Constantinople / Istanbul in Civ7

[BuchiTaton]

Not sure why a Hellenistic civ in Central Asia/Indian Subcontinent would be any better?
For Civ 7 I'd be fine with this:
Greece: Represented by Pericles (diplomacy) and Alexander (militaristic)
Byzantium:
Egypt: Akhenaten (religion) and Hatshepsut (trade bonuses being essentially Cleopatra)
India: Ashoka and Gandhi
Mughals: Akbar/Babur
I think it would at least be fitting to give India the Greece/Macedon split for Civ 7 by giving them two leaders and then having a separate Mughal civ with the capital potentially being Kabul or Lahore instead of one in present-day India.

I've always been a fan of Classical history, especially the Hellenistic world, so I did feel like Civ 6 spoiled me on that front and do understand why people aren't that happy with the way the civs/leaders turned out.
If Macedon happened to be a one time thing, that's fine with me. I'd still rather Byzantium to stay it's own thing, separate from Rome. I'd rather a proper post-Roman Empire Italy take that spot.

I am aware it is very unlikely to happen but I would love to have an Etrurian civ.

 

[Patine]

I agree with Peneappledan! Byzantium is just East Rome, it can have some difference but still just Rome and don't deserve to be in the game.
The spot should be for the Turks with it's capital in Istanbul

In that case why have both Byzantium and Greece? You Reframed the repetition along ethnic lines instead of political lines, but it’s still repetition.

The Byzantine Empire was NOT just a continuation of either Roman or Greek Civilization. It was a unique construct, politically, militarily, in architecture, in religion, and had a pivotal role in history, and, at their height, didn't much resemble the Roman Empire (except in political pretense of continuation - a pretense Mehmed II carried right on, and that was incorporated into Ottoman claims of greater legitimacy, too, BTW - and neither were truly a, "new Roman Empire," in a way other than pure pretense any more than the Holy Roman or Russian Empires were, either), nor much resembled Ancient Greek Civilization, except for language. It is not at all a redundancy with either, in any true sense of the word, and deserves equal WEIGHT OF CONSIDERATION for a slot with the Ottomans or any of the others, listed.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The Byzantine Empire was NOT just a continuation of either Roman or Greek Civilization. It was a unique construct, politically, militarily, in architecture, in religion, and had a pivotal role in history, and, at their height, didn't much resemble the Roman Empire (except in political pretense of continuation - a pretense Mehmed II carried right on, and that was incorporated into Ottoman claims of greater legitimacy, too, BTW - and neither were truly a, "new Roman Empire," in a way other than pure pretense any more than the Holy Roman or Russian Empires were, either), nor much resembled Ancient Greek Civilization, except for language. It is not at all a redundancy with either, in any true sense of the word, and deserves equal WEIGHT OF CONSIDERATION for a slot with the Ottomans or any of the others, listed.

We can make a similar argument about Italy, which has never been pictured in Civilization because it was considered there was already the Roman Empire. Yet medieval Italian cities were very powerful, even triggering Renaissance, and modern day Italy is certainly even more distant to the Roman Empire than the Byzantine Empire was to the Greek Ancient civilization (which as a matter of fact was mostly constituted of independent city states, just like medieval Italy).

Anyway, I'm making those remarks even though I don't really have an opinion in one way or another. What I hope is that civilizations would be made easily moddable, including 3D leaderheads in diplomacy screens.

Instead of strictly defined "city states" and "civilizations", I would actually like it better if we would have tons of factions, but developping at an irregular level. So we would have small, medium and large AI players.

 

[Patine]

We can make a similar argument about Italy, which has never been pictured in Civilization because it was considered there was already the Roman Empire. Yet medieval Italian cities were very powerful, even triggering Renaissance, and modern day Italy is certainly even more distant to the Roman Empire than the Byzantine Empire was to the Greek Ancient civilization (which as a matter of fact was mostly constituted of independent city states, just like medieval Italy).

