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.
And who has determined this ? You ? IMHO civs re-spawn for gameplay reasons and because they historically did. More than one civ lost its indipendence in the course of history, but maintained its cultural indipendence and came back as an indipendent nation. The Roman civilization lost its cultural indipendence and never came back in real History, however in RFC, which is a game, it could be possible for this to happen as much as it is possible for Arabia to found cities in South America.
Its silly to object that the new and the old civ are not historically the "same" (whatever that means), for that misses the point entirely.
but YOU are the one who is objecting it, LOL. You do not agree that the Roman Empire could respawn as New Roman Empire, and instead ask that it respawns as Italy.
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.
It's simpler to make it respawn as New Rome as it already does.
(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.)
sorry but this doesn't hold water.
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.
Right. Sources ?
Of course they did. Havent 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 Scipios helmet
Scipio is, of course, the ancient Roman general Scipio Africanus.
1) Heh. 19th century, the century of Nationalism. Do you know what is nationalism ?
2) in 1847 Italy was all but united. This song was composed as an inspiration for the people to fight for the indipendence and unity. It is obvious that it quotes (very) past glories
of another people since there is nothing else to say to make people's heart burn for "Italy", a country that hasn't existed in 1847 yet. But the fact that a poet, a composer, or a fascist makes such high, patriotic claims, doesn't really change History. They are only words said to inspire people, it is a hymn, not a History essay. You strumentalize this hymn as if it was an essay.
3) In case you haven't heard of it, this hymn is highly criticized exactly because of this content, because it speaks mainly of Rome instead of Italy. The reason is simply, it's outdated, and it was written before the birth of Italy, which is dated 1861, not 1848.
Italy was not just like any other province of the Empire, it was the core of the Empire.
1- Italy was more than one province
2- again the core of the Empire was ROME, not Italy.
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.
- the origins of the name predate the Romans.
- Italia still includes Rome. What's the point ? Even Europe, or Earth includes Rome.
- the citizenzhip should prove you that the core of the Roman Empire was Rome and not Italy.
- the peoples living in Italy in ancient history were Italic peoples, not Italian people. I do not think it, I am certain of it. Can you quote sources stating that Latini, or Romani were Italian peoples, rather than Italic peoples ?
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 Longobards DID create a new culture, the one that evolved from the mix of Italic Peoples with Ostrogoths first, and with Logobards then. They couldn't create a unitary nation in Italy as they tried to, that's what I said.
The Lombards were quick to covert to the Romans religion and adopt their language. Even their laws, such as the edict of King Rotari, were written in Latin.
Sorry but this is really too much. Christianity now is the Romans' religion ? And in case you weren't aware of it, Latin was spoken throughout the Empire for long after its fall; while written Latin survived for centuries. It was then what is now English, an international language.
I dont 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.
only because of its location. You confuse territorial continuity with cultural continuity. Like TDK has said, Romans and Italians have in common, among many other things, olives and wine. Heh.
So why does Rome get the dynamic name Nuovo Impero Romano? If Rome and Italy and entirely different civilizations, dont you think its a little strange to name police-state Rome after Mussolinis dream?
No, I don't. Police State signs a change in era so why not change the name of the Empire ? What other name would you suggest instead ?
The cultural influence and continuity from ancient Rome to modern Italy is undeniable.
I continue to deny it and I think I have done a pretty good job until now
Note that I don't deny the cultural influence of ancient Rome on Italy or any other European country, I deny the cultural continuity and integrity from Rome to Italy. This is nonexistant, they are two different cultures and the results achieved by these two peoples show it pretty well
you want to teach us to that Italy and Rome are not the same, but in doing so, you neednt downplay the importance of the Roman heritage.
Far from me to have this intention. Again the Roman heritage is something Italians have dear and should have even more dear, since it's stronger in Italy than anywhere else. However, Italians aren't Romans respawned. They didn't *really* put up Sciopio's helm. But I wouldn't want to hurt too much fascists dreams; after all everyone is entitled to have dreams.
but I don't see the point some of you people have here
