Latin American Civilizations and City-States

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
One could just as easily (or indeed more easily) argue there is no difference between Spain and Gran Colombia.
If Gran Colombia is the same of Spain, USA should be the same of United Kingdom and Brazil should be the same of Portugal...

The difference between theses countries and Byzantium is easy, they fight against their imperial overlord and become independent, meanwhile Byzantium never existed. They always called they self Romans. I understand the use of the world "Byzantium" in a history class, but I will be ever against the Byzantium in Civilization main series, because the Roman over representation... Is the only civ who have a part of it's history converted in another civilization.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,280
Location
Babylon 5
If Gran Colombia is the same of Spain, USA should be the same of United Kingdom and Brazil should be the same of Portugal...
USA and Brazil are further from their parent civilizations culturally, but in principle I don't disagree. I'd happily remove all postcolonial nations. They have no place in Civ.

The difference between theses countries and Byzantium is easy, they fight against their imperial overlord and become independent, meanwhile Byzantium never existed. They always called they self Romans. I understand the use of the world "Byzantium" in a history class, but I will be ever against the Byzantium in Civilization main series, because the Roman over representation... Is the only civ who have a part of it's history converted in another civilization.
The Byzantines called themselves Romans...but so did the Germans...and the Russians...and the Turks. Everyone called themselves Rome; it's how you asserted legitimacy because Rome was "the Empire." If anyone deserves to be called the legitimate successor of the Roman Empire, it's the Roman Catholic Church, who preserved the Roman language, administrative divisions, customs, and paraphernalia wholesale. Cultures change over time. If we're going to use that argument to exclude Byzantium, it ipso facto excludes every postcolonial nation, which are, after all, just variations on their mother culture.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,050
If Gran Colombia is the same of Spain, USA should be the same of United Kingdom and Brazil should be the same of Portugal...

The difference between theses countries and Byzantium is easy, they fight against their imperial overlord and become independent, meanwhile Byzantium never existed. They always called they self Romans. I understand the use of the world "Byzantium" in a history class, but I will be ever against the Byzantium in Civilization main series, because the Roman over representation... Is the only civ who have a part of it's history converted in another civilization.
I'm sorry, but your viewpoint just shows a lack of education on Byzantine history and the REALITY of its social, political, economic, military, religious, linguistic, etc. - ALL the meaningful areas a civ is defined by - that sharply differ from the preceding Roman Empire, and buying into ONLY defining it by a self-made pretense of succession - a pretense also made by several other nations and empires, I might note - and saying it has NO RIGHT TO EVER HAVE A SLOT AGAIN. I'd like to invite you to see past whatever bad and shallow stereotype you've been given from whatever source, and actually study the broader and deeper history of the Byzantine Empire and its complex situation with an open mind. But, please, I enjoin you to do so before denouncing its existence - often harshly and angrily - on one, single issue, which is, in terms of political history, often considered a very shallow one, considering the immense number of pretenses made by numerous nations in history, once again. Thank-you!
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,085
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
I'm done with the issue until @Henri Christophe does his homework. And, as far as I'm concerned, so is he until then. We may freely move on. ;)
I guess we need a thread to speak about this issue, the last one was closed. We can use this old thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...nt-that-was-in-the-wrong-forum.659194/page-22
But, my point is, after the cristianity become a thing in the emperial Rome it was already the same of Byzancio. No difference...
I think it is a very privilegious to Rome it have 2 civs for its's history and Byzancio steal place to other cool civs.

And about your argue of the Turkish, Austrians and Russians auto-proclame Rome, I think you used it in an anacronic way. Because Byzancio was the continuity of the Roman empire and don't need a claim to be claimed Rome, they simple are Romans. Turkish claim be rome by Conquest, Russian by faith, Austrian also by faith, but other faith... But just Byzantium was simple Rome.

I don't will mind if we have Justinian as Rome leader in civ 7.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,280
Location
Babylon 5
But, my point is, after the cristianity become a thing in the emperial Rome it was already the same of Byzancio. No difference...
Get a Catholic and an Orthodox in the same room and tell them there's no difference between their faiths. It might be kind of inspiring how they'd put those differences aside for a moment. :mischief:

Russian by faith
Actually, the Romanovs claimed it by marriage.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,050
I guess we need a thread to speak about this issue, the last one was closed. We can use this old thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...nt-that-was-in-the-wrong-forum.659194/page-22
But, my point is, after the cristianity become a thing in the emperial Rome it was already the same of Byzancio. No difference...
I think it is a very privilegious to Rome it have 2 civs for its's history and Byzancio steal place to other cool civs.