"Italy," as a civ in its own right, would only be Kingdom of Italy (including the Fascist period) and the post-war Republic, from 1870 onwards. Before that, there was no real, coherent civ called, "Italy." Those city-state republics, and other small duchies, grand duchies, counties, lordships, margraviates, small kingdoms, and the Papal States, as well as the Ostrogoth and Lombard Kingdoms, were each something on their own, prior to that.

I would actually like it better if we would have tons of factions, but developping at an irregular level. So we would have small, medium and large AI players.

Even though I don't play Civ4 or Civ5, I read the synopsis of, and heard others talk about (including a friend in RL) some mod that has versions between the two iterations that has this degree of pre-determinism, and differing levels of development, even starting or entering the game at different times with such different development levels. That would be all fine, to be, at least, for a specific scenario, which covered a specific era and events(s) of history in capsulated form, but, for a whole mod, it seems like something, I, personally would not enjoy playing, even if I played Civ4 or Civ5, and would hope not like, at all, to be made into the fabric and backbone of Civ7, or Civ8, or what-have-you.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The Byzantine Empire was NOT just a continuation of either Roman or Greek Civilzation. It was a unique construct, politically, militarily, in architecture, in religion, and had a pivotal role in history,

Neither was Saint Louis kingdom of France to Georges Clemeceau French Republic in terms of politics, military or architecure. Religion also changed for many in-game civs that are seen as the same entity included the Roman (in Rome).

and, at their height, didn't much resemble the Roman Empire (except in political pretense of continuation - a pretense Mehmed II carried right on, and that was incorporated into Ottoman claims of greater legitimacy, too, BTW - and neither were truly a, "new Roman Empire," in a way other than pure pretense any more than the Holy Roman or Russian Empires were, either),

OK, is true that the "Byzantine" can be differentiated from the Roman in many aspects, BUT the way Byzantium inherit the title of "Heir of Rome" is complety different to the Ottomans, HRE or Russians. The context, origin, and lenght still in control of Rome itself is complety different between Eastern Rome vs either the germanic roman wannabes, the turkish invasors or an unfotunate refugee princess.

nor much resembled Ancient Greek Civilization, except for language. It is not at all a redundancy with either, in any true sense of the word, and deserves equal WEIGHT OF CONSIDERATION for a slot with the Ottomans or any of the others, listed.

It is redundant not in the sense that is exactly the same as Roman or Greek civs, it is redundant in the sense that is way closer to those two that others options.
For example can we question that Ottomans, Bulgarians or Armenians are further from Romans and Greeks than Byzantium?

So, certainly is wrong to say that "Byzantium" is the same that Rome or Greece, also is wrong to say that they "dont deserve" to be in game. But many other civs with either more unique identity or with equivalent differentiation to Rome>Byzantium are not in game.

 

[pineappledan]

It is not at all a redundancy with either, in any true sense of the word, and deserves equal WEIGHT OF CONSIDERATION for a slot with the Ottomans or any of the others, listed.

Just plain old false. There are multiple kingdoms and people more important, larger, and more unique than the 3rd Greek-speaking civ, who are politically and historically continuous with Rome. It’s just flatly wrong.

There are multiple instances of more important, powerful, pivotal states in the Chinese and Indian monoliths than Byzantium, while also being more historically, geographically, and linguistically distinct than the Byzantines. The Jurchens/Manchus controlled the 4th largest empire by landmass and the largest empire by population, both in absolute value and as a percentage of world population. Ever. You can trace the modern borders of China and their control of Tibet and the Tarim Basin to the Manchus. They spoke a Tungusic Siberian language and had a unique Mongolic-derived script, and formed multiple political entities including 2 distinct dynasties that ruled China for a combined 500 years, up to 1912, with cultural and religious traditions wholly distinct from anything the civ franchise has ever portrayed, spanning millenia. Firaxis has never portrayed a Siberian civ, or one from that entire language FAMILY. Meanwhile, Basil II was one of FIVE Greek-speaking leaders in civ 6.

