A direct word to Atari/Firaxis on the Byzantine empire
- Thread starter Xen
- Start date
Omni_gamer
Chieftain
I hate to ask this question, as it is sort of nosey, why do you like Byzantine so much? You don't have to answer I am just curious, seeing as how much you like Byzantine.
*pleads to the mods not to count this as spam*
@ Omni- dont know really, mabey its becuase I'm a Roman, and I want to see that great last vestege of Roman power be perfect in civ3 in ever aspect, perhaps it is because I have great respect for the empire in any case, and only want to see ti represented as what it was- an awesome empire, an island of civilisation in a savage europe, the great protector of european civilisation during the middle ages, and the beacon of learning and classical knowledge re-learned, or at least inititated the beginnings of it, although most will agree, it was the Byzantines who preserved the ancient greek religion for posterity, and the homerian epics and such.
or mabey i just like cataphracts a bit to much...
@ Omni- dont know really, mabey its becuase I'm a Roman, and I want to see that great last vestege of Roman power be perfect in civ3 in ever aspect, perhaps it is because I have great respect for the empire in any case, and only want to see ti represented as what it was- an awesome empire, an island of civilisation in a savage europe, the great protector of european civilisation during the middle ages, and the beacon of learning and classical knowledge re-learned, or at least inititated the beginnings of it, although most will agree, it was the Byzantines who preserved the ancient greek religion for posterity, and the homerian epics and such.
or mabey i just like cataphracts a bit to much...
Romano-Tuscan geneology from my fathers side 
though there is a good chance most of the eastern med is related to me as well.....thoughthats just my fathers side, it vikings and english, and scots and such from my mothers side (even a bit of nobility...)
though there is a good chance most of the eastern med is related to me as well.....thoughthats just my fathers side, it vikings and english, and scots and such from my mothers side (even a bit of nobility...)The mighty and exalted emperor Xen raises his hands-
"enough my fellows of this spam of the mythic origins of Xen, we hath gathered here in council over the nature of what the true UU for the Byzantine empire shalt, or should be."
"enough my fellows of this spam of the mythic origins of Xen, we hath gathered here in council over the nature of what the true UU for the Byzantine empire shalt, or should be."
1# Greek fire (amongst some) contained washed up Rough Oil
2# The Cataphract woulds symbolise the Byzantine better, even tough there origen is mainly Roman...all they dad was give him an Lance instead of a sword
3# I am sooooo getting sick of all these Byzantine topics (besides the point)
2# The Cataphract woulds symbolise the Byzantine better, even tough there origen is mainly Roman...all they dad was give him an Lance instead of a sword
3# I am sooooo getting sick of all these Byzantine topics (besides the point)
@ Elden-Constantnie wasnt a Byzantine emperor, he was a Roman one...
@TerraHero-
The most impressive looking cavalry in Late Imperial forces were doubtless the Equites Catafractarii and Clibanarii, fully armoured men wielding 12 ft (3.6 m) lances and mounted on metal-barded horses. They had evolved following Romes conflicts with Armenia, Parthia, and Persia,the barbarians to the north, such as the Sarmatians, and became an important force, especially in the East. These cavalry did not charge into battle but trotted forwards pushing enemies aside as much by fear as martial prowess. The kontos or lance was a heavy-bladed cutting weapon that was wielded with both hands, slicing and stabbing opponents in an almost fencing style of combat. The precise difference between catafractarii and clibanarii are still debated at length, but the available information suggests that clibanarii came from the East and catafractarii from the West although, confusingly, both terms are used by some sources to describe the same troops!. Standard-bearers carried the draco standard and would be equipped as other troopers, It is imoprtant to add that they still utilized a shield strappd to the forearm, so that they could benifit from its protection while still being able to manipulate the lance, in later times, after contact with forces such as the Huns, the Byzantines improved uopn the Cataphract(they had adopted the wests name for the troops, which happend to be greek word anyway...) by both covering all of the horse in metal barding, and equipping the cavalryman with Kontos lance, a Spatha long sword, and a bow- this made the Cataphract amound the most versatile, most feared, most expensive, and hardest to train troops anywhere, and there performence is widelly allcaimed, as during times in the rrconquest of Italy, it is known that the great general Belisarius somtimes would forgoe brining the infantry into battle at all, instead relying solelly on the Cataphracts for his victory.
In all of Byzantine history there are no more important troops, in all the worlds history, there is no one who utilizes even the basic cataphact in the same manner, and NO ONE who delveloped a Byzantine cataphract, so adept at taking on the many rolkes of the battle field. To not have the cataphract as Byzantines UU whould do injustice to a mighty and stalwart defender of the west- perhaps one the sole reason the western empires were able to develop at all, as if the eastern forces had been able to overrun Constantinople earlery...well who knows, but if the crusades show anything, it would have come out all the worse for the Europeans...so come now, do not you all see clearlly why the Cataphract is the ONLY unit justafiable to give the Byzantines?
@TerraHero-
The most impressive looking cavalry in Late Imperial forces were doubtless the Equites Catafractarii and Clibanarii, fully armoured men wielding 12 ft (3.6 m) lances and mounted on metal-barded horses. They had evolved following Romes conflicts with Armenia, Parthia, and Persia,the barbarians to the north, such as the Sarmatians, and became an important force, especially in the East. These cavalry did not charge into battle but trotted forwards pushing enemies aside as much by fear as martial prowess. The kontos or lance was a heavy-bladed cutting weapon that was wielded with both hands, slicing and stabbing opponents in an almost fencing style of combat. The precise difference between catafractarii and clibanarii are still debated at length, but the available information suggests that clibanarii came from the East and catafractarii from the West although, confusingly, both terms are used by some sources to describe the same troops!. Standard-bearers carried the draco standard and would be equipped as other troopers, It is imoprtant to add that they still utilized a shield strappd to the forearm, so that they could benifit from its protection while still being able to manipulate the lance, in later times, after contact with forces such as the Huns, the Byzantines improved uopn the Cataphract(they had adopted the wests name for the troops, which happend to be greek word anyway...) by both covering all of the horse in metal barding, and equipping the cavalryman with Kontos lance, a Spatha long sword, and a bow- this made the Cataphract amound the most versatile, most feared, most expensive, and hardest to train troops anywhere, and there performence is widelly allcaimed, as during times in the rrconquest of Italy, it is known that the great general Belisarius somtimes would forgoe brining the infantry into battle at all, instead relying solelly on the Cataphracts for his victory.
In all of Byzantine history there are no more important troops, in all the worlds history, there is no one who utilizes even the basic cataphact in the same manner, and NO ONE who delveloped a Byzantine cataphract, so adept at taking on the many rolkes of the battle field. To not have the cataphract as Byzantines UU whould do injustice to a mighty and stalwart defender of the west- perhaps one the sole reason the western empires were able to develop at all, as if the eastern forces had been able to overrun Constantinople earlery...well who knows, but if the crusades show anything, it would have come out all the worse for the Europeans...so come now, do not you all see clearlly why the Cataphract is the ONLY unit justafiable to give the Byzantines?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
He reunited the Roman Empire, so he couldn't be a Byzantine Emperor (Although this didn't last 
)
Besides, he didn't found Constantinople, he just re-named it
)Besides, he didn't found Constantinople, he just re-named it
Similar threads
