Italy

[Rhye]

While I disagree on re-spawned Rome representing Italy (Hittites representing Turkey fits perfectly), I consider replacing Rome with Italy in 600AD start a good idea, under certain conditions.
However, I am currently involved in RFGW, so it has to be some of you for now to make a modmod.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think it's a fitting example.

Even in the time of Turkey's spawn (12th century), there was nearly nothing left of the Hittite's culture in Asia Minor, let alone in the 21th century. The region was taken over by Persian, Greek and Roman culture and when the Turks arrived (coming from the Central Asian steppes), they established their own culture again. Asia Minor's history is one of migration.

I don't want to say that we have a perfect continuity in Italy instead, but it's in no way comparable to Asia Minor. The only migration (that of the Goths) ended with the Goths assimilzed to "Roman" culture and not the other way round. So yes, in the case of Italy there is much more continuity, both ethnical and cultural.

 

[Charles Martel]

To those who say: “Ancient Rome is not Italy” I want to ask a simple question. If a re-spawned Rome is not Italy, what is it then? Do you think of this re-spawned Rome as some kind of alternate history reincarnation of the Roman Empire, along the lines of Sophia McDougall’s “what-if” novel Romanitas?

Now, I can vaguely make sense of a modern Roman Empire that exists in some alternate universe where Rome never falls but survives continuously until the modern times (like in McDougall’s novel). But I cannot picture a Roman Empire that exists intermittently... that collapses and then, after centuries, somehow spontaneously re-emerges from its ashes. What would this modern Roman civilization be? Would they be people who speak Latin and who consider themselves “cives romani”? To me it makes much more sense to think of re-spawned Romans as Italians, and not as of some kind of alternate history Romans who somehow make a come-back from the remote past.

As to the Hittites/Turkey example, I think it’s very weak. The continuity from ancient Rome to Italy is undeniable, both culturally and politically. Here are some examples: the medieval Italian politician Cola di Rienzo, who claimed the title of “tribune of the Roman people”, regarded Medieval Rome as a continuous with Ancient Rome. The founders of the 1849 Roman Republic, Armellini, Mazzini and Saffi, saw themselves as a triumvirate re-establishing the ancient Roman republic; the whole ‘Risorgimento’ ideal was that of giving to Italy the unity it had during Roman times. Mussolini saw himself as a dictator of the “New Roman Empire” and he had “SPQR” emblazoned on manhole covers (this practice still goes on today). Even the constitutional fathers of the contemporary Italian Republic regarded some of the new state’s institutions (for example, the “Senato&#8221 as successors of those of the ancient Roman republic.

 

[ZachScape]

Look: The work is already done for the most part (the units, LH, ! We just need to update city name maps, stability maps, and settler maps, which is hardly coding, more like filling in the blanks. And of coarse the UP and UHVs, which we crank out if we know what we're doing.

Italy played as a major world power after its unification, or spawn. Greece and Babylon have done nothing on a world scale in modern times. Besides, they spawn way too late in the game, unlike Italy, which has enough turns to play as a couple fun games.

Rome hardly respawns in 600 AD, especially at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, you can't play as them even if they do. And MANY people would love to play as the modern counterpart of the Roman Empire.

If you want, just code the game to pop Rome up at the appropriate year, and be done with it. But because of politics, WE are making this harder than it has to be! Let's just do this for gameplay, as we KNOW 100% that this will be a hit.

A major point I'm stressing to get through to you (I mean that respectfully, as we are in a debate) is we are not taking out or adding a new civilization! We are tweaking one! One that matters in a 600 AD game! It basically IS Rome in the game, yet a playable one! And you guys are keeping throwing the dynamic names out there, well look at the spoiler in the first post. I'm way ahead there.

If you want, I'll make a T Chart comparing 600 AD Rome with 600 AD Italy, game wise. The pros overwhelmingly out way the cons, if there are even any cons at all!

