Italy

[Rhye]

I think we've arrived to a situation where we can't convince each other, because your proofs are my counterproofs.
Such as language: while the lexicon followed a gradual evolution, syntax was completely wiped out. Latin has a syntax that in some aspects resembles Japanese. Nothing to do with Italian, which is one of the Romance languages. Differentiation between them were caused by mixing vulgar Latin with local population.

But I am not postponing the end of the Roman civilization. What I’m saying is that it really never disappeared (unlike, say, Punic culture) but gradually turned into Medieval Italian culture. Transition figures such as Boethius and Cassiodorus show the sort of continuity I’m talking about.

Anyway, the point was that the Dark Ages’ crisis (which, I agree, wasn't just demographic) was not catastrophic enough to make Roman civilization utterly collapse, as your post seemed to suggest.

Zeno's paradox? Sorry, but my point has nothing to do with that

Well, all the possible dates you may care to choose are IMO equally arbitrary. At no period in time did Rome cease to exist and Italy begin to flourish.

If 700 years of barbarian invasions weren't enough, then I wonder what is necessary to break a continuity?
If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?
If we consider day-by-day changes, then nothing in enough to reckon a sudden change. Just like in the paradox. We need some abstaction.

I didn’t mean in any way to suggest that you had any sympathy for Umberto Bossi’s Northern League. Knowing your (justifiable) dislike of Mr Berlusconi, I could guess that you wouldn’t like Bossi either.

No offence taken. Actually, Lega Nord isn't just a collection of bollocks. Occasionally, they seem to have a point in what they say. If they've reached 12%, it's not a coincidence. But that's another story.

 

[Bonci]

If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?

I lol'd XD

 

[onedreamer]

Pasta originated in China you know.

yeah. Hopefully this doesn't mean that italians are slightly chinese ?
However, I doubt that the chinese cook pasta as we do in the west of the globe. Anyways pasta is food for the poor, we have much more renowned food. Even I can easily cook a decent pasta

Alot of the things you list above are not represented in Civ or generally of little importance in the history of the world.

says who ?

Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ? To be honest I dont know

normally I wouldn't speak of stuff I don't know, especially if I am to contradict someone.

but what other CIV has a UU/UB/UP based on good cooking

boy do I need to explain everything in detail. Food is part of culture, a STRONG part of culture of any nation. What I meant then is that in Civ terms, the italian civ has a strong cultural influence - a bonus in culture per turn, hmmkay ?

The two things Italy is most famous for are pasta and pizza.

In America, the land of gross approximation, stereotypes and fast food, yes. Pasta and Pizza are ready in 5-10 minutes, that's why they are famous, in America.

I would be surprised if there wasnt something about during Roman times similar to pasta. Is there any date for the invention of pasta ?

you would be very suprised then. I really wonder: why are you arguing on everything if you don't know details by your own admission ? Most of the food we eat today is cooked with ingredients from other continents, especially pasta (tomatoes are from America). The Romans ate very basic food with little preparation. Mostly fruit or vegetables present in Europe.

What date are you suggesting the people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian" ?

the fall of the Roman Empire seems reasonable, if a precise date must be found.

Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?

Yep. The Romans were famous for exporting their leather sandals in all the known world. And the chinese would resell crappy linen trousers as if they were "Made in Latium by Versacem".

The romans were famous for mass producing things and probably set the first factories up in Europe so I would imagine the Italian textile textile industry had some connection to this period.

we should move the assembly line tech just after currency then.

Also the reason Italian clothes were seen to be stylish is that even after the collapse of Rome the rest of Europe still looked to italy for inspiration and as the centre of civilization for centuries afterwards. I very much doubt without Rome anyone would of cared about Italy's clothes. Also again what CIV has UP/UB/UU based on being stylish.

I see. Too bad that the italian stylists are renowned from the 20th century, not the 8th century.

The car was not invented in Italy so you have some good companies so do the Germans, Japs, Americans.

This doesn't answer the question. Is Ferrari Roman in origins ? Perhaps since the Romans were the first to pave roads in a lot of regions, there must be a connection. Definitely so.

