[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Jeppetto]

I think Austria and Italy would go perfectly together honestly though maybe I'm just biased.

I nearly forgot about Austria. Well now that my random-diction of possible future Pass is ruined with Portugal being here now, Imma replace Portugal with Austria, thanks for the reminder.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

True, but we could have a Civilization Ability, UI, and UU that reference the Renaissance period of Italy, while we could have more modern Leaders.

So why we were so purist de-blobers as it comes to The Celts but in the case of renaissance Italy, we are ok with this idea?

 

[Kimiimaro]

Milan. When the Kingdom of Italy was unified the capital was in Milan prior to the Papal States ceding the better part of Rome to the kingdom.

Turin, not Milan, was the first capital of Kingdom of Italy. Turin was the capital of Sardinia-Piedmont, the leading state of the Italian unification, and served as the capital after proclamation of the united Kingdom of Italy.

 

[Josephias]

Question for people who want Italy in the game, what would their capital be because it can't be Rome.

Depending on the Leader:

For a Medici (Italian League - Italy), Florence
Vittorio Emmanuele II (Risorgimento Italy) might lead from Turin.
Milan is indeed a strong contender and a 'de facto' capital of Italy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Isn't renessance Italy a blob, my friends?

Less of a blob than the Celts, Native Americans, and Polynesia. On the same level as Greece, Phoenicia and the Maya already in Civ 6.

So why we were so purist de-blobers as it comes to The Celts but in the case of renaissance Italy, we are ok with this idea?

All the various Italian states at least had interaction with each other and were very similar in terms of culture. You can easily have a Workshop UB or Opera House UB with a Condotierri UU that was applicable to all the different cities.
But I'm open to the idea of Victor Emmanuel II leading if Italy can get all of it's other uniques from the Medieval/Renaissance.

There was no reason why Boudicca should have a capital of Edinburgh with an Irish UB and Pictish warriors as her UU, which is why many of us had the problem of depicting the Celts as a blob. But it's okay because we got Gaul.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

The concept of modern Italy is a result of three main factors:
1. Versailles order of Europe after Napoleonic wars
2. Territorial Claims of Sardinia and Piedmont
3. Spring of Nations movement in Europe and rise of nationalist ideas that gave ideological fuel to this process.
Italy as a modern country we know began in 1859.

As for Renaissance Italy, it was never a united geographic area. It was never ruled by one center of power in contrast to Medieval Germany HRE.
In Rennesaince Era Italy we had various different lands with similar cultures and langue but they would never call themselves Italians. It all makes a Ressaince Era Italy a perfect example of a blob Civ.
To complicate things more if we are talking about modern Italy as a Civ Rome is a perfect capital (Capital of Kingdom of Italy since 1871)

As it comes to my personal opinion I was always against this strict "blob Civ" approach and I never had a problem with The Celts as a Civ (when we are talking about continental ones, things with British Celts are more complicated). So Renessaince Italy would be ok for me. Even with Rome as capital. But some of us who are more strict with the idea of de blobing Civs might have a hard nut to crack

All the various Italian states at least had interaction with each other and were very similar in terms of culture.

yes, the same as The Celts.

But I would still prefer Venice over all those concepts as a real unique, historically significant, liked and demanded by fans, and finally interesting for design Civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Western North Carolina isn't really much further west than western New York. (I'm sure you were referencing Oklahoma, but the Cherokee are not originally from Oklahoma and I'd hope to high heaven it wouldn't be the Oklahoma Cherokee who got represented...)

I still see the Cherokee as kind of splitting the difference between Dixie and Oklahoma, and they could very easily have some Oklahoma in their city list. It's still a lot better for representing the rest of the North American continent than the Iroquois.

Isn't renessance Italy a blob, my friends?

There was an Italic League, in which case renaissance "Italy" could be just as valid as Greece, Phoenicia, or the Mayans.

I really wish the devs had never given us Catherine and instead given us Lorenzo. It was Italy's only good shot and they blew it. (that's nothing against Catherine in herself, just that she happened to turn out to be a massive obstruction to better ideas).

At any rate, I have decided that I am actually okay with "blobs" as long as they are still actual polities unified by a cultural continuity. And It doesn't matter how the Italian city states shuffled around, they have been understood historically and often cooperated under a common Italian identity, even if they weren't unified very often.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Turin, not Milan, was the first capital of Kingdom of Italy. Turin was the capital of Sardinia-Piedmont, the leading state of the Italian unification, and served as the capital after proclamation of the united Kingdom of Italy.

