The Eastern Roman Thread

[Caesar of Bread]

The Byzantines ruled an empire that succeeded Rome in a way. But should they be in VII, and if so, who should lead them?

I think that Justinian, Zoe, and Heraclitus would be good options.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I vote for NO, I guess you already expect that.
My main reason is, Byzantium is just Rome and do two civs for one same nation is stole other potential civs slots.


But, since you give a lot of options to be Byzantium leader, I would vote for Constantine the Great.
Because he rules over both Rome and Byzantium and should make this even mess.
Maybe he can be a dual leader for both civs!

 

[Patine]

I vote for NO, I guess you already expect that.
My main reason is, Byzantium is just Rome and do two civs for one same nation is stole other potential civs slots.


But, since you give a lot of options to be Byzantium leader, I would vote for Constantine the Great.
Because he rules over both Rome and Byzantium and should make this even mess.
Maybe he can be a dual leader for both civs!

I think using the word, "stole," is a bit histrionic and presumtuous, and leads to a view of some civ's having an inherent, "hard entitlement," to be in game, which must not be, "transgressed," by suggesting certain others, and leads to a very toxic viewpoint, indeed, from the get go.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I think using the word, "stole," is a bit histrionic and presumtuous, and leads to a view of some civ's having an inherent, "hard entitlement," to be in game, which must not be, "transgressed," by suggesting certain others, and leads to a very toxic viewpoint, indeed, from the get go.

Who did you choose Mr. Patine?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I vote for NO, I guess you already expect that.
My main reason is, Byzantium is just Rome and do two civs for one same nation is stole other potential civs slots.

If you mean Haiti, then blame Canada for that. Because I agree that Haiti should have been in the game instead of Canada (or the Dine/Apache)

 

[Patine]

If you mean Haiti, then blame Canada for that. Because I agree that Haiti should have been in the game instead of Canada (or the Dine/Apache)

No, let's not there. Quota thinking, as opposed to wholistic thinking of civ distrubution, is toxic, and this is one good example why.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

No, let's not there. Quota thinking, as opposed to wholistic thinking of civ distrubution, is toxic, and this is one good example why.

Ok. Sorry.

 

[Henri Christophe]

If you mean Haiti, then blame Canada for that. Because I agree that Haiti should have been in the game instead of Canada (or the Dine/Apache)

That I must agree, I don't like the addition of Canada and Australia, I think have England and US is more then enouth to represent all the Anglophone world

 

[Caesar of Bread]

That I must agree, I don't like the addition of Canada and Australia, I think have England and US is more then enouth to represent all the Anglophone world

More than enough? The two nations had at least been major players on the map for the last 500 years. Now we are getting a bit off-topic here

 

[Henri Christophe]

The two nations

what two nations? US and England or Australia and Canada?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

what two nations? US and England or Australia and Canada?

US and England

 

[Xandinho]

If you mean Haiti, then blame Canada for that. Because I agree that Haiti should have been in the game instead of Canada (or the Dine/Apache)

Haiti would definitely be more unique than Canada, but for market reasons I doubt we'll see the first one over the second one.

On the topic, I don't really care that much who leads the Byzantines. I voted for Theodora because she's appeared so much in the franchise that I've gotten used to her, but Justinian would be nice too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I voted yes for Justinian to return, at least over Theodora, or possibly Alexios Komnenos to make an appearance for the first time.

 

[pineappledan]

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus as an alt leader for Rome, if we must have the Byzantines at all. It’s a Strong pick if they wanted to emphasize Byzantium as a Center of scholarship and culture, in contrast to a (probably) more bellicose western Roman civ.

I’m surprised Zoe is in the list but not Irene of Athens. Is that Zoe Porphyrogenita or Zoe Carbonopsina?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus as an alt leader for Rome, if we must have the Byzantines at all. It’s a Strong pick if they wanted to emphasize Byzantium as a Center of scholarship and culture, in contrast to a (probably) more bellicose western Roman civ.

I’m surprised Zoe is in the list but not Irene of Athens. Is that Zoe Porphyrogenita or Zoe Carbonopsina?

The 1st

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think using the word, "stole," is a bit histrionic and presumtuous, and leads to a view of some civ's having an inherent, "hard entitlement," to be in game, which must not be, "transgressed," by suggesting certain others, and leads to a very toxic viewpoint, indeed, from the get go.

