Byzantines - The "useless civilization"

[Titus001]

my question is how can people want canada or austraila in befor thea eastren empire?

Give this a read Vietcong and make your opinion from reading this link. People on civ 4 give this link a quick read and then make your opinion on this subject.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm

 

[Horizons]

Oh God, not this again...

It's official: Byzantium is the new Hitler

Apparently there is a 'hardcore World War II scenario' in BtS. I wonder if Byzantium will be representing the Nazis.

 

[TheLastOne36]

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.)

Well at least the English is somewhat different in the countries. The British language is hard to understand since i know Canadian English and i can't even stand the English of the Americans from Texas and southern US, But i think the Australian accent is very cool. You could argue that Singlish (singaporian and English) is alot different from English. Where ever you go your gonna have an exception.

I'm not going to debate this again, because it's utterly pointless.

He's just tired of debating this topic with me on the other forums.

 

[Lars_Domus]

What is a civ, in the game, but a flavourful representation for a combination of stats? People are acting as though representation in Sid Meier's Civilization is some sort of glorious honor, but civs only really have historical names for fun and variety. As such, when I think about what civs and leaders I would like to see in the game, I just think of cultures and persons I find fascinating, without any thought to their importance in history (if such a thing indeed can be measured in any meaningful way.)

It's hard (and even foolish) to argue against Byzantium being closely related to both Rome and Greece - the fact of the matter is, though, that the Byzantines represented a distinct and unique culture, that I personally would find it fun (remember, this is ultimately a game - a toy we're talking about here) to see represented. I'm sure many other people would agree, but they just don't want to get caught up in the crossfire of the historical fact slingfest.

So all you history nerds, if you are so infuriated by the inclusion of Byzantium, just mod them out - if you're upset because their inclusion blocks that of some other, potentially more interesting culture, then go complain about all those culturally indistinguishable European colonial powers instead.

 

[Duuk]

Personally, I preferred the way Call to Power 2 handled the Civs: A leader name, buiding type, and list of cities. No traits, no unique units, no unique buildings.

 

[Scaramanga]

What is a civ, in the game, but a flavourful representation for a combination of stats? People are acting as though representation in Sid Meier's Civilization is some sort of glorious honor, but civs only really have historical names for fun and variety. As such, when I think about what civs and leaders I would like to see in the game, I just think of cultures and persons I find fascinating, without any thought to their importance in history (if such a thing indeed can be measured in any meaningful way.)

It's hard (and even foolish) to argue against Byzantium being closely related to both Rome and Greece - the fact of the matter is, though, that the Byzantines represented a distinct and unique culture, that I personally would find it fun (remember, this is ultimately a game - a toy we're talking about here) to see represented. I'm sure many other people would agree, but they just don't want to get caught up in the crossfire of the historical fact slingfest.

So all you history nerds, if you are so infuriated by the inclusion of Byzantium, just mod them out - if you're upset because their inclusion blocks that of some other, potentially more interesting culture, then go complain about all those culturally indistinguishable European colonial powers instead.

I agree that fun is the name of the game here so I'm looking forward to playing as the Byzantines. I think their unique unit, the cataphract, will replace knight and start with medic I.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I don't agree that the Byzantines were worthless and basically the same thing as the romans but I do think there are other civs more desrving to be in first over them.

 

[andrewlt]

I'd rather have the Byzantines than some ethnicity who isn't even arguably "civilized" before they disappeared.

 

[Dnomal]

Well we know Justinian is in the expansion, now having him as a Roman leader wouldn't make sense, because he never set foot in Rome in his life, so having a new Empire, with Constantinople as the capital and having Justinian reigniing over that, makes much moer sense than the whole "Byzantine debate".

Oh btw- about language, the Byzantines spoke a different variation of Greek, that is more different from modern and Ancient Greek than American - British English is today.

I think the only problem about including the Byzantines is that Asia Minor is going to be a bit small, and teh fact that in a randomn game there would be a city called "istanbul" and one called "constantinople", despite the fact they are the same city. This is also incomprehensible given Constantinople was infact renamed AFTER the fall of the Otttoman empire, in 1922?? or sooner, as the civiliopedia admits.

 

[TheLastOne36]

also the city list will be mixed up withthe romans, greeks, ottomans, and if the hittetes are added them to.

 

[Jaybe]

One of the primary criterion for civ inclusion into Firaxis' games is Educational Value, to get people interested in different aspects of history (it compensates for the emphasis on playability over reality in the games). Titus will be rewarded for his contribution.

 

[TheLastOne36]

One of the primary criterion for civ inclusion into Firaxis' games is Educational Value, to get people interested in different aspects of history (it compensates for the emphasis on playability over reality in the games). Titus will be rewarded for his contribution.

So why did they name the Native Americans "native Americans" give them sitting bull of the sioux/lakota as a leader and gave them a totem pole as a UB?

