SoRHunter
Matrix Diplomat
In Nether... er... Portugal. 
Favorite new civ
- Thread starter SuperBeaverInc.
- Start date
ToadFaerie
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2003
- Messages
- 33
Byzant-o-phile here. Byzantium is often overlooked by arm-chair historians. It was a crucial element of politics, culture, and religion of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Anyone ever hear of the Nicean Creed? That was the work of Constatine the Great (I hope I've got the right one; an empire that lasts 1000 years has too many emperors to make cites when one's reference books aren't handy), first Byzantine Emperor.
Had it's share of bum-emperors, but several were masterful strategians. The term "Byzantine" is used to refer to being deceptive for good reason; Basilicus' taking of Ravenna (IIRC, not certian on the city) was a fantastic piece of strategy and cunning.
I may play Byz. only. Problem is, I already know they'll undervalue the power of Greek-fire-armed-ships. More than once, a small decrepit fleet (less than 100) of Byzantine ships devastated invading fleets numbering in the thousands of ships.
Had it's share of bum-emperors, but several were masterful strategians. The term "Byzantine" is used to refer to being deceptive for good reason; Basilicus' taking of Ravenna (IIRC, not certian on the city) was a fantastic piece of strategy and cunning.
I may play Byz. only. Problem is, I already know they'll undervalue the power of Greek-fire-armed-ships. More than once, a small decrepit fleet (less than 100) of Byzantine ships devastated invading fleets numbering in the thousands of ships.
Emperor Xerxes
Custom User Title? NEVER!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 570
and dse that imply that Buzantium IS worthless 
... I'm just itching for a reason to unlesh the gatherd facts amounting to unsurpassed "dark age/middle age" Byzantine glory amoung all possible x-pack civs, and candidates (this includes the civs from the ptw x-pack, and even a few from the origional game )
just wantingn to make sure I have good cause before I unleash my ever infamous "notes on why Byzantium kicks A$$"
... I'm just itching for a reason to unlesh the gatherd facts amounting to unsurpassed "dark age/middle age" Byzantine glory amoung all possible x-pack civs, and candidates (this includes the civs from the ptw x-pack, and even a few from the origional game )just wantingn to make sure I have good cause before I unleash my ever infamous "notes on why Byzantium kicks A$$"
Emperor Xerxes
Custom User Title? NEVER!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 570
I would say that the cultural contribution and uniqueness of the Byzantine Empire make it a worthy Civ, especially in comparisson to some rather odd ones that made it in all along *cough* Zulu *cough*.
Of course it is somewhat odd that the Ottomans and Byzantines have the same capital, unless they change the Ottomon capital from Istanbul to Ankara.
On that note I think that the Ottomons should have just been called the Turks, since the original part of this empire, the Turks, are of course still with us today. I suppose its hard to draw a line between what exactly is a nation, a civilization and an ethnicity.
To that extent the fact that the Byzantines are called what they are is strange. They always called themselves Roman until around the 8th Century when they started calling themselves Hellenes or Greeks which is what they were. I may be wrong but I always thought that the name Byzantine was just a Western scholary term used to describe that empire amoungst intellectuals. Meh.
Its just a shame that Asia is underepresented with just five civs. But at least with the expansion meso-America gets good representation with both the Incas and Mayas as well as the good old Aztecs.
I still don't see how they are going to implement Summeria with regards to city names. They are in reality mostly what later became Babylonian and thus the cities are the same.
Of course it is somewhat odd that the Ottomans and Byzantines have the same capital, unless they change the Ottomon capital from Istanbul to Ankara.
On that note I think that the Ottomons should have just been called the Turks, since the original part of this empire, the Turks, are of course still with us today. I suppose its hard to draw a line between what exactly is a nation, a civilization and an ethnicity.
To that extent the fact that the Byzantines are called what they are is strange. They always called themselves Roman until around the 8th Century when they started calling themselves Hellenes or Greeks which is what they were. I may be wrong but I always thought that the name Byzantine was just a Western scholary term used to describe that empire amoungst intellectuals. Meh.