Thank you

EDIT: Also Charles, during the Napoleonic wars, only 200 years ago, name a Province in Northern Italy Etruria! Etruria was around what?... 2800 years ago! You don't think Etruscan culture floated around until then, do you?

AND, why would the Renaissance be needed at all if the Italians had 'Roman culture' stamped on their forehead.

 

[onedreamer]

To those who say: “Ancient Rome is not Italy” I want to ask a simple question. If a re-spawned Rome is not Italy, what is it then?

nothing. Just like a respawn Babylon is nothing, in front of History. These civs did not respawn. At best a respawned Rome could be the Byzantines.

Do you think of this re-spawned Rome as some kind of alternate history reincarnation of the Roman Empire, along the lines of Sophia McDougall’s “what-if” novel Romanitas?

this is most obvious, since as we all know the Roman Empire never came back, so it has to be alternate history.

Now, I can vaguely make sense of a modern Roman Empire that exists in some alternate universe where Rome never falls but survives continuously until the modern times (like in McDougall’s novel). But I cannot picture a Roman Empire that exists intermittently... that collapses and then, after centuries, somehow spontaneously re-emerges from its ashes. What would this modern Roman civilization be? Would they be people who speak Latin and who consider themselves “cives romani”? To me it makes much more sense to think of re-spawned Romans as Italians, and not as of some kind of alternate history Romans who somehow make a come-back from the remote past.

You are highly contradicting yourself without even realizing it.
You literally said:
"I cannot picture a Roman Empire that exists intermittently"
"Would they be people who speak Latin and who consider themselves “cives romani”"
"To me it makes much more sense to think of re-spawned Romans as Italians"

None ever said that Italy shouldn't spawn from the Middle Age on, we are saying that Italy and Italians shouldn't respawn as the ROMANS, and your own statement are in line with this opinion.

As to the Hittites/Turkey example, I think it’s very weak. The continuity from ancient Rome to Italy is undeniable, both culturally and politically.

I deny it.

Here are some examples: the medieval Italian politician Cola di Rienzo, who claimed the title of “tribune of the Roman people”, regarded Medieval Rome as a continuous with Ancient Rome.

not at all, you are twisting History here. He was trying to make of Rome a commune like many other italian cities at that time. He styled himself "the last people's tribune". Does this mean that there is Roman continuity from the SPQR to the low Middle Age in Rome ? Sorry, no. Do you also think that Charles Martel's nephew was a Roman Emperor ?

The founders of the 1849 Roman Republic, Armellini, Mazzini and Saffi, saw themselves as a triumvirate re-establishing the ancient Roman republic

"saw themselves" is the key. Did you read my signature ? Silvio Berlusconi sees himself as Superman. He recently stated that he has been the best Council's President (please let's not call him Premier, he is not) in 150 years.

the whole ‘Risorgimento’ ideal was that of giving to Italy the unity it had during Roman times.

nope, look up for the meaning of that word. Besides, the Romans united something more than just Italy.

Mussolini saw himself as a dictator of the “New Roman Empire” and he had “SPQR” emblazoned on manhole covers (this practice still goes on today).

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 with the RIGHTFUL (according to you) claim that this area should have been part of Iraq according to History two thousands years ago. You know, dictators are famous for their nationalistic and ridiculous claims. In fact, Italy and Mussolini, as well as Hussein, failed miserably. Coincidence ?

Even the constitutional fathers of the contemporary Italian Republic regarded some of the new state’s institutions (for example, the “Senato”) as successors of those of the ancient Roman republic.

ahah, the Senate is present in any Republic government, obviously. Yes, it is inspired to the Roman Senate. So what ? This has absolutely no relevance. And besides the Senate was present before the institution of the Italian Republic.

 

[onedreamer]

I see the civilizations as political entities, not cultures and "peoples", which only makes much sense much later in history.

If a civilization was a political entity, France, England, Russia, and an endless count of other civs in RFC are a bit ahead of times when spawning. And what political entity is "The Vikings" ?

 

[TDK]

If a civilization was a political entity, France, England, Russia, and an endless count of other civs in RFC are a bit ahead of times when spawning. And what political entity is "The Vikings" ?

Nobody is reading what the other side is saying.

It's fine that you want to add an Italian civ to RFC, but your lack of interest for the other re-spawned civs betrays your true motivations. Maybe if some of you would answer how Italy and Greece differ in this regard, we would understand what you are saying. Unless, of course, you believe the modern nation-state of Greece is the same culture as classical Greece?

 

[Charles Martel]

nothing. Just like a respawn Babylon is nothing, in front of History. These civs did not respawn. At best a respawned Rome could be the Byzantines.

You said it. Literally speaking, re-spawned Rome/Babylon/etc. are nothing, entities that never existed. For that reason, I prefer to think of re-spawned Rome as Italy rather than some mysterious non-entity.

this is most obvious, since as we all know the Roman Empire never came back, so it has to be alternate history.

The re-appearance in modern times of something even remotely resembling ancient Rome makes no sense to me, not even as alternate history. I don’t think it is historically possible for an ancient civilization to magically re-appear after centuries of non-existence.

None ever said that Italy shouldn't spawn from the Middle Age on, we are saying that Italy and Italians shouldn't respawn as the ROMANS, and your own statement are in line with this opinion.

It's the other way round actually, the Romans should re-spawn as the Italians. Which in game terms merely means that the Rome slot ("iRome", whatever that constant name is in python) should be taken over by Italy after Rome collapses. That is mostly a matter of convenience, since the number of civ slots is limited. (And historicallly it makes some sense too, because of the continuity from ancient Rome to Italy).

I deny it.

Allora neghi l'ovvio -- then you deny the obvious.

not at all, you are twisting History here. He was trying to make of Rome a commune like many other italian cities at that time. He styled himself "the last people's tribune". Does this mean that there is Roman continuity from the SPQR to the low Middle Age in Rome ? Sorry, no. Do you also think that Charles Martel's nephew was a Roman Emperor ?

The Cola di Rienzo story shows that medieval Roman politicians did not regard ancient Rome and medieval Rome as culturally discontinuous. Indeed, they took ancient Romans to be their immediate ancestors.

"saw themselves" is the key. Did you read my signature ? Silvio Berlusconi sees himself as Superman. He recently stated that he has been the best Council's President (please let's not call him Premier, he is not) in 150 years.

Oh dear, do you really want to compare Mazzini to Berlusconi now?

nope, look up for the meaning of that word. Besides, the Romans united something more than just Italy.

Any Italian pupil is taught since Scuola Elementare that Italy was unified under the Romans, and that this political unity was lost until the Risorgimento. This is part of Italian folk-history. The propaganda of the Risorgimento looked back at ancient history to create the myth of a lost Roman unity to be regained (in reality, the 19th-century peninsula was culturally heterogeneous, and back then there was indeed little the Italians had in common beyond their shared ancient Roman heritage). Nobody ever questioned that Rome should have been the capital of the newly formed Italian state. (Before "la presa di Roma" in 1870 Turin and Florence were perceived as being only temporary capitals.) Why Rome? It was once the capital of the Roman empire, so it was only natural for it to be the capital of the new Italian state.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 with the RIGHTFUL (according to you) claim that this area should have been part of Iraq according to History two thousands years ago.

"According to me"?! I never said anything about Saddam Hussein.

You know, dictators are famous for their nationalistic and ridiculous claims. In fact, Italy and Mussolini, as well as Hussein, failed miserably. Coincidence ?

Let me put it that way: ask Rhye why he’s chosen "Nuovo Impero Romano" as a dynamic name of Rome under police state. Is he implying that Mussolini was right after all? That fascists did really re-establish the Roman Empire?

ahah, the Senate is present in any Republic government, obviously. Yes, it is inspired to the Roman Senate. So what ? This has absolutely no relevance. And besides the Senate was present before the institution of the Italian Republic.

Have you ever been inside Palazzo Madama? In the Sala Maccari, there's a beautiful fresco by Cesare Maccari, showing Cicero talking to senate to denounce Catiline. Now, I can see why you may not want to take Renato Schifani as a successor of Cicero. But the national iconography shows that the senatorial institution itself is supposed to continue the tradition of the ancient Roman Republic.

(By the way, the senate existed before 1948 as "Senato del Regno" not as "Senato della Repubblica", which is anyway beside the point).

The Italian senate is just one among loads of examples. The whole Italian legal tradition is strongly influenced by the diritto romano. I don't really get what your point is: you can't be serious if you deny the close cultural link between ancient Rome and modern Italy. Modern Italy has been influenced by ancient Rome more than any other state.

 

[ZachScape]

Nobody is reading what the other side is saying.

It's fine that you want to add an Italian civ to RFC, but your lack of interest for the other re-spawned civs betrays your true motivations. Maybe if some of you would answer how Italy and Greece differ in this regard, we would understand what you are saying. Unless, of course, you believe the modern nation-state of Greece is the same culture as classical Greece?

You're joking, right? I already made this point clear in my previous post.
Italy was a major nation on a world view! The colonization of Africa, Somalia, and Libya is ONE point. What about the defensive pact in the Triple Alliance that brought the 'Balance of Power' to Europe. What about WWI, WWII? Major role there.

To Greece and Iraq, I mean no disrespect to the citizens of these countries, but by the time the respawned, they played little to no role at all in World Affairs, especially with the time left of there respawn.

Do you think anybody would want to play as Iraq, with them starting in 1958? Greece, what are you going to do? It is like adding Kuwait as a civilization in RFC.

 

[TDK]

You're joking, right? I already made this point clear in my previous post.
Italy was a major nation on a world view! The colonization of Africa, Somalia, and Libya is ONE point. What about the defensive pact in the Triple Alliance that brought the 'Balance of Power' to Europe. What about WWI, WWII? Major role there.

To Greece and Iraq, I mean no disrespect to the citizens of these countries, but by the time the respawned, they played little to no role at all in World Affairs, especially with the time left of there re-spawn.

Do you think anybody would want to play as Iraq, with them starting in 1958? Greece, what are you going to do? It is like adding Kuwait as a civilization in RFC.

The thing is, you are all saying that Italy is a different culture than Rome, which I think is obvious, but if we want to go down that path, viewing the "civs" as cultures, we might as well replace the re-spawned Greece, India, Babylon, Egypt and Persia with later "cultures" or entirely different civs, because they are certainly not anything like their ancient/classical predecessor "cultures".

Like late Rome, none of these "civs" have UHVs, UPs, UBs that make any sense.
I have already suggested this:

As I see it we have at least 6 open slots:
INDIA=Mysore/Mughal/Modern India
GREECE=Korea
ROME=Italy
EGYPT=Iroquois
BABYLONIA=Zulu
PERSIA=Maori?/Brasil?

 

[Zagoroth]

I honestly do not see why there is a huge argument over this. I also believe it makes no sense for Rome to represent Italy. Does the argument just go down to, "everyone agrees a 600 C.E. start is okay and not everyone believes the 3000 B.C.E. start is okay"? I think the 600 C.E. start would be be a good idea as Rome can be modified into an Italian civilization. The 3000 B.C.E. just does not make sense to change. Rome already respawns in the game as its own civilization. Changing it to Italy is just aesthetics. Since nobody is going to replace Rome with Italy in the 3000 B.C.E. start, it seems better to just let it stay.

 

[fireclaw722]

As I see it we have at least 6 open slots:
INDIA=Mysore/Mughal/Modern India
GREECE=Korea
ROME=Italy
EGYPT=Iroquois
BABYLONIA=Zulu
PERSIA=Maori?/Brasil?:

I would like something like this but Persia, Greece, & Egypt should instead respawn and Maya & Cathrage can then be replaced by Iroquios(whatever the Native American tribe is most wanted), Zulu, Brazil, Korea, or even Canada.

I also can see this isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but still throwing more stuff out there.

 

[ZachScape]

The thing is, you are all saying that Italy is a different culture than Rome, which I think is obvious, but if we want to go down that path, viewing the "civs" as cultures, we might as well replace the re-spawned Greece, India, Babylon, Egypt and Persia with later "cultures" or entirely different civs, because they are certainly not anything like their ancient/classical predecessor "cultures".

Like late Rome, none of these "civs" have UHVs, UPs, UBs that make any sense.
I have already suggested this:

This is not about culture. It is about location. The Middle East is a place with a lot of cultures, which it should be. It does not need to be changed IMO. But Italy is where Rome was, and Italy was a major nation.
I agree with Zagoroth, that this should not even be an argument at all. This is an easy concept which we are all unsuccessfully trying to get through to you. This is just about Italy. Not Greece, not Iraq, just Italy.

And you can not have an RFC map without Persia, Babylon, or Egypt, it would just be empty, or an Independent cluster with no competition.

 

[onedreamer]

You said it. Literally speaking, re-spawned Rome/Babylon/etc. are nothing, entities that never existed. For that reason, I prefer to think of re-spawned Rome as Italy rather than some mysterious non-entity.

you use the term re-spawn incorrectly then. If a civ re-spawns, it is the same civ, not another civ. If you said spawn from the very beginning there would be no problem. Italy SPAWNS or can spawn from a certain date, with its own UU, UHV, etc.

The re-appearance in modern times of something even remotely resembling ancient Rome makes no sense to me, not even as alternate history. I don’t think it is historically possible for an ancient civilization to magically re-appear after centuries of non-existence.

too bad that it's what you have proposed.

It's the other way round actually, the Romans should re-spawn as the Italians.

ahah, ditto.

Which in game terms merely means that the Rome slot ("iRome", whatever that constant name is in python) should be taken over by Italy after Rome collapses.

No, in other terms it means that Italy spawns, not that Rome re-spawns.

Why Rome? It was once the capital of the Roman empire, so it was only natural for it to be the capital of the new Italian state.

Rome is central, a much better capital than Turin or Florence. And Risorgimento's main ideals were of indipendence from foreign powers and of liberalism first of all. You were maybe a bit distracted at school if you think that they teach that the indipendent movements in the 19th century were inspired from the Roman Empire, movements that I shall remind you were spread accross the whole Europe. The awareness of the italian culture, or civilization, has always been present during the whole Middle Ages; Dante Alighieri speaks of the italian language between the 13th and 14th century, Niccolò Machiavelli hopes for the "Princes" in Italy to unify the peninsula the 15th and 16th, etc etc. With a common culture and a geographically OBVIOUS position, you think that the feeling of indipendence and unity of italian people in the 19th century needed to look at the Romans to have an inspiration ? Please... why was it called Italy in the first place ? During the Roman Empire Italy was only a region of an Empire, ROME was the homeland. All roads take to Rome, not to Italy. Rome (the Papal State) is responsible for the division of Italy throughout the Middle Ages, if the Popes didn't obstacolate in any possible way the unification of Italy from the Langobards, we would have had a unitary Italy much before the 19th century. Only thanks to the skilled political moves of Cavour and the weakened Papal State we now have a Italy, not thanks to the reminiscense of the Roman Empire. Italy was made thanks to favorable political conditions and because it was an area definied by cultural and geographical unity. The same things that make of Spain what it is... although I don't hear people claiming that the spanish people launched the Reconquista because in the Roman Empire, that area was called Hispania.

Let me put it that way: ask Rhye why he’s chosen "Nuovo Impero Romano" as a dynamic name of Rome under police state. Is he implying that Mussolini was right after all? That fascists did really re-establish the Roman Empire?

No, he is implying once more that you are wrong, that the re-spawned civ is in fact that of the Romans, and not Italy, which is ANOTHER, different civ, which therefore can't simply be Rome respawned with a different name.

