Byzantine lobby for civ5

bestrfcplayer said:
Hey, the Byzantine Empire wasn't in CIV, but, was in BTS, so we'll just wait for the expansion packs in what, a year. So till then, let's wait.
Click to expand...

That's true, but keep something in mind:
Byzantium wasn't released until BTS. This means that they were considered less important than the others that were released in Warlords and Vanilla. Which included what? The Celts. The Aztecs. The Zulu. And when they did come, they were grouped with who? The Native Americans. The Maya. The Khemer. The Sumerians. The Byzantines were greater than each of these Civs (except possibly the Maya), and yet Firaxis didn't include them, even though they deserved a place in Vanilla along with Rome, Greece, and Arabia. And in ciV, there is Songhai and Siam, both minor civs that are probably just there to boost sales in south Asia. I don't mean to sound angry, but without the Byzantines, we would not be who we were. Christianity would be a tiny minority, western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist, and America would either be Arabic of Chinese. They made a HUGE difference.
 
EMT said:
What if Fireaxis ends up merging Byzantium into Rome this time around? Are you going to stick to your guns and keep this mod alive all the way to the last expansion? I guarantee you that if Fireaxis doesn't add Byzantium by the end in some form, your mod is going to end up merged with any other civ mods for civilizations that got left out for my personal use. :lol:
Click to expand...

As much as I hope that Byzantium will be recognized as it's own civ, I think you're right. Think of Civ Rev. The Roman UU was a Cataphract, which was never used by Rome as we know it but was a core part of some Byzantine Armies. If Firaxis makes Constantinople the second city for Rome and makes Justinian, Constantine, or Basil II a leader, I'll be fine. Sorry for the double post:blush:
 
Byzantine_1 said:
That's true, but keep something in mind:
Byzantium wasn't released until BTS. This means that they were considered less important than the others that were released in Warlords and Vanilla. Which included what? The Celts. The Aztecs. The Zulu. And when they did come, they were grouped with who? The Native Americans. The Maya. The Khemer. The Sumerians. The Byzantines were greater than each of these Civs (except possibly the Maya), and yet Firaxis didn't include them, even though they deserved a place in Vanilla along with Rome, Greece, and Arabia. And in ciV, there is Songhai and Siam, both minor civs that are probably just there to boost sales in south Asia. I don't mean to sound angry, but without the Byzantines, we would not be who we were. Christianity would be a tiny minority, western civilization as we know it wouldn't exist, and America would either be Arabic of Chinese. They made a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything except where you say that the Maya were comparable. The Incans were well beyond the Maya, but still not comparable to the Byzantines.
 
Byzantine_1 said:
As much as I hope that Byzantium will be recognized as it's own civ, I think you're right. Think of Civ Rev. The Roman UU was a Cataphract, which was never used by Rome as we know it but was a core part of some Byzantine Armies. If Firaxis makes Constantinople the second city for Rome and makes Justinian, Constantine, or Basil II a leader, I'll be fine. Sorry for the double post:blush:
Click to expand...

The Cataphract was indeed used by Roman armies- its first incarnation was a military unit called the 'Contarius', based off the use of the 'Kontos' lance sometime in the late first, or early second centruy- Trajan and Hadrian come to mind, but I'm not sure. They were at first your basic medium/light Roman auxiliary cavalry at first, but over time - as the prestiege of the cavalry arm grew, and as its importance on the battlefield came to the fore, would evolove into the classic cataphract (and clibinarii) that we all know and love after some much needed beefing up when faced against the Alans/Sarmatians/Steppe Empire of the week, and Sassanids.

:) Not to detract from the Byzantine being a civ used in an X-pack. I'm all for it, and am traditionally a very big proponent of such.
 
As a side note, my personal choices for leader would either be Alexios I Komnenos, or Basil II.

Even though I consider Heraclius the man who made Byzantium a distinct entity from the Eastern Roman Empire, and while it would be cool to have one of the guys who inspired Aragorn as a leader, its the former two who are really two of the big superstars of Byzantine history, and stress its medieval existence, and importance.

Also, regarding the 'Romanness' of the Byzantines- there was a general understanding that while Romans, they were fundamentally 'Greek' (Hellene) as well - but added to the mix was the 'Hellene' had connotations of Paganism, which to the devoutly christian Byzantines, was heresy, and so they generally shied away from it. They viewed themselves as the only proper inheritors of the Roman empire, to be sure -and were damn proud of it- but they were hardly so delusional as to not be able to see the writing on the wall of the Romannes of the Roman Empire who doth not control Rome.
 
Xen said:
Also, regarding the 'Romanness' of the Byzantines- there was a general understanding that while Romans, they were fundamentally 'Greek' (Hellene) as well - but added to the mix was the 'Hellene' had connotations of Paganism, which to the devoutly christian Byzantines, was heresy, and so they generally shied away from it. They viewed themselves as the only proper inheritors of the Roman empire, to be sure -and were damn proud of it- but they were hardly so delusional as to not be able to see the writing on the wall of the Romannes of the Roman Empire who doth not control Rome.
Click to expand...

