Constantinople / Istanbul in Civ7

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Constantinople, or what's once was Byzantion, and later Istanbul. The Queen of Cities. has occupied a large place in history of mankind, especially after Constantin I whom later became Christian had 'divided' Roman Empire into TWO, the 'Old' half (Which part Christian, part no Christian, part Olympianites (Do the worshippers of Olympians ever have thier objectives to call themselves? both as Ancient and Classical denizens and as restored iterations) ) is seated in Roma. The 'New' half is seated in Byzantion and he renamed after his name as well as officially made it the First Christian State in the World (The earliest 'official' symbol of Christianity before divisions were XP and also the symbol of the Late 'Christian Roman Empire' of the two halves.)


After the Western Roman Empire fell to Germanic peoples. With Italy no longer consisted of Romans but full of what that will become 'Italians' as Goths, Wendels, and other Blonde peoples added to the mix of the Romans and peoples of Lazio. The Eastern Roman Empire stood and developed their own cultures based on Orthodox Christianity (allegedy what they claimed to be 'The Purest Christianity' and dissed off the Roman Catholicism as being 'mutated') and even still called themselves 'Romans' despite that they became more 'Greeks' later on, even into the last days everyone around them called it 'The Roman Empire' and its seat--Constantinople--'Roma' / 'Rome' / 'Ruum' . From there they became distinct to their Roman origins, culturally and militarily, with cavalry became heavily emphasized (Different names of Cataphracts being Heavycav, and Koursores ('Coursers') being Lightcav), and Legion became Taguma. (Basil II, the Emperor who subdued Bulgarians and other Slavic people and 'Bizantinize' them). Through the tenure, the city also referred to as 'Tsargrad' and the word 'Tsar'/ 'Czar' became preferred titles for Slavic leader (Caesar in slavic tongues).

Eventually the Byzantium declined, and became lacklusters especially after their wars with other Horselords and overzealous Catholic christian whom wish to unite the Eastern Church under the Roman rules. eventuallyh the Empire fell to the Turks, under the leadership of Mehmet II, Soon after he conquered the Empire, he too took the title 'The Caesar of Rome' and allegedy the 'Last Roman Emperor', with this he chose 'Constantinople' as a seat of the Ottoman Empire (Turkish Empire actually), and unlike Germanic peoples whom later settled in Italy and turned Romans into Italians. The Turks either inherit or develop their complex of top-down centralized administrations and military like Roman predecessors did, if Roma has Legion, Turks has Janissary (and pretty much organized the same way), In any case the Turks made ther own 'Roman Empire' centered around their preferred Islamic school. And contrary to popular belief over 'Istanbu' origin, Turks simply coined their iterations of Constantinople--Kostantiniyye-- With they too adopted 'Constantin' names to their own people as well as others formerly belonged to the Old Byzantium and those added to Ottoman posessions later on. The term 'Istanbul' however came from Greek origin actually (eis tin Polin (εἰς τὴν πόλιν)= 'Into The City', the 'City' in question is none other than Byzantion) and not of Turks . The Kostantinniye remained seat of Ottomans well into the the Turkish Revolution which the so called 'Last Emperors of Rome' outsted and replaced by Mustafa Kemal 'Ataturk' (who, along with his Young Turks, was born in Thessalonica which is now firmly in Greece) but lost the Seat of power status after, with Ataturk himself chose Ankara (Itself a very old city exists even as early as Hattustan and had been ruled over by various Empires including Greeks and Romans which where the city's modern name originated). I don't really know why Ataturk not using Constantinople as the seat of the Republc of Turkiye or did he believed that Ankara a more proper location or much older or was the first seat of the Frist Turkish State in the Middle Ages?

So in the Civ7 what should be done with this city since it was associated with FOUR civs? Two (Byzantine and Turks) did use one as capitol city (I can't remember which Civ has Ottomans seated in Istanbul? the 6 had them seated in Ankara or Erdine (Also Roman City originally named Adrianople)) and the final owner didn't rename the city UNTIL MUCH MUCH LATER.
1. Should Greeks, Romans, (and even Phoenicians) have this city in the list? (The Phoenicians built the Asian side of the city--The Chalcedon, also the historical site in Christian history particularly how centralized 'Christian Churches' came to be, and this includes justifications of bloody violence against outliners which no 'justice' / 'vendetta' can be done against such 'oppressions')

OFF TOPIC: In the Turkish language reform. Why Ataturk chose Latin script over Greeks which also used by the Turks as well? did he think Latin scripts saw widespread use by many languages, the glory of Old Rome and later Byzantine which were primary users of Latin script for a very long time (and with Modern Turkiye occupied the domain of the two former great empires) or simply because of a century-old badbloods with the Greeks?

