Italy

[AnotherPacifist]

I really cant make out whether your agreeing or disagreeing with me.
Ok there is more in common between an amphora and a modern replica than various Chinese dynasties ? But are you agreeing or disagreeing with me ?
.

I'm both disagreeing with you and agreeing with you. Yes, most people think there is more continuity in civs like China and Japan, but that's not the case. But I'm disagreeing with the Rome-Italy connection. Onedreamer's views are probably a little extreme, but I agree with him in essence.

I think the operative word Charles Martel is inspiration, which is key. Think of Rome and 19th century Italy (and even Mussolini's Italy) like:
Ancient amphora= probably used for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities in ancient Greece.
Modern replica=most decorative; mass produced; sometimes to deceive archaeologists and collectors to fetch a higher price or to lend a "classical" air to your living room. Probably not for daily use as storage.

 

[bastillebaston]

What's the fuss all about? Ok, let me get it straight: Middle Country of China -> People's Republic of China, Greek League -> Greek Junta, Holy Roman Empire -> Federal Republic of Germany are all fine... but Roman Empire -> Republic of Italy is not ok??? What's so special about Italy? Germany is like the Holy Roman Empire no more than Italy is like the Roman Empire... so why the double standard?

 

[scu98rkr]

After rereading through the all the posts I would say the argument is settled.

Rome to Italy is fine.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Actually bastille the HRE to modern day Germany is like medieval France to modern day France, yes perhaps the states were seperated but they were all the same peoples (same culture, same language, same ancestors).

 

[synyster]

I think the actual point of the thread, has been agreed on

Remove Rome, and put Italy.

As it was never "Rome IS Italy" in the first place

The discussion about wether or not Rome is to Italy as other modern civs are to thier ancient counterparts should really be discussed elsewhere really.

Or at least people should be discussing what UP, UB, UU, UHV's, etc should be used. As this is quite a good suggestion.

 

[Bonci]

So make your own modmod where Germany spawns in 1871 or whatever you want...the point here is to make a modmod about Italy to make it playable in the 600 a.d start (now it isn't possible)...I think no one is disagreeing with this.
The rest is only a social/historical discussion how onedreamer already said.

 

[bastillebaston]

@ Brunemdown I am no history buff but my mum is from Berlin and I know Germany well and I can tell you HRE isnt anything like modern day Germany. Same people with same ancestors? I don't think so! I've just read on wikipedia that a lot of different people lived in the HRE: German, French, Austrian, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Swiss, Czech and Slavic people... sorry but that doesnt sound at all like todays Germany. Same language? Wikipedia says that HRE languages are Latin, Germanic, Romance and Slavic dialects, and I guess that even those Germanic dialects must have been some kind of medieval language that modern day Germans have trouble understanding... So no, in real history HRE is not Germany. But I am not fussy about that... it's just a game, not real history... so HRE -> Germany and Roman empire -> Italy are ok to me.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Well I meant the parts of HRE that were German, I know Austria a lot of lands east of modern day Germany were in the HRE but what I meant was the core of the HRE which was in Germany. (Same as Rome controlled more than Italy itself but we are only talking about the peoples living in Italy, for example one wouldn't say "Rome isn't at all like Italy since Rome had Gauls and Illyric and Greek people in their empire").

 

[scu98rkr]

"Same as Rome controlled more than Italy"

Exactly but rome and italy are both Italian/Latin Civilisations basically.

 

[bastillebaston]

@ Burnemdown Are you kidding me? Thats' just what I said in the first place! HRE is to Germany as Roman Empire is to Italy... sort of. What I mean that Italy is like the Roman Empire no more than Germany is like HRE. So if HRE->Germany is ok then Roman Empire -> Italy is ok as well. And how about ancient China? Is it same civ as communist China? I don't think so... but Han people -> People's Republic of China is ok to me. I just don't get what's the fuss about ITaly.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

It would be really nice to get a new UU/UB/UP for each era of each civ, then the whole argument about which ancient civs should become which modern ones will be moot.

