Poll: what new European civs would you like to see in the future of Civ franchise?

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . Really, I would just be happy to see these C-tier requests (which again, I say with love) receive more personality as city-states. I don't think we would mind quite as much that "Finland" isn't playable, if we got "Helsinki," led by a static image leader, with a single unique (could be a unit, or a building, depending on the city-state--we already have this with things like Granada and Armagh and La Venta and Rapa Nui), and then a single ambience track to be added to the shuffle. I think that would satisfy many of us just to see our favorites in person on the map...and for those that aren't satisfied, it would make it even easier for modders to pump them up into a proper civ. In fact, I think this is still something the devs could do for smaller DLC and I would pay full price for this sort of city-state overhaul and be completely happy with the roster proper being finalized at 50.

Exactly. Civ VI in City States is trying to cover with a single mechanic a wide range of potential cultures/polities, and it needs to 'expand' the City State concept to match.
I could see, for instance, every City State getting some kind of Unique: Unique Units from Military City States, Religious, Cultural, Trade, Financial or even Tourism bonuses from other types. As posted, they already 'dipped their (Designer) toes in this' with some of the City States, they should go All In.

Finland specifically could be a Military City State with a specialized recon unit of sniper/submachinegunner on skis, or a Cultural City State providing extra Culture from Forests (wood architecture/furniture design) or even a Resource City State (representing the extreme importance attached to the Petsamo nickel mines in World War Two). Most of the current City States could get similar 'alternatives'. Add some more extended Diplomatic Options with City States, and I think it would vastly enhance the game.

 

[Krajzen]

Eh, Finland is fine IMO, although mostly because of its 20th century prominence. In my opiniom every civ should simply have some
- spectacular moments in its history (relative to its scale)
- strong, distinctive culture

Finland is borderline case near bottom of acceptable civs but it got really epic Winter War, Mannerheim, one of best educational and scientific systems in the world nowadays, unique language group (along Hungary - Finno Ugric people, not Indo European), some mystical atmosphere of the north, Tove Janson hakkapeliita cavalry etc.

Now truly hopeless cases are IMO Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Azerbeijan, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia and Croatia. I have actually read their history and unlike Finland these guys never did something really spectacular while being independent, not part of some other multicultural entity. They also tend to have... complicated ethno-cultural identity and origins and often, don't 'feel' right as major factions, with all respect. Finland is very close to this but IMO (just barely) qualifies. Ukraine and Belarus for me can get in only as Kievan Rus or city states. Riga and Dubrovnik would be great city states. Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Azerbeijan and Albania to be honest would feel off even as city states for me...

Albania is weird case because it had Skanderbeg who was incredible but it would be essentially one man civ, it simply never did anything spectacular besides Skandy and some great careers on the Ottoman court.

 

[Zaarin]

And don't forget the Roman Catholic Church using terms such as "Pontifex" (from Sovereign Pontifex - the full Papal title AS POPE - not including subsidiary titles), Prelate, Justiciar, Magistrate, Collegium, Secretariate, etc. and having ecclesiastical Provincia - all Roman administrative terms, as their bases - all over the world!

Indeed, the clearest successor of the Roman Empire is not Byzantium but the Roman Catholic Church, which stepped in to fill the vacuum left by the decline and fall of the emperors.

 

[Patine]

Indeed, the clearest successor of the Roman Empire is not Byzantium but the Roman Catholic Church, which stepped in to fill the vacuum left by the decline and fall of the emperors.

Imperium mundi and Sacredotum mundi.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

And the city of Byzantium, or (Greek) Byzantion stretched almost as far into the past as it did into the future. According to (admittedly, not confirmed) legend, it was founded around 660 BCE, so by the time it became capital of anything resembling a 'Byzantine' state it had already been a Greek City State or Greek City State conquered by Persians, Macedonians, Romans, or Mithradates of Pontia (the problem of sitting on a Prime Location - just ask any City State in Civ VI!) for a thousand years - longer than it lasted as the center of 'Byzantium'!

So Byzantium was an indepedent Greek city state or part of Hellenic League in the heyday of Olympian gods?
What I known of Heyday Byzantium was a city as Constantinople. Ruled under religious totalitarian regimes of some kind.

 

[Patine]

So Byzantium was an indepedent Greek city state or part of Hellenic League in the heyday of Olympian gods?
What I known of Heyday Byzantium was a city as Constantinople. Ruled under religious totalitarian regimes of some kind.

