The Eastern Roman Thread

[Henri Christophe]

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.

On that I agree, there is no historical consistence to add Byzantium, but unfortunelly I also think they will show up again in Civ7.
And meanwhile Persia will still a single civ.

 

[pineappledan]

Rome and Byzantium are historically, culturally, demographically, and institutionally continuous with each other. There is no clean point where one turns into the other, no conquest or revolution or interregnum where Rome ends and Byzantium begins. It is a historiographic shorthand to delineate what era of Roman history we are talking about, expanded into 2 separate civilizations for a video game. If Rome and Byzantium were collapsed back into a single civ, maybe with separate classical western Roman and medieval eastern Roman leaders, that would be more consistent with how the franchise has dealt with China, Persia, Ethiopia, and the Maya. I like that consistency, and I would hope for it, though at this point I don’t expect it.

Byzantium is not a big seller for the franchise either, so adding them doesn’t appear to be supported by good business sense. If steam achievements can be used as a metric for popularity, even correcting for expansion, Byzantium is one of the least-played civs in both civ 5 and civ 6. The Mayans and Ethiopia rate even lower, but you can argue those civs scratch a cultural and aesthetic itch, enhancing the whole game package in a way Byzantium doesn’t.

Insofar as it can be said that near-infinite cultures and leaders are competing for finite slots, the devs have hemmed pretty close to that 33% rule for new civs fairly consistently, and if they wanted to not drop any civs from civ 6 moving into civ 7, they would need 67 slots. I expect some cultures not to reappear, and I don’t expect the number of civs in each iteration to grow forever. There is ultimately a decision to be made about whether a civ should be dropped in favour of another, or if the total roster of civs should expand. Byzantium is in a unique position in they are arguably already oversplit by being separate from Rome; they can still appear as a leader of a Roman civilization and open a slot for a different culture without expanding the total number of civs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Byzantium is not a big seller for the franchise either, so adding them doesn’t appear to be supported by good business sense. If steam achievements can be used as a metric for popularity, even correcting for expansion, Byzantium is one of the least-played civs in both civ 5 and civ 6. The Mayans and Ethiopia rate even lower, but you can argue those civs scratch a cultural and aesthetic itch, enhancing the whole game package in a way Byzantium doesn’t.

I guess one of the reasons to Byzantium, Ethiopia and Maya are among the less playable is because they come together in the last pack (in civ6).
I, for example, don't have the last pack untill today.
I guess it had 4 packs, I have the 3 firsts. (I know I have the Zulus and it's enouth for me).

 

[Patine]

On that I agree, there is no historical consistence to add Byzantium, but unfortunelly I also think they will show up again in Civ7.
And meanwhile Persia will still a single civ.

I am not at all sure where you and @BuchiTaton get your history from, especially to say, "NO historical consistence," (as an absolute), but it's not the majority of historians I've read (which means, the declaration, as written, is dead wrong).

And, why, oh, why, do Persia, and China (and even the Aztec-Mexico notion) keep being brought into this debate as if they're relevant to it, or arguements in it, or MUST be addressed the exact same way, rather than different cases being addressed in their own context, and not, "cookie-cutter," thinking (which is about as bad as absolutist dualist thinking)?

 

[Henri Christophe]

I am not at all sure where you and @BuchiTaton get your history from, especially to say, "NO historical consistence," (as an absolute), but it's not the majority of historians I've read (which means, the declaration, as written, is dead wrong).

My historian books also use the word "Byzantine", for Historian this word can help make a distinction between an ancient Rome to a medieval Rome more easy.
And we can still using the word Byzantine to refeer this time of Roman history.
But in a game, where there is a lot of civs who never shows up, I rly think is a waste of avaible slot do a Byzantine empire.

And, why, oh, why, do Persia, and China (and even the Aztec-Mexico notion) keep being brought into this debate as if they're relevant to it, or arguements in it, or MUST be addressed the exact same way, rather than different cases being addressed in their own context, and not, "cookie-cutter," thinking (which is about as bad as absolutist dualist thinking)?