Have you ever been inside Palazzo Madama? In the Sala Maccari, there's a beautiful fresco by Cesare Maccari, showing Cicero talking to senate to denounce Catiline. Now, I can see why you may not want to take Renato Schifani as a successor of Cicero. But the national iconography shows that the senatorial institution itself is supposed to continue the tradition of the ancient Roman Republic.

I am speechless in front of such blind twisting of reality in order to prove the existance of something that doesn't exist.

 

[onedreamer]

Nobody is reading what the other side is saying.

It's fine that you want to add an Italian civ to RFC, but your lack of interest for the other re-spawned civs betrays your true motivations. Maybe if some of you would answer how Italy and Greece differ in this regard, we would understand what you are saying. Unless, of course, you believe the modern nation-state of Greece is the same culture as classical Greece?

They do not differ in any way, actually since we are speaking of Ancient Greece, that was not a political entity either
I do not *want* to add the italian civ to RFC, I didn't write the OP. I am merely here to say that a respawned Rome shouldn't be called Italy, and that Italians aren't (direct) discendants of Romans, the Italian culture has of course Roman influences, like most others in Europe, probably more than others being that the Roman culture originated in Rome which is in Italy, and given that the History of other european kingdoms developed differently from that of the italian ones after the fall of the Roman Empire. Mussolini said Italians are descendant from Romans as an (obvious) act of propaganda, something that any totalitarian gov. would do when things aren't going well: distract the public opinion from the current problems to something good that may accomunate them. I don't understand if some people on this forum are still fascists or simply blind.

 

[TDK]

Okay, so you agree that if we change Rome to Italy in the 600AD start, we should change Greece, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Babylonia and India as well?

It's just that you are over-selling your argument. If you notice, I never said that Italians were Romans. I just said that Italy and Rome share many things, like: Core territory, the mountains and rivers, olives and wine, the climate, some institutions, law, the language is similar, Christianity, the capital Roma, geo-strategic position and geographic location and so on and so forth. That's why it's silly to create an entirely new civ, when almost all other of the ancient/classical civs are equally disjointed from their later "successor" cultures.

 

[Charles Martel]

you use the term re-spawn incorrectly then. If a civ re-spawns, it is the same civ, not another civ. If you said spawn from the very beginning there would be no problem. Italy SPAWNS or can spawn from a certain date, with its own UU, UHV, etc.

I think you have missed the point. The proposal is as follows: to overcome the hard limit on number of civs, ancient civs should re-spawn as modern civs. It’s silly to object that the new and the old civ are not historically the "same" (whatever that means), for that misses the point entirely. As far as I am concerned, Rome could re-spawn as Korea. It is, however, relatively simpler to make Rome re-spawn as Italy: same geographical location, less coding changes to make.

(Note: the term "re-spawn" is used correctly here, for the original and the re-spawned civ are in fact the "same" civilization is coding terms, albeit not in historical terms, in the sense that they take up the same slot and are assigned the same python constant.)

Rome is central, a much better capital than Turin or Florence.

Sure, and Narni (Umbria) is even closer than Rome to the geographical center of Italy. Too bad Narni is not the capital. The main reason why Rome was chosen as capital was because of its historical importance dating back to the time of the Roman empire. Geographical centrality was certainly not the main reason.

you think that the feeling of indipendence and unity of italian people in the 19th century needed to look at the Romans to have an inspiration ?

Of course they did. Haven’t you learnt by heart the Italian national anthem, composed in 1847? It says:

Fratelli d'Italia, l'Italia s'è desta,
dell'elmo di Scipio s'è cinta la testa

Brothers of Italy, Italy has awoken,
Binding her head with Scipio’s helmet

“Scipio” is, of course, the ancient Roman general Scipio Africanus.

Please... why was it called Italy in the first place ? During the Roman Empire Italy was only a region of an Empire, ROME was the homeland.

Italy was not just like any other province of the Empire, it was the core of the Empire. “Italia” was the name given since the time of the Roman Republic to the whole peninsula. Thus Italia included Rome itself. Italic peoples were privileged within the Empire, for example: in the II century BC they were granted full Roman citizenship, a privilege that until 212AD was unique to them. In Roman times, the distinction between “Romans” and the “Italians” (gens italica) was not as sharp as you seem to think it was.

