Constantinople / Istanbul in Civ7

[Henri Christophe]

Are the Mughals more deserving of being a civ than Byzantium?

I think Mughal deserve the spot of a Civ over Byzantium, even if I think Mughal can also be an alternative leader to the Mongols!

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Enough!! This is way out of control and you need to stop trolling each other. When someone calls another person's opinion "Flat Wrong", that is disrespectful and it has caused this. Back to topic, stop discussing each other and be civil. Deleted the worst of the trolling.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Are the Achaemenid empire the same that the 1350 later muslim and turkic Seljuk empire?

I would consider Parthia different and distinct, but for all intents and purposes, the Persians have maintained a steady culture throughout the years. The only real difference between the Achaemenid Empire and later ones is just the introduction of Islam. Things like satraps, bazaars, and Persian gardens etc. were kept and even spread throughout the Muslim world.

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.

By game design, the Qing Dynasty is already covered by China.
Byzantium however is not covered by Rome through any of the unique components.

I don't think the argument is too lump European civs back together in order to add in more civs from around the world. My hope is both would continue to grow and I even mentioned it earlier with the Mughals and Tibet, at least.

 

[FishFishFish]

I wouldn't consider Byzantium and Rome to be the same civ. But I do believe that Greece and Byzantium really should be. They were speaking Greek, their coins had Greek alphabet on it, the "emperor" was actually a Basileus, it was more of a Greek-eastern monarchy than a republican tyranny with a mighty senate and an Augustus. For those reasons, I usually end up disabling either Greece or Byzantium when starting a new game.

 

[Patine]

I wouldn't consider Byzantium and Rome to be the same civ. But I do believe that Greece and Byzantium really should be. They were speaking Greek, their coins had Greek alphabet on it, the "emperor" was actually a Basileus, it was more of a Greek-eastern monarchy than a republican tyranny with a mighty senate and an Augustus. For those reasons, I usually end up disabling either Greece or Byzantium when starting a new game.

This similarity of merely speaking the same language is a strange indictment to declare that they, thusly, must be too similar in nature to be consider separate and distinct civ's on that alone. As I said above:

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.

Also, many who push different dynasties of Chinese Empires as separate civ's - and as being more worthy, inherently, than a Byzantine Empire - forget that they all, even the Jin, Yuan, and Qing Dynasties, who CAME IN speaking something else - all ended up, or, in most cases, started off, using differing historical developmental iterations of, "Court Chinese," of which modern Mandarin is the latest, but somehow that fact is dismissed by such proponents, even while they condemn the Byzantines as unworthy of being a separate because they speak Greek as a principal argument.

 

[BuchiTaton]

By game design, the Qing Dynasty is already covered by China.

Does Chinese civ do something like these?
- Exploit taiga terrain with reindeer herding
- Get great militar bonus from demands (The tributary Jurchen destroyed their overlords twice)
- Eight Banners as a way to link military and culture from your own cities and conquered ones
- Units like the Iron Pagoda heavy cavalry

CIV is leader centric in design neither Nurhaci or Aguda would be Han (Chinese) emperors. Change the name Qing with Jin and the cultural elements is more clear, name it Jurchen and there should be no reason to oppose it.

Seems like people are not understanding that dynastic names are usefull to implement CULTURES, we already have Ottomans as a civ (and "Mughals"/Gurkani as another option), also an alternate double leader for China-Mongolia. Jin/Qing would be Jurchen/Manchu civ an option easier to implement than Tibetans.

 

[Patine]

Does Chinese civ do something like these?
- Exploit taiga terrain with reindeer herding
- Get great militar bonus from demands (The tributary Jurchen destroyed their overlords twice)
- Eight Banners as a way to link military and culture from your own cities and conquered ones
- Units like the Iron Pagoda heavy cavalry

CIV is leader centric in design neither Nurhaci or Aguda would be Han (Chinese) emperors. Change the name Qing with Jin and the cultural elements is more clear, name it Jurchen and there should be no reason to oppose it.

Seems like people are not understanding that dynastic names are usefull to implement CULTURES, we already have Ottomans as a civ (and "Mughals"/Gurkani as another option), also an alternate double leader for China-Mongolia. Jin/Qing would be Jurchen/Manchu civ an option easier to implement than Tibetans.

-Exploiting Taiga and reindeer herding would be a better bonus for someone like, hypothetically, Sakha or Saami, than a civ who were much better known in history for ruling over hundreds of millions of rice-fed subjects.
-Tributary bonuses could be better applied to many other potential choices. Even a potential reworking of the Aztecs, or a reintroduction of Venice, would have being a tributary empire being more iconic.
-I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Eight Banners bonus.
-The Iron Pagoda cavalry could easily be an alternate unique unit for an alternative leader, without needing a new civ.

