Italy

[bastillebaston]

@ Sandry. What, haven’t you heard? Barbarians were ALIENS. The God hath said so, so it must be true. Burn your worthless history books. People are already working on a modcomp or minimod... whatever these things are called... where barbarian spaceships from the Final Frontier scenario pop up all over your place for SEVEN HUNDRED years.

 

[Rhye]

@ Sandry. What, haven’t you heard? Barbarians were ALIENS. The God hath said so, so it must be true. Burn your worthless history books. People are already working on a modcomp or minimod... whatever these things are called... where barbarian spaceships from the Final Frontier scenario pop up all over your place for SEVEN HUNDRED years.

oh please. This is not funny. You're clearly missing the point.

HI 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!

I've studied Pirenne too. His thesis was debated, and in fact proved wrong by arab sources

 

[kairob]

The argument that the foreign invaders who destroyed the Roman Empire suddenly became the Roman Empire by carrying on with Roman Culture and Tradition seams like a pretty flawed argument to me. If you look at the Byzantines and Turks and apply the same logic there then we could just as boldly say that the Ottoman Empire is the Byzantine Empire.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Or how about Alexander's Empire being an extension of the Persian Empire?

Alexander's empire was basically the Persian Empire at its greatest height and Alexander arguably became more and more "Persian" (increasingly adopting Persian customs and rituals as his own) as time went on.

 

[Charles Martel]

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.?

Dynamic conversion of Rome into Italy for the 3000BC start is not impossible, but it does present some additional difficulties that do not arise for the 600AD start.

• Dynamic names/leaderhead: easy, no problem there.

• Flag/colour borders: problematic. It would be nice to have dynamic flags and see the tricolore. Failing that, Italy will have to stick with SPQR. (Of course, one could change the Roman flag instead, but I can’t think of any ‘neutral’ flag that may apply both to ancient Rome and modern Italy.)

• UU & UB: those shouldn’t be difficult to add, just make it so that the Rome-Italy combo gets a couple of UUs, an early one (legionary) and late one (bersagliere). But I agree with sku98rkr that this creates a precedent. If Rome-Italy gets multiple UUs, then it seems that Iran-Persia, HRE-Germany, etc. should also enjoy the same benefit. Same for the UB.

• UP: as far as I can tell, the UP is difficult to change even in the 600AD start. Italy is not particularly renowned for its rail network, but it seems that we’ll have to go with “the Italian power of infrastructure”.

• UHV: I have no idea how UHVs are coded. But the basic idea is that the Rome-Italy combo will have in total six UHVs conditions: if you satisfy the first three conditions you win as Rome, if you satisfy the later conditions you win as Italy.

• Settlers/stability map: Italy and Rome will have to use the same maps. Not ideal, but no huge problem there that I can see. Ideally, Italy should aim at colonizing Libya and Eritrea... but, by the time Italy spawns, those areas will be already settled anyway.

• Spawn-date: in the 3000BC start, Italy’s spawning must be made conditional on Rome’s having collapsed. That shouldn’t be a difficult piece of coding. The question is: provided that Rome has collapsed, when should Italy spawn? Will it spawn randomly after the world discovers Nationalism/Liberalism/Constitution? Or will it have a fixed spawn-date (say, 1860)? I’d prefer random spawn, though that would create balance problem.

The argument that the foreign invaders who destroyed the Roman Empire suddenly became the Roman Empire by carrying on with Roman Culture and Tradition seams like a pretty flawed argument to me.

That’s a caricature of the argument. It does not say that the invaders “suddenly became the Roman Empire”. Rather, the argument distinguishes between Roman empire and Roman civilization: although the (Western) Roman Empire came formally to an end with the deposition of Romulus Augustus, the Roman civilization lived on because the invaders were gradually (not suddenly!) absorbed into Roman culture. That makes a lot of sense, especially considering that the invaders were already partly Romanised even before the invasions.

Unfortunately, Sid Meier’s Civilization, unlike Europa Universalis: Rome, does not have a game mechanics that simulates well the phenomenon of the assimilation of the conqueror by the conquered.