Now that post completely missed the point of what's been said here. But you're pushing for artificial and contrived similarity and uniformity in the Mediterranean cultural sphere - to the point where separate civilizations there are just not needed or warranted, and just SOULDN'T be present at all - and it just seems inexplicable and out-of-touch with historical reality.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Exactly. Civ VI in City States is trying to cover with a single mechanic a wide range of potential cultures/polities, and it needs to 'expand' the City State concept to match.
I could see, for instance, every City State getting some kind of Unique: Unique Units from Military City States, Religious, Cultural, Trade, Financial or even Tourism bonuses from other types. As posted, they already 'dipped their (Designer) toes in this' with some of the City States, they should go All In.

Considering for this game they got inspired by the district system, from Endless Legend, I hope they look again at their games and turn city-states more into the minor nations found in those games. Of course this would have to be for Civ VII. They've at least made them feel more unique than the last game, but there is more to do.

So Byzantium was an indepedent Greek city state or part of Hellenic League in the heyday of Olympian gods?
What I known of Heyday Byzantium was a city as Constantinople. Ruled under religious totalitarian regimes of some kind.

Byzantium was originally founded as a Greek city-state I believe by colonists from Megara.
It did not gain any prominence until Constantine decided to move his capital from Rome to there and thus it became renamed several years later after him.
Either way by the time Constantinople arrived there it had been under Roman control so there should not be any correlation between Ancient Greece under Pericles or Gorgo and a Byzantine Empire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Considering for this game they got inspired by the district system, from Endless Legend, I hope they look again at their games and turn city-states more into the minor nations found in those games. Of course this would have to be for Civ VII. They've at least made them feel more unique than the last game, but there is more to do..

I think they are moving in right direction from game to game. I just want to keep reminding them that there's still a ways to go . . .

Byzantium was originally founded as a Greek city-state I believe by colonists from Megara.
It did not gain any prominence until Constantine decided to move his capital from Rome to there and thus it became renamed several years later after him.
Either way by the time Constantinople arrived there it had been under Roman control so there should not be any correlation between Ancient Greece under Pericles or Gorgo and a Byzantine Empire.

The colonists from Megara is part of a 'founding legend' which it has not been possible to verify from any hard evidence (it is very difficult to dig up central Istanbul to look for obscure physical/archeological evidence buried at the bottom of layers of later Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman occupation!).
Byzantion's early history (pre Current Era) is pretty much history of being a Target: the location was too good as a Trade nexus, so it was conquered by the Achaemenid Persians in the 5th century, by both Athens and then Sparta during the Peloponesian War, Phillip (Alexander's father) got wounded while besieging it, Macedonian Successor State and then Mithradates of Pontus both occupied it, and finally the Romans grabbed it and held onto it until it became the 'Eastern Capital' of the Empire.
It could be a model for the normal fate off a City State in Civ VI!

 

[Patine]

I think they are moving in right direction from game to game. I just want to keep reminding them that there's still a ways to go . . .




The colonists from Megara is part of a 'founding legend' which it has not been possible to verify from any hard evidence (it is very difficult to dig up central Istanbul to look for obscure physical/archeological evidence buried at the bottom of layers of later Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman occupation!).
Byzantion's early history (pre Current Era) is pretty much history of being a Target: the location was too good as a Trade nexus, so it was conquered by the Achaemenid Persians in the 5th century, by both Athens and then Sparta during the Peloponesian War, Phillip (Alexander's father) got wounded while besieging it, Macedonian Successor State and then Mithradates of Pontus both occupied it, and finally the Romans grabbed it and held onto it until it became the 'Eastern Capital' of the Empire.
It could be a model for the normal fate off a City State in Civ VI!

The "Queen of Cities," and "Second Rome," and capital of two major and significant historical empires, at one point the largest city in the world, being reduced to a mere City-State? That strikes me as a harsh and unworthy dismissal...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The "Queen of Cities," and "Second Rome," and capital of two major and significant historical empires, at one point the largest city in the world, being reduced to a mere City-State? That strikes me as a harsh and unworthy dismissal...

Don't forget "Mickelgard" and/or "The Navel of the World"

It would have to be one exceptional City State, but in fact I was referring to the fact that the original, pre-Imperial city was a far, far cry from its later glory, and it spent almost as much time as a punching bag (700+ years) as it did as the sole Imperial Capital/Byzantine capital (about 1000 years).

 

[Zaarin]

Ruled under religious totalitarian regimes of some kind.

You keep pushing this view, but Byzantium was no more totalitarian than any other government of its era (which is to say not very: totalitarianism is a modern invention), nor was it governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Just like the Pope and secular kings and emperors in the West, the Patriarch and emperor were frequently at odds and had complicated relationships.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You keep pushing this view, but Byzantium was no more totalitarian than any other government of its era (which is to say not very: totalitarianism is a modern invention), nor was it governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Just like the Pope and secular kings and emperors in the West, the Patriarch and emperor were frequently at odds and had complicated relationships.