If the argument holds that HRE-->Germany, then why not Rome-->France or Rome-->Spain, since the latter two are Latin cultures too? Or for that matter why not Aztec-->Mexico or Inca-->Peru? Civ 1-4 in general is based on a fallacy that cultures don't change substantially over time and that the "fall" of civs is never simulated (as long as you don't lose the game). New cultures have always been made by diffusion/combination while old cultures were extinguished/merged into new ones. What IS constant is the ethnicity of the people that you're governing, and even that is fluid (what we call China today comprises of 56 official ethnic groups).

To be accurate, the game Civilization should be called Ethnicity. Rhye had the right idea to call them Italic/Slavic/Germanic peoples, if not Han peoples.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Well yes, but what I meant was just like how the Roman Empire controlled lots of other areas outside of Italy and it is OK in my opinion to let them be respawned as Italy, just like the HRE controlled areas outside of modern-day Germany it seems reasonable in the game they would continue to exist into the industrial and modern era as Germany.

 

[scu98rkr]

You dont need any more UU/UB/UP. These are meant to help the CIV push on when it was historically at its most powerful.

Therefore all of italy/rome's are from the classical world. Aztecs/inca pre conquest etc etc...

Why does Italy need UU/UB/UP they have not really done anything impressive since reunification except win a few world cups.
Definitely not anything that deserves a UU/UB/UP.

Other CIV's such as russia/germany have their UU/UB/UP spread out over a longer time period as they excelled a little but more often but for Italy/Rome there was obviously one time period for them which stands out over the others.

------------------------------------------------------

If you really think the modern state of italy needs some representation a better idea would be to give civ's ANTI UU/UB/UP !
So times when civ's were weak could be represented.

For instance ITALY/ROME could have riflemen with - 4 strength so Oromo Warriors could beat them to represent Italy's original attempts to colonise Ethiopia. Or tanks with -10 strength to represent their military failures from WWII in greece/north africa.

Their Anti Unique Power could be the Power of Destabilization were by they have to change their government Civic every 10 turns to represent the succession of governments since the 2nd world war.

And there unique building could change radio masts into Berlusconi's TV empire or sommit like that which would give increased happiness but there would be a chance of a sex scandal every turn.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Anti-UP/UU/UB--that's a great idea. Some more examples:
China--banks decreased commerce if adopts Communism
America--the Mall gives unhappiness after 1960 (anybody follow Mad Men?)
Germany--Security Bureau (SS) gives unhappiness
And if Korea ever makes it as a modmod, their missiles (nuclear or not) should have a 80% fail rate.

 

[Charles Martel]

If the argument holds that HRE-->Germany, then why not Rome-->France or Rome-->Spain, since the latter two are Latin cultures too?

By the same token, then why not HRE-->the Netherlands, HRE-->Austria, or even HRE-->Bohemia? The answer is that we needn't go down the slippery slope, whereby (almost) anything goes. Rome-->Italy makes more sense than Rome-->France, for two reasons: firstly, because France is already represented in the game, whereas Italy is not. And secondly, because Italy is not just any "Latin culture", but it's Rome's closest successor. So yes, in a way, France may be regarded as a successor of Rome, but not quite as close as Italy itself.

Or for that matter why not Aztec-->Mexico or Inca-->Peru?

Indeed, in my custom version of the mod, Aztecs get the dynamic names "Mexico" when running universal suffrage. Ironically, that's not so unhistorical as it might seem. The other day I've been to the British Museum's fascinating new exhibition about Montezuma (http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/future_exhibitions/moctezuma.aspx). The exhibition's posters begin by explaining that we shouldn't call the Aztecs "Aztecs" at all. Apparently that name was introduced in the early 19th century, and the correct name is Mexica. So if the Aztecs were still around today they'd be probably called Mexicans!

What IS constant is the ethnicity of the people that you're governing, and even that is fluid (what we call China today comprises of 56 official ethnic groups). To be accurate, the game Civilization should be called Ethnicity.

Are you suggesting that what identifies RFC-civilizations throughout the millennia is not so much cultural continuity, but some kind of genetic blueprint? If so, I disagree. I don't think DNA is the constant factor here. Indeed, there need be no constancy at all. Instead, we have a chain of influences whereby certain cultures influence their successor cultures. I take RFC-"Civilizations" to represent (very loosely and abstractly) these culture-chains. Four observations:

1) Although there has to be some similarity between a culture and its immediate predecessor, there may be little or no similarity between any given culture and its distant ancestors. What matters for the culture's survival is the continuity of the chain (e.g. at any point in the chain there should be at least one close enough successor), and continuity need not imply constancy.

2) Cultures, especially the more influential ones, may have more than one close successor. In that case the closest successor is the only continuator in the chain.

3) Culture A and culture B belong to the same "civilization" just in case there is a unique culture chain that goes from A to B. If A has no close enough successor, or if it has many equally close successors (unlikely), then there is no such chain.

4) What determines the closest successor is based on cultural influences, geographical proximity, shared traditions, language similarities, and other direct causal links. Those are all vague criteria, but that's ok. Civilizations are themselves vague concepts. What counts as the closest successor by loose similarity standards, may not be a successor at all by more strict similarity standards. I believe that in RFC the standard should be set very low, so that even modern Mexico may be seen as a successor of the Aztecs.

 

[scu98rkr]

good post I agree on everything you say I just couldnt be bothered to type it out.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

If the criteria for belonging to a culture chain, as you call them, should be set low, then both Japan and Khmer should just belong to the same Chinese culture chain and should not exist separately. It's their self-defined ethnicities that separated them as "civilizations."

And the Byzantines (an artificial label itself)? Are they a continuation of the Romans or the Greeks? They regarded themselves as the former while the world thinks the latter (and rightly so ethnically). If they still exist in the 1860's, should Italy be able to spawn as a separate civ with direct lineage from Rome?

The newer civs (like France, Spain, Mali)--did they spring de novo from the earth or do they belong to a chain like Rome-Italy? Or is it because they formed over centuries from self-definition by language, geography and location, i.e. ethnicity?

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.[1][2]

Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups

I always felt that the American UP is a misnomer: you have foreign culture in your cities but some % is always "American." What is American culture anyway other than an amalgamation of English culture with these foreign influences?

 

[Charles Martel]

An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural traits as indicators of contrast to other groups.

I thought that by "ethnicity" you meant something like genetic blueprint. But if you meant the Wikipedia quote, then I agree that, in that sense, ethnic identity is a crucial factor in determining the continuity of what I have called a "culture-chain".

If the criteria for belonging to a culture chain, as you call them, should be set low, then both Japan and Khmer should just belong to the same Chinese culture chain and should not exist separately.

When I said that the criteria should be set low in RFC, I did not meant THAT low. But, yes: in an extremely loose and approximate sense, Japan and China may be said to belong to the same super-civilization, which we may call "East-Asian culture".

And the Byzantines (an artificial label itself)? Are they a continuation of the Romans or the Greeks? They regarded themselves as the former while the world thinks the latter (and rightly so ethnically). If they still exist in the 1860's, should Italy be able to spawn as a separate civ with direct lineage from Rome?

You make a good point there. The answer is that belonging to a "culture-chain", as I have defined the term, is an extrinsic, not an intrinsic property, of a culture group. What this means is that whether X qualifies as the "closest successor" of Y may depend on factors external to X, such as the persistence of other culture-groups which are not directly related to X. So: if Byzantium still existed in the 1860's, and, by that time, they were Rome's closest successor, then yes: Italy could not have belonged to that closest successor chain. But my reply to this apparent problem is that although Byzantium was a close successor, it never was Rome's closest successor to begin with (except, perhaps, under Justinian--but let's ignore this complication for the sake of the argument). Instead, we have a division of the late Roman Empire into a Western and an Eastern part, with the Western Empire being the closest successor of Rome proper. Thus, Italy is the closest successor of the Western Empire, which, in turn, is the early Empire's closest successor.

Note: this is not to deny that the Eastern Empire, as an abstract political institution or ideal (the "Imperium"), was the Roman Empire's closest successor throught the Middle Ages. It may well have been, perhaps ranking higher than its main competitor, the Holy Roman Empire. But here I am not talking about the continuity of abstract political institutions, I am talking about the continuity of (loosely defined) culture groups.

 

[onedreamer]

In summary Zach is making a mod to substitute the Roman civ in the 600AD (where it is obsolete) with a more modern civ -Italy- that can spawn in the 19th century. You and others are objecting that this is redundant, since the Roman civ, with its Praetorian UU, Forum UB, (obsolete) roads UP is perfectly acceptable to represent the italian civ, so everying is fine as it is; moreover the current name for the Roman civ adopting Police State in reality means Italy. Since it seems impossible to even reason with you and others on the matter, it's obvious that this discussion has really become futile and we better just ignore certain statements. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a larger project that will substitute all obsolete civs in the 600AD start.

Why does Italy need UU/UB/UP they have not really done anything impressive since reunification except win a few world cups.
Definitely not anything that deserves a UU/UB/UP.

See, this is the real problem in the discussion. The total ignorance on the matter about certain people who feel free to post nonsense like this. As Italian I feel very ashamed of the little consideration my people has for itself, to the point that someone feels compelled to go look into the Roman History to find something to be proud of (and even mistakenly, since the Romans aren't the Italians). Italian self esteem is so low that it even spread abroad to the most naive persons. If you'd take the americans for example, they go around the world convincing everyone how they are the best example of freedom and rightfulness, but they have among the world's highest criminality rate, or that they saved Europe from the nazis when it was the Soviets to give the biggest contribution. Scu98rkr, perhaps you will tell us which 60 million people nation with 150 years history has achieved as much as the italian people did (I am not counting the Middle Ages, only Italy as a unitary country, although technically in CIV terms, the italian civilization exists from long before).
- Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ?
- Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?
- Automobile industry. Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc... renowned in the whole world, are Romans ?
- Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission, with a team of italian scientists. That's a modern age Civ technology. Discovered by Romans ?
- Marconi and the Radio ? Romans ? Another modern age tech.
- Volta ? Roman ?
- There is probably no other country as big (or small) as Italy who has achieved as much in so many different sports; sports playing a big role in today's society.
- Fascism is an italian word. Not the best period in History, still it's yet another tech in Civ.
- what other civ can boast a Silvio Berlusconi ? None I say . And he doesn't speak Latin, believe me.

These are just a few things that anyone could find out with a few minutes research. Let's not go into details, and frankly I don't think that discussing with someone claiming that Praetorians are appropriate for an Italian civ UU would serve any purpouse. Probably having a talk on History with my cat would produce more interesting results.

 

[onedreamer]

Basically my argument is this

People who believe that Rome does not equal Italia probably do not know there Chinese/Persian/India history as well as they know their Italian history.

They therefore mistakenly believe there is more cultural continuity between the various empires in these countries than their really is.

In fact if anything there may well be more in common between Rome and Italy than these various dynasties.

Culture is strongly tied to peoples, culture and traditions can of course change and evolve following the historical events of a nation or of the whole world, however they are still changes produced by the same people. Even a change like the one that happened in the Russian Empire with the revolution, which strongly influenced Russian culture, is different from what happened in Italy with the fall of the Roman Empire. The peninsula was invaded repeatedly by barbarian peoples who have slaughtered very high percentages of the local populations in their raids, and then settled down, unlike what they had done in the past when they would move over again. Some important cities like Aquileia literally disappeared, or were reduced to villages, while other unimportant outposts became medieval strongholds. Foreign peoples that migrated from an entirely different continent, hence of entirely different ethnicity, invaded Italy in overwhelming numbers resulting in an even mixture of peoples which generated an entirely new people. This is not like one of the chinese kingdoms invading its neighbors, or the mongols hordes invading Persia, or the Russian proletariat kicking the aristocrats away from Russia. It's the history of different peoples that mixed into one. There are more examples of peoples/civs that "disappeared", or do you think that Algeria represents the Carthaginians properly ?