Constantinople / Istanbul in Civ7

Status
Not open for further replies.
People seem to be able to understand that when the Mongols conquered China they were still Mongols. That the Manchus, who conquered China better, 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.
But Kublai is a leader for China which also means that the Yuan Dynasty, another foreign controlled dynasty, is part of China in game. :confused:
 
But Kublai is a leader for China which also means that the Yuan Dynasty, another foreign controlled dynasty, is part of China in game. :confused:
Yes, as a dual leader for Mongolia, who gets their own civ. Importantly, the groundwork for Mongolia as their own civ. The same thing could be done for other conquest dynasties, but I think it’s important they exist as their own cultures/civs (eg. Nurhaci leading the Jurchens) before discussing a split leader (eg. Kangxi leading Jurchens/China). It would be my hope that China can be expounded upon more than 1 civ with 2 leaders. Same as India, like I don’t think the Mughals should just be a leader option; they should be a full civ

Anyways, this is getting crazy off-topic, we should return to Istanbul (not Constantinople)
 
Last edited:
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.
Not exactly because Byzantium was european, but it's more because they was Roman, they fell they self as Romans. I think Rome empire is enouth to represent both civilizations. And I say more, why not a Byzantium leader as alternative leader of Rome! Way better then a new civ just for Byzantium.

And Yes, I would like to play with Rio Grande do Sul as a civ, and think they are more interisting then Byzantium. If this game decide to do Break states as also Texas as an another amazing name


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.
Don't matter how many dynasties China had, they always had a felling of China. Even for example when it was divided in 3 kingdoms (in the 3 kingdom era). They all fight to unify China, because they already have a concept of China. That is the why China should just be one single civ.

Even Tibet, I don't think is a good idea to be a civ, even if another break way states as Texas and Rio Grande do Sul was added.
.
 
Even Tibet, I don't think is a good idea to be a civ, even if another break way states as Texas and Rio Grande do Sul was added.
Uhh… Tibet is not “China” it was its own thing for thousands of years and was conquered by the Qing and has been annexed by China ever since (except for a brief period of independence during the Chinese Republican era). Calling Tibetans Chinese is like calling Gauls Romans
 
Uhh… Tibet is not “China” it was its own thing for thousands of years and was conquered by the Qing and has been annexed by China ever since (except for a brief period of independence during the Chinese Republican era). Calling Tibetans Chinese is like calling Gauls Romans
But today Tibet is China, I think this game will found trouble to sell copies in China if it added Tibet as a civ.
 
Yea, because China has been trying to stamp out Tibetan nationalism for almost a century now. That’s why I never suggested adding Tibet, because it flirts controversy. But running the opposite way and calling them Chinese is aligning yourself with the Chinese state, which is trying to crush the Tibetan identity as we speak. You’re swallowing PPC propaganda.

Likewise, calling the Manchus Chinese is an act of toeing the Han-supremacist narrative of cultural erasure. Historians that give voice to that lie are picking party and ideology over historical fact, but in the case of the Manchus it takes on a further dimension of racial revenge for hundreds of years of occupation, in combination of a disavowal of the old dynastic system in favor of the new communist system. The biases in Chinese historians are so widely known and acknowledged that there is a term for the new historiography that non-Chinese people have developed. This isn't to say that sinicization did not occur to a significant degree, but the idea that Manchu identity is either entirely folded in, or so completely annihilated that it even retroactively becomes a smaller facet of Chinese history is ideologically motivated, and has no factual basis.
 
Last edited:
Let's not get back into this. Back to Constantinople/Istanbul.

