Byzantines - The "useless civilization"

Fox Mccloud

Deity
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,750
Location
The Empire of America
I just realised now that out of the seven new civs, one of them will be the Byzantines. Why did they include the Byzantines again? All it will do is choke an already overcrowded part of the world.

I don't dispute that they made great contributions to the world in their 1,000 year existence, they certainly did. No question that they were a major world civilization.

The question is should they be considered a separate civilization on their own? Even the word "Byzantine" itself has only been in widespread use since the 19th century. Before that, the word "Byzantium" and "Byzantine" referred only to Constantinople and its residents. It was never used for the whole empire itself during it's existence. In Greek it was called Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Basileia tōn Rōmaiōn) or Ρωμανία (Rōmania) meaning "the Roman Empire", and in Latin it's name was Imperium Romanum, meaning the same thing.

It was also sometimes known to the Europeans as "Empire of the Greeks" or Imperium Graecorum. The Muslims called it روم or Rum, a transliteration of Rome.

The Byzantine Empire doesn't have it's own language and their people considered themselves Romans or Greek and their culture was largely from those nations. I guess you could also make that same cultural argument against the Americans, but at least the Americans have their own location, most of a whole continent for themselves. The Byzantines are just going into the same place as Greece and the Ottomans - as well as the Hittites if they will also be in the game. They even share the same capital as the Ottomans.

I await thoughts and comments. :)
 
You're right that the Byzantines are rather similar to the Greeks and Romans in terms of name and language, but in their 1000 years of exisitance, they developed their own customs, culture and architecture so as to set them apart from Rome or Greece. I'm glad to see that they are in, but I would've perfered Basil II, or Hercleus or Manuel Komenus to Justinian.
 
I have said I a couple of times and I say it again:
Given the fact that the USA are in the game this discussion is utterly pointless.

Edit, OK,Europe is overcrowded, but I wager most people play on random maps anyway....
 
You're right that the Byzantines are rather similar to the Greeks and Romans in terms of name and language, but in their 1000 years of exisitance, they developed their own customs, culture and architecture so as to set them apart from Rome or Greece. I'm glad to see that they are in, but I would've perfered Basil II, or Hercleus or Manuel Komenus to Justinian.

The thing that always confuses me is the argument they developed their own architecture culture etc that sets them apart from Greece. Indeed the Greeks that lived in that area like all other humans in all other nations evolved and adopted new customs and changed their culture. Ofcourse you will find signs of the Older Greek culture in all parts of the new one. While in all other examples , change is seen like it is an evolution , a change . In this , the only explanation is that a new civilization was born . Which is ofcource a double standard and wrong. It is usual that the continuation and evolution of a civilization will bring a change in culture, language , customs but since it is a continuation of something older there are always the signs of the older culture. Unless you expect the Greeks to stay the same after thousands of Years. Sorry but then that will be an unfair expectation.

I find the inclusion of Byzantium as a separate civilization than the Greek one unhistorical.
 
I just realised now that out of the seven new civs, one of them will be the Byzantines. Why did they include the Byzantines again? All it will do is choke an already overcrowded part of the world.

I don't dispute that they made great contributions to the world in their 1,000 year existence, they certainly did. No question that they were a major world civilization.

The question is should they be considered a separate civilization on their own? Even the word "Byzantine" itself has only been in widespread use since the 19th century. Before that, the word "Byzantium" and "Byzantine" referred only to Constantinople and its residents. It was never used for the whole empire itself during it's existence. In Greek it was called Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Basileia tōn Rōmaiōn) or Ρωμανία (Rōmania) meaning "the Roman Empire", and in Latin it's name was Imperium Romanum, meaning the same thing.

It was also sometimes known to the Europeans as "Empire of the Greeks" or Imperium Graecorum. The Muslims called it روم or Rum, a transliteration of Rome.

The Byzantine Empire doesn't have it's own language and their people considered themselves Romans or Greek and their culture was largely from those nations. I guess you could also make that same cultural argument against the Americans, but at least the Americans have their own location, most of a whole continent for themselves. The Byzantines are just going into the same place as Greece and the Ottomans - as well as the Hittites if they will also be in the game. They even share the same capital as the Ottomans.

I await thoughts and comments. :)

I consider the "Byzantines" the same as the Roman Empire or the Eastern Roman empire. Eastern Roman Empire or the "Byzantines" considered themselves Roman. The Turks and Arabs considered them Roman. It was not the "Greek Empire" or the "Byzantine Empire". It was the Roman Empire and most of history up until recent times was called the Roman Empire.

I just think we do not need this civ in this game b/c i consider them the Eastern Roman Empire and the continuation of ROME.