And about your argue of the Turkish, Austrians and Russians auto-proclame Rome, I think you used it in an anacronic way. Because Byzancio was the continuity of the Roman empire and don't need a claim to be claimed Rome, they simple are Romans. Turkish claim be rome by Conquest, Russian by faith, Austrian also by faith, but other faith... But just Byzantium was simple Rome.

I don't will mind if we have Justinian as Rome leader in civ 7.
I have laid out my conditions to continue discussing this, and it's obvious by the content of your post, you have not yet fulfilled them.
 

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
701
Guys, please, don't change the subject of the thread to discussing Rome and Byzantines. If this starts now, it will never end.
Agree, I think this Rome/Byzantium issue shouldn't had gone beyond a comment to justify similarly related civs.
Despite this and apologizing to Xandinho, I would still make just one comment about it, not because Byzantium could be ever be out of CIV7 (it would be in, not need to lose the head as if is even possible to not be on game). But because the pretension that there are not specialists that also dispute modern/westerncentric idea that "Byzantines" had no right to be seen as Romans.
- This one is an easy entry about the topic Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis (2019). But even just by read recent articles about "Byzantines" we can find a general tone recognizing more the natural Rome>Byzantium transition.
- Title is NOT Identity, of course the legacy of Rome was a title claimed by many but beyond their pretentious leaders the average Bavarian didnt call themselves Romans or the Swedish saw Bohemians as Romans, while Ottomans still saw the local Greeks as Romans. ROMANS, as they named themselves after centuries under Rome (original), under dual capitals and more under Constantinople only. ROMANS as Persians, Arabs, Turks, Slavs, Mongols etc. knew them. Many claimed the tittle of Rome, but only "Byzantine" population had that identity and only they were commonly knew by most others as Romans.
- Western Europeans had(have) obvious motivations to denny the Constantinople rights over the Imperial title, its not strange that the "certainly objetive and never racist or biased" early modern historians popularized the use of "Byzantines" to ignore the common use of Romans in medieval time. Old traditions are hard to end, like name Haudenosaunee Iroquois, but they can change.
- Rome to Constantinople was a continuous unlike HRE, Ottomans or Russia. A long gradual process of administrative changes done by Romans.
Roman culture itself was heavily influenced by Greece, so few centuries after the former conquered the later was natural to build a common identity as Romans. Constantine the Great was the key figure in the transition from Rome to Byzantium, but also in the christianization of the empire (same as Theodosius I ruling from Constantinople), even before this Greece had a relevant role in the history of early christianity.
- The line between Romans and "Byzantines" is blurry, question where one ends and the other start puts in doubt also if "true Romans" were christians as part of the same transition, changes done by people seen as Romans. While HRE was founded by the decendants of the destroyers of the western part of the Empire, invasors claiming the title centuries later, at least Ottomans were capable of put their capital in the imperial city just after conquer it. And Russians well... lets not pretent that an unfortunate young byzantine princess is equivalent to the prolongated process of "Byzantine" transition and the millions of people that were still knew as Romans centuries after.

So yes read more, including the other EDUCATED people that have evidence to support their different points.
Thank you very much.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,280
Location
Babylon 5
Agree, I think this Rome/Byzantium issue shouldn't had gone beyond a comment to justify similarly related civs.
Despite this and apologizing to Xandinho, I would still make just one comment about it, not because Byzantium could be ever be out of CIV7 (it would be in, not need to lose the head as if is even posible to not be on game). But because the pretension that there are not specialists that also dispute modern/westerncentric idea that "Byzantines" had no right to be seen as Romans.
- This one is an easy entry about the topic Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis (2019). But even just by read recent articles about "Byzantines" we can find a general tone recognizing more the natural Rome>Byzantium transition.
- Title is NOT Identity, of course the legacy of Rome was a title claimed by many but beyond their pretentious leaders the average Bavarian didnt call themselves Romans or the Swedish saw Bohemians as Romans, while Ottomans still saw the local Greeks as Romans. ROMANS, as they named themselves after centuries under Rome (original), under dual capitals and more under Constantinople only. ROMANS as Persians, Arabs, Turks, Slavs, Mongols etc. knew them. Many claimed the tittle of Rome, but only "Byzantine" population had that identity and only they were commonly knew by most others as Romans.
- Western Europeans had(have) obvious motivations to denny the Constantinople rights over the Imperial title, its not strange that the "certainly objetive and never racist or biased" early modern historians popularized the use of "Byzantines" to ignore the common use of Romans in medieval time. Old traditions are hard to end, like name Haudenosaunee Iroquois, but they can change.
- Rome to Constantinople was a continuous unlike HRE, Ottomans or Russia. A long gradual process of administrative changes done by Romans.
Roman culture itself was heavily influenced by Greece, so few centuries after the former conquered the later was natural to build a common identity as Romans. Constantine the Great was the key figure in the transition from Rome to Byzantium, but also in the christianization of the empire (same as Theodosius I ruling from Constantinople), even before this Greece had a relevant role in the history of early christianity.
- The line between Romans and "Byzantines" is blurry, question where one ends and the other start puts in doubt also if "true Romans" were christians as part of the same transition, changes done by people seen as Romans. While HRE was founded by the decendants of the destroyers of the western part of the Empire, invasors claiming the title centuries later, at least Ottomans were capable of put their capital in the imperial city just after conquer it. And Russians well... lets not pretent that an unfortunate young byzantine princess is equivalent to the prolongated process of "Byzantine" transition and the millions of people that were still knew as Romans centuries after.