Well, if you use the Lombard Kingdom of Italy, it was Pavia!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The concept of modern Italy is a result of three main factors:
1. Versailles order of Europe after Napoleonic wars
2. Territorial Claims of Sardinia and Piedmont
3. Spring of Nations movement in Europe and rise of nationalist ideas that gave ideological fuel to this process.
Italy as a modern country we know began in 1859.

As for Renaissance Italy, it was never a united geographic area. It was never ruled by one center of power in contrast to Medieval Germany HRE.
In Rennesaince Era Italy we had various different lands with similar cultures and langue but they would never call themselves Italians. It all makes a Ressaince Era Italy a perfect example of a blob Civ.
To complicate things more if we are talking about modern Italy as a Civ Rome is a perfect capital (Capital of Kingdom of Italy since 1871)

As it comes to my personal opinion I was always against this strict "blob Civ" approach and I never had a problem with The Celts as a Civ (when we are talking about continental ones, things with British Celts are more complicated). So Renessaince Italy would be ok for me. Even with Rome as capital. But some of us who are more strict with the idea of de blobing Civs might have a hard nut to crack

I think the whole debate between Renaissance Italy and Modern Italy is no different than Germany in the game with HRE and Modern German attributes. I'd be fine with a mixture of both.
As I said earlier Turin was the capital of modern Italy before Rome, so it could easily be the capital without overlap. Obviously the "golden age" of Italy can be considered the Italian Renaissance so there is no reason why that couldn't be the civ ability.

yes, the same as The Celts.

The Celts as a people were spread across Europe from Anatolia to the British Isles, even if people usually just refer to them as the ones that lived in Gaul and the British Isles. I'd say they were way more diverse.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The Celts as a people were spread across Europe from Anatolia to the British Isles, even if people usually just refer to them as the ones that lived in Gaul and the British Isles. I'd say they were way more diverse.

Indeed. The main difference between the Celts and Italy is that Italy can be defined around a specific area, specifically the Italian Peninsula and surrounding areas, while the Celts basically lived everywhere near Europe.

 

[onepurpose]

Renaissance Italy was not an homogeneus entity in terms of gameplay, so I think it would not work as a "faction" in terms of gameplay..

(Greece neither.. but it works a bit better for several reasons that'd require a large post to explain)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

It is a common culture that decides what is a distinct Civ not an area it covers. Mongol empire was much broader than Celt people's lands. So sorry I cant agree with this argument.
As for HRE at least it has one center of power. Italic league is rather a military alliance than something that we may consider political unification. And it lasted only 50 years. HRE was a different thing.
Guys, I am ok with all arguments for Italy. What I am trying to show is a lack of consistency here in discussions about The Celts and Italy

 

[SirMediocrity]

Believe it or not, there was even a group of Celts who lived in central Turkey called the Galatians. The capital of Turkey (Ankara) is very old and was actually the capital of the Galatians. The region became known as Galatia, which is what the book of Galatians in the Bible is named after.

EDIT: Worth noting that they were not native to the area and had moved in after migrating through the Balkans and western Anatolia.

 

[Zaarin]

Believe it or not, there was even a group of Celts who lived in central Turkey called the Galatians. The capital of Turkey (Ankara) is very old and was actually the capital of the Galatians. The region became known as Galatia, which is what the book of Galatians in the Bible is named after.

EDIT: Worth noting that they were not native to the area and had moved in after migrating through the Balkans and western Anatolia.

That's what @Alexander's Hetaroi was referencing by Celts in Anatolia. Based on the writings of some of the Church Fathers, Galatian seems to have remained spoken in Anatolia at least into the 5th century.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

It is a common culture that decides what is a distinct Civ not an area it covers. Mongol empire was much broader than Celt people's lands. So sorry I cant agree with this argument.
As for HRE at least it has one center of power. Italic league is rather a military alliance than something that we may consider political unification. And it lasted only 50 years. HRE was a different thing.
Guys, I am ok with all arguments for Italy. What I am trying to show is a lack of consistency here in discussions about The Celts and Italy

Yeah, but I still think on the spectrum of political/cultural unity, Italy is a lot closer on the spectrum than the Celts. There was never a Celtic polity, but for quite some time there was a Kingdom of Italy, even if it was a vassal state to the HRE and even if it was mostly limited to Lombardy. Prior to that it was wholly understood as Italy by the Byzantine empire and separated itself wholly from the Byzantine empire. I would actually argue that, much like India, the concept of "Italy" historically is really two Italies: the Lombardic northern peninsula, and the Sicilian southern peninsula. But even without a formal empire, the fact northern Italy was united under a crown or cooperative league several times over the centuries (much like Greece) is a lot more to work with than the fact that the Celts barely even had what could qualify as kingdoms, let alone any larger political or national identity.