 

[BuchiTaton]

-Exploiting Taiga and reindeer herding would be a better bonus for someone like, hypothetically, Sakha or Saami, than a civ who were much better known in history for ruling over hundreds of millions of rice-fed subjects.

Sure in a game about being expansive powers (by arms, economy, religion/culture, etc.) lets keep adding cultures that never exploited their original way of life to be world powers.
The idea of use taiga is to like Jurchen, start the game in an undesired land to later rise to power and take over the big fish.

-Tributary bonuses could be better applied to many other potential choices. Even a potential reworking of the Aztecs, or a reintroduction of Venice, would have being a tributary empire being more iconic.

Is the contrary, the idea is to turn tables and gain from bullies.

-I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Eight Banners bonus.

In general I think culture need a rework in CIV7 and these could be the chance to link accepted cultures to unique promotions "Banners" for those acepted cultures (like Manchu but also later Han and Mongols).

-The Iron Pagoda cavalry could easily be an alternate unique unit for an alternative leader, without needing a new civ.

Like Dromon Fire Ship could be easily an alternate unique unit for an alternative Roman leader.

 

[Patine]

Sure in a game about being expansive powers (by arms, economy, religion/culture, etc.) lets keep adding cultures that never exploited their original way of life to be world powers.
The idea of use taiga is to like Jurchen, start the game in an undesired land to later rise to power and take over the big fish.

That's all well and good, but China, throughout all of its history, has been, to some degree or another an expansive power (by arms, economy, religion/culture, etc.), regardless of Dynasty (or the Republic or People's Republic, for that matter).

Like Dromon Fire Ship could be easily an alternate unique unit for an alternative Roman leader.

I have already made my case, in multiple posts in this thread, on the Byzantine Empire's distinct qualities as a separate and unique civ from the Roman Empire and, certainly, Ancient Greece, and @Alexander's Hetaroi has backed me up several times, and the consensus of historians has my back, whether or not you, and a couple of others here prefer that. However, historians - ESPECIALLY Chinese historians - do not regard the Qing Dynasty as a completely separate and unique civ from China at all, but one of many Imperial Dynasties of the same national continuum. There is just no equal footing there.

 

[BuchiTaton]

That's all well and good, but China, throughout all of its history, has been, to some degree or another an expansive power (by arms, economy, religion/culture, etc.), regardless of Dynasty (or the Republic or People's Republic, for that matter).

Wonderfull news the civ could be named Jurchen/Manchu civ NOT Chinese civ!!!
Even using the dynastic names with an early leader would be clearly NOT China, like also the chinese (Han) Song and Ming dynasties refused to see them.

I have already made my case, in multiple posts in this thread, on the Byzantine Empire's distinct qualities as a separate and unique civ from the Roman Empire and, certainly, Ancient Greece, and @Alexander's Hetaroi has backed me up several times, and the consensus of historians has my back, whether or not you, and a couple of others here prefer that. However, historians - ESPECIALLY Chinese historians - do not regard the Qing Dynasty as a completely separate and unique civ from China at all, but one of many Imperial Dynasties of the same national continuum. There is just no equal footing there.

We well know that there are also academics questioning both perpectives, especially in recent times.

Jurchen founded two empires that took over the biggest nation in the world, han chinese saw them as barbarian pretenders and fight them for centuries of wars and rebelions included upsirings over forced cultural customs. BUT, THEY ARE THE SAME!!!

"Byzantines" seem themselves as Romans as also did Persians, Arabs, Slavs, Huns/Tatars, etc. BUT, THEY ARE DIFFERENT!!!

Many historians love to spit over the grave of the people they are studying. But better lets put some ancient egyptian deaths in a museum without respect of what those people believe.

 

[Patine]

Wonderfull news the civ could be named Jurchen/Manchu civ NOT Chinese civ!!!
Even using the dynastic names with an early leader would be clearly NOT China, like also the chinese (Han) Song and Ming dynasties refused to see them.

We well know that there are also academics questioning both perpectives, especially in recent times.

Jurchen founded two empires that took over the biggest nation in the world, han chinese saw them as barbarian pretenders and fight them for centuries of wars and rebelions included upsirings over forced cultural customs. BUT, THEY ARE THE SAME!!!

"Byzantines" seem themselves as Romans as also did Persians, Arabs, Slavs, Huns/Tatars, etc. BUT, THEY ARE DIFFERENT!!!

Many historians love to spit over the grave of the people they are studying. But better lets put some ancient egyptian deaths in a museum without respect of what those people believe.

