachScape
Oct 08, 2009, 02:24 PM
Well, I'd rather use the units and buildings that are already available to us. And for the UP, I was thinking about something that would apply to Italy between the 1870s-1940s. Any suggestions bout that time period? (and they will spawn the industrial era, but keep brainstorming :goodjob: ).

Edit: I meant to post this after Fireclaw posted, but I clicked the wrong button and forgot about it. Give me time to read the others.

I like your UHVs, but I think it is more appropriate if they spawn in the 1870s. If they do spawn in the 1750s, the rifleman is a good UU as it is made, but too early for a 1870 spawn. And we have 2 options for a UB, from the link in the OP, but unless we can find something else already made...

BurnEmDown
Oct 08, 2009, 04:38 PM
Well then just change it to 2 or 3 cities in Ethiopia's area.

fireclaw722
Oct 08, 2009, 06:11 PM
a UP:
Suggestion for the UP:

Power of Roman Civil War:
Units get +5 XP points until the end of the Idustrial Era.


Also

Power of Italian Renneisance:
Tech penalty doesn't occur until the end of the Idustrial Era.


UB:
Keep Frorum and add:
Coleseum(Can change wonder to The Roman Coleseum)
Replaces Ampitheter
gives extra happiness
+2 XP


There is somebody who made an Italy in the New Civilizations Forum Section.

Bonci
Oct 08, 2009, 06:48 PM
so why have Italy as a different civ from rome and then give it a roman like UP? XD

also the renaissance is finished by the time Italy spawns...

let's think something more modern like:

The Power of the Resurgence
foreign cities with italian culture have a chance to flip peacefully

or

The Power of the Economic Miracle
+5/10% hammers and/or gold in every city after the discovery of plastic

or (as I already proposed in a different thread)

The power of the Cultural Heritage
+2 culture and +1 happines in every city

The power of the Opera
automatically build a Theater in every built or conquered city


for the UB

as already said

Pizzeria
replaces grocer and gives +1/2 happines

Museum
replaces i don't know what maybe library and gives +15/20% culture?

and for the UU

Carabiniere
if not a rifleman maybe an infantry or a marine that starts with garrison

Alpino
a rifleman that starts with guerrilla

Folgore (it's the name of the brigade (the one that resisted at El Alamein) but i don't find a better name)
replaces the paratrooper and starts with drill

dragodon64
Oct 08, 2009, 06:51 PM
I think the first thing to decide upon is spawn date:
1720 for Kingdom of Sardinia
1861 for Kingdom of Italy

I definitely support the prior option. Even though Sardinia's unification of Italy didn't start for a century after the given spawn date, 1860 is just too late to be fun. Achieving goals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when you start a few decades before the deadlines seems quite uninteresting in my opinion.

This brings up another point; how about spawning on Sardinia (with a navy, of course) as the Kingdom of Sardinia and having the first goal being the control of all Italy by 1860. The flip zone could include Piedmont and Savoy as well, although taking Savoy away from France may seem a little strange. A sizable spawn army would be needed to conquer and protect all of Italy.

I think controlling Italy should require at least 3 cities in Italy+Sardinia. Maybe add some of modern Slovenia and Croatia to that, since the kingdom did own that territory there. Coincidentally, that would also make the zone the same as the Roman spawn area.

Once all of Italy is unified, the name should change to the Kingdom of Italy, as it does with England to Britain. Italian Empire would be the next step.

Bonci
Oct 08, 2009, 06:54 PM
I like this idea very much :)

another idea for the UU:

Arditi
replaces Anti-Tank infantry
only has +50% vs armored
but has +100% vs machine guns

or maybe
start with commando
+50% vs armored and +25% vs machine guns

ZachScape
Oct 08, 2009, 07:05 PM
I like that dragondon64. That really works.
It fits in a Rifleman UU, and makes sense. So, how do you program a dynamic name for that anyways?

dragodon64
Oct 08, 2009, 07:25 PM
I actually think England's name is not based on ownership of Britain, but on total number of cities. IIRC, 4 cities on Britain, 0 on Ireland is still Kingdom of England, but after 1 additional city in South Africa, it became Kingdom of Great Britain. Rhye or some of the more senior players would likely know more about this, though.