I would also note that Civ VI in particularly plays to modern nationalism where it can, because that sells more. It doesn't matter that northern and southern India really weren't ever unified until the 20th century, or that Scotland hasn't been independent for centuries. That is where modern sentiment is, and Scottish pride and Indian pan-nationalism are more prevalent in the target demographics than the distinction between Britain and Scotland or between India and the Tamils. And Italy has been unified for long enough, and is the eighth largest economy in the world (the largest without any representation in VI so far), that at least in VI the devs would absolutely aim to play toward the collective Italian history that makes up modern Italian identity. And gloss over what preceded it. It's really not that different than most other European countries: Spain, France, England, Germany--they all formed from uniting provinces with a common cultural history (even if that history tended to be ruled by or resisting foreign powers). The only real difference is that those nations have had longer to solidify their national narrative under a common cultural lens; just because Italy is newer to the game doesn't mean its history can't be similarly portrayed.

But I guess I am in agreement with everyone else that the Celts really weren't the same thing. Gaul was the best thing to represent the Celts because it actually was an empire for a hot second, and comprised several loosely defined polities (if only in resistance to the Roman empire).

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Yeah, but I still think on the spectrum of political/cultural unity, Italy is a lot closer on the spectrum than the Celts.

True, but it's largely because of the historical period of time (closer to us, better documented, better known), and cultural/political/technological development. That's why we have such a problem with ancient cultures and this is what deepens those differences in our eyes in my opinion. If we take these glasses of modern perspective off suddenly we will see that there are no big differences as it comes to census what we call a blob. And it's also a paradox because we should see more real differences between Papal State and Lombardia than between two Celtic tribes from our perspective. That's my opinion.
Italy is popular because people want to play a Civ they can identify with. And lots of Italians (but not only) are closer to what we call modern Italy than Roman Empire for example. And one reported demand snowballs into a choir of voices. That's how the Internet works I have no problem with Italian Civ, but still personally would prefer Venice. I will not be using big historical arguments here, because I find them useless. It is all about what Civ we want. The rest is just overthinking Better ask yourselves what Civilization you would truly like to see and speak about it. If it's Italy then ok. Go for it. But if people just copy-paste Italy as they were doing with World Congress then look what mess with this mechanic we have now I am not saying everyone who listed Italy here is copy-pasting, but just put it into consideration.

PS. And just ask yourselves. Do you really want just another European modern state in a game or maybe something more unique like Venice. Republic with 1000 years of history, first real intelligence agency network of influences, and real European powerhouse build not on large standing armies, castles, battles but in more fancy methods, that could indirectly get rid of the Byzantines. And much much more

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It is a common culture that decides what is a distinct Civ not an area it covers. Mongol empire was much broader than Celt people's lands. So sorry I cant agree with this argument.

That's almost like saying Sequoyah or Nanyehi can lead the Iroquois because the Cherokee language was Iroquoian.

Guys, I am ok with all arguments for Italy. What I am trying to show is a lack of consistency here in discussions about The Celts and Italy

The difference is all the various Celtic tribes were never a unified people historically, unlike Italy. Italy is unified today as is Greece. It's easy to name a civ Italy and let it be made up of a bunch of cities that comprise the modern-day country as easy as it is to make a Greek civ out of ancient-city states.

 

[onepurpose]

The concept of modern Italy is a result of three main factors:
1. Versailles order of Europe after Napoleonic wars
.

I'd say Viena rather than Versalles

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I'd say Viena rather than Versalles

Yes, Vienna. Sorry.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The concept of modern Italy is a result of three main factors:
1. Versailles order of Europe after Napoleonic wars

As @onepurpose said, it was the Congress of Vienna, not the Treaty of Versailles, that brought forth some idea of a unified Italy.

Edit: Shoot, too slow.