Italy should be in!

Donde said:
i think sid would not have difficulties in solving this extremely complicated technical problem... :king:
Click to expand...

Well, it's not an issue of it being a huge technical hurdle to overcome. It's just... Has it ever happened before?I know it may seem like a small thing, but there simply aren't two civs in Civilization - nor have there ever been, to my knowledge - that share the same obvious capital. Rome has been Rome for thousands of years, the city, and the Romans are one of the truly core empires in Civilization as a series - and, as I've pointed out, Sid has never chosen to add empires with "stacking" capitals, even though it would have been pretty easy. My impression from Civ IV is that Firaxis is more likely to add new far-fetched empires than add one that will have an overwhelming crossover in city names. I mean, historically, Italy probably makes more sense than the Native Americans, but the Natives don't have Rome as a capital, and here they are.

I don't know... Having two Romes in a game? Sure both Rome and the Celts get Bagacum, for instance, but that's like their 8th and 18th cities respectively. Having Mussolini launch units from his capital of Rome to capture Julius's capital of Rome... Never happened in Civ, and I don't think Firaxis ever really wants it to.

I'm not trying to be mean to Italians. I actually don't think the reasons for Italy not being in there are historical - heck, it has exponentially more reason of being there than my homeland of Canada. I just don't see it happening.
 
You're not being mean at all :) I had already addressed the capital problem earlier, and it would surely be a novelty for the series. And I agree on the leader problem: we just unified when our golden age (as a people, a civilization rather than a state) was over. Although if Frederick is viable for Germany then Lorenzo de' Medici or anyone else could do.
 
AfterShafter said:
Well, it's not an issue of it being a huge technical hurdle to overcome. It's just... Has it ever happened before?I know it may seem like a small thing, but there simply aren't two civs in Civilization - nor have there ever been, to my knowledge - that share the same obvious capital. Rome has been Rome for thousands of years, the city, and the Romans are one of the truly core empires in Civilization as a series - and, as I've pointed out, Sid has never chosen to add empires with "stacking" capitals, even though it would have been pretty easy.
Click to expand...
You are wrong my friend.
Instabul is Constantinople which is the capital of the byzantines. Instabul derives from a paraphrasing of the greek phrase "eis tin poli" which means "to the City". "The City" was the name of constantinople(=city of constantine). Actually they should change Instabul for the turks because their first and true capital was Iconium near the center of what is Turkey today. Constantinople was formerly know by the name "Byzantium" a colony build by ancient greeks.
As i recall, you eventually get the name Byzantium, as the greeks when you start founding cities... Talk about overlap :p

Generally it's ridiculous to include roman, holy roman and byzantine empires while omitting the austrian-hungarian empire. Do you recall who stopped the turkish invasion of europe after the fall of the balkans? If the austrians with their allies hadn't stopped them in the siege of Vienna, most of you guys would be speaking turkish...
Italy should be in the game considering the absolutely absurd HRE! And by the way, one guy already mentioned it a long time ago: there is no Byzantine empire, there never was. They named themselves romans and saw themselves as continuation of ancient rome. The title Byzantine was given by european monarchs to be able to claim the heritage of the ancient roman empire for themselves.
Hell even the official language of the state was latin till the reign of Heraclius.
 
This will never happen. End of discussion!
 
Saim said:
2. I prefer Korea, an ancient civilization, over Italy, a very recent state.
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense, mate. Korea has only existed since 1945, if you're defining it the same as Italy (which has been around since 1848). Italy's 'civilziation' has existed since the Etruscans of the early BC years. Korea's is probably about as old.
 
Etruscans GREEKS in central Italy are nothing like their Modern day counterparts
Heck they are nothing like the Italians of 500 years ago.
The Germanic Lombards are more Italian than these Etruscans

Saying that those people are the beginnings of an Italian Civilisation is like saying that the Celtic Gauls are the same people and culture of modern Frace! :D

However the Koreans for 2000 years past are more similar to the Koreans today then the Italians of 2000 years past with modern Italy.
 
Right, and they had more trade and contact with the Celtic tribes in the North of Italy than with the Greek colonies (which, remember, were bound to trade with their mother city first, and once independent were primarily part of the Greek network anyway).

The origin of the Etruscans, if I remember my school days, are highly debated.

And I can't understand what does it mean that Etruscans are nothing like modern Italians, while ancient Koreans are closer to modern Koreans. As if the Romans had exiled them somewhere.
 
Jerrymander said:
Your argument makes no sense, mate. Korea has only existed since 1945, if you're defining it the same as Italy (which has been around since 1848). Italy's 'civilziation' has existed since the Etruscans of the early BC years. Korea's is probably about as old.
Click to expand...

Korea was unified in AD668 and remained unified (except for brief periods after the fall of Silla) until 1945 (and North and South Korea are still culturally close enough to be considered one nation)

By your logic China only existed since 1949, which is absurd.
 
Jerrymander was precisely making a demostration per absurdum, pointing out that states =/= civilizations.
 
Sofista said:
Jerrymander was precisely making a demostration per absurdum, pointing out that states =/= civilizations.
Click to expand...
That is precicely the point. There is no analogy between the ancient civs and today's states. Trying to create an analogy only leads to conflicts for nationalistic reasons...
 
taillesskangaru said:
Korea was unified in AD668 and remained unified (except for brief periods after the fall of Silla) until 1945 (and North and South Korea are still culturally close enough to be considered one nation)

By your logic China only existed since 1949, which is absurd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is true - but the two Republics of Korea have only existed since 1945, when Japan's hold was relinquished. I most probably should have said Italy has only existed since 1945 as well, because I think that's when the First Republic of Italy came to be.

Korea is probably older than Italy and I see why it's in the game - mostly because Civ is trying to be politically correct and include civs from many geographical locations. They needed another Asian civ, and Korea fit the bill. I'm not saying Korea shouldn't be in, I'm just saying maybe Korea isn't as ideal a candidate as Italy - if you don't take the geography into consideration.

And the state of China has only existed for 59 years. Chinese culture, however, extends back into the 2,000's BC with the Xia dynasty.
Similarly, the state of America is older than China, but a nubile in terms of the culture of America.
 
Sofista said:
You're not being mean at all :) I had already addressed the capital problem earlier, and it would surely be a novelty for the series. And I agree on the leader problem: we just unified when our golden age (as a people, a civilization rather than a state) was over. Although if Frederick is viable for Germany then Lorenzo de' Medici or anyone else could do.
Click to expand...

You could have Lorenzo as a leader for Rome. After all Italy is as close to Romans as Qui Shi Huang is close to Mao ;)
 
Kranden said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uhm, one of the Medicis perhaps? Or Cesare Borgia?
 
No to italy
What wonder would they have "bad spaghetti western movies" :)

pheww
no just say no to italy kids , its bad for you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
NA great prophet problem
Replies
0
Views
303
mardonius
M
A
thoughts on DLC that firaxis could add that would be best sellers
Replies
19
Views
1K
Brew God
Brew God
M
The Italy Thread
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Orbii
O
R
Germany/Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, and Goths will likely be DLC civs
7 8 9
Replies
176
Views
13K
Krikkit1
K
D
Germany 1700AD strategy hints
Replies
5
Views
817
Dennis Laursen
D
Back
Top Bottom