Historical Argument That Was In the Wrong Forum

[Kyriakos]

Isn't Sparta a separate "civ" from Athens in some of the games?
Which is also overkill, that is the type of thing which can be handled with leader traits imo.

 

[Patine]

Isn't Sparta a separate "civ" from Athens in some of the games?
Which is also overkill, that is the type of thing which can be handled with leader traits imo.

Yes, sometimes. But that has nothing to do with the Byzantines, who had next to nothing of meaning in common with Ancient Greece other than language. The comparison is moot, really.

 

[Kyriakos]

I wasn't suggesting Greece and the Byz Empire are to be one civ.
No point in diminishing the number of actually civilized sides ^^

 

[FishFishFish]

I still have this very strong idea that the Mughals have been represented in a Civ game before

Civ V had the "Mughal Fort" as a UB for India.

 

[pecheneg]

The Byzantines were even MORE different than the Ancient Greeks, language aside.

1. And what is the basis of this statement?
2. Actually, under this slogan (differences) it is possible to eliminate all civilizations in general. In the case of the England of the time of Crecy and the time of Victoria, there is not even an unambiguous linguistic unity ("Anglo-Norman French", etc.).

 

[Kyriakos]

It's certainly a hyperbole that "byzantines almost had nothing of meaning in common with ancient Greece".
It can be noted, by the way, that after 1204 there were explicit references to descent from ancient Greece, in rallying speeches (eg in the empire of Nicaea).
Also should be common knowledge that for a few centuries the term "greek" primarily meant "pagan", and byz sadly was very serious about religion.

 

[Patine]

2. Actually, under this slogan (differences) it is possible to eliminate all civilizations in general. In the case of the England of the time of Crecy and the time of Victoria, there is not even an unambiguous linguistic unity ("Anglo-Norman French", etc.).

Taking things to this extreme level seems a bit bizarre.

 

[pecheneg]

Taking things to this extreme level seems a bit bizarre.

There is a Russian idiom with a reference to a "creative" way to sing, using notes very selectively («we play here, we don't play here, we wrapped the fish here»).
In theory, it is still assumed that the allocation of individual civilizations is based on some more or less uniform rules.
At the same time
1. In the case of England, the same "Norman Empire" for some reason is considered part of the national mainstream. Although this is about the same as declaring the Seljuk state Persian. But worse – because the Seljuk Turks just instantly fell under the total influence of Persian culture and completely inherited the state tradition.
2. On the contrary, in the case of Byzantium, there is
a) ethnic continuity, and in all layers of society. At the same time, of course, the Greeks are not the only ethnic group in the empire, but definitely a system–forming
b) cultural continuity.
c) conspicuous mental continuity even at the most basic household level. For example, the Byzantines partially replaced the scandals on the agora with religious disputes, but the style of these disputes is unbearably reminiscent of something.
In fact, the only significant difference between the reference Greece and Byzantium is a very different state/social tradition. However,
1. According to this principle, all European civilizations and Japan disappeared during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. For reference feudalism is a very deviant form of social organization.
2. The problem is that the "reference" ancient Greece is in reality several trade and craft policies in Central Greece (Athens, Megara, Corinth). Already right outside the border of Attica, more conservative guys with aristocracy and dependent peasants began, kings lived 150 km in a straight line from Athens. And both from the south and the north.
At the same time, conservative northern autocracies are at least 2/3 of the territory of Greece.
This is a classic period. The Hellenistic period is, firstly, an epoch literally created by the tsarist-aristocratic Macedonia. Secondly, within its framework, states where there was an absolute minority of Greeks in general are calmly considered Greek. Thirdly, the idiotic theory "the Byzantines are not Greeks, because the emperor, etc." is elementary broken if you look at the Hellenistic monarchies.
However, in the case of Byzantium, fish are being wrapped up with might and main.

 

[Patine]

There is a Russian idiom with a reference to a "creative" way to sing, using notes very selectively («we play here, we don't play here, we wrapped the fish here»).
In theory, it is still assumed that the allocation of individual civilizations is based on some more or less uniform rules.
At the same time
1. In the case of England, the same "Norman Empire" for some reason is considered part of the national mainstream. Although this is about the same as declaring the Seljuk state Persian. But worse – because the Seljuk Turks just instantly fell under the total influence of Persian culture and completely inherited the state tradition.
2. On the contrary, in the case of Byzantium, there is
a) ethnic continuity, and in all layers of society. At the same time, of course, the Greeks are not the only ethnic group in the empire, but definitely a system–forming
b) cultural continuity.
c) conspicuous metal continuity even at the most basic household level. For example, the Byzantines partially replaced the scandals on the agora with religious disputes, but the style of these disputes is unbearably reminiscent of something.
In fact, the only significant difference between the reference Greece and Byzantium is a very different state/social tradition. However,
1. According to this principle, all European civilizations and Japan disappeared during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. For reference feudalism is a very deviant form of social organization.
2. The problem is that the "reference" ancient Greece is in reality several trade and craft policies in Central Greece (Athens, Megara, Corinth). Already right outside the border of Attica, more conservative guys with aristocracy and dependent peasants began, kings lived 150 km in a straight line from Athens. And both from the south and the north.
At the same time, conservative northern autocracies are at least 2/3 of the territory of Greece.
This is a classic period. The Hellenistic period is, firstly, an epoch literally created by the tsarist-aristocratic Macedonia. Secondly, within its framework, states where there was an absolute minority of Greeks in general are calmly considered Greek. Thirdly, the idiotic theory "the Byzantines are not Greeks, because the emperor, etc." is elementary broken if you look at the Hellenistic monarchies.
However, in the case of Byzantium, fish are being wrapped up with might and main.