If you look at the Byzantines and Turks and apply the same logic there then we could just as boldly say that the Ottoman Empire is the Byzantine Empire

But why would anyone want to apply the same logic to the Byzantines/Ottomans? The argument that Roman civilization survived the barbarian invasions is not supposed to be a general theory of invasion dynamics. We have to judge on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, the Ottoman invasion of the Eastern Empire is not comparable to the barbarian invasion of the West (Many Byzantine scholars migrated elsewhere and the Ottomans were not absorbed into Greek-Byzantine culture, by contrast the Goths kept Romans intellectuals as political advisors and were absorbed into Latin culture). Even then, it is reasonable to say that a good deal of Greek-Byzantine culture survived the fall of Constantinople.

 

[Heathcliff]

I do not think Italy is an important country enough during the timeperiod 1860-2000, to respawn at that time with new UVH and such. Not because, it isn't a large country enough, but because both the Roman times and the citystates during medival ages and renessance "achieved" more in an historical perspective.

But all the italian city states Papalstate, Genoa, Venice, Florence .... Very important throurough history during the middelages and the renessance.

My suggestion is that italy respawn at 1000 AD. Which will also break up the Roman empire, which is abit silly sometimes when it lasts to the modern times in the 3000 BC start.

Goal 1. "Crusade" Control Jerusalem 1100-1300.

Will also put some pressure on Arabia that always get's way to powerful.

Goal 2. "Merchants and Marco Polo" Get 6 000 gold by 1400 and have contact with China.

Goal 3. "Pope" Spread Christianity to 50% of the world by the latest of 1550.

The goal cooperate nice such that you must get through Arabia (do it so Russia wont open border with you). To get Marco Polo to China. Which the invasion of Jerusalem helps you with.

Italy should be hit hard by stability penalty at around 1600 and collapse then.

UB: Market: "Trading Centre" and give city one free merchant.
UU: Crusader: Replace Maceman and also gives +50% against mounted units.

Unique Power: "Negotiations of the Pope": All European Civilizations will always accept peace with you until 1500 (if you want peace of course).

Leaders:
1000-1300: The Pope
1300-: The Doge (Duke)

 

[Bonci]

very ahistorical *_* if you want to have an italian state in the middle ages then it's better to have one that actually existed like venice or milan

 

[onedreamer]

A re-spawned Roman Empire is equally anachronistic in the 3000BC start

not really, because since this is a game, a respawning Roman civilization in the 20th century can make sense given the alternative history path taken by the game. If Rome collapsed mostly due to the fractioning of the empire and internal problems (stability) and wasn't invaded by the barbarian hordes, and this is what happens most of the times in RFC, then it is not that absurd for Rome to respawn as Rome. Sure, anachronistic, but at the same time more realistic than an Italian civ. that would not have a reason to exist; besides alot other things will also be anachronistic in the 3000BC start due to all the variables present; and quite frankly I welcome this open end chances, without which I would have dismissed RFC after 2-3 games out of sheer boredom.

Firstly, it’s entirely reasonable to claim that Italy is, in fact, Rome’s successor (many illustrious Italian thinkers made that claim)

I think we would all be happier if you started quoting historians as your sources rather than poets, popular hymns and nationalistic fanatics. Is it a case that you named a dozeen persons as sources and none of them is a historian ?

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.

As long as it doesn't have Praetorians as UU.

 

[onedreamer]

@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.

can you explain what is this supposed to mean ? Are you seriously saying that Russian Empire stands to Sovietic Union like Roman Empire stands to Italy ?

 

[Heathcliff]

Bonci wrote:
"very ahistorical *_* if you want to have an italian state in the middle ages then it's better to have one that actually existed like venice or milan"

I think you have to explain further what is ahistorical. During the medival time most countries in Europe was organized in city states, instead of a united country. Some examples: Spain was Aragon and Castille, Germany was Preussia, Saxony, Brandenburg.... Russia was Novgorod, Kiev... Also Dutch and Italy was like that. But in RFC all others is representeted as one country, where they in fact was many states. And that should be done for Italy too of course (!).