And other civs are relevant as Persia, because they don't have the Byzantine privilege to have other times of it's history becoming separate civs.
What to be fair, if Byzantine have this privilege, Persia should have it too.

 

[Patine]

And other civs are relevant as Persia, because they don't have the Byzantine privilege to have other times of it's history becoming separate civs.
What to be fair, if Byzantine have this privilege, Persia should have it too.

Privilege? I don't understand the use of the term in this regard. And, again, why are you referring to the two cases as if they were directly equivalent?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

And other civs are relevant as Persia, because they don't have the Byzantine privilege to have other times of it's history becoming separate civs.
What to be fair, if Byzantine have this privilege, Persia should have it too.

Persia could, but not as much as the Byzantines deserve. I'm kinda biased towards a Byzantine view (Greek Orthodox teachings, did a saint project on Justinian...)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

On that I agree, there is no historical consistence to add Byzantium, but unfortunelly I also think they will show up again in Civ7.
And meanwhile Persia will still a single civ.

Wow. Totally not hypocritical. If Persia can be divided into Achaemenids and Sassanids/Afsharids..., then the Byzantines have a right to jump in!

 

[Henri Christophe]

Wow. Totally not hypocritical. If Persia can be divided into Achaemenids and Sassanids/Afsharids..., then the Byzantines have a right to jump in!

That's my point. Persia should have the same privilege of Rome to have it's Byzantine period as a separete civ.
Or at least, if not a separate civ, an alt leader from Sassanid dinasty.
And as far I know, was the Sassanids the main rival of Byzantine. Make a lot of sense they even come together at a DLC with some scenario about they.
Maybe a cool scenario to have Byzantine and Sassanid-Persia is the expansion of Islam, so also could have the Omíada caliphate.
By the way, Arabia is other civ who deserves to become a separate civ to Omíadas, Abássidas and Fatímidas.
India also should be divided in several civs.
Just China I think don't need to be divided in several civs.
But if we start to separate the civs, the game should have a 100 civs, what is very unlikely.

Privilege? I don't understand the use of the term in this regard. And, again, why are you referring to the two cases as if they were directly equivalent?

Privilege, again, is the right word.
It's totally white privilege the most important empire of Europe had it's own history divided in two civs.
Byzantine can have it's difference from ancient Rome, but it's obvious a continuation of the same state, as other users already spoke, there was no revolution, no war, nothing in the transition between Rome and Byzantium.
Also, if we still having two civs to Rome and Byzantium, Constantine the great could be a dual leader for it's civilization.

 

[Patine]

Privilege, again, is the right word.
It's totally white privilege the most important empire of Europe had it's own history divided in two civs.
Byzantine can have it's difference from ancient Rome, but it's obvious a continuation of the same state, as other users already spoke, there was no revolution, no war, nothing in the transition between Rome and Byzantium.
Also, if we still having two civs to Rome and Byzantium, Constantine the great could be a dual leader for it's civilization.

What is this, "privilege," though? And, how does the case of Persia tie to, or is relevant to, the situation being discussed? You STILL have NOT answered either question. The post I'm quoting above is a non-answer.

 

[Henri Christophe]

What is this, "privilege," though?

privilege

1. an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

privilege, by this dictionary is:
an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich.

And Europeans have a lot of privileges on this game. Not just Rome who can have this Byzantine period as a separete civ.
But the interpretation of Germany on this game is full of privilege.

how does the case of Persia tie to, or is relevant to, the situation being discussed?

The Persia is relevant because deserves the same privilege as Byzantium, to be a separete civ, but don't have that privilege.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Byzantium is not a big seller for the franchise either, so adding them doesn’t appear to be supported by good business sense. If steam achievements can be used as a metric for popularity, even correcting for expansion, Byzantium is one of the least-played civs in both civ 5 and civ 6. The Mayans and Ethiopia rate even lower, but you can argue those civs scratch a cultural and aesthetic itch, enhancing the whole game package in a way Byzantium doesn’t.

