Latin American Civilizations and City-States

[Henri Christophe]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Xandinho]

Guys, please, don't change the subject of the thread to discussing Rome and Byzantines. If this starts now, it will never end.

 

[Patine]

Guys, please, don't change the subject of the thread to discussing Rome and Byzantines. If this starts now, it will never end.

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.

 

[Henri Christophe]

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]

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.

Russian by faith

Actually, the Romanovs claimed it by marriage.

 

[Patine]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Xandinho]

Posting in its proper thread my design of the hybrid Paraguay-Guarani civilization.

Paraguay
Leader: José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia
Start bias: flat grasslands beside rivers, away from the coast.

UA: Paraguái Tavakuairetã - Farms on bonus resources, camps and marshes, as long as they are next to rivers, generate +3 gold, +2 food and +1 production. Flat grassland tiles beside rivers cost half to buy with culture or gold. There is no movement cost when crossing rivers in Paraguayan territory.

Leader ability: Karaí Guazú - Paraguay receives +15% culture and +5 loyalty in all cities if there is no border opening agreement in place. Also, international trade routes generate half gold, but domestic trade routes generate +3 gold, +3 production, +2 food and +2 culture. Tourism from other civilizations against Paraguay is reduced by 15%.

Unique improvement: Reducción
Available in Teocracy
Limit of one per city
Can only be built by a Missionary, which completely consumes it.
+1 culture
+3 faith
+2 housing
Allows the purchase of Missionaries in this city without needing a Shrine.
Missionaries purchased from this city have the ability to convert barbarians to your empire, and each barbarian unit converted generates a culture boost.
Allows this city to receive follower beliefs of all religions with at least one follower in it.

Unique unit: Acá Carayá Cavalry - replaces Cavalry. It has the same combat strength as a common Cavalry, but receives +5 combat strength against neighboring civilizations. In addition, it gains +1 movement when starting to move on a tile beside a river.

Paraguay is represented here as a hybrid with Guarani, especially in the elements of interaction with the map and the Jesuit Missions. During the government of José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, policies of strong isolation were adopted, encouraging self-sufficient economic growth and a sense of national identity.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Santa Ana a very bad leader choice for Mexico? Or do you intend them to be Wildwest Outlaws themed (Antagonizing Blonde peoples up north by the late quarter of 19th Century into even prsent day maybe?? )

REMEMBER THE ALAMO! REMEMBER GOLIAD!

 

[Xandinho]

UPDATE: City-States

Caral
Industrial city-state
All your cities receive +5% faith for each district they own.

Kuhikugu
Trade city-state
Domestic Trade Routes receive +2 gold for each rainforest in the origin city and +1 food for each farm in the destination city.

Lima
Trade city-state
Each international trade route generates +10% growth in the city.

Montevideo
Cultural city-state
Theater Square and Entertainment Complex grant +1 amenity and +4 culture.

Teotihuacan
Industrial city-state
All your cities receive +10% production towards districts for every district adjacent to the one being built.

Tiwanaku
Cultural city-state
All your cities receive +2% culture and faith for every lake and mountain tiles within their boundaries.

New One:

Os Camutins
Cultural city-state
Allows you to build the Teso improvement. Can only be built on grassland floodplains and doesn't take damage from flooding. Grants +3 gold, +2 culture (after Natural History) and +1 housing.

-

I made some changes to the city-states. Caral is now an industrial city-state and grants bonuses to all cities. I simplified the Kuhikugu bonuses a bit. Lima's bonuses are milder. Montevideo's bonuses are now a little more impactful. The new Teotihuacan bonuses are a little more dynamic. And Tiwanaku is now a cultural city-state, and I included the bonuses for mountains.

In addition, I added Os Camutins, which is possibly the main archaeological site of the Marajoara Civilization.

 

[pineappledan]

So is the working definition of “Latin American” anything geographically south of Texas, irrespective of timing?

Seems weird to call Caral Latin-American.

