I'm not arguing for Byzantines to be excluded. I don't see that argument. Only a discussion on whether it was Roman or not. And to contemporary Byzantines they were absolutely Roman. They would not know what the word Byzantine meant. IIRC. The word was a later construction by Gibbon writing in the 18th century.
New Firaxis tweet about turkey/Byzantium
- Thread starter toft
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,927
If they are truly paying heed to TSL like they say, then they won't include both as civs unless they give the Ottomans their pre-Constantinople capital. And still, that may be too much overlap.
Virupaksha
Chieftain
1000 year empires:
China
India
Persia
Sumer
Egypt
Ethiopia
Arabia
Maya
Greece (if you call the Greek civilisation an empire, but certainly a civilisation)
Rome (almost)
Byzantium (almost)
Babylon (almost)
Japan (maybe pushing it a little)
Empires which controlled a vast amount of the world
Mongols
English
Spanish
Russians
French
Empires needed to be included for commercial reasons:
Americans
Germans
This would be my twenty
China
India
Persia
Sumer
Egypt
Ethiopia
Arabia
Maya
Greece (if you call the Greek civilisation an empire, but certainly a civilisation)
Rome (almost)
Byzantium (almost)
Babylon (almost)
Japan (maybe pushing it a little)
Empires which controlled a vast amount of the world
Mongols
English
Spanish
Russians
French
Empires needed to be included for commercial reasons:
Americans
Germans
This would be my twenty
There is truth in this but the name Byzantium and Byzantine is a modern terminology. So what else do you call them, perhaps just the Eastern Roman Empire?
There was a direct line of government and legal system/code from ancient Rome to medieval Constantinople. They certainly evolved over time but that is no different from any long lived state.
In contrast the Ottoman Sultan may have called himself a Roman Emperor but in principal he was everything but the opposite.
Augustus who established the office of Roman Emperor went to great efforts to demonstrate that he was the first citizen (or the first among equals), essentially the chief public servant or the chief senator. Obviously its easy to see this was part of a propaganda campaign on his part but he knew that if he was to present his reign as a legitimate successor to the Republic he had to as Emperor place the interests of the State first in all the decisions he made, and that is what set apart Roman Emperors from the other despots of that time.
He didn't assume office with some 'mandate of heaven' or religious ideology but with an attitude of respecting the civic traditions of the State above his own self. Arguably the success of the Roman Empire was paved with these ideals, for instance Rome's five good emperors all exhibited these virtues.
Romans believed heavily in traditional family values and the Emperor was expected to follow this lifestyle (at least in public). Thus harems were frowned upon and probably seen as a aspect of the debauched oriental styles of government that would be scandalous for a Roman emperor to openly engage in.
Christianity fit in quite well with these notions - the emperor serving the interests of the state and the people and traditional family values. The Byzantine Emperors followed the same attitudes and culture to law and government. Harems were forbidden and Emperors according to church law could marry one wife (this wasn't always followed though...). Even the role of Emperor was very different to the stereotypical eastern oriental despot. Byzantine Emperors were crowned by the Patriarch and could only govern with the loyalty of the senate, the army and the people who had the Hippodrome as a public space to view their emperor.
No Byzantine emperor who lost the confidence of the army, the senate and the people could be expected to hold office. Thus the Emperor was not a sacred being, nor was he seen as Gods special representative or Gods prophet. The office of emperor was held in high esteem and with an almost sacred reverence but the actual emperor had to earn his stripes.
This attitude to government is not that far off Republican principles in certain aspects (which is where it evolved from)
Byzantium even had distinct civil law (Corpus Juris Civilis - The Code of Justinian which is still the basis to much of European law) and the church had its own distinct canon law - which governed church practice. So church and state in Byzantium may have been closely aligned in many aspects but they were also quite distinct from each other.
The Ottoman Sultans on the other hand ruled with a very different approach. There you find theocratic rule - Sharia law governed both civil and religious life, harems, The sultan was the Caliph and the 'Emperor', religious jihad wars etc. For anyone to argue that the Ottomans were a continuation of the Roman Empire is really just naive.
And i'm not even getting into the cultural, language and religious differences between the two.
Byzantium and the Ottomans had a completely different evolution in government. There is no overlap between them outside of geography and a few other aspects of their society.
Dragonflow
Emperor
America isn't in the game for commercial reasons. It's in the game because in a mere 200 years since its foundation the US managed to become one of the most powerful countries in human history and is the dominant military, scientific and cultural power of the modern world.
As for Germany, the German civilization didn't mysteriously pop up in 1871 from thin air either. The Holy Roman Empire was basically a German state since the reign of Otto I in the 10th century A.D.
Where is the hatred?
I am sure they will be a popular player choice in the game just as the Byzantines will be if they are included. The Ottomans have always had really interesting units. Plus, the architecture for their cities should be quite nice in CIV VI.
I think Ottomans being in the base game is a safe bet, especially with this hint. Mehmet II as leader, most likely, judging from the said hint. Byzantines, on the onther hand, will most likely be in either expansion or a DLC, and their inclusion, one way or the other, is also pretty much guaranteed. Not in vanilla tho, cause TSL and stuff.
If there is a Byzantium though (which is almost certain), I don't mind there being 2 civs as some have mentioned the period under the republic was quite different from late antiquity.
But who would be the leader?
Justinian & theodora are always the typical choices but given Justinian was a native latin speaker, the Empire wasn't really that much different from Western Rome in the 6th century.
If Byzantium is going to be a distinct civ it should probably be focused on the Macedonian Dynasty.
Perhaps we should look to Constantine VII, Nikephoros II Phokas or Basil II.
