Italy should be in!

[Donde]

Italy hasn't done enough historically to distinguish it from the Roman Empire and it at no time contended for world power. Plus they don't have a famous enough of a leader, except maybe Mussolini, but too controversial.

italy is ranked as the seventh largest economy and the sixth military power in the world, and it's colture is spread all around the world... i think it is enough to distinguish itlay from the roman empire!

if there is carolingian empire in civilization, why not italy? i can't understand...

 

[Jerrymander]

Uh, there isn't Poland in Civilization.

 

[Donde]

you're right... i wanted to say the carolingian empire.

 

[GIO888]

Just as we don't need Scandinavia because we already have the Viking, we also don't need Italy, because we already have Rome.

Says it all!

 

[Iranon]

Well, I'd rather see the HRE out: No unified leadership, and too close to Germany... having both in the game feels strange. It's quite similar for Italy and Rome.

Deciding who should be in and who shouldn't is hard. I tried to make a consistent list based on cultural independence, axing those which are a blatant offshoot... and axed that since I would miss the modern age superpowers.

Amercia: straightforward colony of England.
Russia: Colony of the Vikings (although sketchier) heavily influenced by Byzantine culture... and Byzantium is questionable enough as it is.

 

[IamJohn]

Umm, there's a huge difference between the culture of the vikings that settled along the volga, and the Russian country of the 17th to 21st centuries. "Sketchier"? Slightly.

 

[Donde]

the roman empire included also spain, portugal, france, englang and part of germany, and deeply influenced the culture, the laenguage and the religion of this countries.
so, if the roman empire is the reason for not including italy, also spain, france, england and the other nations which composed the roman empire should not be included in civ!

 

[Jerrymander]

you're right... i wanted to say the carolingian empire.

True, you do make a good point with that argument now.

The thing with Rome = Italy is that the Roman empire started in Italy. You could say, oh, that we can't use England because we have the Celts, and we can't use America since we have the Native Americans. But, really, it was the developer's idea, and they only had room for 18 - 26 - however many civs there are - and they didn't feel that Italy deserved to be that important.
Frankly, I think Korea should be taken out and replaced with Italy.

 

[AfterShafter]

Wouldn't Rome and Italy share the same capital - a few of the "core" cities - something without precedent in Civ, as far as I know?

 

[Pwn*Star]

Italy wasn't unfied until 1861. Before that it was a whole lot of smaller kingdoms and merchant republics. There's really no reason to bring Italy to the game.

 

[General_Ski]

Well first of all Italy has a number of traits, cities common with the Roman Empire. Second, HRE was not just Germany... HRE Encompassed parts of Spain, France, Hungary Austria. Italy on the other hand is nowhere near the size of the Roman Empire. In fact Italy splintered, and has yet to gain at least the military prominence of Roman empire.. Italy's performance in both WWI and WWII (luckily for the rest of us) was lackluster at best... Do you propose italian military units be at -100% to greek phalanx and -100% to what ethiopians wield, since that would reflect reality would it not, and while you are at it at -100% against french units led by Napoleon, and at -75% to British Navy, and at -100% to HRE units.

Concept of United Italy, after the fall of the Roman empire did not come around till late 1800's, until then Italy was a bunch of city states. After all would it not make sense to make Venecian, Milanian, and Florentian civilizations more than an Italian one? They certainly made more political and military impact over a greater period of time, too... From the Mongol Invasions, through rennaissance.

German were always a part of either HRE, or independent, and were eventually temporarily united under Frederick the Great, and their troops played prominent roles, in American Revolution, Napoleonic wars, etc.

I mean Hungarian Empire, would make more sense, as they did manage to Stop Mongols, on the second run through, first time around they were wiped.
Russians could use another leader, Alexander Nevsky, it was he who led Russian charge to stop teutonic and swedish crusades to force Russians to continue fighting Mongols, or at least to assume that fight.
That's the real reason crusades ended... Europe was trying to stave off Mongol invasion. Had Ogadai not died, and had bubonic plague not occured, ravaging it's way from China (part of which was under mongols) via trade routs to Italy (city states of which sold slaves captured by Mongols to Egypt, thus making their wealth and setting the scene for Rennaissance), and then working its way to England via Italian merchants... We'd all be speaking Mongolian now...
Anyhow, this is all besides the point.