The best solution to avert having 2 civs with the same TSL is to move the Ottomans to Edirne, or another one of their earlier capitals, before they conquered Constantinople. This might mean giving up on using Suleiman for the 4th time in a row for civ 7 though. 😲
 
Last edited:
Not exactly because Byzantium was european, but it's more because they was Roman, they fell they self as Romans. I think Rome empire is enouth to represent both civilizations. And I say more, why not a Byzantium leader as alternative leader of Rome! Way better then a new civ just for Byzantium.
Again, the Byzantine Empire was only Roman in political pretense, and otherwise very little resembled the Roman Empire, or Ancient Greece. This is not just my personal opinion, alone. Also, there isn't a large number of dedicated opponents or detractors for the inclusion of the Byzantines, that I've seen - you and the other two in this thread I've been sparring with in debate about this issue seem in a small minority as these forums, as I've witnessed, for the vehemence of objection presented, to be honest.
And Yes, I would like to play with Rio Grande do Sul as a civ, and think they are more interisting then Byzantium. If this game decide to do Break states as also Texas as an another amazing name

Even Tibet, I don't think is a good idea to be a civ, even if another break way states as Texas and Rio Grande do Sul was added.
.
This is purely a matter of opinion, and certainly everyone has the right to freely hold theirs, but you haven't mustered any significant support or agreement on these, here.
 
Yea, because China has been trying to stamp out Tibetan nationalism for almost a century now. That’s why I never suggested adding Tibet, because it flirts controversy. But running the opposite way and calling them Chinese is aligning yourself with the Chinese state, which is trying to crush the Tibetan identity as we speak. You’re swallowing PPC propaganda.

Likewise, calling the Manchus Chinese is an act of toeing the Han-supremacist narrative of cultural erasure. Historians that give voice to that lie are picking party and ideology over historical fact, but in the case of the Manchus it takes on a further dimension of racial revenge for hundreds of years of occupation, in combination of a disavowal of the old dynastic system in favor of the new communist system. The biases in Chinese historians are so widely known and acknowledged that there is a term for the new historiography that non-Chinese people have developed. This isn't to say that sinicization did not occur to a significant degree, but the idea that Manchu identity is either entirely folded in, or so completely annihilated that it even retroactively becomes a smaller facet of Chinese history is ideologically motivated, and has no factual basis.
Be this part as it may, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Byzantine Empire is Roman by political pretense, alone, and only has language truly connecting it to Ancient Greece. I can't even remember how the purported separation of the Manchus from China became inextricably intertwined with the completely separate issue of the distinct nature of Byzantine civilization from the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece in this discussion, but it was an unproductive, and diversionary, conflation, and I think moving on past it is a good idea.
 
Again, the Byzantine Empire was only Roman in political pretense, and otherwise very little resembled the Roman Empire, or Ancient Greece.
The society change, it's normal.
If we look the French from years 1000 and from years 2000 it is so diferent but it is not different enouth to be a civ.
The same can be aplie to Byzantium, it can be very diferent from Rome of Julio César, but still Rome.
 
The society change, it's normal.
If we look the French from years 1000 and from years 2000 it is so diferent but it is not different enouth to be a civ.
The same can be aplie to Byzantium, it can be very diferent from Rome of Julio César, but still Rome.
It's not the same thing. Your analogies show an inaccurate view of the situation. The French, from Hugh Capet to Emanuel Macron show a lot more continuity and national continuum in many ways than the Byzantine Empire has to the Roman Empire, which is really just, all in all, political pretense. And, recognizing political pretense alone as a continuation of national continuum is a VERY controversial path to follow, let me tell you. For instance, it would also mean that the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire, Napoleon's French Empire, the Ottoman Empire, itself, the early Medieval Serbian and Bulgarian Empires, the modern Greek irredentist, "Megali Idea," and Mussolini's Fascist Kingdom of Italy, as well as the Roman Catholic Church on a, "sacredoutum mundi," must be seen as continuations of the Roman Empire, because they all hold a political pretense of some sort or another. Hell, even the United States founding fathers invoking ideals, symbols, terminology, and District of Columbia mall architecture from the Roman Republic is very evocative. Thus, saying a civ had a pretense of Roman continuity as being, "Roman," and not worthy of a separate civ slot quickly ludicrous to sustain.
 
it would also mean that the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire, Napoleon's French Empire, the Ottoman Empire, itself, the early Medieval Serbian and Bulgarian Empires, the modern Greek irredentist, "Megali Idea," and Mussolini's Fascist Kingdom of Italy, as well as the Roman Catholic Church on a, "sacredoutum mundi," must be seen as continuations of the Roman Empire
Most of the nations you said about have their own civ! We have Austria, Russia, France, Turks and Greeks. Just Servia, Bulgaria and Italy who not.
Because we all understand this other claims to be the continuity of the Roman Empire not so strong so the Roman Empire isn't enouth to represent Austria, Russia and Turks.
But Byzantium is different... They really was just a Rome who speaks greek. They fell they self as Roman, and now historians want to change the history making a Byzantium empire, something who just pop up after enlighment. At the time of Byzantium any one called it Byzantium, but Rome instead. So, it's Rome!
 