Italy has had two Golden Ages: Roman Empire and Medival, Renssance Italy.

 

[Leoreth]

Every example you name developed a common authority during the time of their UHV (e.g. Spain had one king when they started colonising, Russia had its tzar when they started settling Siberia etc.).

The medieval city-states didn't have such an authority when they (most prominently Venice and Genoa) were controlling the European trade.
And even more importantly, they cannot simply be mixed up with the Pope. The Pope was a complex political/religious institution that is best left represented only with the Apostolic Palace.

 

[onedreamer]

The Papal State is responsible for preventing the formation of that common authority.
Btw, the Greek city states of the ancient/classic era are comparable to the medieval states in Italy.

 

[Charles Martel]

not really, because since this is a game, a respawning Roman civilization in the 20th century can make sense given the alternative history path taken by the game. If Rome collapsed mostly due to the fractioning of the empire and internal problems (stability) and wasn't invaded by the barbarian hordes, and this is what happens most of the times in RFC, then it is not that absurd for Rome to respawn as Rome. Sure, anachronistic, but at the same time more realistic than an Italian civ.

How can a reborn Roman Empire be more realistic than Italy? I don’t see how long-gone cultures could possibly make a comeback in modern times. That’s not even alternate history... I think we are now in the realm of sheer fantasy. Well, the Roman Empire did make a sort of comeback during Justinian’s time, and I could even imagine a 11-century Byzantine emperor restoring the empire to its former glory. But that’s not what we are talking about. Instead, we are talking about a fallen Roman Empire that may spontaneosly reappear more more than one thousand years after its fall! Isn’t that nonsense?

I think we would all be happier if you started quoting historians as your sources rather than poets, popular hymns and nationalistic fanatics. Is it a case that you named a dozeen persons as sources and none of them is a historian ?

In fact, nearly all the writers I have quoted were historians (including Petrarch and Manzoni, who aren’t just poets, but wrote well-informed historical works where Medieval Italians are described as the Romans' successors). None of them was a “fanatic nationalist”.

I have already mentioned Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750), who was the leading historian of his age. So let’s focus on him. In order to locate his view, we have to divide Italian historians into two camps:

• The Romanist (discontinuity) school: This is the view that the Roman civilization was utterly destroyed by the barbarians invaders. A dark age ensued, which had little or nothing in common with the classical age.

• The Germanist (continuity) school: This is the view that the Roman empire was weak even before the invasion. However, the barbarians invaders did not destroy classic civilization but were assimilated into Roman life. As a result, the Roman civilization was revitalized and lived on as the Italian civilization.

Well, that’s a very rough bit of historiography, but it will do for now. Muratori vigorously defends the Germanistic/continuity thesis. This is how two contemporary Italian historiographers put it:

“We find in Muratori the typical Germanistc thesis, which usually are continuity theses – they affirm, e.g., that the Germanic people did not act as a disruptive factor, but were assimilated into Roman civilization, enriching and continuing it. Thus, according to Muratori, even if the Lombards might seem to break Italian unity, they are in fact quickly assimilated by the Roman population and thus act as an element of continuity.” (A Ambrosioni & P Zerbi, Problemi di Storia Mediovale, 1992, the translation is mine).​

Now, I do not actually believe that the Germanist view is definitely right and that the Romanist view is definitely wrong (in fact, both views seem rather extreme to me). My point is that it is *entirely reasonable* to say that Medieval Italy is the cultural successor of ancient Rome because an entire school of Italian historians made that claim. Indeed, that was the standard view during the Risorgimento (although many Risorgimento thinkers rejected the Germanist school, they still did argue for a modified version of the continuity thesis, and regarded ancient Romans ans fellow Italians).

I think that I have quoted more than enough sources to shift the burden of proof. Perhaps it’s about time that *you* quote some sources in defence of your claims.

(Note: “we would all be happier”? Who are “we”? Is “onedreamer” a shared account?)