John I Tzimiskes would perhaps be another choice if he ruled longer.
Heraclius would have almost made it had he died before the Islamic caliphate attacked the Romans.He succeeded in achieving victory over Persia despite the Byzantines losing over 3/4 of their Empire to the Persians and Barbarians who had Constantinople under siege. Nonetheless against overwhelming odds he led an army into Persia and snatched victory. But he would see much of his Empire fall to the Arabs before he died so I guess that precludes him from being a leader.
But who would be the leader?
Justinian & theodora are always the typical choices but given Justinian was a native latin speaker, the Empire wasn't really that much different from Western Rome in the 6th century.
If Byzantium is going to be a distinct civ it should probably be focused on the Macedonian Dynasty.
Perhaps we should look to Constantine VII, Nikephoros II Phokas or Basil II.
John I Tzimiskes would perhaps be another choice if he ruled longer.
Heraclius would have almost made it had he died before the Islamic caliphate attacked the Romans.He succeeded in achieving victory over Persia despite the Byzantines losing over 3/4 of their Empire to the Persians and Barbarians who had Constantinople under siege. Nonetheless against overwhelming odds he led an army into Persia and snatched victory. But he would see much of his Empire fall to the Arabs before he died so I guess that precludes him from being a leader.
Virupaksha
Chieftain
America is in the game for commercial reasons. It would be commercial suicide for Firaxis not to include an American civ. That said, as the dominant power on the planet now, America does deserve it's place in the game (as already stated in original post). However China is now poised to overtake America as the world's major power and in 1000 years its a safe bet that Americas inclusion in civ will be marginal at best.
Germany for most of its history was rather like Greece before. Lots of cultural/artistic/philosophical achievements without hard power. Only Hitler of any German leader had much of an empire and probably you would agree we dont want him in the game. I'd include Germany for similar reasons to Greece but it's hardly a historically dominant civ.
I stick to my original 20 civs but America and Germany would be the most vulnerable of those in historical terms (possibly Japan or France). The other 16 surely have to be included.
If America was in the game for commercial reasons it would be an OP civ.
It's in the game because it reflects the late 20th century
world order and because it's made in America.
nunor
King
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 786
You're aware there's more to the concept of civilization than just military prowess and empire building, right?
Ottoman civ in Civ 5 was boring one, it was cool to have sipahi and janissary, but the Unique Ability was bad and they should have had an unique building instead.
Thankfully with the three uniques they can have both. I hope for a great bombard/cannon.
p.s. Would you say Byzantine was an _empire_ back in 1453, did they have any lands besides area around Constantinopole? British still have overseas territories (Gibraltar, Falklands, Diego garcia, Barbados etc.) but they aren't really an empire.
Thankfully with the three uniques they can have both. I hope for a great bombard/cannon.
p.s. Would you say Byzantine was an _empire_ back in 1453, did they have any lands besides area around Constantinopole? British still have overseas territories (Gibraltar, Falklands, Diego garcia, Barbados etc.) but they aren't really an empire.
Virupaksha
Chieftain
Of course. Which is why I would include Germany, Greece, Maya and Ethiopia. However hard power is also important which is why USA also gets a mention despite making no cultural contribution to humanity besides military power.
Unless you count McDonalds?
Hakan-i Cihan
Emperor
I hope they do not go with hammams again. I opted in another thread for a tekke (Sufi lodges) as UB. But maybe it would be better to have kulliye as UB. Here is a description from wikipedia of kulliye:
"A külliye (Arabic: كلية
is a complex of buildings associated with Turkish architecture centered on a mosque and managed within a single institution, often based on a waqf (charitable foundation) and composed of a madrasa, a Dar al-Shifa ("clinic"), kitchens, bakery, Turkish bath, other buildings for various charitable services for the community and further annexes. The term is derived from the Arabic word kull "all"."
m15a
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,471
Or film, television, the internet, video games, painting, music, dance, and literature.
I hope they do not go with hammams again. I opted in another thread for a tekke (Sufi lodges) as UB. But maybe it would be better to have kulliye as UB. Here is a description from wikipedia of kulliye:
"A külliye (Arabic: كلية
For God's sake there is Enderun Schools in Ottoman Empire. Can add
and 
plus gives some exp to units.Enderun Schools were best and far superior to any school in the world.
Virupaksha
Chieftain
Film - France for film, very few American films worth watching. There is a generic Hollywood formula but its very dumbed down.
TV - cant think of one American programme worth watching, over to you.
Internet - US invention but personally cant think of a US site worth visiting.
Video games - Japanese mostly
Painting - Rather predtes America. Iconic US artist? Thought not.
Music - look to UK
Dance - not my field. What specifically did you have in mind?
Literature - Ok here you have a point. France for film, UK for music, US for literature, Ring of truth to this. There are many great US writers and I feel i'm being unfair.
m15a
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,471
Real quick since this is OT. Note that the claim was that the US had no cultural contributions, not that it has indisputably the best in every category or the inventor of the category, so the only valid counterargument is that these examples either don't exist or aren't American.
Film: David Lynch, TV: The Twilight Zone, Internet: YouTube, Video Games: Civ (I guess technically a lot of Civ II was written in the UK, but for the most part), Painting: Jackson Pollock, Music: John Cage, Dance: Merce Cunningham, Literature: The Twilight Saga.
King William I
King
No, please don't bill that series a contribution to culture. Poe, Whitman, etc is much better.
But back on topic, Byzantium is usually reserved for expansions so if anything this is a hint toward Ottomans. I just hope they aren't as low-tier as they are in 5
Similar threads
