Romani Civilization? Feasible? Controversial?

[PhoenicianGold]

Between the recent conversations of how Celtic tribes might be implemented and the atrocities committed by Canada against the Cree, this very prolific and marginalized, yet remarkably homogenous European culture sprang to mind.

• Taboo? Would this, like Eritrea/Aksum, Tibet, and Jerusalem be too controversial for Firaxis to even touch? Or would they take a Cree-like approach in shedding light on past atrocities? Are they controversial for a completely different reason, like say because the parallels to African Americans or Untouchables are stronger than to the Cree or Mapuche?
  
• Design? Would a civilization like this even be feasible without an apparent leader or capital? How could they fudge the rules to include it like they did with the Huns or Venice? Would this be an acceptably blobby way of representing Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and other wanted civs? Too blobby?They do at least have settlements for city names.
  
• Merit? Does it even deserve to be a civ? I would argue yes, in the same sense that Vatican City as the head of the largest corporation and homogenous religious sect in the world is influential enough to deserve consideration. But there are plenty who think that Vatican City is a quintessential City-State, or that it, like other racial/religious states, is too scattered of an idea to ever be included.

Unique Unit could be the Vardo as replacing the Trader, grants additional culture something something. Unique Improvement could be a Paisko Kaer/Trinnolesti that replaces the Amphitheatre. Focus would probably be cultural and economic.

There is one more eery thing I would like to make note of. India no longer uses the Wheel of Asoka for its symbol. Why would they replace what was already the perfect symbol to represent the Mauryan Empire and the Republic of India? One reason, I admit, is because we have a lot of "wheel-ish" symbols already in Macedon, India, and arguably Sumer; but differentiation is an odd argument to make when we also have "flower" symbols in Japan and France. Another reason could be that they are freeing design space for this:

 

[Naktis]

Well , best way they can add them is , as Walachia civ I think. With that iconic leader Vlad , it would be make quite atractive civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well , best way they can add them is , as Walachia civ I think. With that iconic leader Vlad , it would be make quite atractive civ.

Smh.

Romania and the Romani aren't remotely the same thing, aside from Romania just happening to have a large Romani population like many other Eastern European countries. "Romania" derives from the Latin "Rome." "Romani" derives from the Sanskrit "Dam-Pati" and other etymologically similar names.

Neither Vlad nor Wallachia in general were ever "Romani," the only tenous connection Romani have to Wallachia is that one of the first recorded Romani lived there. As a slave. Romania has historically been more Turkic and Roman. Romani are decidedly from the region around northern India.

 

[Greywulf]

First of all, thank you for not using the "G" word, which many Romani people don't like due to severe racial prejudice that still exists today (it's essentially the "N" word for them).

I've thought about them before actually, but in line with my idea of having a more literal nomadic style civ for Civ V's setup, which much like Beyond Earth has water cities that can move, they could have land cities that can move...Would be quite interesting. I don't see it fitting as well in with Civ VI however, as cities are significantly different now.
Aside from their traditionally nomadic lifestyle (which, to be fair, hasn't stopped civs like the Huns and Scythians), to me they are somewhat in a similar category for me as colonial civs. Historically they are rather late, and did not start they way they are as neolithic, nor are they living where they originally came from ~ and that means that a culture that they left could be representing them (England for Australia, Portugal for Brazil). Because of this, for me they do not seem ideal as a civ for the game, but they have added Australia and Brazil, and as mentioned earlier, they have added the Huns and Scythians...This does open the door for a lot of potential civs that wouldn't otherwise be considered. I guess that means we can talk about their inclusion.

It must be asked, which Romani peoples? Or do you mean another blob civ (blob civs have gone out of fashion)? They are actually very diverse, divided into many tribes that are all different, speak different dialects/languages, and don't all get along with each other. I'm assuming you would aim more for the largest European tribe, the Roma, although they have a fair amount of diversity within this one tribe too, and would exclude other European tribes, as well as North African, Middle Eastern, and India/Pakistani tribes (yes, some still live in their original region of the world...Not all of them left into the West).

Finding a UU for them should be quite easy at least, as historically they were often used for mercenaries, and often had specialists. Other abilities for them would have to be done right, as Westerners who know little about this culture are actually very likely to do something that would offend these ethnic groups. Unfortunately there is a lot of bias and misinformation here, so I'm not confident that they would make them right anyway.

Lastly, this would indeed be controversial, as anti-Romanyism (racism against Romani peoples) is very real and very wide spread ~ it would surprise me if we don't get any negative comments in this thread sooner or later (Just wait for it...it'll include something about dishonesty, theft, or cheating).

But hey pal (or I should say "pral"), I wish you luck with it. Latcho drom!

Well , best way they can add them is , as Walachia civ I think. With that iconic leader Vlad , it would be make quite atractive civ.

Actually, I'd imagine India would be a better representation, or probably even more so a Pakistani civ. Granted that the European, North Africa, and Middle Eastern related ethnicities have changed a lot over time, but their origins are from Northwestern India and Pakistan. Countries that traditionally used them as slaves are not likely to be well received as representatives of these unique cultures.

 

[Greywulf]

Here's a 2 part timeline on Romani history (mostly from their history in Europe specifically, but includes their journey to Europe. So much is not included about India/Pakistan, etc...), so maybe this would help with research:

https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1161964-Timeline-of-Romani-History---Part-1--
https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1181284-Timeline-of-Romani-History---Part-2--

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I've thought about them before actually, but in line with my idea of having a more literal nomadic style civ for Civ V's setup, which much like Beyond Earth has water cities that can move, they could have land cities that can move...Would be quite interesting. I don't see it fitting as well in with Civ VI however, as cities are significantly different now.

Yes, they would almost necessarily be a nomadic civ. My thoughts on Civ VI and cities is that the Roma make a lot more sense than the Huns in that they actually have towns and settlements all over the place. From a sheer geographical perspective they are as spread out as the Cree or the Tupi. And they have actually had a massive cultural impact, particularly in art and literature.