Probably because those three are some of the most recent civs to come out, as in the NFP. It's probably not a surprise that other civs have been played more because they've been out longer.

Anyways the real question isn't if Byzantium should be separate from Rome, because it's going to probably stay that way, but should there be a separate Macedon civ from Greece?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

privilege

1. an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

privilege, by this dictionary is:
an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich.

And Europeans have a lot of privileges on this game. Not just Rome who can have this Byzantine period as a separete civ.
But the interpretation of Germany on this game is full of privilege.

The Persia is relevant because deserves the same privilege as Byzantium, to be a separete civ, but don't have that privilege.

Actually, you mean the opposite. Germany is an amalgamation of all German history, not privileged. By saying that we should have Prussia/Austria instead, you are trying to give Germany MORE of that "privilege"

 

[Henri Christophe]

should there be a separate Macedon civ from Greece?

Good to remember that point, Greeks had a lot of representation in civ6, there was two leaders for Greece. Athens and Sparta, have the Macedon, have Cleopatra of Egypt and have Byzantium.
I know Greece was important to Western history, but I still think is a white privilege being so well represented at the game.

 

[Patine]

privilege

1. an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

privilege, by this dictionary is:
an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich.

And Europeans have a lot of privileges on this game. Not just Rome who can have this Byzantine period as a separete civ.
But the interpretation of Germany on this game is full of privilege.

The Persia is relevant because deserves the same privilege as Byzantium, to be a separete civ, but don't have that privilege.

Ah, so now it's come from a historical debate about civ being included in the game to another arbitrary race conflict game. This debate has lost all point or merit now that it's tired and troped motive has been unmasked.

 

[BuchiTaton]

We are talking about the portrait of a Byzantine civ in CIV("7"*), with the option to personally choose "No". That opinion can be accompanied with the "why" of that choice. So one of the reason to say "I would ratter not" is because in a broader context civs are not alone, they are part of a whole roster of civs. Looking to the other options is natural to compare between them, from this comparation we can find interesting situations like for example a Persian civ with leaders like Cyrus and Nader Shah, while figures like Trajan and Basil are leaders of different (in-game) civs. Each one of these couples of leaders are related to historical legacies; Persia and Rome, of course there are differences between the early and later leaders of each couple, their empires changed after centuries, still there are others elements that are shared as part of the same traditions.

So, there are also specialist historians with different perspectives, in this case about if Byzantium is or not Rome. All right here.
Then Firaxis could justify in historical terms the separated Byzantium civ taking the perspective of the "pro-different" historians, OK with that. But looking to the general reasons to justify that difference between Trajan and Basil civs is hard to not note an inconsistency when the differences between Cyrus and Nader Persias are quite equivalents to the ones between Rome/Byzantium.

Both "Persias" and both "Romes" have similarities and differences, this is natural. Then Firaxis took the "differences matters more" to justify separated Byzantium, but for Persia used the "similarities matters more" to put quite different historical entities together. That is the historical inconsistence in the uneven criteria by Firaxis (not the different academic perspectives), Firaxis used different perspectives over two cases that many people could find very similar at the point that is reasonable to abstract them as equivalent for their portrait in game.

Then come the question, why the different contradictory choices by Firaxis? It is not hard to see the popularity of any Greco-Roman related civ considering the main market of the franchise. The western education have a way stronger (obviusly) focus in Greco-Roman history, education that traditionally portrait Byzantium as different. Persia is known but a lesser level by the average player. There it is. Yes, different academic perspectives exist over "how much Roman" was Byzantium, but this specialist debate is secondary when Firaxis sell the game to a broader playerbase that already are fixed with a vision of Rome and Byzantium.