 

[Phrozen]

Ataturk choose Latin because it was more Western. He wanted to break with the Islamic and Eastern world and modernize Turkiye. In the early 20th century modernizing meant westernizing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So in the Civ7 what should be done with this city since it was associated with FOUR civs? Two (Byzantine and Turks) did use one as capitol city (I can't remember which Civ has Ottomans seated in Istanbul? the 6 had them seated in Ankara or Erdine (Also Roman City originally named Adrianople)) and the final owner didn't rename the city UNTIL MUCH MUCH LATER.
1. Should Greeks, Romans, (and even Phoenicians) have this city in the list? (The Phoenicians built the Asian side of the city--The Chalcedon, also the historical site in Christian history particularly how centralized 'Christian Churches' came to be, and this includes justifications of bloody violence against outliners which no 'justice' / 'vendetta' can be done against such 'oppressions')

As far as I know the Ottomans capital has always been the Istanbul in civ games.
I think it will continue to stay as Constantinople for Byzantium and Istanbul for the Ottomans. There's no reason for it to be on a Greek city list because there are plenty of other cities to use, and I only see Rome getting it if they happen to give us someone like Constantine as leader. Though the latter would probably mean no Byzantine Empire in the game, which seems unlikely.

 

[Uncle Paul]

The Ottomans shouldn't be in Civ 7, instead, there should be the Turks, lead by Tamerlane, with a capital in Samarkand.

 

[pineappledan]

They should pick a later Roman emperor like Diocletian, who ruled both western and eastern parts of the empire, and do away with the Rome Byzantium split.

While we're at it, I would be pretty jazzed if we got an Ottoman leader like Mehmed, and make their capital Edirne, or better yet, go with a Seljuk Turk leader

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ This idea is abit good but Erdine is Adrianopo;is. If Romans/Greeks/Byzantium and Ottomans are in the same game what should naming conventions be?
- Both gets Adrianopolis and Erdine
- Romans/Byzantium got Adrianopolis while Ottomans/Turkia got something else
- Ottomans/Turkia got Erdine and not Romans nor Byzantines.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

^ This idea is abit good but Erdine is Adrianopo;is. If Romans/Greeks/Byzantium and Ottomans are in the same game what should naming conventions be?
- Both gets Adrianopolis and Erdine
- Romans/Byzantium got Adrianopolis while Ottomans/Turkia got something else
- Ottomans/Turkia got Erdine and not Romans nor Byzantines.

There's no reason to use Edirne for Rome/Byzantium because that's Turkish. The Ottomans can have Erdine.
When it was founded it was called Hadrianapolis (after the emperor Hadrian) so that could even be the Roman name, while Adrianople (the Greek spelling) can be the Byzantium name.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Byzantion, Constantinopolis, Constantinople, Istanbul - this is just the tip of the City Iceberg.
City-sites are geographical entities, and unless the terrain is dramatically changed - like, say, by building canals or railroads that change the shape of the transit possibilities - certain spots will have cities for as long as there are people in the area, regardless of the 'Civ' those people belong to. What the exact city name is might depend on the language/Civ, but the city doesn't.

In addition to Constantinople, you could have used examples like:
Babylon, Seleucea, Ctesiphon, Baghdad - all capitals of different 'Civs'
Marakhanda, Marakanda, Samarqand, Samarkand - one of the major trading nexus sites of central Asia
Batu Sarai, Tsaritsyn, Stalingrad, Volgograd - where two major rivers come closest: in this case the Don and the Volga, there is almost always going to be a city to take advantage of the possibilities of trade and transit between the two - that is also, by the way, the reason for the permanence of a city at Babylon/Baghdad, the region where the Tigris and Euphrates close with each other.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

And that means 'city race' isn't really important is it? Capitols of European Civilizations as well as city name conventions included what that was part of Old Rome: London was Londinium, Manchester was Castra Mancunium, Salisbury was Sarum, Lyon was Ludgunum, Paris was Lutetia, Nice was (also) Nicaea, Madrid was Matritum, Lisbon was Olisipo. and so on.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And that means 'city race' isn't really important is it? Capitols of European Civilizations as well as city name conventions included what that was part of Old Rome: London was Londinium, Manchester was Castra Mancunium, Salisbury was Sarum, Lyon was Ludgunum, Paris was Lutetia, Nice was (also) Nicaea, Madrid was Matritum, Lisbon was Olisipo. and so on.

Yes. I believe we have both London and Londinium (for Rome) in Civ 6 at least.
But as mentioned above it isn't just for European cities. Tenochtitlan and Mexico City also exist as separate cities in the game. Even Aleppo and Halab and funny enough they are both for Arabia.