Let's not get back into this. Back to Constantinople/Istanbul.

The best solution to avert having 2 civs with the same TSL is to move the Ottomans to Edirne, or another one of their earlier capitals, before they conquered Constantinople. This might mean giving up on using Suleiman for the 4th time in a row for civ 7 though. 😲
I think Istanbul should stay with the Turks as the capital city forever.
Any other city should be weird.
 
Most of the nations you said about have their own civ! We have Austria, Russia, France, Turks and Greeks. Just Servia, Bulgaria and Italy who not.
Because we all understand this other claims to be the continuity of the Roman Empire not so strong so the Roman Empire isn't enouth to represent Austria, Russia and Turks.
But Byzantium is different... They really was just a Rome who speaks greek. They fell they self as Roman, and now historians want to change the history making a Byzantium empire, something who just pop up after enlighment. At the time of Byzantium any one called it Byzantium, but Rome instead. So, it's Rome!
No, a pretense of continuity, which all of those other civ's also had from the Roman Empire, does not make it JUST Rome with Greek instead of Latin as its main language. I would highly suggest you do some study into the Byzantine Empire, its society, its culture, its religion, its architecture, its politics, and most other meaningful facets that make a civillizatiion rather than chanting your point of view based SOLELY and ONLY on a claim of pretense ALONE, and utterly ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE. You're sole argument, which is pretense of continuity, is unsustainable, in and of itself, such like the use of certain dyes in art for reasons we are uncertain of, is unsustainable to declare that Olmecs WERE Black, racially. If you can't expand your argument beyond a single point that is one of more minor aspects of Byzantine civilization, shared with many other civilizations, and that giving too much weight on face value to such claims, in general, leads to very controversial territory, then I'm afraid just harping on that same such argument leads to nothing but tedium, and nothing productive, with all due respect.
 
It's not the same thing. Your analogies show an inaccurate view of the situation. The French, from Hugh Capet to Emanuel Macron show a lot more continuity and national continuum in many ways than the Byzantine Empire has to the Roman Empire, which is really just, all in all, political pretense. And, recognizing political pretense alone as a continuation of national continuum is a VERY controversial path to follow, let me tell you. For instance, it would also mean that the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire, Napoleon's French Empire, the Ottoman Empire, itself, the early Medieval Serbian and Bulgarian Empires, the modern Greek irredentist, "Megali Idea," and Mussolini's Fascist Kingdom of Italy, as well as the Roman Catholic Church on a, "sacredoutum mundi," must be seen as continuations of the Roman Empire, because they all hold a political pretense of some sort or another. Hell, even the United States founding fathers invoking ideals, symbols, terminology, and District of Columbia mall architecture from the Roman Republic is very evocative. Thus, saying a civ had a pretense of Roman continuity as being, "Roman," and not worthy of a separate civ slot quickly ludicrous to sustain.
Seriously, the difference between classical Roman empire and "Byzantium" could be justified without need this false equivalence of Rome>Constantinople succession to Rome>"any other claim". The people, way, reasons, circumstances and lenght of the transition are complety different. Just the identity itself of the population, no others but "byzantines" were called Romans.

The change to Constantinople was done by Romans, to a region centuries old being also Roman, they still controled Rome many time after the change and were recognized as Roman by everybody except the true mere pretenders in the west, the teaching of "Byzantium" as something different have clear origins in western scholars perpetuating their biased claims. Funny thing that the germanic destroyed the original Rome, then their crusaders looted Constantinople and then western schoolars insist in take even their rights to be remembered as Romans. I guess this is the way "Franks" are. :shifty:

Real advice, if you want to justify the difference of "Byzantines" dont use something like Ottoman or any other claims at the same level of Constantinople´s ones. Most people could see that those are not equivalent and only show a biased view.
 