Enrico Fermi is a very clever guy.
1 He is Roman born in Rome and spoke a language descended from Latin.
2 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues in ROME studied the results of bombarding uranium with neutrons in 1934.
3 He then left italy

pardon. I missed the fact that Fermi is Roman.

Marconi was in England when he commercialized not invented Radio.

Julius Caesar was in France when he conquered Gallia.

- 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.

I would say the USA and Russia still lead the way in achievement in sport but that simply because their big.
I think Australia has probably achieved the most considering its population base not italy.

can you show us some numbers ?

Ok from the unification of mongolia, the mongols managed to have the worlds largest land empire in much less than 150 years. Also they didnt have the advantages of 1000's of years of history on their side.

I knew that we would come down to this. Because this is a forum that is mostly visited by americans (obviously), the importance of a nation is measured on how much they have conquered. It doesn't matter if in conquering half the world the mongols have destroyed more than they created, they are definitely more important than Italy. For the same reason, since Rome conquered most of the known world, it is more important than Italy, which is to be laughed at because they lost their first war vs. Ethiopia. Hence, Italy can be just said to be the same as Rome, since it didn't achieve anything in particular. Lost pretty much any war where they had to put real efforts in. Yes, that's the sad truth on the american line of thought. The americans, the fighters for freedom and liberalism, yet the only nation responsible for actually using nukes and that had to go through a bloody civil war just to abolish slavery.

Take, for starters, Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374). This is the man who, together with Dante and Boccaccio, is regarded as the father of the Italian language, so he's not one who can be easily dismissed. His poem to Italy, "Italia Mia", sings Gaius Marius and Julius Caesar as Italian heroes. Italy itself is described as heir and successor of ancient Rome. And in case you are wondering: no, Petrarch does not present this idea as a metaphor or poetic license, he means it quite literally. [...]

What can I say ? He is a nostalgic like you and Mussolini. They were the first to write poems in italian, not the fathers of italian. The fathers of italian language are common people, the "vulgus" who changed Latin into Italian.

vertù contra furore
prenderà l’arme, e fia ‘l combatter corto:
chè l’antiquo valore
ne l’italici cor’ non è ancor morto.​

"...because the ancient bravery is not yet dead within the Italian hearts," where the Italian heart's bravery is, of course, that of the Romans.

Wrong translation. As you can clearly see, he says "ITALIC hearts", not italian hearts. I have been telling you of the difference for 3 posts in a row now, starts getting tyring...

Who are "our forefathers"? Keep reading and it soon becomes clear. Yes, you guessed it: they are the Romans.

Ahah, if I had to claim who my forefathers are in a poem, I would certainly chose the Romans, not the Ostrogoths. However, he obviously can not know for sure, and you are again strumentalizing words in poems and hymns. Besides, even the (greek) byzantines called themselves "Romans". So perhaps Greece should respawn as Rome too ? We had a long discussion about this and again it is a matter of "I claim to be this and that" vs. what really a person is. Just because Berlusconi claims to be Superman it doesn't mean he is. Thankfully he didn't claim to be Roman, yet

The idea that Italy is ancient Rome's successor isn't just a fantasy of a crazy fascist dictator, but it is a belief that was widely held throughout the centuries, by quintessential Italian intellectuals such as Petrarch, Cola di Rienzo, Leopardi and, to some extent, even by the founding fathers of the Italian nation, such as Mazzini and Cavour. Don't you think that we should give these people at least some credit? Or did they all happen to have "the wrong perception of Italy", as Rhye has put it?

I give them credit and I do agree that the italian culture is a successor of the roman one. But it isn't the same, it is a different one. Just like the French and Spanish ones. The italian culture has more ties with the Roman one than those two because it developed on the same geographical center, however no matter how many things these two cultures have in common, the fact and problem here is that there are more things NOT in common.
Bottom line: Obama is the successor of Bush to the presidence of the USA. Is he the same ? They have a lot of things in common, yes, but they aren't the same. They probably have more things not in common.

Me? Not at all. On the contrary, I welcome Zachscape's project.

he is doing the exact contrary of what you suggest.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Again: Italy is not Rome, but Italy in RFC has a degree of representation through Rome. Italy in RFC has a lesser degree of representation then USA but a larger degree of representation then Tuvalu.