 

[Patine]

We are talking about the portrait of a Byzantine civ in CIV("7"*), with the option to personally choose "No". That opinion can be accompanied with the "why" of that choice. So one of the reason to say "I would ratter not" is because in a broader context civs are not alone, they are part of a whole roster of civs. Looking to the other options is natural to compare between them, from this comparation we can find interesting situations like for example a Persian civ with leaders like Cyrus and Nader Shah, while figures like Trajan and Basil are leaders of different (in-game) civs. Each one of these couples of leaders are related to historical legacies; Persia and Rome, of course there are differences between the early and later leaders of each couple, their empires changed after centuries, still there are others elements that are shared as part of the same traditions.

So, there are also specialist historians with different perspectives, in this case about if Byzantium is or not Rome. All right here.
Then Firaxis could justify in historical terms the separated Byzantium civ taking the perspective of the "pro-different" historians, OK with that. But looking to the general reasons to justify that difference between Trajan and Basil civs is hard to not note an inconsistency when the differences between Cyrus and Nader Persias are quite equivalents to the ones between Rome/Byzantium.

Both "Persias" and both "Romes" have similarities and differences, this is natural. Then Firaxis took the "differences matters more" to justify separated Byzantium, but for Persia used the "similarities matters more" to put quite different historical entities together. That is the historical inconsistence in the uneven criteria by Firaxis (not the different academic perspectives), Firaxis used different perspectives over two cases that many people could find very similar at the point that is reasonable to abstract them as equivalent for their portrait in game.

Then come the question, why the different contradictory choices by Firaxis? It is not hard to see the popularity of any Greco-Roman related civ considering the main market of the franchise. The western education have a way stronger (obviusly) focus in Greco-Roman history, education that traditionally portrait Byzantium as different. Persia is known but a lesser level by the average player. There it is. Yes, different academic perspectives exist over "how much Roman" was Byzantium, but this specialist debate is secondary when Firaxis sell the game to a broader playerbase that already are fixed with a vision of Rome and Byzantium.

Similarities, but not enough to pivot the debate on one on the answer being equally addressed to the other. At least, since we're talking about, OPINION, I do not have to justify my views on the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire based on views on the Persian civilization continuum (the latter of which I have not even formally addressed my views on, but they are alleged pre-emptively), and to have madatory, "equalibrium," in those views for my opinion to be given a, "stamp of approval," of being, "valid," - a confrontational attitude I feel I'm facing here. Also, my support for the inclusion of a separate Byzantine civ and my distaste for hard, artificial, continental quotas and caps also seems to have led to another alleged presumption - that I MUST support a highly and extremely overwhelmingly, "Eurocentric," spread of civ's and the marginalization of new choices in other parts of the world, which has not borne out or shown to be true, at all, in many other specifc threads. Now, please put those presumptuous allegations used to disingenuously make aggressive arguments based on semantics or strong points to rest.

 

[pineappledan]

Probably because those three are some of the most recent civs to come out, as in the NFP. It's probably not a surprise that other civs have been played more because they've been out longer.

That's why I also cited steam achievements for civ 5 as well. That's a game that is more than 10 years old, and so I trust those achievement rates as more stable.
in civ 5, Byzantium are the 32nd out of 43 civs for players who have won at least 1 game with them
Correcting for only the gods & kings expansion Byzantium is 6th out of 10 (in front of Dido, Netherlands, Ethiopia, and Sweden, )
I don't have it in front of me but I believe Basil II was the 2nd-least played leader from the new frontiers expansion DLC, beating only Menelik II

That's also why I said correcting for within expansions. Even when you only consider civs that came out in the same DLC or expansion as Byzantium, they rank middling to low.

Actually, you mean the opposite. Germany is an amalgamation of all German history, not privileged. By saying that we should have Prussia/Austria instead, you are trying to give Germany MORE of that "privilege"

Well, they did have both Germany and Austria in civ 5.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't have it in front of me but I believe Basil II was the 2nd-least played leader from the new frontiers expansion DLC, beating only Menelik II

Yes well I can believe that considering Basil II was really a one dimensional leader, making Byzantium a one dimensional civ. However, with the introduction of Theodora I've seen more positive views on her, not just with Byzantium but out of all the leaders in the LP.