"Complicated" doesn't begin to describe it. The most confusing lecture I have ever heard in my life was on:
"The Trinitological and Christological Controversies in the Byzantine Church 400 to 800 AD" by a Professor at University. When he was finished there wasn't a person in the class, and it was heavily populated by Classics and History graduate students, who had the foggiest notion what he had said or what it meant.
That was when he told us all that he would never test us on this stuff.
The point was that this was all so important to the church, government and common people of Constantinopol that They would riot in the streets over it. This by what appeared on the surface to be a cultured, modern, urban population. It wasn't. What they considered of Life-Changing Importance was, quite simply, Incomprehensible to us.
He certainly made his point, because that's one of the very few lecture titles I remember from any part of my schooling!

The past is a foreign country - they think differently there . . .

 

[Zaarin]

One of the charms of Orthodoxy is that it views theology as an ongoing discussion rather than as something written in stone, and of course theological discussions can inevitably get a bit heated. (I mean, we all think of St. Nicholas as a jolly fat guy who gives children presents, but according to church tradition he punched Arius at the First Council of Nicaea. )

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

You keep pushing this view, but Byzantium was no more totalitarian than any other government of its era (which is to say not very: totalitarianism is a modern invention), nor was it governed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Just like the Pope and secular kings and emperors in the West, the Patriarch and emperor were frequently at odds and had complicated relationships.

Yet they share the same view regarding to Jews and Muslims.
They don't tolerate either. not sure if they permit jews to convert to the Eastern Orthodoxy, But muslims. No not at all.
In contrast. Aaron's and Saladin's Arabic Empire was more open to Jews and any Christians, so long as they pay heathen taxs and provided skillful works to the empire (including translations of Greco Roman knowledges and philosophy.

And is this similar 'islamophobia' carried over to a new Greek state by the time it broke free from Ottomans? Is there any modern greek law banned such religion?

 

[Zaarin]

They don't tolerate either. not sure if they permit jews to convert to the Eastern Orthodoxy, But muslims. No not at all.

Yes, sadly Jews were persecuted throughout Europe in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. As for saying Muslims weren't allowed to convert, that's nonsense, but you can hardly blame the Byzantines for being leery of a religion that had been trying to conquer them militarily for centuries. Not having a cozy relationship is kind of implicit in the term "enemy."

In contrast. Aaron's and Saladin's Arabic Empire was more open to Jews and any Christians, so long as they pay heathen taxs and provided skillful works to the empire

I love how you cherry pick your examples. Yes, the Abbasids and Umayyads were relatively tolerant; the Ottomans and Almohads, by contrast, were not.

 

[Patine]

One of the charms of Orthodoxy is that it views theology as an ongoing discussion rather than as something written in stone, and of course theological discussions can inevitably get a bit heated. (I mean, we all think of St. Nicholas as a jolly fat guy who gives children presents, but according to church tradition he punched Arius at the First Council of Nicaea. )

Similar to Judaism, actually, and the "Living Scripture," (which has apparently caused a lot of internecine strife amongst Jews during the Diaspora, even though most Christians and Moslems from outside often see them as less theologically fractious - I remember reading, as an addendum to a Seder, a Jewish rabbi in pre-Inquisition Spain declare the absolutely horrid fates he "requested" his followers commit to two other rabbis who wrote previous Seders he greatly disagreed with and renounced in great part in his own, though not all disagreement was that nasty - an online acquaintance on a different strategy game forum who is an Orthodox Jew from Queens, New York, linked that enlightening tidbit for me).

 

[Phrozen]

Yes, sadly Jews were persecuted throughout Europe in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. As for saying Muslims weren't allowed to convert, that's nonsense, but you can hardly blame the Byzantines for being leery of a religion that had been trying to conquer them militarily for centuries. Not having a cozy relationship is kind of implicit in the term "enemy."

It also depends where and when. Ironically, Italy was far more tolerant of Jews than most other places in the world.

I love how you cherry pick your examples. Yes, the Abbasids and Umayyads were relatively tolerant; the Ottomans and Almohads, by contrast, were not.

At the height of the Ottoman Empire religious minorities were taxed but other than that they wasn't that much persecution. Jews abounded in the Ottoman court and the patriarchs were important figures. The Ottomons were also much more trustworthy of Slavs, whether Christian or Muslim, than they were of say Arabs. Of course, this changed once it became the Sick Man of Europe.

