Willowmound
Wordbug
With all due respect, that's a terrible start. Most of those cities belong to major civs.
City - states roster!
- Thread starter Ikael
- Start date
With all due respect, that's a terrible start. Most of those cities belong to major civs.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
This is the kind of stuff I had in mind when I was thinking city-states. So, for example, other possibilities of these "minor civilizations/nations" could include -
- Switzerland
- Nubia
- Swahili
- Uighurs
- Thailand
Stuff like that.
Andrew_Jay
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Messages
- 438
I agree with cybrxkhan, I doubt they literally mean "city states" as seen in Italy and Greece or just small countries. It will be minor civilizations much like the barbarian cities, just acting on their own and with diplomacy.
Iroquois
Scottish
Etc.
Iroquois
Scottish
Etc.
fireflames
Chieftain
Etowah, definitely. It's unequivocally the largest prehistoric settlement north of Mexico in North America.
I interpretted it to mean that the city-states would represent more minor civilizations, hence my suggestion of Cuba. I could be wrong though.
I wonder if it will be possible to move a minor civ out of City-State status by ceding them settlers and workers. Probably not.
I wonder if it will be possible to move a minor civ out of City-State status by ceding them settlers and workers. Probably not.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
It's not. Rome includes more than Italy and Italian culture includes stuff that happened after Rome fell. Legally, the Roman Empire was German and Greek later or the Papacy. Culturally, all of Europe wanted to be Rome. Practically, Rome fell in 476 (although, logically, it was in transition before that point). Either way, Italy represents something entirely different. Renaming Rome as Italy would do a disservice to the accomplishments of Rome (as well as having confused the people in Classic Rome who wouldn't necessarily have identified themselves as part of a unified Italian nation) and it honestly does a disservice to the Italian states and empires that followed.
i mean Italia isn't Rome but it is a successor of Roman Empire. Italia is founded as a confederation of city-states anyway and Rome between them was a successor of the old empire culturally. And the details you have specified don't prove against this.
I already told before that parts of Roman Empire else than Italy (which is Spain, Portugal, mid east, france, england, north africa etc) are already represented by many civs in the game. so no harm to understand Romans as Italians.
"culturally all of europe wanted to be Rome." major powers in history have always been a shining example of culture for the region they disappeared. regarding this, in late medieavel era, all of europe wanted to be france and/or napoleon allies. this is the same as what you say. and similarly, all east european states wanted to be USSR in some period.
"Roman was German and Greek legally." You know, most mediterrenean cities were Greek colonies in the beginning. And during immigration period, most germanic tribes changed place and some settled in today's Italia. So Italian peninsula was settled by Greeks and Germans in that period. So todays italia and roman empire in that era might also be successors of those people. Everyone knows this. And USA is a successor of new-world-settled Europeans, but it is still a seperate civ in the game.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Nothing fell in 476. This famous date has little real historical significance beyond the history of western historiography. The Roman Empire was pretty much as healthy (or unhealthy) in 477 as 475. And the crisis of Roman power in the West was decades before that.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I don't support a separate Italy. Yes, Italy is different from Rome, but the differences are no more than you'd expect from the intervals of time, and as this game last 6000+ years civilizations have to be expected to change. And yes, medieval Italian states were not the only sub-Roman "successor" states, but civ4 had Byzantium, which wasn't even a different state. So wtf is the medieval Rome supposed to be?
Two civs originating in Italy would be ridiculous. Believe it or not, the Renaissance in Italy does not have the significance most people think it did. If you'd put the peninsula under the Mediterranean in 1300 the history of the world probably wouldn't have been that different.
I realise of course this is about "minor civs" ...
Two civs originating in Italy would be ridiculous. Believe it or not, the Renaissance in Italy does not have the significance most people think it did. If you'd put the peninsula under the Mediterranean in 1300 the history of the world probably wouldn't have been that different.
I realise of course this is about "minor civs" ...
Lets hope they are related to resources, trade, knowledge, religion and so on and not only a city to occupy. If thats the case I would like to see City States like Samarkand, Genoa, Chichen Itza, Jerusalem, Mecca and the Greek City States.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Well, the United States is part of the same new world settlements by the British and then expanded. But to continue the analogy, no one would call the United States the successors to the Iroquois or Cherokee.
Well, it marks the longest period without an Emperor in the west (476 to 800). I was trying to pick a concrete date, not that it really matters. The point being that, by the time of Petrarch, people began to recognize they weren't living in the Roman Empire (certainly not the one of classic antiquity). I'm just trying to point out that Italy and Rome aren't synonymous.