Same with modern Mexico and Peru.

 

[Charles Martel]

while the lexicon followed a gradual evolution, syntax was completely wiped out. Latin has a syntax that in some aspects resembles Japanese. Nothing to do with Italian, which is one of the Romance languages. Differentiation between them were caused by mixing vulgar Latin with local population.

Are you suggesting that Latin grammar resembles Japanese more than it resembles Italian? I know very little Japanese, so can’t really argue with that, but I find it hard to believe. Anyway, you might be right about that: maybe Latin’s syntax is not close enough to Italian’s to prove continuity. But lexicography is another matter: here continuity is obvious. Write an Italian sentence at random, remove any word that originates from Latin, and you’ll probably be left with few or no words at all. The preservation of the Latin lexicon suggest the following succession chain:

Classical Latin --> Vulgar Latin --> Vernacular --> Italian

There are similar chains for Latin to French, or Latin to Spanish, but they aren’t as continuous as the above chain: clearly, Italian is *the * successor of Latin. In many ways, language is one of the distinguishing mark of an ethnicity (I do not want to say the only one, but a crucial one). So, isn’t the above chain strong enough evidence of cultural continuity?

If 700 years of barbarian invasions weren't enough, then I wonder what is necessary to break a continuity? If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?

That’s a cheap joke. The so-called “Barbarian” invaders were no aliens to the Romans. They were already partly Romanized people, and when they settled in Italy they were almost wholly assimilated into Latin culture. For example Theodoric grew up in Constantinople and was given a Roman education. The Ostrogoths themselves were already largely Romanized even before the invasion.

“700 years of Barbarian invasions” is an overstatement. Consider Alessandro Manoni’s view. He believed that invasions such as that of the Lombards or that of the Franks mainly affected the ruling classes, merely causing power to exchange hands. But the life of the local populace – the “subjugated Romans” – went on more or less as before, with no radical changes. If we think that the invasions caused big changes, it’s only because we neglect the ordinary poorer classes, which made up the bulk of the population, but whose lives aren’t well recorded by the official historical documents. In Manzoni’s view, the main changes brought by the “foreign rulers” were not so much cultural or ethnical, but political. Now, Manzoni’s view is probably too extreme, but I think he’s basically right in playing down the changes the “Barbarians” supposedly brought to the lives of local Latin communities.

What is necessary to break continuity? Here are some examples, none of which applies to Rome-->Italy:

• Extermination of the local population, causing a decay of, say, 70-80% in a relatively short time-span, such in the Aztecs’ case. That breaks continuity, but it never happened in Italy. In 6-10th century Italy, there are a number of demographic crises (caused by prolonged wars, plague, etc.) but no sudden extermination.

• Assimilation of the conquered natives by the conquerors. That also breaks continuity, albeit less sharply than in the previous case. But the conquered Latins who lived in Italy were never assimilated by the “Barbarian” invaders. Quite the opposite, in fact.

• Total destruction of the major centres of powers. That may give a fatal blow to continuity--such was Carthage’s fate. Although some Punic culture survived Carthage’s destruction, it became so weak as to disappear during the Vandal’s invasions. By contrast, Rome was sacked but never razed to the ground.

• Forcing the natives to migrate en masse. That breaks geographical (but not necessarily cultural) continuity. An example of that might be the Jewish diaspora. By contrast, Italy was repeatedly invaded and some villages temporarily evacuated, but the local Latin population was never displaced from the peninsula.

But we don’t really need to look for extreme cases of discontinuity. Continuity is a matter of degree, so it’s best judged comparatively. For example:

1. Louis XIV’s France --> Napoleon’s France: very strong
2. HRE --> Second Reich: strong
3. Rome --> Medieval Italy: fairly strong
4. Roman Britain --> United Kingdom: weak
5. Aztec --> Mexico : very weak
6. Carthage --> Tunisia: none

If we consider day-by-day changes, then nothing in enough to reckon a sudden change. Just like in the paradox. We need some abstaction.

Indeed. Sometimes we need to abstract and generalise. If we can’t have Italy as a separate civ (no room for more), I suggest that we abstract the differences away and take a re-spawned Rome to be Italy.