As long as it doesn't have Praetorians as UU

I don’t see what is the problem here. By the time Italy spawns, legionaries are obsolete and cannot be build. So there is no anachronism there, whether Italy gets its own UU or not.

 

[Charles Martel]

But all the italian city states Papalstate, Genoa, Venice, Florence .... Very important throurough history during the middelages and the renessance. My suggestion is that italy respawn at 1000 AD. Which will also break up the Roman empire, which is abit silly sometimes when it lasts to the modern times in the 3000 BC start.

You do have a point there. After all, in RFC, the Holy Roman Empire and the Greek League are represented as being a unified entity (in reality, they were politically fragmented). If the multiplicity of Greek city-states counts as one civilization, then why not take the same approach to the Italian communes?

 

[onedreamer]

How can a reborn Roman Empire be more realistic than Italy? I don’t see how long-gone cultures could possibly make a comeback in modern times.

Because I am speaking in terms of game play and in the game the culture is not gone, it is THERE, indipendent states without a unitary or strong central administration.

That’s not even alternate history... I think we are now in the realm of sheer fantasy.

Uh ? We are in the realm of RFC, I have not dreamed or imagined anything.

But that’s not what we are talking about. Instead, we are talking about a fallen Roman Empire that may spontaneosly reappear more more than one thousand years after its fall! Isn’t that nonsense?

No (short answer). The long answer is too long and already discussed, as you know it regards wether or not a culture maintains its identity or not. One thing is when a culture evolves and changes, one thing is when it merges with others to form a different one.

In fact, nearly all the writers I have quoted were historians (including Petrarch and Manzoni, who aren’t just poets, but wrote well-informed historical works where Medieval Italians are described as the Romans' successors). None of them was a “fanatic nationalist”. I have already mentioned Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750), who was the leading historian of his age. So let’s focus on him.

No. I don't care of historians who lived in the 13th or 17th century. They obviously didn't have the picture we have now.

This is how two contemporary Italian historiographers put it:

“We find in Muratori the typical Germanistc thesis, which usually are continuity theses – they affirm, e.g., that the Germanic people did not act as a disruptive factor, but were assimilated into Roman civilization, enriching and continuing it. Thus, according to Muratori, even if the Lombards might seem to break Italian unity, they are in fact quickly assimilated by the Roman population and thus act as an element of continuity.” (A Ambrosioni & P Zerbi, Problemi di Storia Mediovale, 1992, the translation is mine).​

Now, I do not actually believe that the Germanist view is definitely right and that the Romanist view is definitely wrong (in fact, both views seem rather extreme to me). My point is that it is *entirely reasonable* to say that Medieval Italy is the cultural successor of ancient Rome because an entire school of Italian historians made that claim.

But your point is completely baseless because the Western Roman Empire was inhabited by a huge number of peoples besides the Romans, so that 16th century claim that all inhabitants in Italy were Romans and would assimilate the barbarian invaders is ridiculous, because the same should then apply to any other region of the WRE. As a matter of fact you are ignoring that the Romans themselves didn't even complete the process of mutual assimilation with the other italic peoples, especially in the north and in west Sicily and Sardinia. As a matter of fact you are ignoring the fact that the Romans were different from other ancient colonizing Empires exactly because of their mutual assimilation with conquered peoples. The Romans were very interested in the traditions and uses of other peoples and in History in general, we have Roman historians interviewing neighboring peoples like Etruscans and Germans, can you say the same of, for example, the Persians ? What I am saying with this is that there is, from a cultural point of view, pratically no difference from the invasions that regarded, say, Marseille, or Milan. Actually, the Germans would focus more on Italy because it was reacher, it was nearer, and it was beautiful and fertile compared to their homelands. Italy has been literally invaded by migrations, we are talking of migrations here, not of immigration, or conquest. The western european countries managed to colonize all of America with a pronounced emigration which in numbers (percentages) can't even be compared to the migrations that contributed the disappearance of the Roman Civilization. Right now in Italy 10% of the population or more are foreign immigrants, and this without any people migrating, and you are trying to hold on a thesis that assumes numbers around 20% of barbarians would invade Italy ? This is beyond ridiculous, especially because, again, you consider Italy in 600AD as an homogenous entity when it was actually all the contrary. The majority of the population was concentrated in the center-south. In the north the Langobards contributed heavily to the expansion of villages into towns, yet we are here to discuss how the Romans have assimilated them ?
And btw, the two contemporary historiographers, are just commenting the version given by Muratori, this does not make them supporters of that version, as the title clearly suggests "Problemi di storia medievale".