In the first instance, you had been, up till now, using the term, "Qing," which WAS specifically the name of the dynasty that ruled China, as opposed to the term Jurchen or Manchu, which is the people. Like the difference between Yuan Dynasty and the Mongols. Your conflation confused the issue. Clarity is a virtue.
In the second instance, as I've said several times above, the, "Roman continuity," was a political pretense and conceit in the day, and one accepted by many neighbours (aside from the Papacy and their anointed Holy Roman Empire, who had a rival claim and pretense), but other than that, resembled VERY LITTLE in the way of the previous Roman Empire, and, other than language, resembled VERY LITTLE Ancient Greece. They were a very distinct and separate society, culture, and polity in most meaningful ways from either.

 

[pineappledan]

Wonderfull news the civ could be named Jurchen/Manchu civ NOT Chinese civ!!!
Even using the dynastic names with an early leader would be clearly NOT China, like also the chinese (Han) Song and Ming dynasties refused to see them.

Nurhaci's great, but I'm partial to Hong Taiji. If they were led by Nurhaci then it would be a slight anachronism to call them the Manchus.

Between Jurchen or Manchu, I prefer the Manchu, because it's such a wild ethno-nationalist project to just re-christen a confederation of Jurchens and related tribes into a new ethnicity, whole cloth, in the 1600s, and then immediately conquer Northern Korea, Mongolia, China, and Tibet within 50 years.

 

[Patine]

Nurhaci's great, but I'm partial to Hong Taiji. If they were led by Nurhaci then it would be a slight anachronism to call them the Manchus.

Between Jurchen or Manchu, I prefer the Manchu, because it's such a wild ethno-nationalist project to just re-christen a confederation of Jurchens and related tribes into a new ethnicity, whole cloth, in the 1600s, and then immediately conquer Northern Korea, Mongolia, China, and Tibet within 50 years.

Of course, Hong Taji, as opposed to Nurhaci, is pretty much the start of what I was bringing up. When you're at that point, the relevance of a separate Jurchen or Manchu nation, such as under Nurhaci, is pointless, because they become the rulers of the Chinese Empire, and thus, by historians' reckoning - ESPECIALLY Chinese historians, the Qing Dynasty begins, which is a dynasty of the Chinese Empire, and not a separate civ.

 

[pineappledan]

Hong Taiji inaugurated the Qing dynasty and the Manchu people, but he did not conquer China, that was his successors. The conquest of China was not completed until the Kangxi Emperor. conquering China does not retroactively annihilate the Manchu's ethnicity, language, or culture.

The Chinese narrative of Sinicization is a propaganda tool. While there is a grain of truth to it, the Manchus were largely successful in maintaining a sense of their own identity as separate, occupiers over the Han Chinese. This has drawn several historians to compare China under the Manchus to Apartheid. The Manchus were also vigorous in pushing their own cultural markers onto the Chinese population at large, as a sign of their capitulation. The most famous example of this is the queue.

I'd recommend the work by M.C. Elliot re: the Manchu ethnic identity. The Chinese self-narrative that the Manchus' identity was swept away by Chinese culture when they took power has only been challenged in the last 20 years or so, but the balance of evidence suggests that the Manchus were not Chinese, and in fact took great pains to ensure they wouldn't become Chinese.

Also If the Manchus were Chinese then the Byzantines were most definitely Greeks. Arguing one but not the other is incongruous.

 

[Patine]

Also If the Manchus were Chinese then the Byzantines were most definitely Greeks. Arguing one but not the other is incongruous.

Historians tend not to agree with this analysis, at least in the specific way you are using, "Greeks." These two ideals of national continuum are not on an equal footing, in commonly accepted academia, I'm afraid.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Does Chinese civ do something like these?
- Exploit taiga terrain with reindeer herding
- Get great militar bonus from demands (The tributary Jurchen destroyed their overlords twice)
- Eight Banners as a way to link military and culture from your own cities and conquered ones
- Units like the Iron Pagoda heavy cavalry

China's ability is called Dynastic Cycles. Last time I checked the Qing dynasty was considered one of the dynasties, same as the Yuan Dynasty.
Even though they aren't at the top of my wish list, I wouldn't be opposed to having a leader from that dynasty lead China.

CIV is leader centric in design neither Nurhaci or Aguda would be Han (Chinese) emperors. Change the name Qing with Jin and the cultural elements is more clear, name it Jurchen and there should be no reason to oppose it.

Seems like people are not understanding that dynastic names are usefull to implement CULTURES, we already have Ottomans as a civ (and "Mughals"/Gurkani as another option), also an alternate double leader for China-Mongolia. Jin/Qing would be Jurchen/Manchu civ an option easier to implement than Tibetans.