Aside from their traditionally nomadic lifestyle (which, to be fair, hasn't stopped civs like the Huns and Scythians), to me they are somewhat in a similar category for me as colonial civs. Historically they are rather late, and did not start they way they are as neolithic, nor are they living where they originally came from ~ and that means that a culture that they left could be representing them (England for Australia, Portugal for Brazil). Because of this, for me they do not seem ideal as a civ for the game, but they have added Australia and Brazil, and as mentioned earlier, they have added the Huns and Scythians...This does open the door for a lot of potential civs that wouldn't otherwise be considered. I guess that means we can talk about their inclusion.

Yes. I never really thought about them as a candidate before, but now that we have smaller civs like Scotland and Georgia and decidely scattered "tribes" like the Mapuche and to a lesser extent the Cree, I am wondering if they are under consideration. That's was the primary inciting incident: if the definition of "civ" has changed again to basically include "cultures" and in particular those which were marginalized by colonial powers, do the Roma even have the potential to qualify? I suppose if I'm willing to talk about this, should we be giving similar consideration to the Jews and Israel who share a similar global cultural network?

It must be asked, which Romani peoples? Or do you mean another blob civ (blob civs have gone out of fashion)? They are actually very diverse, divided into many tribes that are all different, speak different dialects/languages, and don't all get along with each other. I'm assuming you would aim more for the largest European tribe, the Roma, although they have a fair amount of diversity within this one tribe too, and would exclude other European tribes, as well as North African, Middle Eastern, and India/Pakistani tribes (yes, some still live in their original region of the world...Not all of them left into the West).

I am mostly talking about the Roma, although to my understanding the linguistic difference is mostly dialectic, in the same sense that there are different Hebrew dialects.

Finding a UU for them should be quite easy at least, as historically they were often used for mercenaries, and often had specialists. Other abilities for them would have to be done right, as Westerners who know little about this culture are actually very likely to do something that would offend these ethnic groups. Unfortunately there is a lot of bias and misinformation here, so I'm not confident that they would make them right anyway.

The interesting thing I find about them is that they are one of the pioneers of traveling performing troupes, and in doing so are somewhat the historical origin of "theatre for the masses." In fact outside of Shakespeare and the Globe I can't really think of any better examples of this, given that what we often think of as the origins of stage productions were actually made as status signals to be enjoyed by the aristocracy (Verdi, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, etc.). I'm not sure whether Romen troupes began but they were indeed relevant. I don't think it would be improper at all if they received a unique amphitheatre replacement.

Lastly, this would indeed be controversial, as antiziganism (racism against Romani peoples) is very real and very wide spread ~ it would surprise me if we don't get any negative comments in this thread sooner or later (Just wait for it...it'll include something about dishonesty, theft, or cheating).

I anticipate them; it's a complex subject. But I live in a state with high populations of Native Americans and Mexican immigrants, and despite American subjugation of both for centuries, large patches of poverty and crime, and present and popular racist sentiment against both, I still think both are still culturally relevant people that deserve to be part of western ideas of "civilization." And that, generally and especially in the case of subjugated and/or belligerent minorities, that they can and should be represented in globalist media as their best selves. It improves their reputation in the eyes of the dominant culture, and it gives the darker sides of their cultures something admirable to aspire toward.

So while I've had a conversation or two in the past with Europeans who believe the Roma are awful, destructive forces, I don't ascribe much weight to those opinions. Every culture is a plague on humanity if you only focus on its bad side and frame it as an obstruction to an impossibly perfect life.

Actually, I'd imagine India would be a better representation, or probably even more so a Pakistani civ. Granted that the European, North Africa, and Middle Eastern related ethnicities have changed a lot over time, but their origins are from Northwestern India and Pakistan. Countries that traditionally used them as slaves are not likely to be well received as representatives of these unique cultures.

The Dom/Domi people might be a better compromise on the topic. They are probably the original source of the migration (like we've talked about the Tonga in your Polynesia civ. They probably have a better pool of leaders that represent that specific region of Romani (I haven't checked). They avoid European and American antiziganism and would only reflect local racist issues which isn't all that different from Canada-Cree or Chilean-Mapuche relations. I'd need to do more research on the topic but I can't think of many other cultural identities that have spread as far as the Roma. Just the big empires: Turks, Mongols, Romans, Arabians, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese. And the African slave trade by proxy but that's loaded with a bunch of issues I don't care to address atm, but we are hopefully getting a lot of representation of the diversity that was brought over through civs like Kongo. Even if the Romani were brought over to Europe as slaves, representing their original Indo-Aryan region I think is an incredibly pragmatic way of doing so. It's a great idea on your part.

 

[Greywulf]

Yes, they would almost necessarily be a nomadic civ. My thoughts on Civ VI and cities is that the Roma make a lot more sense than the Huns in that they actually have towns and settlements all over the place. From a sheer geographical perspective they are as spread out as the Cree or the Tupi. And they have actually had a massive cultural impact, particularly in art and literature.



Yes. I never really thought about them as a candidate before, but now that we have smaller civs like Scotland and Georgia and decidely scattered "tribes" like the Mapuche and to a lesser extent the Cree, I am wondering if they are under consideration. That's was the primary inciting incident: if the definition of "civ" has changed again to basically include "cultures" and in particular those which were marginalized by colonial powers, do the Roma even have the potential to qualify? I suppose if I'm willing to talk about this, should we be giving similar consideration to the Jews and Israel who share a similar global cultural network?



I am mostly talking about the Roma, although to my understanding the linguistic difference is mostly dialectic, in the same sense that there are different Hebrew dialects.



The interesting thing I find about them is that they are one of the pioneers of traveling performing troupes, and in doing so are somewhat the historical origin of "theatre for the masses." In fact outside of Shakespeare and the Globe I can't really think of any better examples of this, given that what we often think of as the origins of stage productions were actually made as status signals to be enjoyed by the aristocracy (Verdi, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, etc.). I'm not sure whether Romen troupes began but they were indeed relevant. I don't think it would be improper at all if they received a unique amphitheatre replacement.



I anticipate them; it's a complex subject. But I live in a state with high populations of Native Americans and Mexican immigrants, and despite American subjugation of both for centuries, large patches of poverty and crime, and present and popular racist sentiment against both, I still think both are still culturally relevant people that deserve to be part of western ideas of "civilization." And that, generally and especially in the case of subjugated and/or belligerent minorities, that they can and should be represented in globalist media as their best selves. It improves their reputation in the eyes of the dominant culture, and it gives the darker sides of their cultures something admirable to aspire toward.