The byzantines are just slightly different Greek/Roman dudes in an assembly line of 95% interchangeable white European kingdoms. A rump state holdover from a larger, more important empire who benefits from their proximity to that greatness and from unqualified Eurocentrism. They aren’t special by any conceivable metric.

 

[Patine]

Neither was Saint Louis kingdom of France to Georges Clemeceau French Republic in terms of politics, military or architecure. Religion also changed for many in-game civs that are seen as the same entity included the Roman (in Rome).


OK, is true that the "Byzantine" can be differentiated from the Roman in many aspects, BUT the way Byzantium inherit the title of "Heir of Rome" is complety different to the Ottomans, HRE or Russians. The context, origin, and lenght still in control of Rome itself is complety different between Eastern Rome vs either the germanic roman wannabes, the turkish invasors or an unfotunate refugee princess.


It is redundant not in the sense that is exactly the same as Roman or Greek civs, it is redundant in the sense that is way closer to those two that others options.
For example can we question that Ottomans, Bulgarians or Armenians are further from Romans and Greeks than Byzantium?

So, certainly is wrong to say that "Byzantium" is the same that Rome or Greece, also is wrong to say that they "dont deserve" to be in game. But many other civs with either more unique identity or with equivalent differentiation to Rome>Byzantium are not in game.

Just plain old false. There are multiple kingdoms and people more important, larger, and more unique than the 3rd Greek-speaking civ, who are politically and historically continuous with Rome. It’s just flatly wrong.

There are multiple instances of more important, powerful, pivotal states in the Chinese and Indian monoliths than Byzantium, while also being more historically, geographically, and linguistically distinct than the Byzantines. The Jurchens/Manchus controlled the 4th largest empire by landmass and the largest empire by population, both in absolute value and as a percentage of world population. Ever. You can trace the modern borders of China and their control of Tibet and the Tarim Basin to the Manchus. They spoke a Tungusic Siberian language and had a unique Mongolic-derived script, and formed multiple political entities including 2 distinct dynasties that ruled China for a combined 500 years, up to 1912, with cultural and religious traditions wholly distinct from anything the civ franchise has ever portrayed, spanning millenia. Firaxis has never portrayed a Siberian civ, or one from that language FAMILY, meanwhile we had FIVE Greek-speaking leaders in civ 6.

The byzantines are just slightly different boring Greek dudes in a production line of 95% interchangeable white European kingdoms. A rump state holdover from a larger, more important empire who benefit from their proximity to that greatness. They aren’t special.

I find the reasons given in these two posts to be quite flimsy, pushing specific biases conspicuously, and, in some cases, perhaps showing an insufficient lack of historical study of the subject. I also did not say they deserved TO BE in the game, automatically, but that they are AS DESERVING TO BE CONSIDERED for a slot as most of the others proposed. Your points of view are, flat out, they have no place in the game as their own civ, and even considering or proposing them is misguided, because you've DECLARED they are redundant on flimsy rationale.

Anyways, this particular issue will likely go nowhere, and may even get unnecessarily unpleasant, and thus I am disengaging myself, but making no concessions in viewpoint on the topic of debate.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I find the reasons given in these two posts to be quite flimsy, pushing specific biases conspicuously, and, in some cases, perhaps showing an insufficient lack of historical study of the subject.

Again, could say the same about the false equivalence between the transition of Rome to Byzantium compared to Ottomans, HRE or Russian claims over the title of Rome.

But anyway as I said before Byzantium have a 100% secure place in any new version of CIV, there is not point to debate about if Byzantium "deserve" to be in game.
It is more usefull to talk about add successors of others civs. Like @pineappledan suggested civs like Jin (Jurchens) are a great option to add in CIV7. By the way before any call about "chinese cersorship", CIV7 is a chance to name the regular Chinese culture by a dynastic name like Han since we already have the dynastic named Ottoman civ, others games have shown that chinese are OK with the use of dynastic name for factions in a historical context.