Its just a shame that Asia is underepresented with just five civs. But at least with the expansion meso-America gets good representation with both the Incas and Mayas as well as the good old Aztecs.
I still don't see how they are going to implement Summeria with regards to city names. They are in reality mostly what later became Babylonian and thus the cities are the same.
From PTW, it's going to be the Spanish.
From Conquests: Incans or Mayans. I won't know until I test them out.
From Conquests: Incans or Mayans. I won't know until I test them out.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
Xen, I know exactly who the byzantines are and what there place is in history, but you must remember something else before you shout off insults.
Civ games have included a variety of civs in the past, such as adding the English, French, Chinese, or Americans where the dividing line between cultures have been very clear. Byzantium is NOT. The byzantines, however important they were in history, were little different culturally from either the Romans, or the Greeks who Created their empire and culture. you might ask now, ' If being an offshoot culture is wrong, then why are the Americans in the game?' My answer to this is for 1: You cant leave out the Americans because their historical significance is immense, despite existing for just over 200 years, and 2: While the US developed into its own power, the byzantines were basically the Romans with some extra additions that the Romans no doubt would have gained as well. those extra additions are not large at all, and it is much better to have a civ that is a more unique culture and distinction, such as adding Poland or one of the many african kingdoms in the game.
My point? The byzantines deserve their place in history, but dont deserve being put into C3:C in the process to taking out one of the cultures that are more unique to the game rather than being an offshoot of another civ.
Civ games have included a variety of civs in the past, such as adding the English, French, Chinese, or Americans where the dividing line between cultures have been very clear. Byzantium is NOT. The byzantines, however important they were in history, were little different culturally from either the Romans, or the Greeks who Created their empire and culture. you might ask now, ' If being an offshoot culture is wrong, then why are the Americans in the game?' My answer to this is for 1: You cant leave out the Americans because their historical significance is immense, despite existing for just over 200 years, and 2: While the US developed into its own power, the byzantines were basically the Romans with some extra additions that the Romans no doubt would have gained as well. those extra additions are not large at all, and it is much better to have a civ that is a more unique culture and distinction, such as adding Poland or one of the many african kingdoms in the game.
My point? The byzantines deserve their place in history, but dont deserve being put into C3:C in the process to taking out one of the cultures that are more unique to the game rather than being an offshoot of another civ.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
And you also forget the times of the byzantines. The main reason why the Byzantines kicked so much A$$ as you put it was because all their opponents were totally technologically inferior. The rest of europe was throwing body waste out their windows while the bYzantines had some form of developement because they were the Heirs of rome, not a distinct nation, just the romans with a new name and some different ideas. Nut when their opponents became technological equals, the Byzantines were wrecked and defeated in almost every battle save the sieges of constantinople, a massive double walled city which is impossible to siege without cannons.
Byzantium was great for its age, but that age was when they were the only ones with a trace of knowledge because of what someone else did.
Byzantium was great for its age, but that age was when they were the only ones with a trace of knowledge because of what someone else did.
A)Th eByzantines are indeed an offshoot of Rome, but as for them being what Rome would have become? FAR from it. Little removed? far from it. look at the facts- from what was "Roman" cutlute at the end of the 4th/5th century CE you see the beginnings of a divergence in culture, both Philiosphically, and culturyally from its western counter part, and, over time, this lead to great deal of differnces, not least amoung them, the eastern Empire turning to Hellenistic culture as its main back drop, and even adopting Greek as its national language.
we also have to look at the Byzantines historical importance, what have they done for theworld?
well hmmmm, aside from protecting the knowledge of the classical world, as well as being the great buffer of Europe against better prepeared middle easern forces for such a long time (800- 1000 years), and there by preserving the very fundementals in which not only western, but modern, WORLD culture is founded, well I guess not much. But considering how absurdlly important those things are, they alone make Byzantium a better choice then nearlly every x-pack candidate out ther for either PTW, or C3C, and as before, better then several main game civs as well.
