[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[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.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

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

I don't get your point here.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

How about Enrico Dandolo leading Italy?
I'm personally not a fan of playing as a singular city-state for a game mechanic, which is why I'd want Italy as a whole. But that's just me.

I don't get your point here.

The Cherokee and the Haudenosaunee shared similar languages, similar to how all the Celtic tribes had a similar language. That doesn't mean they belong in the same civ.

 

[onepurpose]

The only way I see Italy is under a XIX century leader...

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

How about Enrico Dandolo leading Italy?
I'm personally not a fan of playing as a singular city-state for a game mechanic, which is why I'd want Italy as a whole. But that's just me.


The Cherokee and the Haudenosaunee shared similar languages, similar to how all the Celtic tribes had a similar language. That doesn't mean they belong in the same civ.

So? I think you are trying to simplify things. Did I say the langue was the one and only thing The Celts have in common?

Who said Venice is a one City Civ? Because Venice in Civ V used this design?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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.

Eh, I think it's a sliding scale, and it still really depends on geography, where there (I'm pretty sure) there was more in common between the Papal States and Lombardia than the Galatians and the Iceni. And also an Italian civ would impliedly be omitting the Papal States portion of Italian history anyway, since we already have a Vatican CS.

(I still think the best way to represent Italy is as a string of city-states religiously puppetted by Vatican City. The Vatican was crucial to the Italian states leaving Byzantium for the HRE, it was central for the formation of the Italic League, and even though it was taken by force in Italian unification, it has maintained and solidified its influence to now become a major fixture of modern Italian identity. Italy itself has the most Catholics in Europe.)

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.

I wholly agree with this sentiment. The larger the crowd, the shallower the consensus becomes. It's quite unfortunate to me that prior to NFP, most of the attention was thrown at Babylon, Byzantium, Gaul, and Portugal. It's still unfortunate to me that most of the attention is being thrown at Austria, Italy, Assyria, Iroquois. There are some really juicy regions with very large, enduring empires that are still empty on the map, but since they don't get talked about in history books as much fewer people care about them.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm personally not a fan of playing as a singular city-state for a game mechanic, which is why I'd want Italy as a whole. But that's just me.

Venice had a major empire in the Middle Ages; I think the single-city thing was a strange choice for them.

The only way I see Italy is under a XIX century leader...

That possibility is the number one reason I don't want Italy...

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

(I still think the best way to represent Italy is as a string of city-states religiously puppetted by Vatican City. The Vatican was crucial to the Italian states leaving Byzantium for the HRE, it was central for the formation of the Italic League, and even though it was taken by force in Italian unification, it has maintained and solidified its influence to now become a major fixture of modern Italian identity. Italy itself has the most Catholics in Europe.)
.

- Vatican
- Teutonic Order
- Veleti
That's true. There are many more interesting things to explore in Europe than just look at the actual political map of the Continent or previous Civs.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

- Vatican
- Teutonic Order
- Veleti
That's true. There are many more interesting things to explore in Europe than just look at the actual political map of the Continent or previous Civs.

Yeah. Plus if we are talking total "population", the Catholic church is larger than Italy by several magnitudes (1.3 bn to 60 mn). If we are talking wealth, it is speculated to have more wealth than Italy itself (quick google says 15 bn to Italy's 12 bn). And if we are talking global reach and impact, it not only controls Italy but is a major influencer of most first and second world affairs. The Vatican is an actual empire, even if it is harder to see than an empire with actual territory (and actually, a quick google suggests that the Catholic church owns 177 million acres of land, which is over twice the area of Italy).

I honestly wish the idea weren't so controversial, because imo if we are looking at modern powers like India, Brazil, America...the Vatican should probably be in the game before Australia or Canada.

(also, in that vein, I still think the Romani would be a really cool decentralized nation to play with mechanically. But they are very problematic politically...and as much as I think civ can be a force of reform like in the case of Poundmaker, I just don't think trying to paint the Romani in a better light would do any good.)

Venice had a major empire in the Middle Ages; I think the single-city thing was a strange choice for them.

I think it was to emphasize a) that they were just one of several Italian city-states and more importantly b) that aside from their expansion along the Adriatic, a lot of their empire was remotely held trading outposts.

I had that thought too at one point but I had reasoned myself out of it because undoubtedly that's a more unique feature to build on than the core of the Venetian empire. Though when Phoenicia came out it did give me pause...

That possibility is the number one reason I don't want Italy...

That possibility would kill Italy for me as well. For me it's Matilda, Vice-Queen of Italy, which would be a little off the mark for renaissance Italy, or the Italic League itself. Anything else I think we need to be looking at city-state playstyles like Venice, Genoa, or the Vatican.