It really comes down to how you define the Byzantine Empire. If you asked Constantine XI (the Last emperor), they were the Roman Empire. They would say Byzantine Empire was a small empire the Greek colony of Byzantion controlled before Rome.

I think that it began after the Lombard invasions of Italy. When no Roman Empire did or ever would have control over Rome, it became Byzantium.

That rules out Justinian as a Leader. Back on topic, Varwnos, Heraclius, Basil (1st or 2nd), Alexios Kommennos, or Romanos I Leprecanus would be the best choices.
 
In the custom leaderheads pack I put together, I added to Byzantium the following LHs:
Constantine
Basil II
Alexious I Komnenos

I know a lot of people don't like the idea of Constantine as the ruler, but that is an aside.

Komnenos and Basil II would be great choices.
 
The Byzantines should definitely not be in the civilization game for the following reasons:
1) Byzantium was a Greek empire, and it is still a part of the Greek history. So how can Byzantium play against Greece in a Game? It's rediculous... Could for excample USA play against florida?
2) The cities of Byzantium are found too in the Greek civ, with a little different name, like Salonika (Byzantium) and Thessaloniki (Greece). Its the same city. Its very anoying.
3)The nation who destroyed Byzantium, the Turks (Ottomans) have as capital Instampul, that is the same city, Constantinople, who is the Capital off the Byzantium, Whose name is in greek language the city of Constantin. So how can Byzantium fight against the Turks and in the same time against their com-patriots (the greeks)? We will find the same cities 3 times in the same game, with 3 different nations (civilizations)
4)The music that you hear when encountering Iustinian and who (the music) is something like the hymn of the Byzantium, is still being sang from the greeks nowadays
because it is in greek language. We greeks have writen this chant music and words when the godmother (is believed that) saved as from the Turks around 1400.
5) Most players play whith the same civ that represents their real nationality. So, ask your self, who whould like to play as a Byzantinian? The Greeks? As far as the Greek civ exist in the game, I prefer to choose the Greek civ. I could of course play as a Byzantinian but then I whould have (often) to play against Geece.

THANK YOU FOR NOT LETTING THE BYZANTINIANS IN THE NEW CIV!!
 
Mitsarakos said:
The Byzantines should definitely not be in the civilization game for the following reasons:
1) Byzantium was a Greek empire, and it is still a part of the Greek history. So how can Byzantium play against Greece in a Game? It's rediculous... Could for excample USA play against florida?
2) The cities of Byzantium are found too in the Greek civ, with a little different name, like Salonika (Byzantium) and Thessaloniki (Greece). Its the same city. Its very anoying.
3)The nation who destroyed Byzantium, the Turks (Ottomans) have as capital Instampul, that is the same city, Constantinople, who is the Capital off the Byzantium, Whose name is in greek language the city of Constantin. So how can Byzantium fight against the Turks and in the same time against their com-patriots (the greeks)? We will find the same cities 3 times in the same game, with 3 different nations (civilizations)
4)The music that you hear when encountering Iustinian and who (the music) is something like the hymn of the Byzantium, is still being sang from the greeks nowadays
because it is in greek language. We greeks have writen this chant music and words when the godmother (is believed that) saved as from the Turks around 1400.
5) Most players play whith the same civ that represents their real nationality. So, ask your self, who whould like to play as a Byzantinian? The Greeks? As far as the Greek civ exist in the game, I prefer to choose the Greek civ. I could of course play as a Byzantinian but then I whould have (often) to play against Geece.

THANK YOU FOR NOT LETTING THE BYZANTINIANS IN THE NEW CIV!!
Click to expand...
Interesting points, some of which I agree with on some level... but... mainly not.
1) The HRE Empire/Germany/France also have this going on. To say Byzantium was greek was correct, but to link it to the ancient greek civilization is not.
2) Again, this isn't the only time this has happened. This happens with Rome/France/Celts/England/Spain/Greece/etc. Londinium/London for example... Massalia/Marseille... Romans, way down their city list, aslo have Byzantium as a city.
3) This is really just a continuation of point 2.
4) Music choice is not that important. Regardless, the tune you are referring to, if I am not mistaken, is Christian singing in Greek, in the Byzantine/Orthodox monk styling. Correct me if I am wrong. This style was obviously not yet occuring in Ancient Greece.
5) I almost never play as my nationality (USA). In fact, I play with both Greece and Byzantium more often than I use America these days. A persons nationality could certainly influence the civs they pick, but I think a large enough number of people don't arbitrarily limit themselves like that.

That all being said, and the fact that 16 of 18 civs are currently decided which does leave the opportunity for the Byzantines to be a choice, which I hope they will be... I don't think they will be in the original release of Civ5. Hopefully, I am wrong!
 
The only thing I have against Byzantium being in Vanilla is that, like it or not, it's a continuation of Rome. It's like adding England and Britain, the Qin Dinasty and the Ming Dinasty, the Mughal Empire and British Raj, the Aztecs and the Mexicans(The Aztecs, coincidentally, called their empire the Mexica empire)(this one reflects it best IMO), etc.