Seriously, the difference between classical Roman empire and "Byzantium" could be justified without need this false equivalence of Rome>Constantinople succession to Rome>"any other claim". The people, way, reasons, circumstances and lenght of the transition are complety different. Just the identity itself of the population, no others but "byzantines" were called Romans.

The change to Constantinople was done by Romans, to a region centuries old being also Roman, they still controled Rome many time after the change and were recognized as Roman by everybody except the true mere pretenders in the west, the teaching of "Byzantium" as something different have clear origins in western scholars perpetuating their biased claims. Funny thing that the germanic destroyed the original Rome, then their crusaders looted Constantinople and then western schoolars insist in take even their rights to be remembered as Romans. I guess this is the way "Franks" are. :shifty:

Real advice, if you want to justify the difference of "Byzantines" dont use something like Ottoman or any other claims at the same level of Constantinople´s ones. Most people could see that those are not equivalent and only show a biased view.
My point is, and has been, other than saying self-identified pretense is not sufficient, that the Byzantine Empire little resembles in society, culture, religion, architecture (the distinctive derth of pillars in new constructions, for instance), politics, and most other aspects that define a, "civilization," from the Romans, and the vectors they diverged from the Roman Empire's values and ideals in ways that toga-bearing, laurel-crowned, tyrants standing on Capitoline Hill would not call their own. And, the fact remains, that historians almost overwhelmingly acknowledge the Byzantine as different civilization and phenomenon to the point the historiographical term, "Byzantine," was created retroactively to avoid confusion with a term they used for self-identity, but little resembled, in truth. Also, yourself, and the other two posters I have been sparring with in debate on this thread, seem to represent a small minority among civ players believe the Byzantines actually have, "no right or place as a separate civ," just to put this into perspective.
 
My point is, and has been, other than saying self-identified pretense is not sufficient,
1- Was not just self identification, everybody (but western pretenders) called them Romans.
2- Their identity as Romans was a continuum from earlier Romans, unlike the others pretenders.
3- The identity as Romans was not just at goverment titles claim level, the population identified itselfs and were identitied by others cultures as Romans even after the fall of Constantinople.

that the Byzantine Empire little resembles in society, culture, religion, architecture (the distinctive derth of pillars in new constructions, for instance), politics, and most other aspects that define a, "civilization," from the Romans, and the vectors they diverged from the Roman Empire's values and ideals in ways that toga-bearing, laurel-crowned, tyrants standing on Capitoline Hill would not call their own.
News for you, societies change especially when are many centuries in between. The example of medieval Kingdom of France and the contemporary French Republic is about this.

And, the fact remains, that historians almost overwhelmingly acknowledge the Byzantine as different civilization and phenomenon to the point the historiographical term, "Byzantine," was created retroactively to avoid confusion with a term they used for self-identity, but little resembled, in truth.
And the obvious historical reason for the biased view point of the western scholars is not relevant :rolleyes:, the use of an artificial name as "Byzantines" is just the "cherry in the cake" of this academic artifice and their old ways of disrespect the people object of their study.

Also, yourself, and the other two posters I have been sparring with in debate on this thread, seem to represent a small minority among civ players believe the Byzantines actually have, "no right or place as a separate civ," just to put this into perspective.
Many players barely have context about the history behind the game, and most of them were teached on the idea of "Byzantium" as not Roman.

Now I ask you, is wrong to question if Byzantines "have right to be a separated civ", but is not worse the modern academic tradition to question the "Byzantines" right to be what they were?
A decent commitment to reconcile the academic needs and the respect to these historical peoples is to use something like the "Byzantine" Era of the Roman People/Empire. Instead of just wrongly take them away their identity and use false equivalents to justify an anachronistic and biased academic tradition.
 