 

[onedreamer]

What is necessary to break continuity? Here are some examples, none of which applies to Rome-->Italy:

• Extermination of the local population, causing a decay of, say, 70-80% in a relatively short time-span, such in the Aztecs’ case. That breaks continuity, but it never happened in Italy. In 6-10th century Italy, there are a number of demographic crises (caused by prolonged wars, plague, etc.) but no sudden extermination.

• Assimilation of the conquered natives by the conquerors. That also breaks continuity, albeit less sharply than in the previous case. But the conquered Latins who lived in Italy were never assimilated by the “Barbarian” invaders. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Here are the two points where you are sorely wrong. The percentages aren't that high but close to 50%, which is enough to provoke a significant change. And since the number of barbarians who settled in Italy was very high, yes they didn't assimilate the Romans, but they assimilated each other, creating a new civ.

 

[Rossiya]

If alien invasions begun tomorrow and ended in 2700, would you consider it the same civilization as today?

I don't think the people that invaded Italy back in the day were aliens... Or at least, I didn't think so...

 

[kairob]

Indeed. Sometimes we need to abstract and generalise. If we can’t have Italy as a separate civ (no room for more), I suggest that we abstract the differences away and take a re-spawned Rome to be Italy.

Did you even bother reading the opening post?
The suggestion is to swap Rome for Italy in the 600AD start. So the is room for Italy.

 

[Charles Martel]

Did you even bother reading the opening post? The suggestion is to swap Rome for Italy in the 600AD start. So the is room for Italy.

Did *you* even bother reading my posts? There is no room for Italy in the 3000BC start. So what Zachscape suggests for the 600AD should be done, IMO, in the 3000BC start as well: e.g. replace a re-spawned Rome with Italy.

 

[Charles Martel]

What can I say ? He is a nostalgic like you and Mussolini.

So now it turns out that Petrarch is a proto-fascist! How about Leopardi and the generations of intellectuals who followed in Petrarch's footsteps? How about the major thinkers of Risorgimento? Were all of them “nostalgic” like the fascists?

(And by the way, please don’t compare me to Mussolini... luckily, I can tell the difference between fascist and Petrarchan ideology. That reminds of me Godwin's Law: “As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”. Replace “Hitler” with “Mussolini” and here you have a confirmation of a variant of that Law!)

They were the first to write poems in italian, not the fathers of italian. The fathers of italian language are common people, the "vulgus" who changed Latin into Italian.

The “vulgus” spoke a plethora of diverse dialects. Petrarch and others were the first to give Italian its literary dignity, paving the way for a unified national language.

Wrong translation. As you can clearly see, he says "ITALIC hearts", not italian hearts

I was almost certain you would quibble about that. As a matter of fact, Petrarch did not distinguish between Italic people and Italian people in the way you do. In the context of his poem, “Italic” it’s just an old fashioned way of saying “Italian”, so my translation is correct. By stressing in translation a distinction between Italic and Italian ethnicity you’d be attributing to Petrarch an ideology he did not have.

I do agree that the italian culture is a successor of the roman one. But it isn't the same, it is a different one. Just like the French and Spanish ones.

So you agree that Italian culture is a successor of Roman culture (and if you agree with that, you should also agree that there was at least some continuity). Now, I never said that they were the "same" culture. What I argued for is that Italian culture isn't just "a successor", but is Roman culture's *closest* successor (closer than France, Spain or Byzantium).

However, he obviously can not know for sure, and you are again strumentalizing words in poems and hymns. Besides, even the (greek) byzantines called themselves "Romans". So perhaps Greece should respawn as Rome too ? We had a long discussion about this and again it is a matter of "I claim to be this and that" vs. what really a person is.

As far as I can tell, no modern Greek nationalist has ever claimed that ancient Romans were the Greek’s “forefathers”. Anyway, Byzantium is a complex case. I think that there we should apply something like AnotherPacifist’s distinction: Byzantium may be Rome’ closest continuer from a political, but not from an ethnical, point of view.