Also, is there a way to make Roma the capital once it is conquered? Cagliari as the capital through the modern era seems bizarre. Although a clever human player would probably use the initial troops to conquer Roma immediately and avoid settling Sardinia altogether, we still have to look out for the bumbling AI.

Charles Martel
Oct 09, 2009, 02:18 AM
@ Onedreamer, Charles, Rhye (when you are back from Japan) I appreciated your discussion it got me interested into playing as Italy. Do you know of any good history book (but not too thick!) that's available in English and covers all the basics for beginners like me?

If you are looking for a primer, I'd recommend either one of the following:

• C Duggan, A concise History of Italy (Cambridge University Press Concise Histories)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-QXHhNRPB4QC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

• H Hearder & J Morris, Italy: A Short History (Cambridge University Press)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rm1e0nWo5N8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s

They're both clear and relatively short, and offer full coverage from the Roman Empire to the present day.

scu98rkr
Oct 09, 2009, 03:43 AM
This brings up another point; how about spawning on Sardinia (with a navy, of course) as the Kingdom of Sardinia and having the first goal being the control of all Italy by 1860. The flip zone could include Piedmont and Savoy as well, although taking Savoy away from France may seem a little strange. A sizable spawn army would be needed to conquer and protect all of Italy.

Im sorry I really did nt mean to but this post is just sooooo tempting.

So possible starting dates of

1720 for Kingdom of Sardinia
1861 for Kingdom of Italy

How about instead of spawning in the 1700's in Sardinia with a navy how about spawning in approximately 800AD in the north east of italy with a large navy and a couple of defensive units you could represent Venice and see if the reunification of Italy could have been achieved considerably earlier.

No No No, I 've got a better idea how about you spawn in 800BC in central italy with a navy and a couple of legions. You could represent which ever Italian power was paramount at that moment in history. You could then see how long you manage to last, its likely your'll manage to establish an empire but have some breakaway provinces.

dragodon64
Oct 09, 2009, 09:17 AM
I'm not very good at interpreting tone of voice on the internet, so I may be wrong, but you were mocking the Sardinian start time, correct?

I don't see what is so ludicrous about the unification of Italy taking place 100 years earlier, considering the Roman Empire (technically still the republic) expands in game far more than it should by 600BC, then remains roughly constant for several centuries unless the player dominates Carthage, Greece, etc. The same goes for Achaemenid Persia, England, Ottoman Turkey and a lot of other civs, i.e. they expand in game more right after their spawn that they did at that point in history.

When I said has a navy and a sizable army, I meant 1-2 Galleons and possibly a Frigate with 4-6 Rifles/UU, 3 or so Cannons, maybe a Grenadier. Not something that could overwhelm all of Europe in a few turns and monopolize the New World a few turns after that.

I apologize if I was incorrect in my interpretation of your post.

scu98rkr
Oct 09, 2009, 10:44 AM
I was nt particularly mocking your post per say. Its a fine idea.

I was just suggesting your argument for a earlier start date for Italy could be extended to an even earlier start date.*

* See the rest of the thread

Farsight
Oct 15, 2009, 05:59 PM
Power of the Opera:
Creates a Theater in every built or conquered city.
or
Power of the Architectonic Heritage(?)
+2 culture and +1 happiness in every city.

If you add both Italy and my Austria (UP: Patronage: +25% :gp: and/or :culture: given by all cultural buildings) to the game, I wouldn't be very surprised if the Industrial Age was one big culture race between Italy and Austria.

lorevok
Oct 17, 2009, 01:13 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Sicilies

:)

Charles Martel
Feb 21, 2011, 11:32 AM
All italians share mine and onedreamer's opinion on this matter.

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.

hoplitejoe
Feb 21, 2011, 01:31 PM
I swear there wasn't this many necros a month ago