Here is a source and enjoy the read...
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm
 
You're right that the Byzantines are rather similar to the Greeks and Romans in terms of name and language, but in their 1000 years of exisitance, they developed their own customs, culture and architecture so as to set them apart from Rome or Greece. I'm glad to see that they are in, but I would've perfered Basil II, or Hercleus or Manuel Komenus to Justinian.

All nations change their culture through the eras. Should we include them as separate civs too? Having the Byzantines and the Greeks is like having the Chinese and the Han or the Turks and Ottomans in the same game. Byzantines is just a stage of Greek history as well as a continuation of the Roman empire.

Given the fact that the USA are in the game this discussion is utterly pointless.

I did mention the inevitable "USA is in too" argument. I think the Americans are only a little more justified in being in then the Byzantines. Of course, having an American civ is essential to modern era scenario creation.

Edit, OK,Europe is overcrowded, but I wager most people play on random maps anyway....

I for one prefer scenarios and world map. :)

I consider the "Byzantines" the same as the Roman Empire or the Eastern Roman empire. Eastern Roman Empire or the "Byzantines" considered themselves Roman. The Turks and Arabs considered them Roman. It was not the "Greek Empire" or the "Byzantine Empire". It was the Roman Empire and most of history up until recent times was called the Roman Empire. Again, The name "Byzantine" was a made up name by the pope's and Germans to discredit the real roman empire in the east. (Example) Charlemagne and his empire was called "The holy Roman Empire" when in fact the real Roman empire was in the east in Constantinople.

I just think we do not need this civ in this game b/c i consider them the Eastern Roman Empire and the continuation of ROME.

Here is a source and enjoy the read...
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

My points exactly, and thanks for the link, written by someone also named Fox. ;)
 
All nations change their culture through the eras. Should we include them as separate civs too? Having the Byzantines and the Greeks is like having the Chinese and the Han or the Turks and Ottomans in the same game. Byzantines is just a stage of Greek history as well as a continuation of the Roman empire.



I did mention the inevitable "USA is in too" argument. I think the Americans are only a little more justified in being in then the Byzantines. Of course, having an American civ is essential to modern era scenario creation.



I for one prefer scenarios and world map. :)



My points exactly, and thanks for the link, written by someone also named Fox. ;)

Agreed. However i would like them to add a Leader representative of that age .
 
Don't have their own language, Fox? Well, it's Greek.... so I kind of understand what you are saying. I have one question though: What language do English, Australians, Americans, Canadians, South Africans, and New Zealanders all share? Or to limit it a bit, England and America? (You get my point.)

I'm not going to debate this again, because it's utterly pointless. Titus is correct, Byzantine is a continuation of Rome, they called themselves Romans, but Minoan is also right--they developed a unique culture and everything that defines a people as a separate civilization. Get rid of Byzantium and America's inclusion makes less sense, too. The "Native American civ" is far more ridiculous than the Byzantines. But however you feel, they are in the game, so deal with it.

And before you call them the "useless civilization," ask youself how strong their UU and UB are, or what Justinian's traits will be. You may just find after BtS comes out that they are your new favorites.
 
Don't have their own language, Fox? Well, it's Greek.... so I kind of understand what you are saying. I have one question though: What language do English, Australians, Americans, Canadians, South Africans, and New Zealanders all share? Or to limit it a bit, England and America? (You get my point.)

I'm not going to debate this again, because it's utterly pointless. Titus is correct, Byzantine is a continuation of Rome, they called themselves Romans, but Minoan is also right--they developed a unique culture and everything that defines a people as a separate civilization. Get rid of Byzantium and America's inclusion makes less sense, too. The "Native American civ" is far more ridiculous than the Byzantines. But however you feel, they are in the game, so deal with it.

And before you call them the "useless civilization," ask youself how strong their UU and UB are, or what Justinian's traits will be. You may just find after BtS comes out that they are your new favorites.


Why is it so important the name Roman ?
 
I consider the "Byzantines" the same as the Roman Empire or the Eastern Roman empire. Eastern Roman Empire or the "Byzantines" considered themselves Roman. The Turks and Arabs considered them Roman. It was not the "Greek Empire" or the "Byzantine Empire". It was the Roman Empire and most of history up until recent times was called the Roman Empire.

I just think we do not need this civ in this game b/c i consider them the Eastern Roman Empire and the continuation of ROME.

Here is a source and enjoy the read...
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

This link explains all.....
 
And another thing...

The American argument isn't valid because unlike the Byzantines, which is a direct continuation of Rome, the US became independent from England as a separate state. Americans speak English but they do not consider themselves English, unlike the Byzantines who consider themselves Romans.
 
The Byzantians considered themselves Roman, but did the Italians consider them Roman?
(This is a real question and not a rhetorical one)
 
my question is how can people want canada or austraila in befor thea eastren empire?
 
a agree whit you fox, the byzantines is to much l
ike other civs.
 
Top Bottom