Just because Berlusconi claims to be Superman it doesn't mean he is. Thankfully he didn't claim to be Roman,

The people I have quoted are not Berlusconi. Their works are constitutive of Italian identity: they contributed to construct the very idea of a unified Italian nation. This confers their views a special authority. I don’t think we can’t just dismiss them like that and say: “But that’s only what *they* think...”

he is doing the exact contrary of what you suggest

Is he? How so? I didn’t suggest to scrap Zachscape’ project. Quite the contrary, I like it a lot.

The percentages aren't that high but close to 50%, which is enough to provoke a significant change.

An estimate is actually very hard to come by, but I doubt that the percentages were higher, overall, than 20-30%. The change was no doubt “significant”, but was it radical enough to support the discontinuity view? I don’t think so.

And since the number of barbarians who settled in Italy was very high, yes they didn't assimilate the Romans, but they assimilated each other, creating a new civ.

I wonder what makes you so certain about that, to the point that you don’t even feel compelled to provide a real argument in support of it. (The argument you've just given is not so good: the barbarians who settled in Italy were vastly outnumbered by the local Latin population). Manzoni, Macchiavelli and Muratori, to name a few, would have all rejected your statement: they denied mutual assimilation. Where they proto-fascists too? I have already stated several arguments for the one-way assimilation view and some against the fusion view, and I don’t think they deserve such a quick dismissal.

 

[fireclaw722]

I like how a simple suggestion became a huge arguement that is getting NOWHERE!!!!!

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Once and for all, here's the proposal for RFC, independent of all cultural arguments:
3000 BC: Rome is in its rightful place
600 AD: a respawned Rome is anachronistic, and should be replaced by a playable, SEPARATE (UU, UB, UP, and UHV included) civ in Rome's spot.

Same can be said for Babylon (Iraq but really doesn't deserve a separate civ), Persia (Iran), Egypt (shouldn't respawn at all as a major civ), Classical/Hellenistic Greece (modern Greece), Ethiopia (?Zulu), Maya (?native American tribes) for gameplay purposes. They don't really have to be successor civs, we just need their spots freed up for more year-appropriate civs. (Unfortunately that leaves out Vikings/Sweden, unless Rhye decides to create a much later scenario)

 

[ZachScape]

Well for 600 AD, we now have playable Byzantium and playable Korea. The next shall be this: Italy.

THANK YOU AP!!! I would have put this in the minor suggestions, as I wouldn't make this mod myself (I can't), but it is not minor. I don't know why it turned into this argument in the first place.

All the work except the UP and UHV is done (settler and city name maps should be easy enough).

 

[bastillebaston]

@onedreamer "Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission, with a team of italian scientists. That's a modern age Civ technology. Discovered by Romans ?"

Are you serious? What is that supposed to prove? Einstein discovered relativity (and emigrated to America like Fermi). That’s a modern age technology. Discovered by Holy Roman Empire? No, but HRE->Germany is ok. Comrade Popov discovered .... whatever modern age technology. Discovered by Tsardom of Russia? No, but Tsardom of Russia->USSR is ok.

 

[Charles Martel]

3000 BC: Rome is in its rightful place
600 AD: a respawned Rome is anachronistic, and should be replaced by a playable, SEPARATE (UU, UB, UP, and UHV included) civ in Rome's spot.

A re-spawned Roman Empire is equally anachronistic in the 3000BC start. In that respect, I see no big difference between the 3000BC and the 600AD starts (except for the fact that, in the 3000BC start, Rome is playable and may never collapse). If a re-spawned Roman Empire can be replaced by a modern civ (with new dynamic names, leaderhead, etc.), it should be so replaced, regardless of when the game starts. Whatever replaces Rome could then be made playable in the 3000BC start too, not at the beginning, but in mid-game: just ask the player if he wants to switch when Rome re-spawns as Italy or whatever.

So, here’s a better proposal:

• 3000 BC: Rome is playable as usual. But if Rome collapses and then re-spawns, it should be replaced by Italy, with players being given the option to switch on re-spawn.
• 600 AD: Playable Italy always replaces Rome, as per Zachscape’s suggestion.

They don't really have to be successor civs, we just need their spots freed up for more year-appropriate civs.