1- Was not just self identification, everybody (but western pretenders) called them Romans.
2- Their identity as Romans was a continuum from earlier Romans, unlike the others pretenders.
3- The identity as Romans was not just at goverment titles claim level, the population identified itselfs and were identitied by others cultures as Romans even after the fall of Constantinople.
Calling oneself, or being called, by the term, "Roman," does not, in and of, itself, by that sole virtue, make one the same civilization as the Roman Empire or Republic of old. Since this has consistently been the sole pivotal argument by you, and the two other posters in agreement with you, I cannot consider your whole argument to be anything but weak, especially because who refuse to broaden your argument or address other fundamental issues of the context.
And the obvious historical reason for the biased view point of the western scholars is not relevant :rolleyes:, the use of an artificial name as "Byzantines" is just the "cherry in the cake" of this academic artifice and their old ways of disrespect the people object of their study.
As opposed to whose scholars, who must, by comparative omission, have viewpoints on history that have inherently more clarity, less bias, and show true respect for the subjects of their studies. Please, do name these alternative, or at least where they hail from.
Many players barely have context about the history behind the game, and most of them were teached on the idea of "Byzantium" as not Roman.

Now I ask you, is wrong to question if Byzantines "have right to be a separated civ", but is not worse the modern academic tradition to question the "Byzantines" right to be what they were?
A decent commitment to reconcile the academic needs and the respect to these historical peoples is to use something like the "Byzantine" Era of the Roman People/Empire. Instead of just wrongly take them away their identity and use false equivalents to justify an anachronistic and biased academic tradition.
And, of course, using Uncle Paul's tactic of insulting the above average knowledge of history of the Civ player base, and declaring it to be, instead, at the same level as the average person on the street, wins no points, either.
 
Calling oneself, or being called, by the term, "Roman," does not, in and of, itself, by that sole virtue, make one the same civilization as the Roman Empire or Republic of old.
Medieval French Kingdom and Contemporary French Republic have different institutions but there are a continuous in their identity as French. The people of the "Byzantine" Empire are a continuous of the previous Roman generations, their institutions changed but the identity is a continiouos unlike your false equivalent of HRE, Ottomans, etc. Who did not came from romans parents and did not started to call themselves as romans despite the pompous pretentions of their rulers over the title of Rome.
Since this has consistently been the sole pivotal argument by you, and the two other posters in agreement with you, I cannot consider your whole argument to be anything but weak,
Sure base you opinion on the proponent and not in the arguments, but wait you can not do that about the context and motivation of historical western reasons to not recognize the roman legacy of "Byzantium".
especially because who refuse to broaden your argument or address other fundamental issues of the context.
Exactly the same as your insistence to see the transition to "Byzantium" as equivalent to HRE or Ottoman ones, that I already pointed the basic of why are not equivalent but you just repeat it.

As opposed to whose scholars, who must, by comparative omission, have viewpoints on history that have inherently more clarity, less bias, and show true respect for the subjects of their studies. Please, do name these alternative, or at least where they hail from.
Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis (2019).

And, of course, using Uncle Paul's tactic of insulting the above average knowledge of history of the Civ player base, and declaring it to be, instead, at the same level as the average person on the street, wins no points, either.
So now Uncle Paul is an insult himself?

Address what the average player know is not an insult, I am pointing the reason why the average player would not care about the Rome>Byzantium issue, is obvious that people questioning the common use of "Byzantines" would be a minority with more context about this. How is that and insult?
 
Medieval French Kingdom and Contemporary French Republic have different institutions but there are a continuous in their identity as French. The people of the "Byzantine" Empire are a continuous of the previous Roman generations, their institutions changed but the identity is a continiouos unlike your false equivalent of HRE, Ottomans, etc. Who did not came from romans parents and did not started to call themselves as romans despite the pompous pretentions of their rulers over the title of Rome.

Sure base you opinion on the proponent and not in the arguments, but wait you can not do that about the context and motivation of historical western reasons to not recognize the roman legacy of "Byzantium".

Exactly the same as your insistence to see the transition to "Byzantium" as equivalent to HRE or Ottoman ones, that I already pointed the basic of why are not equivalent but you just repeat it.


Romanald: Ethnicity and Empiere in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis (2019).


So now Uncle Paul is an insult himself?

Address what the average player know is not an insult, I am pointing the reason why the average player would not care about the Rome>Byzantium issue, is obvious that people questioning the common use of "Byzantines" would be a minority with more context about this. How is that and insult?
It would appear that this debate is making no progress from its longstanding loggerheads, and may well be ratcheting back up to the previous personals attack it did before. I see no value in carrying on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom