Ok for the record I am Italian, did Rome influence Italian culture? Yes as it did with much of Europe from religion to law to architecture. Is it more visible in Italy? Yes it was the center of the empire for most of it's existence. Does it mean Italy is the successor of Rome? No it does not. The renaissance saw the rediscovery of classical art, the impact Roman history had on Italy it had on other former provinces too.
Practically Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy surely share a link but no direct succession. History is not that linear, just because it shares the same space it does not mean it is the same entity in a different format. To me Mexico and the Aztecs have little in common, as much as Canada and the Cree for that matter.
You are ignoring centuries of non roman rule, from the Gothic people to the Longobards to Charlemagne to the Italian communes to the italian city states. After the fall of the Empire the Italian peninsula was something completely different both culturally, politically and ethnically.
The reason why you do not see the french or the Spaniards bringing up Rome so often is because they had a unified country with successful empires long before Italy became united in the Risorgimento. While the concept of a united Italy was present even in Dante Alighieri's time it did not happen to become a reality until much later. It's a bit of a side note and perhaps off topic but seeing as Italy is a very young nation it is only natural it looks far in the past to create a national identity just as Germany did when finally uniting and erecting statues to Arminius for instance. Also, the renaissance is way more important for Italian identity than say ancient Rome which I would argue was a multicultural empire which shaped a continent and whose impact falls on the whole region.
I'm glad you are now acknowledging how entrenched ancient Rome is in Italy. I never said Rome and Renaissance Italy had direct succession, and I disagree with your implication that somehow matters for the purpose of getting two bites at the apple for inclusion in Civ.
Personally I think it obvious that Mexico and the Aztecs, Canada and the Cree, while not similar
as such, still represent the same geographic region. Certainly Canada and the Cree lack the cultural and historical connection on the same level that modern Italians have by virtue of blood and memory to ancient Rome, however. To (a much lesser) extent this applies for Mexico and the Aztecs (notably, modern Mexicans still speak Nahuatl and are in some cases descended from the Aztecs or neighboring tribes). So these are not great examples to bolster your argument. And frankly I don't think Canada should ever have been included in the Civ series.
Re: centuries of rule by other people--And now once again you have come to an argument that basically is in favor of multiple Chinese dynasties, Indian dynasties, etc being represented as separate civs. Maybe we should have each ruler of Italy from a specific time period as a specific civ. So we could have the Visigoths that ruled from the sack of Rome in the 5th century AD, and a separate Gothic civ led by Amalasuntha in the 6th century AD, multiple Roman emperors, a random Charlemagne leader for an "Italy" civ, etc...sure, that might be something you don't mind, but that's not typically how Firaxis does civ inclusion in Civ (for practical as much as common sense reasons), so your argument in favor of a second Italian bite of the apple still doesn't pass muster. On days where I look over historical encyclopedias I have sometimes encountered the errant desire for hundreds of unique civs covering all the rulers of every single civ ever in existence, with or without significant leaders. Maybe then we might cover how each region undergoes vast cultural, political and social changes throughout the ages. But then I realized that having hundreds of civs never happen in Civ, and that with limited civilization slots, the inclusion of one European/Western nation necessarily means another group (especially from Africa) will lose out as a result.
Oh, and btw, I disagree re: French and Spaniards (the following based upon several years of having lived in Europe and extensively touring France, Spain, and Italy, as well as views of colleagues in discussions of race, cultural heritage and so on, both in a workplace context and outside of it). It's not about political unity or whatever. The French and Spanish appear to take pride in their blood as many citizens of other European countries do (regardless of whether such is factually justified given how much intermarriage there has been among European citizens throughout the eons). The French and Spanish may well have Roman blood somewhere, but certainly not in the same concentration as modern Italians proud of their ancient Roman heritage, and certainly not in their perception. The French like to identify more with Gauls than Romans, typically (see Asterix comics for one approach to that ancient heritage), and the Spanish tie themselves to the exploration and conquest of the New World more than the Romans.
I have never *once* in all my years heard a French or Spanish tour guide tout Roman ancestry, but many Italian tour guides (all over Italy, not just in Rome) are quick to point their ancient Roman ancestry out. I have never once heard an Italian tour guide talk about their nation's youth, lack of unity, etc and all those other things you theorized about--no, for these tour guides (even when I was in Venice), much talk was had about their ancient ancestry going back to the time of the Romans, the continued perfusion of Christianity and classical art throughout the ages, etc. One tour guide also proudly said that Italian culture had spread all over Europe and the world as a result of the Renaissance....notice what happened there? The tour guide said "Italian" culture, not French. The fact that Italy may have influenced France during the Renaissance or at other times doesn't make that culture somehow now innately French.
1) If Italy shouldn't be here becuse of Rome and modern national borders then we shouldn't have more than one of
*Babylon and Sumer/Assyria (Iraq)
*Byzantium and Macedon/Greece
*Ottomans and Hittites (Turkey)
*Aztec and Maya (both are now part of Mexican history!)
*USA and Native Americans ("who cares if US is important, we already have NatAm in this area to represent history of moden US, natives of Kalahari Desert deserve representation instead)
2) If Italy is unnecessary because Rome already represents Italian history, then would you be fine with the absence of America, France and England because they are "represented" by Iroquis, Gauls and Celtic Britons?
Who cares if France, England and America are very big concepts - we get some other barely related people in the same general area...
It's not just "becuse of Rome and modern national borders"--no no. I pointed out the genetic link, the cultural affinity, and the Italian pride in their ancestral Roman past. This is not something shared by, say, the USA and Native Americans. Ottomans and the Hittites are way more different from each other than ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy, and nevertheless, I wouldn't want both Ottomans and Hittites in the same game anyway. I would prefer one or the other. As far as the Aztecs and Maya, they are only as alike to each other as Mongolia and China, lol.