That’s why the complaint “but Rome is not Italy!” is doubly misplaced. Firstly, it’s entirely reasonable to claim that Italy is, in fact, Rome’s successor (many illustrious Italian thinkers made that claim), and that’s all that matters for dynamic naming. Secondly, even if Italy weren’t Rome successor, it wouldn’t really matter either: RFC-civs are just pieces of code, and we can make them represent whatever we want... if a re-spawned Rome can be re-coded as Korea or whatever, so be it.

 

[scu98rkr]

"Alot of the things you list above are not represented in Civ or generally of little importance in the history of the world."
says who ?

There not name another CIV whoose UB/UU/UP are based on cooking nice food.

"Is the renowned italian food Roman in origins ? To be honest I dont know
normally I wouldn't speak of stuff I don't know, especially if I am to contradict someone."

Im trying to get you to provide some evidence that pasta or an equivalent didnt exist in Roman times.

but what other CIV has a UU/UB/UP based on good cooking
"boy do I need to explain everything in detail. Food is part of culture, a STRONG part of culture of any nation. What I meant then is that in Civ terms, the italian civ has a strong cultural influence - a bonus in culture per turn, hmmkay ?"

My point stands

"The two things Italy is most famous for are pasta and pizza."
In America, the land of gross approximation, stereotypes and fast food, yes. Pasta and Pizza are ready in 5-10 minutes, that's why they are famous, in America.

Therefore what I said is true, must of the CIV are based on people preconceptions Im sure most mongolians dont go around razing cities but thats the UP because thats the preconception.

I would be surprised if there wasnt something about during Roman times similar to pasta. Is there any date for the invention of pasta ?
you would be very suprised then. I really wonder: why are you arguing on everything if you don't know details by your own admission ? Most of the food we eat today is cooked with ingredients from other continents, especially pasta (tomatoes are from America). The Romans ate very basic food with little preparation. Mostly fruit or vegetables present in Europe.

"What date are you suggesting the people stopped being "Roman" and started being "Italian" ?
the fall of the Roman Empire seems reasonable, if a precise date must be found."

Well thats clearly wrong as Charles Martel has outlined previously.

"Is the renowned (at least, before globalization) italian textile/styling industry Roman in origins ?
Yep. The Romans were famous for exporting their leather sandals in all the known world. And the chinese would resell crappy linen trousers as if they were "Made in Latium by Versacem"."

The Romans would have exported their leather sandals in all the known world. Thanks for agreeing with me.

"The romans were famous for mass producing things and probably set the first factories up in Europe so I would imagine the Italian textile textile industry had some connection to this period.
we should move the assembly line tech just after currency then."

The assembly line tech obviously represents 19th factories not roman factories what is your point ?

"Also the reason Italian clothes were seen to be stylish is that even after the collapse of Rome the rest of Europe still looked to italy for inspiration and as the centre of civilization for centuries afterwards. I very much doubt without Rome anyone would of cared about Italy's clothes. Also again what CIV has UP/UB/UU based on being stylish."
I see. Too bad that the italian stylists are renowned from the 20th century, not the 8th century.


The car was not invented in Italy so you have some good companies so do the Germans, Japs, Americans.
This doesn't answer the question. Is Ferrari Roman in origins ? Perhaps since the Romans were the first to pave roads in a lot of regions, there must be a connection. Definitely so.

Im not arguing these makes of cars are Italian but thats the romans are also Italians.

Enrico Fermi is a very clever guy.
1 He is Roman born in Rome and spoke a language descended from Latin.
2 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues in ROME studied the results of bombarding uranium with neutrons in 1934.
3 He then left italy
I missed the fact that Fermi is Roman

Enrico Fermi is an Italian born in Rome which also makes him a Roman Italian. Romans are ITALIAN.

Marconi was in England when he commercialized not invented Radio.
Julius Caesar was in France when he conquered Gallia.

Ok fair point still he didnt invent Radio.

"- 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.

I would say the USA and Russia still lead the way in achievement in sport but that simply because their big.
I think Australia has probably achieved the most considering its population base not italy."

"can you show us some numbers ?"

You seem to be missing the point you made the original statement can YOU sure me some numbers!!!!!

Ok link to All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table

It would appear Italy lags behind both France and UK with approximately the same population apporx 60 million at the moment.