The sioux have nothing to do with the totem pole. And if you give the label native american then it could be an Inuit tribe that's making totem poles. How educational.

 

[bonafide11]

I'd rather have the Byzantines than some ethnicity who isn't even arguably "civilized" before they disappeared.

I really don't think you can argue an ethnicity isn't "civilized" without repeating the brutal mistakes of European imperialist history...

 

[aelf]

Not only do we need the Eastern Roman Empire in the game, we also need the Holy Roman Empire for good measure. Barbarossa can be its leader.

 

[Turkish_Aries]

If the Byzantines will included to game what will be the city names? Capital constantinople for byzantines but same city called modern Istanbul on Ottoman Turks so the same fact for Smyra is İzmir now and take part in the game this can be a problem

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

If the Byzantines will included to game what will be the city names? Capital constantinople for byzantines but same city called modern Istanbul on Ottoman Turks so the same fact for Smyra is İzmir now and take part in the game this can be a problem

Even though thats strange yes. You can always be like me and have the ottomans instead of the byzantines for all your games.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Byzantine is to Rome as Sumeria is to Babylon-- merely a part of the cultural and chronological evolution of a civilization, not drastically different cultures. I wish Byzantine and Sumeria were not included to make way for some non-represented cultures in the game. If the Hittites are included, I will be very disappointed.

Let's move away from the Civ3 bonus civs and start heading into new directions, Firaxis!

 

[Gaius Octavius]

He's just tired of debating this topic with me on the other forums.

No, I'm not going to debate any more because I'm never going to convince you, and you're never going to convince me. I actually have studied Late Antiquity academically, so I will always think I have a one-up in the argument. You, on the other hand, will never be swayed by my "Southern American English." It therefore would be more productive for me to bang my head against a wall. (Come to think of it, there are several pictures I've been meaning to hang...)

My signature says it all. Like it or not, the Byzantines are in, so you're just going to have to accept it. I never cared much for the fact that Israel is not in, but I've accepted it. Let's all be mature about it and move on. It's sad to see something as great as Byzantium really has become the "new Hitler."

 

[winddbourne]

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....

The USA is a mix of multiple european civilizations, with aspects of african societies added into the mix via the slave trade, and indian societies via many mixed marriages and the continuing presence of reservations as independent units within the society setting it far apart from it's "supposed" english roots.

American civilization also, in my opinion, encompasses canadian and mexican states. Not the USA, though most leaders are drawn from that country due to it's dominance in the area over the past five hundred years.

You can't really seperate the US out from "american civilization" as the areas history is so tightly tied together, the split with canada is very recent and not really "complete" a lot of people live in canada and work in detroit, and california, texas, and new mexico have almost as many actual mexican citizens as american ones (A current political debate) and a LOT of mexican ancestry, most of that area was mexican within the recent past.

North Amereican Free Trade is also bringing the area closer together lately.

You probably could call "American" civilization European civilization, since it has so many influences from different areas. Mostly english, french, german, irish, and Italian. But that would be rude the the african americans, the native americans, the increasing "hispanic" element, and the chinese immigrants who did so much work on projects such as the trans continental railroad.

It's a whole different argument, and one that is a LOT easier to understand than the concept of including "Byzantium" as a seperate civilization with it's greek and roman roots.

It could easilly be seen as a continuation of either culture, with rome being dominant gameplay-wise as in game terms the "greeks" were conquered and obsorbed, contributing their own part to the larger "roman" civilization . . . And certainly NOT continuing to exist and evolve seperately the way america's colonial parent nations still do in "europe" today.

It's also easier to understand Including America than some countries that are only SLIGHTLY older, and cover a much smaller area. For example the SPANISH netherlands (either half) or portugual (not including brazil).

Not that I want those civilizations out of the game. I'm just pointing out that the north american civilization makes more sense to include than those two mostly spanish states.

I would argue FOR the inclusion of Brazil which covers most of south america and has it's own larger non-european cultural elements due to it's mayan and other indiginous influences. Except that if brazil was included portugual would probably need to be taken out and merged into general spanish/iberian civilization.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Byzantine is to Rome as Sumeria is to Babylon-- merely a part of the cultural and chronological evolution of a civilization, not drastically different cultures. I wish Byzantine and Sumeria were not included to make way for some non-represented cultures in the game. If the Hittites are included, I will be very disappointed.

The Sumerians were conquered by Semitic desert nomads who replaced them or assimilated them. They spoke a completely diffrent language which was not Semitic. Though Sumerian lived on for a long time for learned and sacral purposes, just the way Latin was used in Europe well into the 18th century, and still is in some respects.

Personally, I'd like to see the Hittites (an Indo-European people who were the first ones who learned how to temper iron) included, but I am not fanatical about it.