 

[Patine]

Argentina
Leader: Eva Perón
Start bias: coast, not far from tundra

UA: Paris of South America - Ecstatic cities receive an extra +1% growth for each civilization that Argentina knows but isn't at war against Argentina (maximum 10%), the capital, when is ecstatic, gets this bonus in double (maximum 20%). Cultural buildings and wonders have double slots for Great Works when built in the capital. Pastures and farms grant +0.5 extra housing.

Leader ability: La Dama de los Descamisados - Specialists in Industrial Zones are called "Descamisados" and they grant +2 food, +3 production, +3 culture and +1 loyalty. Industrial Zones grant +1 appeal to adjacent tiles. It allows you to start Evita's Speech city project.
Evita's Speech: cannot be done in more than one city at the same time and can only be done in cities that have Industrial Zone. When active, grants culture and +1 amenity. Upon completion, all Descamisados in the city generate +100% food, production, culture and loyalty over the next 10 turns, besides +2 era score. This project cannot be done twice in a row in the same city.

Unique building: Tanguería
Replaces Broadcast Center
Available in Opera and Ballet
+6 culture
+1 citizen slot
+4 Great Musician points per turn
+1 Great Work of Music slot
+4 culture additionally when powered
+1 culture additionally per specialist in this district.
+100% culture and tourism for all Great Works of Music in this city in Golden or Heroic Ages.

Unique unit: Gaucho - replaces Cavalry. Weaker than the Cavalry (55 combat strength instead of 62). Has 2 charges to build pastures or farms. When a Gaucho builds a pasture or a farm, small boosts of culture and GWAM points are generated.

In my design for Argentina, its happy cities can become great migratory attractions, whereas Buenos Aires will have a strong and very busy theater industry. Gauchos and Tango also played an important role in Argentine culture. While Eva Perón's speeches will serve as an inspiration to her people, making them more productive.

Argentina is a good civ. But Eva Peron (or the other two Perons, Juan and Isabella) have to go, frankly. Eva may look good in that movie with Madonna, but she's little more than a mouthpiece and cheerleader for her Fascist, totalitarian, intolerant socially backleaning husband, and thus seems like an awful choice, under all the glaze of (propagandist), "postergirl of national struggle," she's portrayed with. Argentina needs a REAL leader - not a fetishized, bad cliche.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Argentina is a good civ. But Eva Peron (or the other two Perons, Juan and Isabella) have to go, frankly. Eva may look good in that movie with Madonna, but she's little more than a mouthpiece and cheerleader for her Fascist, totalitarian, intolerant socially backleaning husband, and thus seems like an awful choice, under all the glaze of (propagandist), "postergirl of national struggle," she's portrayed with. Argentina needs a REAL leader - not a fetishized, bad cliche.

On that I agree on Patine, I am not a fan of Eva Peron. But because she never was a president to start off.
I believe Bartolomé Mitré should be a cool leader to Argentina and can be used at a scenario of Paraguayan war.

 

[Patine]

On that I agree on Patine, I am not a fan of Eva Peron. But because she never was a president to start off.
I believe Bartolomé Mitré should be a cool leader to Argentina and can be used at a scenario of Paraguayan war.

I'd prefer either Jose de San Martin or Hipolito Yrigoyen, myself.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'd prefer either Jose de San Martin or Hipolito Yrigoyen, myself.

José de San Martin also never took power on Argentina, and he would like to be remember as very different from Simon Bolivar, who was a conqueror, but instead want to be remember as a protector of America, who liberate lands.

I would prefer Argentinains leaders who acctually took power on governement.

 

[Patine]

José de San Martin also never took power on Argentina, and he would like to be remember as very different from Simon Bolivar, who was a conqueror, but instead want to be remember as a protector of America, who liberate lands.

I would prefer Argentinains leaders who acctually took power on governement.

San Martin was a member of the, "Second Triumverate," who collectively held power. And, I did also mention Yrigoyen, whom I think is a good one.