So while I've had a conversation or two in the past with Europeans who believe the Roma are awful, destructive forces, I don't ascribe much weight to those opinions. Every culture is a plague on humanity if you only focus on its bad side and frame it as an obstruction to an impossibly perfect life.



The Dom/Domi people might be a better compromise on the topic. They are probably the original source of the migration (like we've talked about the Tonga in your Polynesia civ. They probably have a better pool of leaders that represent that specific region of Romani (I haven't checked). They avoid European and American antiziganism and would only reflect local racist issues which isn't all that different from Canada-Cree or Chilean-Mapuche relations. I'd need to do more research on the topic but I can't think of many other cultural identities that have spread as far as the Roma. Just the big empires: Turks, Mongols, Romans, Arabians, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese. And the African slave trade by proxy but that's loaded with a bunch of issues I don't care to address atm, but we are hopefully getting a lot of representation of the diversity that was brought over through civs like Kongo. Even if the Romani were brought over to Europe as slaves, representing their original Indo-Aryan region I think is an incredibly pragmatic way of doing so. It's a great idea on your part.

I noticed you have Scaramuccia as a suggested leader. This is really not a good choice, as it would make the Romani seem more like a joke than anything else, and that wouldn't go down well among Romani communities. Also, there have been many Kings of the various Romani tribes, including female "Kings"...They just don't appear much in history books, and aren't well known outside of Romani communities. You can get lists of historical leaders for them. Also, currently (last I checked anyway) there are two different men who claim to be Emperor of all Romani people too, but I haven't seen them do much if anything at all for the extreme poverty of their own people within their own countries.

Another cool fact that is encouraging is how much Romany language has influenced English. English speakers use Romany terms without even knowing about it, although the meanings have sometimes changed significantly ("lollipops" were originally candy apples ~ Loli pabai means "red apples"). You might be surprised what words originate from the languages of the Romani people.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Here's a 2 part timeline on Romani history (mostly from their history in Europe specifically, but includes their journey to Europe. So much is not included about India/Pakistan, etc...), so maybe this would help with research:

https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1161964-Timeline-of-Romani-History---Part-1--
https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1181284-Timeline-of-Romani-History---Part-2--

"Prince Vlad Dracul of Wallachia transports some 12,000 persons "who look like Egyptians" from Bulgaria for slave labor."

Oh. OH. That's a worse idea than even I thought.

This history is depressing. The Roma are probably one of the most historically put-upon people for the better part of a milennium. It seems like nearly every European power had it out for them at some point or another. The fact that they still exist at all as a separate entity is more than a small miracle.

It would be fairly difficult to represent them with a leader, since they never seemed to ever hold any positions of power. The closest thing to it was a 4 month king of Moldavia. In the modern era you have the International Romani Union but it was only founded in 1967 and all of its more prominent leaders are still alive. Except maybe Ionel Rotaru who founded the World Gypsy Community in 1959 that was its predecessor; I can't find any birth or death records of him but it's possible he's fair game. The CMG is now seeking to issue its own passports, which I find extremely interesting if that succeeded because it would set it up further for nation status and make it even more close to a "virtual global country" like the Vatican is. I find the idea of phyles replacing nation-states extremely intriguing.

As for historical leaders, there don't seem to be any records of them in the centuries of recruitment/enslavement that preceded their formal observation around the 14th and 15th centuries. However, one thing I find interesting, if extremely tenuous, is that the "Sindhi" which were mentioned as being taken as slaves may coincide with the "Sinti". Which, if this unsupported linguistic assertion is true, would mean that at least some portion of the Roma came from the Indus River Valley region. Even though this region was controlled by many different dynasties, if the Roma were never in control and never migrated, they may have been there forever, as far back as to maybe derive from the Mohen-jo-Daro or one of their neighbors. This would mean that the Roma could feasibly be traced through a long contiguous lineage back to one of the five cradles of civilization. There is at least some small possibility that the Roma are as historically significant as the offshoots of Egypt, Sumeria, and the Olmec. Which would be really, really cool if true.

I like it. If Scythia can get in as a representation of PIE culture, then surely we can find a way to twist this conspiracy theory into a civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I noticed you have Scaramuccia as a suggested leader. This is really not a good choice, as it would make the Romani seem more like a joke than anything else, and that wouldn't go down well among Romani communities. Also, there have been many Kings of the various Romani tribes, including female "Kings"...They just don't appear much in history books, and aren't well known outside of Romani communities. You can get lists of historical leaders for them. Also, currently (last I checked anyway) there are two different men who claim to be Emperor of all Romani people too, but I haven't seen them do much if anything at all for the extreme poverty of their own people within their own countries.

I know. He's a placeholder until I can find someone who actually existed and wasn't a jester. I've seen a lot of "Kings" declared but they seem to be closer to "Doms" than anything else. I'd much rather have someone who works more like a central figure, but so far the closest thing I've come up with is Kelly Mitchell. And I think we can probably do better than that.

Another cool fact that is encouraging is how much Romany language has influenced English. English speakers use Romany terms without even knowing about it, although the meanings have sometimes changed significantly ("lollipops" were originally candy apples ~ Loli pabai means "red apples"). You might be surprised what words originate from the languages of the Romani people.

I did not know this, but I'm honestly not surprised. The Roma are everywhere in the background of Western history. It really is a fascinating culture.

 

[Greywulf]

"Prince Vlad Dracul of Wallachia transports some 12,000 persons "who look like Egyptians" from Bulgaria for slave labor."

Oh. OH. That's a worse idea than even I thought.

This history is depressing. The Roma are probably one of the most historically put-upon people for the better part of a milennium. It seems like nearly every European power had it out for them at some point or another. The fact that they still exist at all as a separate entity is more than a small miracle.

It would be fairly difficult to represent them with a leader, since they never seemed to ever hold any positions of power. The closest thing to it was a 4 month king of Moldavia. In the modern era you have the International Romani Union but it was only founded in 1967 and all of its more prominent leaders are still alive. Except maybe Ionel Rotaru who founded the World Gypsy Community in 1959 that was its predecessor; I can't find any birth or death records of him but it's possible he's fair game. The CMG is now seeking to issue its own passports, which I find extremely interesting if that succeeded because it would set it up further for nation status and make it even more close to a "virtual global country" like the Vatican is. I find the idea of phyles replacing nation-states extremely intriguing.