I need to disagree with you, again.
Stole is a perfect word for this case.
Because we have a finity number of civs avaiable per game, make a Byzantium Civ really stole someone else slot in this game.
But what we don't have is a number limit for leaders per civ. So, for me, make more sense have someone as Justinian as alt leader of Rome a way better solution then make a civ just for Byzantium.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I need to disagree with you, again.
Stole is a perfect word for this case.
Because we have a finity number of civs avaiable per game, make a Byzantium Civ really stole someone else slot in this game.
But what we don't have is a number limit for leaders per civ. So, for me, make more sense have someone as Justinian as alt leader of Rome a way better solution then make a civ just for Byzantium.

No. Byzantines did not steal. The Byzantine civilization was entirely different than the Romans. Did the Romans have Greek as their official language, or have names like "Alexios Angelos" or "Irene of Athens"? Do people refer to the Eastern Roman Empire as Rome?

 

[Henri Christophe]

To be fair, I think if we get Byzantium in civ7, we should split other civs too.
We already discuss about Persian be split between Achamenida and Sassanida empire in the other thread.
Now I was thinking about also split Arabia in Omíadas, Abássidas and Fatímidas civ.
But if we started to split all civs, we need to do almost 100 civs, what is unfeasible.
That's the why I still thinking is easier just to take out Byzantium.

 

[BuchiTaton]

No. Byzantines did not steal. The Byzantine civilization was entirely different than the Romans.

"Byzantines" a direct (no foreign forces) and gradual transition (administrative changes) done by Romans, on centuries old roman land under roman laws.

Did the Romans have Greek as their official language,

Greek turned to be official over 130 years after the fall of Rome and 290 after Constantinople as capital of the Roman Empire. Even Justinian I the Great was still a Latin speaker.

or have names like "Alexios Angelos" or "Irene of Athens"?

The Islamic Turkoman Nader (arabic) Afshar (turkic) lead the same civ than the around 2300 years apart Cyrus the Great.

Do people refer to the Eastern Roman Empire as Rome?

The "Byzantine" people called themselves Romans, as everybody else did but the Western Europeans (for the sake of their own ambitions).
Funny enough to think about Western Europeans to have a word over who is Rome when their kingdoms were founded by germanic invasors (Goths, Franks, Lombards, Norse, etc.)

But, of course Byzantium for sure would be their own civ in CIV7 while likely Persia would still be just one civ. It is matter of popularity not about historical consistence.

 

[Patine]

I need to disagree with you, again.
Stole is a perfect word for this case.
Because we have a finity number of civs avaiable per game, make a Byzantium Civ really stole someone else slot in this game.
But what we don't have is a number limit for leaders per civ. So, for me, make more sense have someone as Justinian as alt leader of Rome a way better solution then make a civ just for Byzantium.

Incorrect, I'm afraid. Using the term, 'stole," implies certain civ's are objectively more deserving of slots than others, and that deservingness is pre-designated by an authority (of some sort) we must all agree on, and I am in some sort of breach of rules by suggesting placement against it. This is definitely not the case. "Stole," is a crime in property law.

"Byzantines" a direct (no foreign forces) and gradual transition (administrative changes) done by Romans, on centuries old roman land under roman laws.

Greek turned to be official over 130 years after the fall of Rome and 290 after Constantinople as capital of the Roman Empire. Even Justinian I the Great was still a Latin speaker.

The Islamic Turkoman Nader (arabic) Afshar (turkic) lead the same civ than the around 2300 years apart Cyrus the Great.

The "Byzantine" people called themselves Romans, as everybody else did but the Western Europeans (for the sake of their own ambitions).
Funny enough to think about Western Europeans to have a word over who is Rome when their kingdoms were founded by germanic invasors (Goths, Franks, Lombards, Norse, etc.)

But, of course Byzantium for sure would be their own civ in CIV7 while likely Persia would still be just one civ. It is matter of popularity not about historical consistence.

This issue can be debated back and forth till we're all blue in the face. The fact is, it is a matter of preference and opinion, and we all have different ones. And the tone I am now facing grows more and more intolerant and viewing of the opinions of those I diagree with as objectively correct, and even seemingly growing to seem offended by my own opinion, and my not capitulating to those I am debating with. The matter is not really that cut and dry as you portray, is a matter of opinion, of which we all have the riight to one, and the majority of actual historians backs my view, even if not as overwhelmingly as they once did.