Well, I'd personally argue for Venice as a civ over Italy (which, at the very least, is generic). But, at the very least, for a thread about which city states to add, it makes sense why an Athens or Sparta wouldn't be in. But something like Venice, which practically didn't exist when the Roman empire did should. That's the only real point I was trying to make in this thread.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Actually, the emperor was still sovereign in Italy nominally. Odovacer deposed RA on the orders of the eastern emperor. Justinian restored actual power in Italy, and although it receded again thereafter, the Romans kept a foothold in Italy until the fall of Bari in 1071.
Just to stress btw, the Pope's "appointment" of Charlemagne as emperor was done to replace the Empress Irene then reigning, not as a "revival" of the abolished separate Western empire.
Italians in the time of Petrarch constructed their own image of ancient Rome. It was important to them that they were the "real Romans". By that time, following the Fourth Crusade, nothing in the Mediterranean looked remotely like the old empire (Constantinople being by then pretty much a city-state).
Venice was a Byzantine trading port that gradually got independence, but stayed Roman long enough to benefit from certain privileges and be independent of the Holy Roman emperor's Kingdom of Italy.
RABicle
Chieftain
I think many people just have a very euro centric view of history and you can't blame them because it's taught like that in schools. I mean look at this thread, we're 30 posts deep and no one has mentioned Great Zimbabwe. Other oft-overlooked locations that could constitute 'city-states' include Polynesian islands like Tahiti and Mata-ki Te-rangi (a.k.a Rapa Nui, a.k.a Easter Island.)
It'll be interesting if they use this city states concept to deal with small modern nations/cities that have significance and influence. I'm thinking places like Panama, Montevideo, Amsterdam (Dutch vic in an expansion is far more likely) Brunei, Dubai, Seoul etc. Perhaps powerful cities with unique culture within your empire could break away? Civilization has never dealt with the concept of colonialism well and this could be a real chance.
Thorburne
Centurion
Well, Gamepro mentions Singapore already. As for others, I wouldn't mind Sparta, since it truly was a City-State, which is the same with most other Greek cities. Other mediteranean and middle eastern (maybe Jerusalem) city-states would be nice too. After all, many of them started out as City-states, more or less, and were later incorporated into the nearby growing empires. This could allow for some early game intrigue.
RABicle
Chieftain
... I don't think I've ever encountered Jericho in any game of Civ I've ever played.
lostcause
Aim to Misbehave
Is the GamePro article out already?
yes most posters look euro-centric to most cases.
whenever a thread about leaders, civs, city-states etc is created, europeon history starts to be discussed in this forum. and the topic is usually exploited.
for ex: i just said that city states should not be from todays' italy and greece because there are laready civs related with them in the game. romans for italy and greeks. we also have many european nations in the game as a civ.
so i expect generally other parts of the world to be in the game as a city-state.
i repeat my views on this; city states might be from
* mesopotamia and north african ancient city-states, if they will not participate as civs already. babylon, ur, uruk, sumeria, carthage, nubians etc.
* i also expect native american civ to be OUT and have many city-states instead of the civ. sioux, cherokee, iraquai etc.
* some shining cities of the earth which are coastal finance centers, tourism centers and/or strategic locations: hong kong, macao, singapore, bangkok, monaco, luxembourg, sydney, cape town, panama, dubai
and about rome's fall; well, IMO there is no need to discuss about the actual date of fall, because rome fell mostly (weakened terribly) during Attila's raids, last 20 years of Rome after Attila's raids were just the declining period. I don't say this to underestimate Rome, don't misunderstand me, last years of most empires are just like an old man who can only lie and breath.
whenever a thread about leaders, civs, city-states etc is created, europeon history starts to be discussed in this forum. and the topic is usually exploited.
for ex: i just said that city states should not be from todays' italy and greece because there are laready civs related with them in the game. romans for italy and greeks. we also have many european nations in the game as a civ.
so i expect generally other parts of the world to be in the game as a city-state.
i repeat my views on this; city states might be from
* mesopotamia and north african ancient city-states, if they will not participate as civs already. babylon, ur, uruk, sumeria, carthage, nubians etc.
* i also expect native american civ to be OUT and have many city-states instead of the civ. sioux, cherokee, iraquai etc.
* some shining cities of the earth which are coastal finance centers, tourism centers and/or strategic locations: hong kong, macao, singapore, bangkok, monaco, luxembourg, sydney, cape town, panama, dubai
and about rome's fall; well, IMO there is no need to discuss about the actual date of fall, because rome fell mostly (weakened terribly) during Attila's raids, last 20 years of Rome after Attila's raids were just the declining period. I don't say this to underestimate Rome, don't misunderstand me, last years of most empires are just like an old man who can only lie and breath.
Willowmound
Wordbug
Did anyone say Troy yet?
Hmm Troy is a good example.
No, I think noone mentioned Troy. I just suggested Hittites. In fact there were many ancient small kingdoms in Anatolia. Hittites are the largest of them. I think we should have Hittites as a city-state or a civ in the EPs.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