As for historical leaders, there don't seem to be any records of them in the centuries of recruitment/enslavement that preceded their formal observation around the 14th and 15th centuries. However, one thing I find interesting, if extremely tenuous, is that the "Sindhi" which were mentioned as being taken as slaves may coincide with the "Sinti". Which, if this unsupported linguistic assertion is true, would mean that at least some portion of the Roma came from the Indus River Valley region. Even though this region was controlled by many different dynasties, if the Roma were never in control and never migrated, they may have been there forever, as far back as to maybe derive from the Mohen-jo-Daro or one of their neighbors. This would mean that the Roma could feasibly be traced through a long contiguous lineage back to one of the five cradles of civilization. There is at least some small possibility that the Roma are as historically significant as the offshoots of Egypt, Sumeria, and the Olmec. Which would be really, really cool if true.

I like it. If Scythia can get in as a representation of PIE culture, then surely we can find a way to twist this conspiracy theory into a civ.

"Roma" usually refers specifically to the largest of the tribes in Europe, which cover just about all of Eastern Europe and Russia. It basically means "men", while a "Rom" is a man. Other tribes do not generally think of themselves as "Roma", but think of themselves by their respective tribe names: For instance in Europe the major tribes there are the Sinti, Manuch, there are major tribes of Kale, Romanichal, and Romanisael. They are culturally and linguistically diverse from eachother, but all related to the original Romani who entered Europe just before the 14th Century (historically about the worst time to enter Europe) These are divided up into subgroups, and then into clans. Each clan can has its own leader.
Note: Irish Travelers are not a related ethnic group, and are culturally and linguistically independent (they are Celtic), however there were intermarriages between the two ethnicities at some point, so some Irish Travelers can authentically claim to also be Romani.

I was thinking of a possible unique for the Romani: The Kris. It is a judicial court held by the Romani people in order to determine guilt and punishment ~ and the punishments can be quite severe.

Yes, it is believed that the term Sinti is directly from Sindhi. Regardless of that, these people did all originate from the Indus River Valley region, although the history is vague before that.
The popular, but now offencive term which I shall just call the "G" word comes from the historical belief that the Romani were actually Egyptians ("Gyptians"). This was a misconception, as many Turks and Europeans were seeing these people for the first time, not understanding their language, and noticing that they had dark skin and wore jewelry ~ even the men wore some jewelry, but probably not any earrings...In some tribes/clans earrings on men is not acceptable. The original meaning of the term is not in itself offencive, as even if it were true, there's nothing wrong with being Egyptian. However it has come to be closely associated with racism, much like the "N" word for African Americans.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

"Roma" usually refers specifically to the largest of the tribes in Europe, which cover just about all of Eastern Europe and Russia. It basically means "men", while a "Rom" is a man. Other tribes do not generally think of themselves as "Roma", but think of themselves by their respective tribe names: For instance in Europe the major tribes there are the Sinti, Manuch, there are major tribes of Kale, Romanichal, and Romanisael. They are culturally and linguistically diverse from eachother, but all related to the original Romani who entered Europe just before the 14th Century (historically about the worst time to enter Europe) These are divided up into subgroups, and then into clans. Each clan can has its own leader.

Clans. Scotland. Autoinclude. There are differences, of course, but again despite the vast geographic spread they are still far more culturally unified than not, particularly in how they self-organize and express themselves culturally. Particularly linguistically, since as far as I can tell all four major groups of the Romany Macrofamily are still classified as "dialects" rather than separate languages. I admit I don't know much about the language family but I'd guess it probably lies somewhere on the spectrum between Scandinavian/Western Romance and Chinese/Arabic. I'm not saying it wouldn't have traces of blobbiness, but it would certainly make a lot more sense than a Native American or Celtic blob civ, and in my opinion even more than a Polynesian blob civ. Not all Polynesians rally around the Maoi heads; I don't think any Roma would complain at being represented by a Kris or Theatrehouse.

I was thinking of a possible unique for the Romani: The Kris. It is a judicial court held by the Romani people in order to determine guilt and punishment ~ and the punishments can be quite severe.

It's harsh, but a fair idea. I'd think it would have fit in much better with V's grimdark aesthetic than VI's Disney aesthetic. Hence why I think if Firaxis is honestly considering this as a civ they're gonna go full-on Esmeralda and Clopin with the thing. Music and dancing and--what systemic oppression?--nothing is wrong with the world.

Yes, it is believed that the term Sinti is directly from Sindhi. Regardless of that, these people did all originate from the Indus River Valley region, although the history is vague before that.
The popular, but now offencive term which I shall just call the "G" word comes from the historical belief that the Romani were actually Egyptians ("Gyptians"). This was a misconception, as many Turks and Europeans were seeing these people for the first time, not understanding their language, and noticing that they had dark skin and wore jewelry ~ even the men wore some jewelry, but probably not any earrings...In some tribes/clans earrings on men is not acceptable. The original meaning of the term is not in itself offencive, as even if it were true, there's nothing wrong with being Egyptian. However it has come to be closely associated with racism, much like the "N" word for African Americans.

It's actually geographically more analogous to the use of the word "Indian," even if it like the N-word it was spread primarily through slavery, achieved a pejorative status, and indeed in modern times has been appropriated by the culture in question to an extent as an act of defiance (albeit to a lesser extent). The problem is that many pejorative word derive from purely descriptive origins. "Negro," from which it derives, is a perfectly serviceable (if primitive and reductionist and technically not as accurate as "dark") way to describe someone's melanin-levels; however, even if we had a much more robust classification systems, say a series of neutrally or even positively descriptive tones like cream, olive, caramel, coffee, chocolate, boy I'm hungry now--people are ignorant and terrible and they will still ultimately find a way to associate prejudice with superficial characteristics. Given that we literally have all the evidence in the world now that skin color doesn't reliably correlate to personality and cultural heritage (and similarly neither do sweeping geographic generalizations like "Egyptian" and "Orientalism"), I just don't see a strong reason for the persistence of these terms except as a convenient source of othering people.