So yes read more, including the other EDUCATED people that have evidence to support their different points.
Thank you very much.
For my part, I'm not arguing the historical difference between what Rome and Byzantium represent in history but what they represent in the game--the pagan, expansionist, Classical Rome and the Orthodox, defensive, Medieval Byzantium. Byzantium could be replaced by the kingdoms of Bulgaria or Serbia, but I don't think either quite measures up to the splendor of the Eastern Roman Empire at its height. Also, as someone with a keen interest in ecclesiastic history--yes, religion was important to latter day Rome in both the East and West, but as early as the fourth century it's already easy to see that eastern and western Christianity were going their own ways. In many ways, Rome shaped Western Christianity far more than Western Christianity shaped Rome; the East was much more in dialogue with Greek and Near Eastern traditions (and with other traditions of Christianity because the Eastern emperors did not have the political luxury of pretending Miaphysites didn't exist though they did their best to extirpate Nestorians, who thrived--for a time--beyond their borders). I think Byzantium should be in the game to represent the high tide of Eastern Christianity, when it was innovative and splendid and scintillating; Russia preserved the splendor but ossified it (while the Phanar became reactionary yet impotent after the Ottoman conquest).
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
9,050
Agree, I think this Rome/Byzantium issue shouldn't had gone beyond a comment to justify similarly related civs.
Despite this and apologizing to Xandinho, I would still make just one comment about it, not because Byzantium could be ever be out of CIV7 (it would be in, not need to lose the head as if is even possible to not be on game). But because the pretension that there are not specialists that also dispute modern/westerncentric idea that "Byzantines" had no right to be seen as Romans.
- This one is an easy entry about the topic Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, by Anthony Kaldellis (2019). But even just by read recent articles about "Byzantines" we can find a general tone recognizing more the natural Rome>Byzantium transition.
- Title is NOT Identity, of course the legacy of Rome was a title claimed by many but beyond their pretentious leaders the average Bavarian didnt call themselves Romans or the Swedish saw Bohemians as Romans, while Ottomans still saw the local Greeks as Romans. ROMANS, as they named themselves after centuries under Rome (original), under dual capitals and more under Constantinople only. ROMANS as Persians, Arabs, Turks, Slavs, Mongols etc. knew them. Many claimed the tittle of Rome, but only "Byzantine" population had that identity and only they were commonly knew by most others as Romans.
- Western Europeans had(have) obvious motivations to denny the Constantinople rights over the Imperial title, its not strange that the "certainly objetive and never racist or biased" early modern historians popularized the use of "Byzantines" to ignore the common use of Romans in medieval time. Old traditions are hard to end, like name Haudenosaunee Iroquois, but they can change.
- Rome to Constantinople was a continuous unlike HRE, Ottomans or Russia. A long gradual process of administrative changes done by Romans.
Roman culture itself was heavily influenced by Greece, so few centuries after the former conquered the later was natural to build a common identity as Romans. Constantine the Great was the key figure in the transition from Rome to Byzantium, but also in the christianization of the empire (same as Theodosius I ruling from Constantinople), even before this Greece had a relevant role in the history of early christianity.
- The line between Romans and "Byzantines" is blurry, question where one ends and the other start puts in doubt also if "true Romans" were christians as part of the same transition, changes done by people seen as Romans. While HRE was founded by the decendants of the destroyers of the western part of the Empire, invasors claiming the title centuries later, at least Ottomans were capable of put their capital in the imperial city just after conquer it. And Russians well... lets not pretent that an unfortunate young byzantine princess is equivalent to the prolongated process of "Byzantine" transition and the millions of people that were still knew as Romans centuries after.

So yes read more, including the other EDUCATED people that have evidence to support their different points.
Thank you very much.
I stand by everything I have said, but will not argue this point further on this thread.
 
Top Bottom