Persia, India and China are just the three biggest examples of wasted potential for multiple civs limited by the double standards in CIV.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Meanwhile, Basil II was one of FIVE Greek-speaking leaders in civ 6.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing, even me, about the amount of Greek leader representation in the game might be a little too much. I don't feel like that has any bearing on Byzantium's inclusion, however. In fact most people loved Basil II because we got a proper one from the Macedonian dynasty instead of Justinian/Theodora again. If we get a proper Egyptian Pharoah and no Macedon in Civ 7 would that suffice to include them?

The byzantines are just slightly different Greek/Roman dudes in an assembly line of 95% interchangeable white European kingdoms. A rump state holdover from a larger, more important empire who benefits from their proximity to that greatness and from unqualified Eurocentrism. They aren’t special by any conceivable metric.

I think you're selling them short on how they were one of the greatest European empires, in the Medieval ages, that persisted after the fall of Western Rome. Still modern historians consider them to be distinct and separate enough to call them something different than Rome, so blame them.
Overall, in a game with about 50 different factions of historical powers throughout the world, yes I'd be surprised to not see them at all.

Persia, India and China are just the three biggest examples of wasted potential for multiple civs limited by the double standards in CIV.

India I would agree on with what I said above. Persia and China however I'd much rather have multiple leaders representing the different dynasties. However, a separate Tibet civ would be fine with me, if that's possible.

 

[BuchiTaton]

India I would agree on with what I said above. Persia and China however I'd much rather have multiple leaders representing the different dynasties. However, a separate Tibet civ would be fine with me, if that's possible.

Are the Achaemenid empire the same that the 1350 later muslim and turkic Seljuk empire?
Are the 400 years of Han dynasty the same as the Jurchen Jin dynasty almost 900 years later?

I wonder if Abd al-Rahman III should be an alternative leader for Spain

 

[pineappledan]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing, even me, about the amount of Greek leader representation in the game might be a little too much. I don't feel like that has any bearing on Byzantium's inclusion, however. In fact most people loved Basil II because we got a proper one from the Macedonian dynasty instead of Justinian/Theodora again. If we get a proper Egyptian Pharoah and no Macedon in Civ 7 would that suffice to include them?

If European people were treated in a way that was consistent with how the game handles inclusion in other 9/10ths of the world, you would get 1 Mediterranean/Southern European civ. Probably either Greece or Rome, but not both. So no, personally that doesn't suffice. If Firaxis were to retain their roster at around 50 civs then I can think of at least 100 cultures, languages, and entities I would rather have in the game before Byzantium.

For any number of reasons, Firaxis would never cut their European roster to the bone like that, but the part of civ that I like is how you get to play a historical counterfactual. Playing as an Indian civ and having end game global hegemony shake out a different way than how it did in real history is more fun than using civ to just reenact westernization in the modern era. That's why the 2:1 ratio of European civs vs everything else doesn't interest me.

 

[Patine]

If European people were treated in a way that was consistent with how the game handles inclusion in other 9/10ths of the world, you would get 1 Mediterranean/Southern European civ. Probably either Greece or Rome, but not both. So no, personally that doesn't suffice. If Firaxis were to retain their roster at around 50 civs then I can think of at least 100 cultures, languages, and entities I would rather have in the game before Byzantium.

For any number of reasons, Firaxis would never cut their European roster to the bone like that, but the part of civ that I like is how you get to play a historical counterfactual. Playing as an Indian civ and having end game global hegemony shake out a different way than how it did in real history is more fun than using civ to just reenact westernization in the modern era. That's why the 2:1 ratio of European civs vs everything else doesn't interest me.

Artificial quotas by continent, on the other hand, are a much worse, and conspicuously so, idea. And, it's also not at all something I support or get behind to lump, "Eurocentric," civ's into a single basket quality, and declare it, inherently, a negative.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Byzantine Empire was NOT just a continuation of either Roman or Greek Civilization.