 

[Greywulf]

Clans. Scotland. Autoinclude. There are differences, of course, but again despite the vast geographic spread they are still far more culturally unified than not, particularly in how they self-organize and express themselves culturally. Particularly linguistically, since as far as I can tell all four major groups of the Romany Macrofamily are still classified as "dialects" rather than separate languages. I admit I don't know much about the language family but I'd guess it probably lies somewhere on the spectrum between Scandinavian/Western Romance and Chinese/Arabic. I'm not saying it wouldn't have traces of blobbiness, but it would certainly make a lot more sense than a Native American or Celtic blob civ, and in my opinion even more than a Polynesian blob civ. Not all Polynesians rally around the Maoi heads; I don't think any Roma would complain at being represented by a Kris or Theatrehouse.

It's harsh, but a fair idea. I'd think it would have fit in much better with V's grimdark aesthetic than VI's Disney aesthetic. Hence why I think if Firaxis is honestly considering this as a civ they're gonna go full-on Esmeralda and Clopin with the thing. Music and dancing and--what systemic oppression?--nothing is wrong with the world.

Theatrehouse would also work quite well, especially with theatres like the Romen Theatre in Moscow. I could settle for either a Romen Theatre style unique, or the Kris court. It's good to have multiple ideas that are fitting.

Unfortunately, the novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame is also quite racist, although at least the movie isn't nearly as bad, but is a bit subtly. Also, the character Esmeralda in the movie is quite a flattering Manuch tribe woman, and is one of my favourite Disney Princesses. Considering the novel they based the film on, and that it was created by Westerners who knew little about the Romani, I think they actually did a fair job there. Hopefully the remake will be more researched, but in my opinion they can keep Esmeralda the same.

It's actually geographically more analogous to the use of the word "Indian," even if it like the N-word it was spread primarily through slavery, achieved a pejorative status, and indeed in modern times has been appropriated by the culture in question to an extent as an act of defiance (albeit to a lesser extent). The problem is that many pejorative word derive from purely descriptive origins. "Negro," from which it derives, is a perfectly serviceable (if primitive and reductionist and technically not as accurate as "dark") way to describe someone's melanin-levels; however, even if we had a much more robust classification systems, say a series of neutrally or even positively descriptive tones like cream, olive, caramel, coffee, chocolate, boy I'm hungry now--people are ignorant and terrible and they will still ultimately find a way to associate prejudice with superficial characteristics. Given that we literally have all the evidence in the world now that skin color doesn't reliably correlate to personality and cultural heritage (and similarly neither do sweeping geographic generalizations like "Egyptian" and "Orientalism"), I just don't see a strong reason for the persistence of these terms except as a convenient source of othering people.

There are lots of misrepresenting terms out there...Why are Native Americans called "Indians" for example? Someone got it wrong somewhere along the line, and the name stuck. Is it a bad thing? Aside from potentially symbolizing misconception, if it's not used in a derogatory way by anyway then I don't really see a problem with it. It's when the meaning behind the terms change to something negative and meant to offend that it starts to become an issue. In the case of the "N" word and "G" word, this is exactly what has happened.


By the way, what about this man as a potential leader...

Ștefan Răzvan was a 16th Century ruler of Moldavia who had a Roma father.

Might be a little off, but it's also on the right track, and shouldn't be found offencive nor taken as a joke. Also it's moving away from the modern leaders.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Theatrehouse would also work quite well, especially with theatres like the Romen Theatre in Moscow. I could settle for either a Romen Theatre style unique, or the Kris court. It's good to have multiple ideas that are fitting.

Yes, I think it lends credibility to the idea that these cultures even deserve to be considered when we can point to several iconic ways they have been influential.

Unfortunately, the novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame is also quite racist, although at least the movie isn't nearly as bad, but is a bit subtly. Also, the character Esmeralda in the movie is quite a flattering Manuch tribe woman, and is one of my favourite Disney Princesses. Considering the novel they based the film on, and that it was created by Westerners who knew little about the Romani, I think they actually did a fair job there. Hopefully the remake will be more researched, but in my opinion they can keep Esmeralda the same.

I mean, the point of the novel was to focus on the death of architecture and to make Hugo some goddamn money, so of course the characters were shallow. There's also the small issue that Esmeralda in the book wasn't even Romani. Disney actually made a lot of really sensible changes in their adaptation, and the thing really had the potential to be great were it not run into the ground by committee design. I think Esmeralda in particular was fantastically realized in that film and could easily be seen as its epicenter (although this particular artistic decision applies to most adaptations and indeed the original novel to a large extent).

There are lots of misrepresenting terms out there...Why are Native Americans called "Indians" for example? Someone got it wrong somewhere along the line, and the name stuck. Is it a bad thing? Aside from potentially symbolizing misconception, if it's not used in a derogatory way by anyway then I don't really see a problem with it. It's when the meaning behind the terms change to something negative and meant to offend that it starts to become an issue. In the case of the "N" word and "G" word, this is exactly what has happened.

Ehhhhhh it's still derogatory-ish in some places. I still have had conversations with people that pull out the "dot Indian or feather Indian" question for clarification and it's just...tacky and regressive. Just use Native American. It's unambiguous and generally less inaccurate.

By the way, what about this man as a potential leader...

Ștefan Răzvan was a 16th Century ruler of Moldavia who had a Roma father.

Might be a little off, but it's also on the right track, and shouldn't be found offencive nor taken as a joke. Also it's moving away from the modern leaders.

I stumbled on him. He wouldn't be offensive, but maybe just yet another reminder that the Roma have never really had power? Even when they did manage to snag rulership, it was only a third of Romania, and it was only for four months before getting violently deposed.

That said, it's in Romania, which is a fun little coincidence, and in completely a better direction than Vlad. Wouldn't it be funny to just have a "Romania" civ lead by Stefan? An inside joke that only Roma and people who know their history would understand, and a surreptitious way of stealing that part of Europe back for themselves away from Roman/Turkic influences.

 

[Greywulf]

Yes, I think it lends credibility to the idea that these cultures even deserve to be considered when we can point to several iconic ways they have been influential.

That reminds me, there are quite a few outstanding famous people who were Romani or of Romani decent...