All roads take to Rome, not to Italy. Rome (the Papal State) is responsible for the division of Italy throughout the Middle Ages, if the Popes didn't obstacolate in any possible way the unification of Italy from the Langobards, we would have had a unitary Italy much before the 19th century. Only thanks to the skilled political moves of Cavour and the weakened Papal State we now have a Italy, not thanks to the reminiscense of the Roman Empire. Italy was made thanks to favorable political conditions and because it was an area definied by cultural and geographical unity.

None of this shows that there is no cultural continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy. One of the major discontinuities was the invasion of Lombards that you have mentioned, but their influence was not sufficiently strong to sever the link and create an entirely new dominant culture. The Lombards were quick to covert to the Roman’s religion and adopt their language. Even their laws, such as the edict of King Rotari, were written in Latin.

The same things that make of Spain what it is... although I don't hear people claiming that the spanish people launched the Reconquista because in the Roman Empire, that area was called Hispania.

I don’t think that the cultural closeness between ancient Rome and modern Italy is comparable to that between Rome and modern Spain. True, the Roman influence on Spain was enormous (and some emperors, such as Trajan, were born in modern-day Spain). However, the cultural continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is many ways greater and more marked than that from Rome to Spain. After all Hispania was a collection of more or less peripheral provinces, whereas Italia was the beating heart of the empire.

No, he is implying once more that you are wrong, that the re-spawned civ is in fact that of the Romans, and not Italy, which is ANOTHER, different civ, which therefore can't simply be Rome respawned with a different name.

So why does Rome get the dynamic name “Nuovo Impero Romano”? If Rome and Italy and entirely different civilizations, don’t you think it’s a little strange to name police-state Rome after Mussolini’s dream?

I am speechless in front of such blind twisting of reality in order to prove the existance of something that doesn't exist.

The cultural influence and continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is undeniable. I can’t believe that you want to deny his, so I don’t understand what you are disagreeing about. Perhaps you think that I am claiming that Rome and Italy are the “same civilization”, but, as I have already stressed, I am not saying this (any claim to the effect that “X is (or is not) the same civilization as Y” makes no clear sense to me, for I don’t think that civilizations have well-defined identity conditions.) It seems to me that you are over-reacting: you want to teach us to that Italy and Rome are not the “same”, but in doing so, you needn’t downplay the importance of the Roman heritage.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Cultural continuity is an illusion, if we're talking about millenia.
By that I mean that yes, Italians can think they were descendants of ancient Romans (no doubt genetically admixed with a little Goth, Lombard, Germanic and Gallic DNA, if one can even racially type-cast DNA), and the language wouldn't be there if it weren't for Latin. The institutions (be it senates or laws) might be called the same, but the ideas behind them that make them work on a day-to-day basis are different.
Just another example: I can read classical Chinese, but do I really know what the author meant? The Romance of the Three Kingdoms was written almost a thousand years after the History of the Three Kingdoms, and I'm sure if I compared what I thought of a particular figure (let's say Cao Cao, who's a great statesman) to what people of his time thought of him, it would be different. Heck, we don't even speak the same language (Mandarin is probably not what they spoke).

So yes, by all means Italy should spawn in Rome's spot, but no, it should not be a respawn of Rome.

 

[kairob]

AP, I agree, yet another person has expressed this argument very well.

For those who disagree and think that Rome represents Italy fine then why keep posting on a thread about making a modmod to do something you don't want? It seams like a waste of time to me especially as no one seems to be changing their minds...

 

[ZachScape]

Uggg... I feel ignored....

But why TDK, are you bringing up Carthage, Babylon, Greece, Egypt, etc? They should be random as they were never major civs in the modern era.
And Onedreamer, I am not asking to *add* a new civ, as that is accepted as REALLY hard. Just tweak one.