now then, why did Byzantium kick so much arse? technologically advanced? i fail to see the great dynamuics invloved in sword, and spear design, and as for technological equals, and Byzantium falling? hardley, if you botherd to investigate Byzantium any, you would know that Byzantium fell to greedy nobles (they bought up all the land, needed by the average citizens), which inturn cause the fall through of the Thematic defense system, this coupled with the loss of Cataphract regimentsm meant the Byzantine military was crippled- and yet Byzantium still managed to hane on for centuries more.
your agument is based on some loose idea that woul dmake byzantium unworthy of the game- while the facts show a far different reality- that reality being, the Byzantium is amoung the most deserving,unique,successful, and Glorios civs of not only its era, but a shining beacon of those values when compared to any nation, of any time.
we also have to look at the Byzantines historical importance, what have they done for theworld?
well hmmmm, aside from protecting the knowledge of the classical world, as well as being the great buffer of Europe against better prepeared middle easern forces for such a long time (800- 1000 years), and there by preserving the very fundementals in which not only western, but modern, WORLD culture is founded, well I guess not much. But considering how absurdlly important those things are, they alone make Byzantium a better choice then nearlly every x-pack candidate out ther for either PTW, or C3C, and as before, better then several main game civs as well.
now then, why did Byzantium kick so much arse? technologically advanced? i fail to see the great dynamuics invloved in sword, and spear design, and as for technological equals, and Byzantium falling? hardley, if you botherd to investigate Byzantium any, you would know that Byzantium fell to greedy nobles (they bought up all the land, needed by the average citizens), which inturn cause the fall through of the Thematic defense system, this coupled with the loss of Cataphract regimentsm meant the Byzantine military was crippled- and yet Byzantium still managed to hane on for centuries more.
your agument is based on some loose idea that woul dmake byzantium unworthy of the game- while the facts show a far different reality- that reality being, the Byzantium is amoung the most deserving,unique,successful, and Glorios civs of not only its era, but a shining beacon of those values when compared to any nation, of any time.
Emperor Xerxes
Custom User Title? NEVER!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 570
Its just a little weird because, as I said earlier, Byzantium only exists in the minds of Western historians, the so called Byzantines themselves were Romano-Greeks. It was basically Greece in the Medieval Age.
Imagine if it had survived though? What would Europe be like now? Would it have been behind the Iron Curtain in the 20th Century or would the US have conscripted it like Turkey into holding its Jupiter missiles on the Soviet border. I love counter-factual history.
When I get Conquests I am going to load all the European Civs (including Austria) into a map of Europe, play as the Byzantines and see if I can take over Europe.
Imagine if it had survived though? What would Europe be like now? Would it have been behind the Iron Curtain in the 20th Century or would the US have conscripted it like Turkey into holding its Jupiter missiles on the Soviet border. I love counter-factual history.
When I get Conquests I am going to load all the European Civs (including Austria) into a map of Europe, play as the Byzantines and see if I can take over Europe.
when we look at the actions of Emperor Heraclius II, the man who cleaned up Justinians' mess, it seems as though they called themselves Roman, but aknowlrdged a culteral differnce- it was Heraclius who reforemed the empire cultuerally to be a trully unique culture, and empire from that of old Rome
Emperor Xerxes
Custom User Title? NEVER!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2003
- Messages
- 570
I am in no doubt as to the acheivment of Byzantium and it was clearly very differant from Imperial Rome. Its just as a state Byzantium is much harder to define than say England or France. Though it has to be said that on that note the Zulu are equally a hard group to really define.
The good thing with this expansion is that the roster of American cultures has been beefed up. And its good to see some other mesopotamian cultures such as the Hittites. I just feel that Asia is underepresented, moreso now with this expansion.
The good thing with this expansion is that the roster of American cultures has been beefed up. And its good to see some other mesopotamian cultures such as the Hittites. I just feel that Asia is underepresented, moreso now with this expansion.