Elvis Prisley (Sinti)
Pablo Picasso (Iberian Kale)
Yul Brynner (Ruski Roma)
Charlie Chaplin (Romanichal)
Michael Caine (Romanichal)
...Just to name a few.

They also heavily influenced Flamenco dancing.

I mean, the point of the novel was to focus on the death of architecture and to make Hugo some goddamn money, so of course the characters were shallow. There's also the small issue that Esmeralda in the book wasn't even Romani. Disney actually made a lot of really sensible changes in their adaptation, and the thing really had the potential to be great were it not run into the ground by committee design. I think Esmeralda in particular was fantastically realized in that film and could easily be seen as its epicenter (although this particular artistic decision applies to most adaptations and indeed the original novel to a large extent).

I'm looking forward to the movie remake with both interest and nervous anticipation...They could so easily get this wrong, but perhaps they will get it right. I almost don't want to look, but it's happening nonetheless, so I'm hoping they communicate with the Romani community this time.

Ehhhhhh it's still derogatory-ish in some places. I still have had conversations with people that pull out the "dot Indian or feather Indian" question for clarification and it's just...tacky and regressive. Just use Native American. It's unambiguous and generally less inaccurate.

Yes, personally I don't call Native Americans "Indians" either. That was just another similar example.

This is what I think of when people say "Cowboys and Indians"...

I stumbled on him. He wouldn't be offensive, but maybe just yet another reminder that the Roma have never really had power? Even when they did manage to snag rulership, it was only a third of Romania, and it was only for four months before getting violently deposed.

That said, it's in Romania, which is a fun little coincidence, and in completely a better direction than Vlad. Wouldn't it be funny to just have a "Romania" civ lead by Stefan? An inside joke that only Roma and people who know their history would understand, and a surreptitious way of stealing that part of Europe back for themselves away from Roman/Turkic influences.

They really never had much political power over other nations, which isn't really surprising at all ~ the little they did achieve in this regard is already impressive. It's more so their cultural influence than political influence that is meritable. If we can find a historical Romani King who ruled over just Romani people, that would be ideal. There were many, but they seldom made the history books. Perhaps we can find one for the Domi tribe, which would be more to the core of this ancient culture.

 

[Greywulf]

Hey look, somebody else has already posted a thread on this (Heads up: They use the "G" word, and someone suggested a really offencive leader choice): https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gypsy-civ-idea-worth-to-be-seen.521769/

 

[PhoenicianGold]

That reminds me, there are quite a few outstanding famous people who were Romani or of Romani decent...

Elvis Prisley (Sinti)
Pablo Picasso (Iberian Kale)
Yul Brynner (Ruski Roma)
Charlie Chaplin (Romanichal)
Michael Caine (Romanichal)
...Just to name a few.

They also heavily influenced Flamenco dancing.

Dame Helen Mirren leads the Romani in Sid Meier's Civilization VI!

Yes, personally I don't call Native Americans "Indians" either. That was just another similar example.

This is what I think of when people say "Cowboys and Indians"...

Heh. I think of this guy from The Fall:

They really never had much political power over other nations, which isn't really surprising at all ~ the little they did achieve in this regard is already impressive. It's more so their cultural influence than political influence that is meritable. If we can find a historical Romani King who ruled over just Romani people, that would be ideal. There were many, but they seldom made the history books. Perhaps we can find one for the Domi tribe, which would be more to the core of this ancient culture.

I'm diving into wikipedia atm and I'm still coming up short. It doesn't look like the Dom ever claimed territory either, and I'm not finding any evidence of kings from the Sygynnae. Firaxis would have to do some legitimate historical research to uncover any leaders from older tribes I think.

I mean, if we hold on to the trend that (European) civs are represented at their height of political power, maybe Stefan represents that?

Hey look, somebody else has already posted a thread on this (Heads up: They use the "G" word, and someone suggested a really offencive leader choice): https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gypsy-civ-idea-worth-to-be-seen.521769/

I see they liked the vardo idea for a unit as well. They made it replace the chariot archer, which may be a better choice than the trader, because it would feel weird for Romani to have chariots. I think the wagon fair is...fine...but not as interesting as what we've come up with. There's more dimension to the Romani than just wagons. Diaspora is probably a good building point for a UA.

 

[Greywulf]

Dame Helen Mirren leads the Romani in Sid Meier's Civilization VI!

Lol!

I'm diving into wikipedia atm and I'm still coming up short. It doesn't look like the Dom ever claimed territory either, and I'm not finding any evidence of kings from the Sygynnae. Firaxis would have to do some legitimate historical research to uncover any leaders from older tribes I think.

I mean, if we hold on to the trend that (European) civs are represented at their height of political power, maybe Stefan represents that?

Yeah, Wikipedia is quite limited, and isn't completely accurate anyway.

Perhaps Stefan would work, though I would still prefer we found a good example of a historical Romani King.

I see they liked the vardo idea for a unit as well. They made it replace the chariot archer, which may be a better choice than the trader, because it would feel weird for Romani to have chariots. I think the wagon fair is...fine...but not as interesting as what we've come up with. There's more dimension to the Romani than just wagons. Diaspora is probably a good building point for a UA.

The vardo never was a military unit, so it would work much better as a unique civilian unit, perhaps with some ability that helps with culture ~ not sure how to implement that exactly, but hey, it would actually make sense. Could be like a trade unit, but generates culture as well as wealth, which would be realistic to the culture. If we want a military UU, then the most realistic would be a type of mercenary unit, maybe a specialist mercenary. The Romani were often involved in wars, and some clans made it their specialty (similar to the Aztecs for a time). Romani clans each had their own specialty. Some specialized with horses, some metalwork, some music and entertainment, some hunting, some more nefarious activities (which gave the rest a bad name), and some fighting. For a time in Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages it was not uncommon for armies to hire Romani mercenaries, and since some groups specialized in this field, they were rather good at it too.

So here's what we could have so far...

UU1: Vardo (non-military, replaces Trader). In addition to trader abilities, also generates culture.
UU2: Roma Merc (replaces Horseman?). Strong, yet low maintenance military unit that can be hired out to other civs for gold.
UB: Romen Theatre (replaces Amphitheater). Generates additional great writer/artist/musician points.