I just personally feel like splitting up civs like China and Persia, wouldn't fit as well in a civ game. I feel like the way Humankind works it is better implemented in that game. I am all for representing different eras, and gameplay styles, with different leaders personally.
I admit I'm not as well versed on the history of the Manchus, but if there's a possible leader option outside of when they ruled the Qing dynasty or any other Chinese dynasty to be a separate civ, I'd be interested.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I usually end up disabling either Greece or Byzantium when starting a new game.

I do the same, I never play with Byzantium in the game because I rly believe they don't deserve to be a civ, and any argument posted here changed my mind.




And about China.... I think only China can cover it, we don't need each dynasty to become a civ. The dynasies can be well represented by the leaders choiced to be china leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do the same, I never play with Byzantium in the game because I rly believe they don't deserve to be a civ, and any argument posted here changed my mind.

Is it because they are European? Because I know you don't mind having other breakaway states as civs such as Rio Grande do Sul who would easily just fit under Brazil.

If we really want to consolidate European civs, I don't think folding in Byzantium to either Rome or Greece is the way to go. Personally, I think adding in both Scotland and Gaul might have been too superfluous.
I think for Civ 7 they should consolidate the "Celtic representation" into one civ. I think Ireland would be a good compromise.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

First, all arguments about what Civs "should" be included - or not - are largely pointless because of the context in which you/we are all arguing: this is a commercial game which has to sell large numbers of the game just to break even, given the cost of producing a computer game these days. That means that the first consideration will always be What Civs Do People Want To Play and Identify With regardless of the historical, cultural, military, linguistic "importance"of the Civs in question.
Lots of gamers with lots of money are in western Europe, Japan, and the USA. The United States, Japan, and many western European 'Civs' will be represented in the game. Every time. Regardless of who they push out of the game to make room for them.

Second, my one and only legitimate contribution to the Rome/Byzantium/Greece discussion, because I took a degree in Classics with emphasis on the Hellenistic period and some courses from a Byzantine expert (as in, fellow of the archeological schools in Athens and Ankara, fluent in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Turkish and Arabic), and he made an important point that is applicable here.
After introducing his graduate level class to the basics of the Byzantine world, he gave us a lecture on "The Trinitological and Christological Conroversies in the Byzantine Church in the 4th - 8th centuries AD" - and by the end of the hour not one person hearing it could have told you anything intelligent about what he had said. It was absolutely Unfathomable to all of us from start to finish.
At which time he told us that the point of the lecture was, in fact, that it was unintelligible to us. But these controversies were so important to the people of Byzantium that they would riot in the streets over them.
Lesson: People in the past are Not Like Us. They may be living in an urban, cosmopolitan, international city like Constantinopolis/Byzantium, but they do not think the way we do, or even about the same things.

So the larger lesson is that it is immaterial whether we think the Qing, Jurchen, Manchu, Yuen, etc. are "Chinese Dynasties", or how the Greeks, Byzantines, Late Imperial Romans considered themselves or were similar, identical, or utterly different. What really matters in both understanding them and representing them in-game is What that meant to them at the time - and you can bet solid money that how they thought about it and themselves and their neighbors was not how we would or do think about those things.

Oh, and as to the Greek language vis-a-vis Byzantium: Istanbul/Constantinople was a majority-Greek speaking city until the beginning of the 20th century and had been the largest Greek-speaking city in the world for about 1500 years at that time, while ostensibly being "Roman", "Byzantine" or "Ottoman". The language had little or nothing to do with the politics of the times, and was only one component of the culture of the city or the polity of which it was part.

 

[pineappledan]

And about China.... I think only China can cover it, we don't need each dynasty to become a civ. The dynasies can be well represented by the leaders choiced to be china leader.

China is a massive landmass with a lot of people and ethnic groups. and it has a very long and well-documented history. Looking at the borders of modern China and reaching backwards through time to assert that the modern borders of China encompass a real geographic truth is very far from the reality. Tibet, the Tarim basin, and Manchuria being part of China are things that were established fairly recently, and by a foreign conquest dynasty.

People seem to be able to understand that when the Mongols conquered China they were still Mongols. That their identity, history, and culture didn’t suddenly evaporate. That the Manchus, who conquered China better than the Mongols, twice, for longer (500 years from 900-1900), and who left an indelible mark on Chinese culture, rather than the other way around, are somehow not significantly different from Han Chinese. This, despite being unrelated to Chinese people, with a different language and cultural practices. You may as well try to tell me that the English colonizing Ireland means they are Irish. It’s that silly.