I think that I have quoted more than enough sources to shift the burden of proof. Perhaps it’s about time that *you* quote some sources in defence of your claims.

You have quoted no contemporary historian whatsoever, which would be about the only source on which we could make a serious discussion. You want sources, even an approximate tool like Wikipedia knows the difference between Italic and Italian.

(Note: “we would all be happier”? Who are “we”? Is “onedreamer” a shared account?)

"We" are the users of this forum, who, in case you haven't noticed, have shown that couldn't care less about this discussion; and since it's based on thin air and poems, let alone being ridiculous, I really can't blame them.

 

[scu98rkr]

I totally agree with Charles Martel so at least one "we" is siding with him

 

[Rhye]

According to my History books, the complete ruin of the Ancient World came with the Gothic-Byzantine war. In that occasion, Italian territory was completely devastated. For instance, the whole city of Milan was...emptied. All the male population was killed; women and children were sold as slaves. Procopius from Caesarea described these times.

Before that, Goths and Romans lived in peace for a short period (under Theodoric), but didn't mix up as you (Charles Martel) were saying.
And after that instead, we've got the rise of the Church, who supported Byzantines, we've got Longobards, reckoned as "Barbarians among barbarians", who enstablished a primitive regime of discrimination, we've got the Franks intervention and then the Holy Roman dominion on the north, and the Spanish one on the south. Oh, and I forgot the Arabs and the Normans.

Overall, I find this thesis of "quasi-peaceful assimilation of already Romanized peoples" very silly. A gross approximation.
Romanized peoples could have been late West Roman Empire's Germanic tribes at the borders. On the other hand, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Huns, Longobards, Arabs, Normans were metaphorically "aliens" to the Romans.

 

[scu98rkr]

Anyway Onedreamer you keep missing the main point. We arent saying the Italians are all Romans we are same the Romans were all Italians(or at least from the Italian culture group).

Therefore was the greatest Italian empire was the Roman empire like the Greatest Iranian/Persian empire was the Achaemenid Empire. Or Asoka's Empire was an Indian Empire etc etc etc...

Do you disagree with this statement.

In your view were the Romans were Italians ?

 

[Rhye]

Romans never considered theirselves "italians".
Italic peoples were for them the ones coming from the rest of modern centre/south Italy. Then there were Etruscans, there were Celts, and so on.
There was even a civil war to ensure that "italians" had same rights as the Romans.
For the Romans, the state is ROME, not Italy. Gallia Cisalpina (northern Italy) were to be treated the same way as Gallia Narbonensis, or as Acaia, Africa or Lusitania.

 

[scu98rkr]

Yes but the old fashioned view used to be the Anglo-Saxons came over to England and killed all the Celts. I for one dont believe this and genetic evidence seems to be proving this untrue.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer#Origins_of_the_British

I would imagine the same is true for Italy. This is certainly not true in the modern sense of reporting the news.

"For instance, the whole city of Milan was...emptied. All the male population was killed; women and children were sold as slaves. Procopius from Caesarea described these times."

Historians from the past rarely felt the needed to tell the exact truth. There stories are full of exaggerations and this no doubt is one. Do you honestly think the whole male population of Milan was killed ??

However it tells a story a large number of the male population was killed.

Do you think the goths would have the resources time and energy to carry out mass genocide on that level ? The second world war proves that carry out mass genocide actually is a time consuming business and requires an extraordinary will and an almost factory line organisation.