I think these three would each be culturally/historically accurate for the game, and actually I have to say that however realistic the Romani would be as a civ, I would enjoy playing with these UX.

Colors: Green and blue (Earth and sky)
Symbol: Wagon wheel of freedom

Other possible concepts to think about...

Romanipen. Some ability that strengthens their culture. Romani people held onto their culture very well, despite living in foreign countries. They did largely by keeping to themselves, and not mixing with the Gadjo (non-Romani). This is part of Romanipen (Romani culture) is very prevalent among all the tribes. I would imagine that a cultural victory would be what the Romani civ would typically aim for.

Latcho Drom. We could possibly work some ability relating to their diaspora as well, though not sure what that would mean in Civ VI?

Porajmos. The Romani were victims of the holocaust, losing at least 50% of their total population in Europe, but still managed to survive the attempt of genocide, and despite that are now Europe's largest minority group. This could mean that they can endure Dark Ages more effectively, or it could mean that when they get out of a Dark Age they get some extra bonus.

What do you think?


~ Just thought: If Firaxis actually went and did this (and did it properly), they would literally be helping to fight all the prejudice, and helping people to learn about these unique cultures. They could help more people to learn not to call Romani people the "G" word...They could make a difference!
I'm starting to actually want this to happen, lol...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The vardo never was a military unit, so it would work much better as a unique civilian unit, perhaps with some ability that helps with culture ~ not sure how to implement that exactly, but hey, it would actually make sense. Could be like a trade unit, but generates culture as well as wealth, which would be realistic to the culture. If we want a military UU, then the most realistic would be a type of mercenary unit, maybe a specialist mercenary. The Romani were often involved in wars, and some clans made it their specialty (similar to the Aztecs for a time). Romani clans each had their own specialty. Some specialized with horses, some metalwork, some music and entertainment, some hunting, some more nefarious activities (which gave the rest a bad name), and some fighting. For a time in Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages it was not uncommon for armies to hire Romani mercenaries, and since some groups specialized in this field, they were rather good at it too.

So here's what we could have so far...

UU1: Vardo (non-military, replaces Trader). In addition to trader abilities, also generates culture.
UU2: Roma Merc (replaces Horseman?). Strong, yet low maintenance military unit that can be hired out to other civs for gold.
UB: Romen Theatre (replaces Amphitheater). Generates additional great writer/artist/musician points.

I think these three would each be culturally/historically accurate for the game, and actually I have to say that however realistic the Romani would be as a civ, I would enjoy playing with these UX.

Colors: Green and blue.
Symbol: Wagon wheel of freedom.

I would be fine with a Romani merc if we had to have a military unit; I'm torn because on the one hand I want more civs without military units, but at this point VI is structured in a way that practically necessitates they have one. So if they have one, a cavalry unit is the perfect choice. The Vardo can replace either the chariot or the trader, but I agree that it should be a non-military unit.

Otherwise, I like the abilities and bonuses you've given them, and the cavalry unit does flesh the civ out a bit. I'm pretty ambivalent about which of the three colors we pick as well, since between Norway, Indonesia, Morocco, and the Cree many similar combinations probably exist.

Other possible concepts to think about...

Romanipen. Some ability that strengthens their culture. Romani people held onto their culture very well, despite living in foreign countries. They did largely by keeping to themselves, and not mixing with the Gadjo (non-Romani). This is part of Romanipen (Romani culture) is very prevalent among all the tribes. I would imagine that a cultural victory would be what the Romani civ would typically aim for.

Latcho Drom. We could possibly work some ability relating to their diaspora as well, though not sure what that would mean in Civ VI?

Porajmos. The Romani were victims of the holocaust, losing at least 50% of their total population in Europe, but still managed to survive the attempt of genocide, and despite that are now Europe's largest minority group. This could mean that they can endure Dark Ages more effectively, or it could mean that when they get out of a Dark Age they get some extra bonus.

What do you think?

Indisputably culture would be the Romani focus. It's really the only thing that unites them as a people. I wholly support this (and another reason why I was leaning toward theatres).

Latchro Drom could be a leader ability. Probably something to do with extra defense of moving and/or escorted units? I haven't put much thought into the mechanics but it could work.

I like the Dark Age bonus idea as well. Imo a much better fit for the Romani than the Golden Age bonus for Georgia. Georgia.

~ Just thought: If Firaxis actually went and did this (and did it properly), they would literally be helping to fight all the prejudice, and helping people to learn about these unique cultures. They could help more people to learn not to call Romani people the "G" word...They could make a difference!
I'm starting to actually want this to happen, lol...

I had this thought as well. In fact, like I mentioned in the OP, the amount of good the media coverage did for exonerating the Cree makes me wonder if other Civ decisions could have sociopolitical impacts. I'm half waiting for England to just let Scotland secede in a year or two. Giving the Romani positive press I think would only do good things for them; the actual backlash would likely be from non-Roma Europeans who complain of crime rates (like if we had an African American civ). The thing is, aside from the fact that African Americans represent a much less isolated demographic, the Republic of New Afrika never really took off; the International Romani Union is a registered NGO that is well on its way to becoming a recognized micronation. And if Scotland is any indication, actual political autonomy is nowhere near as important as peer acknowledgement as a separate state.

I'm actually really liking the structure of this civ as well. We don't really have any civs built around artists yet, and the Romani--ignoring all of the other edgy things about them--are actually an excellent representation of that. And I like I said, the wheel of ashoka is missing for no particularly strong reason, so maybe the devs are already floating the idea of a Romani civ. I suspect the Cree and Mapuche aren't the last "peoples" that will be included in VI.

 

[Greywulf]

I would be fine with a Romani merc if we had to have a military unit; I'm torn because on the one hand I want more civs without military units, but at this point VI is structured in a way that practically necessitates they have one. So if they have one, a cavalry unit is the perfect choice. The Vardo can replace either the chariot or the trader, but I agree that it should be a non-military unit.

Otherwise, I like the abilities and bonuses you've given them, and the cavalry unit does flesh the civ out a bit. I'm pretty ambivalent about which of the three colors we pick as well, since between Norway, Indonesia, Morocco, and the Cree many similar combinations probably exist.