I feel the same- in an x-pack ALL the cultures should have add ons for better representation-
-Byzantium for the Med. culture
-some non med.european culture for the main europen group
-Preferably Assyria for the middle east, but the Hittites are welcomed by me as well (no the Sumerians though)
-Nubia,the Mali, or the Song Hai for Africa (even though it is for some reason not its own culture group, we need more african civs)
-Maya, or Inca for south America
-Winnibago tribe for north america (inside joke between me and some other members), but either the Winnibago, the Soux, or even the Pueblo woul dbe cool choices for a north native american civ
-perhaps the Khmer for south east asia, but some sort of South east asian civ is needed, and very badlly IMO
-Byzantium for the Med. culture
-some non med.european culture for the main europen group
-Preferably Assyria for the middle east, but the Hittites are welcomed by me as well (no the Sumerians though)
-Nubia,the Mali, or the Song Hai for Africa (even though it is for some reason not its own culture group, we need more african civs)
-Maya, or Inca for south America
-Winnibago tribe for north america (inside joke between me and some other members), but either the Winnibago, the Soux, or even the Pueblo woul dbe cool choices for a north native american civ
-perhaps the Khmer for south east asia, but some sort of South east asian civ is needed, and very badlly IMO
The civs in Civ 1 pretty well covered all the signifcant "players" in world history. At this point in the games development new civs function only to add flavor and satisfy today's need for political correctness and equal recognition even if it is stupid. The names and UU are merely covers for the various combinations of characteristics (religious/industrious etc). These combinations are more important to the game play. I prefer religious/industrious and hate playing the Egyptians terrible delimna). Do we know yet how the characteristics will be assigned and/or reassigned?
perhaps it is no more then a mere factor to you, butm for some reason many of us feel conmpelled to fight for a civs recognition as a great one, even if for a simpke game- it is also important, that in respect to these great cultures that the makers of the game are using to make money, that they are portrayed in a correct manner.
Once a civ is selected, correct presentation is important in my mind too. But... game design is more important. Correct portrayal in a lousy, unplayable game is no benefit. In a game like civ any portrayal is a gross simplification of reality. How do you capture 4,000 years of chinese civilization in 2 characteristics, one UU a leader head, city architecture and perhaps some underlying programming that predisposes them to specific diplomatic styles?
Can't be done. We all have our favorite cultures and we want Sid and Co to make them as we imagine them. I was hoping for a "civ builder" mod where you could assign all characteristics to any civ, pick a UU from a library of graphics, choose leaders, etc. That way I can play the Scots and do them the way I see fit. In fact, a standard system for making civs could allow players to make their own and use them in play against others, much the way minitures wagamers 'buy armies."
Can't be done. We all have our favorite cultures and we want Sid and Co to make them as we imagine them. I was hoping for a "civ builder" mod where you could assign all characteristics to any civ, pick a UU from a library of graphics, choose leaders, etc. That way I can play the Scots and do them the way I see fit. In fact, a standard system for making civs could allow players to make their own and use them in play against others, much the way minitures wagamers 'buy armies."
it cant be done PERFECTLEY- but we can still do our best to achive perfection within the limitations of the game itself- and still have a fun game- creating historically accruate civs within the limitations presented by the games format would only make it more fun, as you would have to face similer situations within the limitations of the game as was faced by real leaders
How could you "accurately portray" the Sioux or Pueblo in a way that would be any different (in game terms) than the current Iroquois and Indians? keep their characteristics. New leaderheads and cities. Mounted warrior works perfectly for most plains Indians after 1500. Switchout Gandi's elephants for... a farmer? ... a shaman warrior? How's that for reality.
If you are a fan of native America, then you'll think that is great, but in reality your playing India and the Iroquois. While any culture from the two bit highland clans of my ancestors to the unending stretch of China can be included in Civ, game limitations only allow about a dozen different ones. Expand the underlying parameters and you can build more. Everything else is cosmetic.
If you are a fan of native America, then you'll think that is great, but in reality your playing India and the Iroquois. While any culture from the two bit highland clans of my ancestors to the unending stretch of China can be included in Civ, game limitations only allow about a dozen different ones. Expand the underlying parameters and you can build more. Everything else is cosmetic.
Similar threads