I have not observed such strict, unifrom conventions are adhered to in suggestions for new civ's (or even Firaxis' own choices). This seems to be based on a system desired to be unilaterally superimposed by yourself, presented, falsely, as though it already were a fait accompli and consensus.

 

[pecheneg]

or even Firaxis' own choices). This seems to be based on a system desired to be unilaterally superimposed by yourself, presented, falsely, as though it already were a fait accompli and consensus.

Hmm. That is, you have not noticed that, with the rarest exceptions, civilizations in the "Сiv" are distinguished by ethnicity?Tell me, how did you manage it? You've obviously been training for a long time?
Moreover, in the case of the same "Venetian" exception, one can only talk about exclusion with a gigantic stretch.

 

[Patine]

Hmm. That is, you have not noticed that, with the rarest exceptions, civilizations in the "Сiv" are distinguished by ethnicity?Tell me, how did you manage it? You've obviously been training for a long time?
Moreover, in the case of the same "Venetian" exception, one can only talk about exclusion with a gigantic stretch.

I was referring to the point differing civ's that speak the same language and have similar origins often branch off at different points and by different standards, both by suggestions by posters here, and Firaxis' own choice, and is not strictly beholden to the, "one ethno linguistic group, one civ," non-existant rule you claim is soldily in place with, "the rarest exceptions.". This may not have been noticed by you?

 

[pecheneg]

I was referring to the point differing civ's that speak the same language and have similar origins often branch off at different points and by different standards,

In fact, with the exception of Byzantium, there is exactly one standard - the SIMULTANEOUS existence of states within the same culture. By the way, having a rather distant relation to the ethnic group as such.
And this is really meaningful, in contrast to the delusional cutting on a stadium basis in the case of Greece/Byzantium.
At the same time, the similar origin of the same Brazilians with the Portuguese is a damn strong statement, given that there are less than half of all whites in Brazil, and the Portuguese are clearly less than half of this half. I strongly recommend that you also look at the data on the origin of the US population – it is so Anglo-Saxon that it is extremely strange that all these guys speak English.

"one ethno linguistic group, one civ," n

Excuse me, but where did I mention the "ethnolinguistic group" at all, and even demanding to completely unite it? If this is how you deciphered the "ethnic trait", then I have VERY bad news for you.
At the same time, explain how the existence of, for example, two Chinese states in the role of separate civilizations will contradict ethnicity as such? Suddenly, elementary logic suggests that the "national sign" is fully present here. He's just not the only one.

By the way, your position has evolved over several posts from "Byzantium is terribly different from Greece in objective terms," to "there are no rules." How did you manage to develop such flexibility?

 

[Patine]

In fact, with the exception of Byzantium, there is exactly one standard - the SIMULTANEOUS existence of states within the same culture. By the way, having a rather distant relation to the ethnic group as such.
And this is really meaningful, in contrast to the delusional cutting on a stadium basis in the case of Greece/Byzantium.
At the same time, the similar origin of the same Brazilians with the Portuguese is a damn strong statement, given that there are less than half of all whites in Brazil, and the Portuguese are clearly less than half of this half. I strongly recommend that you also look at the data on the origin of the US population – it is so Anglo-Saxon that it is extremely strange that all these guys speak English.



Excuse me, but where did I mention the "ethnolinguistic group" at all, and even demanding to completely unite it? If this is how you deciphered the "ethnic trait", then I have VERY bad news for you.
At the same time, explain how the existence of, for example, two Chinese states in the role of separate civilizations will contradict ethnicity as such? Suddenly, elementary logic suggests that the "national sign" is fully present here. He's just not the only one.

By the way, your position has evolved over several posts from "Byzantium is terribly different from Greece in objective terms," to "there are no rules." How did you manage to develop such flexibility?

I have noticed no stringent and consistent standard by which almost all suggestions on these forums and Firaxis choices of civ's have been solidly, and I will not start adhering, strictly to this non-existant convention you have arbitrarily declared out of nowhere for unknown reasons. I feel no further need to debate this pointless and inexplicable topic.

 

[Kyriakos]

Can't we just agree that Greece and Greece-tied civs are great and be done with it? ^^

 

[pecheneg]

Can't we just agree that Greece and Greece-tied civs are great and be done with it?

Of course we can, but it will be completely different from the ancient Greek/Byzantine. As a representative of a Hellenized country, I am saying this. Glory to sophistry and long live demagogy!