 

[BuchiTaton]

While we're at it, I would be pretty jazzed if we got an Ottoman leader like Mehmed, and make their capital Edirne, or better yet, go with a Seljuk Turk leader

I would like to have Edirne for once as Ottoman's capital. But I dont agree with the idea of replace Ottomans with Seljuks.
Seljuks are "less unique" in the sense that there are a lot of medieval muslim turkic dynasties from Middle East and Central Asia. While Ottomans represent the only modern empire that was a real rival to europeans in Europe at the european golden age.

Ottomans deserve to be a fixed civ way more than "traditions" like have Zulu in every game.

 

[pineappledan]

Less unique, yet we have never had a central Asian Turkic dynasty in the game before. Uniqueness can cut both ways; if the developers are only ever going to give 1 slot to a Turkic culture, maybe they should be giving it to a more ‘typical’ Turkic empire?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Less unique, yet we have never had a central Asian Turkic dynasty in the game before. Uniqueness can cut both ways; if the developers are only ever going to give 1 slot to a Turkic culture, maybe they should be giving it to a more ‘typical’ Turkic empire?

We already have Huns speaking Chuvash in CIV5. In any case there should be a fixed place for Ottomans and other for another turkic civ, but not just replace Ottomans.

Huns and Scythians represented Central Asia, civs like Hephthalites and Gurkani can cover the region in CIV7. In any case Karakhanids would be also a better turkic representative being tengrist/budhist/muslim and centered in proper Central Asia.

While Seljuks overlaps more with a proper Persian representative in geography and with most Arab options in time range. Turkic civ have more value covering the modern time range of Islamic history than as another of the many medieval islamic powers (not forget about the chance of a Berber islamic civ).

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Good question as this extend to al sorts of places all over the world. Mexico City comes to mind first naturally lol.

This is one of the biggest reasons why Italy is so difficult to include over Rome. They didn't change the capital name! You could totally do "Roma" for the Italian Civ but then how would that mix with city states like Venice that use their english name?

 

[BuchiTaton]

This is one of the biggest reasons why Italy is so difficult to include over Rome. They didn't change the capital name! You could totally do "Roma" for the Italian Civ but then how would that mix with city states like Venice that use their english name?

Or we can finally have a Roman civ with capital at Constantinople as everybody but the jaundiced westerners knew them

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Or we can finally have a Roman civ with capital at Constantinople as everybody but the jaundiced westerners knew them

Or Constantinopolis, the original Greek form of the 'eastern capital's' name after they changed it from the original Byzantion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is one of the biggest reasons why Italy is so difficult to include over Rome. They didn't change the capital name! You could totally do "Roma" for the Italian Civ but then how would that mix with city states like Venice that use their english name?

Well to be fair, modern Italy had their first capital at Turin, and then Florence, not annexing Rome and the Papal states until after the formation of the kingdom, so I think it still can be done.

Venice and other Italian city states could just become part of the civ, though I guess you could make an exception for Venice staying as it's own separate city-state.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Well to be fair, modern Italy had their first capital at Turin, and then Florence, not annexing Rome and the Papal states until after the formation of the kingdom, so I think it still can be done.

Venice and other Italian city states could just become part of the civ, though I guess you could make an exception for Venice staying as it's own separate city-state.

Oh you’re totally right-but I’m not gonna lie, not having Rome as part of Italy would be a massive letdown since that was a major part of the Risorgimento. Making Torino the capital will probably piss off every non-northerner lmao

Florence/Firenze *could* work but gives major Renaissance Italy vibes more which, while I think that part of Italy’s history should be a big part of their abilities (Culture and banking/finance), would not suit an Italian “identity” as a Civ. It being the capital lends the idea to a divided Italy which while accurate at times (All times lol) , would make for a less cohesive Civ IMO

I agree on the city states being conglomerated. Keep Venice/Venezia in the Italy Civ and add Ragusa or Corfu as a mercantile city state representing Mediterranean trade for that time

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Florence/Firenze *could* work but gives major Renaissance Italy vibes more which, while I think that part of Italy’s history should be a big part of their abilities (Culture and banking/finance), would not suit an Italian “identity” as a Civ. It being the capital lends the idea to a divided Italy which while accurate at times (All times lol) , would make for a less cohesive Civ IMO

In my opinion, if we ended up with a more modern leader for Italy, I'd definitely want the civ ability and uniques to revolve around Medieval/ Renaissance Italy.

 

[Equilin]

I think having cities overlapping is a non-issue, especially since we'll always have the Romans in the game and their cities cover several other civs (and those civs' major cities are often there since the Roman period). The only thing about Istanbul that i wanna change is that it should be gone from the Ottomans city list, it was never the official city name until the Ottoman Empire was already gone.