I'm liking both of these UU ideas, so I'm not sure which one I like best at the moment. If the Romani are to be really culture focused, and are allowed to not have any military UU, then the vardo is actually quite a cool choice for a culture bearing trader unit. That being said, I'm excited about the idea that you can hire out military units to other civs, and gain gold from it, but no negative affects from their military campaigns (like warmongering penalty).

Indisputably culture would be the Romani focus. It's really the only thing that unites them as a people. I wholly support this (and another reason why I was leaning toward theatres).

Latchro Drom could be a leader ability. Probably something to do with extra defense of moving and/or escorted units? I haven't put much thought into the mechanics but it could work.

I like the Dark Age bonus idea as well. Imo a much better fit for the Romani than the Golden Age bonus for Georgia. Georgia.

Ok, a defencive ability with moving/escorting units would be fitting actually. The Romani learnt early on in history to be cautious travelers, and to get out of a place if something bad was about to happen, and in some cases even to carry weapons, so this would be in harmony with such an ability. Perhaps military units who are on or adjacent to civilian units have a defence bonus? Could be quite strategic.

Would it be too much focus on culture if their UU, UB, and UA all were culture bonuses? Don't want to make a cultural victory to easy for them, or their culture to OP.

I had this thought as well. In fact, like I mentioned in the OP, the amount of good the media coverage did for exonerating the Cree makes me wonder if other Civ decisions could have sociopolitical impacts. I'm half waiting for England to just let Scotland secede in a year or two. Giving the Romani positive press I think would only do good things for them; the actual backlash would likely be from non-Roma Europeans who complain of crime rates (like if we had an African American civ). The thing is, aside from the fact that African Americans represent a much less isolated demographic, the Republic of New Afrika never really took off; the International Romani Union is a registered NGO that is well on its way to becoming a recognized micronation. And if Scotland is any indication, actual political autonomy is nowhere near as important as peer acknowledgement as a separate state.

I'm actually really liking the structure of this civ as well. We don't really have any civs built around artists yet, and the Romani--ignoring all of the other edgy things about them--are actually an excellent representation of that. And I like I said, the wheel of ashoka is missing for no particularly strong reason, so maybe the devs are already floating the idea of a Romani civ. I suspect the Cree and Mapuche aren't the last "peoples" that will be included in VI.

I don't think they would have considered this idea before to be honest, as it's not one that seems like a likely choice for a civ (despite the fact that they have added nomadic civs before, among other things). This might be something that would actually consider however, especially if they are designed well, and if they realize that they would be helping to make a positive difference in the real world ~ even if they are not ideal candidates as civs for Civ VI, that fact about making a difference alone makes them worth considering. If this game can help make a real difference, then I'm happy to forgo a bit of realism to achieve that. Firaxis are big, and reach a lot of people. If they have it in their power to do something with their games that help reduce real world problems such as racism, then I sincerely hope that they do this.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm liking both of these UU ideas, so I'm not sure which one I like best at the moment. If the Romani are to be really culture focused, and are allowed to not have any military UU, then the vardo is actually quite a cool choice for a culture bearing trader unit. That being said, I'm excited about the idea that you can hire out military units to other civs, and gain gold from it, but no negative affects from their military campaigns (like warmongering penalty).

Vardo probably has more resonance and, again, fits with the Disney aesthetic. But there's no reason why the leader can't have a unique mercenary unit. That also avoids any criticism of characterizing the Romani as "barbarians"--it wouldn't be representing them as a whole, just the leader.

But then we'd need to find a leader for which the mercenary makes sense...hmmmmmmmmm maybe the Moldavian army had mercs. If they were Romani mercs they would have been slaves or ex-slaves, but it would still be something. I admit I'm at a complete loss of good sources on this.

Ok, a defencive ability with moving/escorting units would be fitting actually. The Romani learnt early on in history to be cautious travelers, and to get out of a place if something bad was about to happen, and in some cases even to carry weapons, so this would be in harmony with such an ability. Perhaps military units who are on or adjacent to civilian units have a defence bonus? Could be quite strategic.

After thinking that through, on definitely works. I haven't decided whether adjacent fits with the flavor of "caravan." I can come up with compelling arguments either way. It is, after, all defensive bonus and not an attack bonus, so maybe they deserve the additional options.

Would it be too much focus on culture if their UU, UB, and UA all were culture bonuses? Don't want to make a cultural victory to easy for them, or their culture to OP.

Yes, I think so, now that you mention it. But I don't think that will be much of an issue. Give the vardo a little culture boost and maybe some gold/resource bonus. Theatre gives culture. Both of those practically represent Romanipen so we don't need that in the UA or leader traits.

And then make the leader traits focus more on military and defense like we've been discussing. Maybe combine them, say:

• Leader ability is Latcho Drom. Grants additional UU mercenary. During a dark age, escorted/adjacent/whatever units gain additional defense. (this gives a slight nod to the Porajmos while keeping things kid-friendly)
  
• Leader agenda is Romanipen. Generally indifferent to Civs. Likes Civs with Great Artists/Writers/Musicians. Dislikes Civs who conquer City-States. (a little rough but could be ironed out; I figure if any civ just dgaf it would probably be the Romani)

I don't think they would have considered this idea before to be honest, as it's not one that seems like a likely choice for a civ (despite the fact that they have added nomadic civs before, among other things). This might be something that would actually consider however, especially if they are designed well, and if they realize that they would be helping to make a positive difference in the real world ~ even if they are not ideal candidates as civs for Civ VI, that fact about making a difference alone makes them worth considering. If this game can help make a real difference, then I'm happy to forgo a bit of realism to achieve that. Firaxis are big, and reach a lot of people. If they have it in their power to do something with their games that help reduce real world problems such as racism, then I sincerely hope that they do this.

That's what I'm starting to think. It would only be good for Firaxis, since the current generation is so caught up with "company philosophy." If Firaxis made a more public sentiment toward shedding light on past injustices, they could really gain a lot of positive PR. To an extent they are already forced into this role anyway, given how much they've had to scramble to "fix" how the Koreans, Dutch, and Georgians are represented in R&F, and even their mere inclusion of the Mapuche and Cree. If that's what players expect of them, I don't see why they don't just own it and take up the standard of historical justice.