Australia currently has a population of 21 million. 1/3 of Italy's but it has 432 medals to Italys 522 and UKs 715. Even as a Brit I have to admit in comparison to its population Australia is probably the most successful sporting nation.

"Ok from the unification of mongolia, the mongols managed to have the worlds largest land empire in much less than 150 years. Also they didnt have the advantages of 1000's of years of history on their side.
I knew that we would come down to this. Because this is a forum that is mostly visited by americans (obviously), the importance of a nation is measured on how much they have conquered. It doesn't matter if in conquering half the world the mongols have destroyed more than they created, they are definitely more important than Italy. For the same reason, since Rome conquered most of the known world, it is more important than Italy, which is to be laughed at because they lost their first war vs. Ethiopia. Hence, Italy can be just said to be the same as Rome, since it didn't achieve anything in particular. Lost pretty much any war where they had to put real efforts in. Yes, that's the sad truth on the american line of thought. The americans, the fighters for freedom and liberalism, yet the only nation responsible for actually using nukes and that had to go through a bloody civil war just to abolish slavery."

PS Im not American. This is generally how the CIVs in civilization are selected what is your point ?

 

[scu98rkr]

Ok im all for Rome respawning as Italy but I see no need for new UU/UP/UB unless you are going to include new UU/UP/UB for iraq, egypt etc ...

The italian civ's greatest moment was Rome UU/UP/UB are from that age seems reasonable to me.

 

[Charles Martel]

Bottom line: Obama is the successor of Bush to the presidence of the USA. Is he the same ? They have a lot of things in common, yes, but they aren't the same. They probably have more things not in common.

I had missed that bit. It deserves attention, because it betrays a subtle fallacy that is a cause of much misunderstanding in this thread.

I think it’s fair to summarise your objection as follows: “Succession is not proof of identity (=“sameness&#8221. Obama is Bush’s successor, but that does not prove that they are the same person. Equally, Italy might well be Rome’s successor, but that does not prove that they are the same culture.”

The answer to your objection is that a property like “being the successor of Bush” was never supposed to supply a criterion of personal identity, but one of identity of office roles: even if Bush and Obama are not the *same* person, they occupy the *same* offices at different times (e.g. the US presidency). So a succession relation (or more generally, a continuity relation) can indeed supply a criterion of identity, albeit not necessarily one of personal identity.

(But, in fact, according to the philosopher John Locke, there is a continuity relation which grounds personal identity, namely psychological continuity. If Old Obama is young Obama’s psychological successor, then Old Obama and Young Obama are the same individual, no matter how psychologically different.)

Now, back to the Rome/Italy case. Continuity (of an ethnical/geographical/linguistic/etc. sort) does not supply a criterion of identity of cultures, but it does supply a criterion of identity of culture-chains. So if Italy is Rome’s successor, then Rome and Italy are two *different* culture-stages of the *same* culture-chain. If we think of RFC-civilizations as representing such culture-chains, then there is a loose and approximate, but reasonable, sense in which Late Antiquity Rome and Early Medieval Italy can be said to belong to the same “civilization”.

 

[TDK]

• 3000 BC: Rome is playable as usual. But if Rome collapses and then re-spawns, it should be replaced by Italy, with players being given the option to switch on re-spawn.
• 600 AD: Playable Italy always replaces Rome, as per Zachscape’s suggestion.

But is that even possible? Is there room for another version of the same civ in the 3000BC, with an early start and late start conditioned UHV, UB, UP, UU, settler map, etc.? Or are you just talking about changing the dynamic names, leaderheads etc.?

 

[Sandry]

Hi. I am a history student from Rome and I like Rhye’s and fall mod a lot. I hope I will not offend anyone but in my humble opinion Rhye’s description of the barbaric invasion is a bit simplistic. The real situation was much more complicated. I am studying for an exam a book by the great Belgian historian Henri Pirenne. Pirenne says that the fall of Rome did not really happen in 476! He says that barbaric invaders did not want to destroy roman civilization but to become romans. He thinks that the roman civilization continued to dominate the Mediterranean until the Muslim invasion!
My message for Rhye:
ROMA CAPITALE, LIVORNO SUCCURSALE! (<<< silly italian joke)