The Byzantine Empire considere it self Romans but speaks Greek, we already have Rome and Greece as civ, I rly think Byzantium is not necessary.

 

[Patine]

The Byzantine Empire considere it self Romans but speaks Greek, we already have Rome and Greece as civ, I rly think Byzantium is not necessary.

I just explained this whole thing TWICE above. The claim of being Roman was political PRETENSE, like the Holy Roman, Russian, and even Ottoman Empires, themselves had. The Greeks language made them no more redundant with, or really that similar to, Ancient Greek civ's or leaders - like Gorgo, Pericles, or Alexander - than any of them would be if, say, if Ioannis Kapodistrias or Elefterios Venizelos were included at some point, hypothetically. You ignored TWO separate posts where I explained the very significant and profound differences of the Byzantine Empire from either the Roman Empire or Ancient Greece, and even several points of definitely backing up my point by @Alexander's Hetaroi and have just, defaulted, agiain to the bad - and incorrect - stereotype you started with, ignoring absolutely everything else said as though it hadn't been said. This is certainly not the first time, remotely, you've engaged in this bad, "resetting point," tactic of debate, but it is a bit annoying to all concerned - and just a bit disrespectful to those you're debating or discussing with.

 

[pineappledan]

Thank goodness you're here to set the record straight with your lack of pretense and ideologically "pure" counterpoints, eh?

Weren't you just in the middle of "disengaging yourself" from all these "flimsy, conspicuously biased" discussions?

Besides showcasing a diversity of cultures, It would also be nice to clean up the TSLs so that some continents are not just free real estate, while Europe and the Middle East are the Thunderdome.

 

[Patine]

Thank goodness you're here to set the record straight with your lack of pretense and ideologically "pure" counterpoints, eh?

I've not declared my counterparts to be, "pure," at any point. I don't recall where I did that. This sounds like counter-productive mockery.

Weren't you just in the middle of "disengaging yourself" from all these "flimsy, conspicuously biased" discussions?

I did, but the subject of the conversation, "evolved," and not for the better.

Besides showcasing a diversity of cultures, It would also be nice to clean up the TSLs so that some continents are not just free real estate, while Europe and the Middle East are the Thunderdome.

There's a difference between showcasing a diversity of cultures and condemning, "Eurocentric," cultures as inherently bad and to be downgraded by priority by that fact, alone. And that difference is very important, and a matter of maintaining perspective and proportion, and not arbitrary labels.

 

[Henri Christophe]

"Eurocentric,"

That is another point! I guess add Byzantium is very eurocentric, we look the Europeans civilization with a microscope and almost forget the other corners of the world.

 

[Patine]

That is another point! I guess add Byzantium is very eurocentric, we look the Europeans civilization with a microscope and almost forget the other corners of the world.

Who is, "we," in this indictment?

 

[Henri Christophe]

We are the western world... Fireaxis.

 

[pineappledan]

There's a difference between showcasing a diversity of cultures and condemning, "Eurocentric," cultures as inherently bad and to be downgraded by priority by that fact, alone. And that difference is very important, and a matter of maintaining perspective and proportion, and not arbitrary labels

I gave an example of a both geographically and demographically larger, more powerful, richer, empire that has never been in the game. But Byzantium has been in the game. The only possible explanation for why a cultural, political, and historical heavyweight like the Qing don’t get a slot while a middleweight like Byzantium does is because one is European, western, and familiar, and the other is East Asian and foreign. And when I point that out you call it “flimsy, biased, and ignorant”. It is Me that is the one who is biased.

Are the Mughals more deserving of being a civ than Byzantium? No of course not, that’s biased.
Are the Pandyas? No, that’s biased

There’s a word for that perspective, that European cultures matter, and non-European ones don’t. Civ 6 has 50 civs in total, with 19 European and another 5 settler-colonial ones. 48% of the roster. But it’s Me who is biased.

What a joke.