Like the Aztecs-Mexicans, they have a break when they're unique from each other(more so in the Mexican-Aztec case), but they represent a geographic overlap, share a capital, and a good portion of the people are descendants of each other. They might be interesting in a separate release, but in the same expansion? It seems like generic filler. But in my (humble) opinion(Byzantine revanchists don't bite my finger off :eek: ), the Byzantines didn't really do anything from the point onwards where they are clearly not Rome anymore(Heraclius, IMO), they where just THERE. Similar to why we add modern India when any previous Indian empire would be much better. It fills up space nicely and lets us ignore any protests by saying 'look, it takes up so much space on the map!'. Great, Rome conquered all those territories that made Byzantium huge, Byzantium gradually lost them.
 
But in my (humble) opinion(Byzantine revanchists don't bite my finger off ), the Byzantines didn't really do anything from the point onwards where they are clearly not Rome anymore(Heraclius, IMO), they where just THERE.
Click to expand...
Goodness... get a byzantine history book brother.
 
No, it wouldn't. They weren't a vassal or colony of Rome during their obvious time span.
 
As much as I like the Byzantines, I have to say that seeing them in the Vanilla version of the game would be weird. They are a great expansion pack civ but for the initial release I would prefer to have civilizations representing most of the world and not simply Europe( this being said by an incredibly Euro-Centric person. LONG LIVE EUROPE:p). The Byzantines were important in many ways be it science, religion or defending Europe but they are the continuation of the Roman Empire, they even called themselves Romans.

So Firaxis should add them in the first Expansion pack and all will be fine.

P.S.: The Cataphract should be a Persian UU not a Byzantine one.;)
 
Depravo said:
Quite right... they WERE Rome during their entire time span. I was hasty in saying 'exactly'.
Click to expand...
See, the problem here is, only a few people agree with you, that they were Rome the whole time. If that is the position you are taking, I can't even debate with you because we don't even agree on definitions. I don't feel like arguing, again, about why they were different. It was posted before. If you refuse to take this basic starting point as a beginning concept to the debate, I cannot debate you... because every major historian that I have ever heard of considers them a separate entity...
 
kochman said:
See, the problem here is, only a few people agree with you, that they were Rome the whole time. If that is the position you are taking, I can't even debate with you because we don't even agree on definitions. I don't feel like arguing, again, about why they were different. It was posted before. If you refuse to take this basic starting point as a beginning concept to the debate, I cannot debate you... because every major historian that I have ever heard of considers them a separate entity...
Click to expand...

Name one major historian?

But Byzantium is a CONTINUATION of Rome, undeniably, making Byzantium filler in Vanilla. Ignoring all other reasons but this, Byzantium shouldn't be in Vanilla CiV, not to mention the overlap they would also have with the Ottomans(which I consider the Third Rome, I don't care squat what religion they followed or whether they called themselves that or not[coincidentally, they did, but no Christian ever recognized them as such])
 
As EMT said the Byzantines were a continuation of the Imperium Romanum, but as a Civilization they were a distinct entity. They were the medieval Greek-Roman Empire and they created large parts of what we consider Greek culture. They were a great civilization but putting them in the Vanilla game wouldn't be a good idea. We already have Rome, Greece and even the Ottoman Empire( which is the Muslim continuation of the Roman Empire). The Byzantines deserve to be in Civ5 but not in Vanilla, they should be added in the first or second Expansion pack. As much as I like the Byzantines ( they were my favourite civ in both Civ3 and Civ4), it would unjustified to have them in the Vanilla release and leave out Spain or Persia.

Also wasn't this thread about modding Byzantium in and not about whether they should or shouldn't be in Civ5?
 
kochman said:
See, the problem here is, only a few people agree with you, that they were Rome the whole time. If that is the position you are taking, I can't even debate with you because we don't even agree on definitions. I don't feel like arguing, again, about why they were different. It was posted before. If you refuse to take this basic starting point as a beginning concept to the debate, I cannot debate you... because every major historian that I have ever heard of considers them a separate entity...
Click to expand...

Funny, my impression was the exact opposite. Even in this thread, a rallying point for Byzantine separatists, opinions seem to be divided, among those who've shared them.

Where do you put the break? Diocletian? Constantine? Anastasius? Justinian? Herakleios? Leo? Isaakios Komnenos? 1204?

And if Byzantium, why not the various Indian or Chinese dynasties? Ancient and modern Egypt? There is no clear line of continuity at all between many of those.

Anyway, since we're arguing over each other it's probably time for me to withdraw from the thread. The OP's graphics are cool and I don't want to make it a flame war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sman1975
The Hundred Years War - Rise of the Black Prince (1337 - 1356 AD) -- An SMAN "Merlin" Scenario
Replies
9
Views
1K
sman1975
sman1975
rsc2a
(7a) VP Events Overhaul (Expansion Pack system)
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
APLion
A
Kurzov
Odd crash upon exiting game
Replies
1
Views
178
Kurzov
Kurzov
M
[PYTHON] Landmine Triggers
Replies
2
Views
431
Miuna
M
K
[BNW] How many cities is best for Immortal and large maps?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
consentient
consentient
Top Bottom