 

[Tronicoz]

they should not

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Wouldn't Rome and Italy share the same capital - a few of the "core" cities - something without precedent in Civ, as far as I know?

Reminds me of two other civilizations that share core cities and even the capital...

 

[Kranden]

Even if you put Italy in who would you make as their leader? I can't think of a single one other than Mussolini.

IMO Australia would deserve it more than anything else, I mean its a continent and it has no representation in CIV.

 

[AfterShafter]

Reminds me of two other civilizations that share core cities and even the capital...

... Which ones?

 

[Jerrymander]

IMO Australia would deserve it more than anything else, I mean its a continent and it has no representation in CIV.

Geographical position and size has nothing to do with whether a game should be in civ. Next thing you know, they'll be demanding Antarctica as a civ. Australia has done far less than Italy for the world.

 

[Donde]

Well first of all Italy has a number of traits, cities common with the Roman Empire. Second, HRE was not just Germany... HRE Encompassed parts of Spain, France, Hungary Austria. Italy on the other hand is nowhere near the size of the Roman Empire. In fact Italy splintered, and has yet to gain at least the military prominence of Roman empire.. Italy's performance in both WWI and WWII (luckily for the rest of us) was lackluster at best... Do you propose italian military units be at -100% to greek phalanx and -100% to what ethiopians wield, since that would reflect reality would it not, and while you are at it at -100% against french units led by Napoleon, and at -75% to British Navy, and at -100% to HRE units.

Concept of United Italy, after the fall of the Roman empire did not come around till late 1800's, until then Italy was a bunch of city states. After all would it not make sense to make Venecian, Milanian, and Florentian civilizations more than an Italian one? They certainly made more political and military impact over a greater period of time, too... From the Mongol Invasions, through rennaissance.

German were always a part of either HRE, or independent, and were eventually temporarily united under Frederick the Great, and their troops played prominent roles, in American Revolution, Napoleonic wars, etc.

I mean Hungarian Empire, would make more sense, as they did manage to Stop Mongols, on the second run through, first time around they were wiped.
Russians could use another leader, Alexander Nevsky, it was he who led Russian charge to stop teutonic and swedish crusades to force Russians to continue fighting Mongols, or at least to assume that fight.
That's the real reason crusades ended... Europe was trying to stave off Mongol invasion. Had Ogadai not died, and had bubonic plague not occured, ravaging it's way from China (part of which was under mongols) via trade routs to Italy (city states of which sold slaves captured by Mongols to Egypt, thus making their wealth and setting the scene for Rennaissance), and then working its way to England via Italian merchants... We'd all be speaking Mongolian now...
Anyhow, this is all besides the point.

mmm so, in your opinion, the reason is the lack of military power of italy in history.

what about zulu?? they are in civilization... have they been more powerful and important to the world than italy?

i would like to rimind you that italian contribution to the world has been huge:
colombo discovered america, volta invented the battery, meucci invented the telephone, marconi invented the radio, olivetti realized the first personal computer, fermi discovered nuclear reactions and so on... modern world bases on all these things, or not?

then i think that there are non reasons for not including italy in civilization. italy has given to the world more than zulu, or even portugal or vikings!

 

[Saim]

True, you do make a good point with that argument now.

The thing with Rome = Italy is that the Roman empire started in Italy. You could say, oh, that we can't use England because we have the Celts, and we can't use America since we have the Native Americans. But, really, it was the developer's idea, and they only had room for 18 - 26 - however many civs there are - and they didn't feel that Italy deserved to be that important.
Frankly, I think Korea should be taken out and replaced with Italy.

1. OK, but that doesn't mean it can't be added later.
2. I prefer Korea, an ancient civilization, over Italy, a very recent state.

In fact, maybe an pre-unification Italian state like the Papal States or Venice would be better.

 

[Tee Kay]

... Which ones?

Byzantines and Ottomans, Holy Roman Empire and Germany

On reunification, Germany was reunified even later than Italy, in 1871.

 

[Kranden]

then i think that there are non reasons for not including italy in civilization. italy has given to the world more than zulu, or even portugal or vikings!

I think the Vikings have done a little more taking than giving

unless you count giving nightmares to the European Kings.