 

[Zaarin]

It also depends where and when. Ironically, Italy was far more tolerant of Jews than most other places in the world.

Indeed, and the results are sometimes surprising. For (a non-Medieval) instance, Maria Teresa was notoriously anti-Semitic early in her reign, but by the end of her reign Vienna was one of the best places in Europe for Jews to live.

At the height of the Ottoman Empire religious minorities were taxed but other than that they wasn't that much persecution. Jews abounded in the Ottoman court and the patriarchs were important figures. The Ottomons were also much more trustworthy of Slavs, whether Christian or Muslim, than they were of say Arabs. Of course, this changed once it became the Sick Man of Europe.

True, but the point still stands that the Ottomans presided over at least three different genocides and the Byzantines did not. Accusing the Byzantines of being a theocracy (which is absurd) while defending the Ottomans, who literally committed genocide, is...counterproductive, to say the least. That's certainly not to say I don't admire al-Andalus, Abbasid Baghdad, or the Ottomans at their height; I simply find accusing the Byzantines of zealotry while defending the Ottomans to be highly amusing.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I thought I'd come back to this to see the current results and I must say kudos to the Gauls for climbing up as quickly as they did for being a newer addition to the poll! They're sharing the 5th place spot with One of the Individual Italian States (Florence, Genoa, etc.) and Bohemia (Czechs).

Meanwhile, Ireland and Bulgaria are sharing 4th place, 3rd has Armenia and the Goths (or other Migration Era people), 2nd place is the Moors/Andalusia/Cordoba, and a united Italy sits comfortably in 1st.

 

[Sevaljevic]

Tito is mentioned several times,so i would like to say that i think hes the only one that could represent south slavs as one. He avoided capture in 6 enemy offensives on yugoslavian dinaric alps, led one of the only successful rebellions and guerrilla armies in Europe (at the end of the war he had 800 000 soldiers at his command). After the war he made one prosperous country that kinda served as buffer between the west and the east in terms of cooperating with western powers even tho it was one party kind of communist system installed. And last and not the least he formed the Non aligned movement which still exists.
Only bigger countries that could get to get into Civ and are south slavic, could be medieval Serbia and Bulgaria, and the last at some points had really huge territory. Others, well they had they're share of shiny moments, but they were still to small and had no real dominance on the region(Carantania, Croatia, Bosnia, Ragusa or Dubrovnik city state or Kings Landing , Pagania, Travunia, Zahlumlia, Doclea, Zeta and Montenegro)

Nice idea, for me that will be nice to have civ Montenegro, here are just 10 facts about Montenegro:

1. Ivo Vizin from Kotor who was the first of all sloven people who circumnavigated the globe in a vessel called Splendido

2.The Crnojević printing house (Montenegin: Штампарија Црнојевића / Štamparija Crnojevića) or Cetinje printing house (Цетињска штампарија / Cetinjska štamparija), was the first printing house in Southeastern Europe; the facility operated between 1493 and 1496 in Cetinje, Zeta (modern Montenegro)

3.The first radio station in the Balkans and South-East Europe was established in Montenegro with the opening of a transmitter situated on the hill of Volujica near Bar by Knjaz Nikola I Petrović-Njegoš on 3 August 1904.

4. In terms of volume, the Tara River Canyon is Europe’s biggest and second in the world.

5. According to the website www.averageheight.co, which collects data from a variety of sources, only the Dutch are taller, globally, than Montenegrins.

6. Place Crkvice, close to Mount Orjen, is reputed to be the wettest inhabited place in Europe but our capital Podgorica is one of the sunniest capital in Europe

What’s more, it gets 2,480 hours of sunshine a year. London gets a measly 1,410.
7. For a whole lot of heritage packed into a relatively small area, it’s hard to beat Montenegro. It has four World Heritage Sites inside its 13,812 km², or one site per 3,363 km². Only Malta, Lebanon, Israel, Belgium, Cyprus and Switzerland can do better. Durmitor National Park is one; another is the spectacular Bay of Kotor.

8. Oldest olive tree in the world is in Montenegro town Bar

9. Dušan Vukotić is Montenegrin Oscar winner, being the first foreigner to do so. He won an Oscar for best animated short in 1961 for Surogat ("Ersatz"). Another of his films, Igra ("The Game"), was nominated for an Academy Award in 1964.

10. Nikola Tesla is actually from Montenegro, other famous Montenegrin descent: https://www.slavorum.org/10-famous-people-of-montenegrin-descent/

More info about Montenegrin history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Montenegro