The Rome Thread

[Patine]

But we do have some kind of sources what is good enouth.

There are no such reputable sources, and mythologized leaders (or mostly mythologized leaders) should not appear in Civ. Dido, Gilgamesh, and several of the embarrassments for the Civ2 female leaders should be looked at as bad ideals and portrayals to be moved on from. If there was a Civ SPINOFF - NOT iteration - that was similar in theme and motif to Ensemble Studios' Age of Mythology (revamped by Forgetten Empires), that would be completely different. But not in base Civ. And CERTAINLY not when many, much better, much more historically attested and backed leaders.

 

[Evie]

Said without any objection to the idea of Byzantine being a civ,

Putting the Byzantine claim of succession on an equal footing with the Holy Roman (and Papal), Ottoman and Muscovite claims, to say nothing of the Fascist claim let alone the American claim, is gross misrepresentation of history.

There is clearcut political continuity from at least the end of the Crisis of the Third Century, from Diocletian through Constantine to Theodosius (by which point the capital of the united empire was Constantinople), to the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, with a political system that evolved from one through the others. None of the other claimant have that kind of direct continuity: their claim is through right of conquest/occupation, inheritance by marriage or right of spiritual/religious succession, absent any continuity. After the deposition of the last Roman Empire, his regalia was sent to Constantinope, and no one in the west claimed the Imperial title (in fact many of the Germanic tribes at that time still acknowledged the Eastern Empire's overlordship) for a long while until the Church and Franks began to push for an empire of their own.

There is a good case to be made for a different civ based on the enormous cultural differences (albeit these cultural differences are somewhat less between Rome and Byzantium, and at least to a degree more related to the transition between the Pagan and Christian Empires), but that case does not lie in denying the continuity between them.

 

[Patine]

Said without any objection to the idea of Byzantine being a civ,

Putting the Byzantine claim of succession on an equal footing with the Holy Roman (and Papal), Ottoman and Muscovite claims, to say nothing of the Fascist claim let alone the American claim, is gross misrepresentation of history.

There is clearcut political continuity from at least the end of the Crisis of the Third Century, from Diocletian through Constantine to Theodosius (by which point the capital of the united empire was Constantinople), to the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, with a political system that evolved from one through the others. None of the other claimant have that kind of direct continuity: their claim is through right of conquest/occupation, inheritance by marriage or right of spiritual/religious succession, absent any continuity. After the deposition of the last Roman Empire, his regalia was sent to Constantinope, and no one in the west claimed the Imperial title (in fact many of the Germanic tribes at that time still acknowledged the Eastern Empire's overlordship) for a long while until the Church and Franks began to push for an empire of their own.

There is a good case to be made for a different civ based on the enormous cultural differences (albeit these cultural differences are somewhat less between Rome and Byzantium, and at least to a degree more related to the transition between the Pagan and Christian Empires), but that case does not lie in denying the continuity between them.

Yes, this is true, but it could be pushed (and has, by some on these forums, though not by you) into being applied to the Franks-France, Germany, and the Netherlands, Anglo-Saxon vs. Post-Norman Conquest England (and even UK), and Aztecs-Mexcio debates we've all seen pop up here, as well. It's a can of worms hard to contain unless arbitrary views are taken.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

There are no such reputable sources, and mythologized leaders (or mostly mythologized leaders) should not appear in Civ. Dido, Gilgamesh, and several of the embarrassments for the Civ2 female leaders should be looked at as bad ideals and portrayals to be moved on from. If there was a Civ SPINOFF - NOT iteration - that was similar in theme and motif to Ensemble Studios' Age of Mythology (revamped by Forgetten Empires), that would be completely different. But not in base Civ. And CERTAINLY not when many, much better, much more historically attested and backed leaders.

I concur. Even though I really like Dido, I’d have to agree to let her go.

 

[Henri Christophe]

There are no such reputable sources, and mythologized leaders (or mostly mythologized leaders) should not appear in Civ. Dido, Gilgamesh, and several of the embarrassments for the Civ2 female leaders should be looked at as bad ideals and portrayals to be moved on from. If there was a Civ SPINOFF - NOT iteration - that was similar in theme and motif to Ensemble Studios' Age of Mythology (revamped by Forgetten Empires), that would be completely different. But not in base Civ. And CERTAINLY not when many, much better, much more historically attested and backed leaders.

I concur. Even though I really like Dido, I’d have to agree to let her go.

I just disagree, I just don't see problem in semi mythological leaders as Dido or Gilgamesh. As I would like to see more as Quetzalcoalt of Toltecs or Xango of Oyo.

Putting the Byzantine claim of succession on an equal footing with the Holy Roman (and Papal), Ottoman and Muscovite claims, to say nothing of the Fascist claim let alone the American claim, is gross misrepresentation of history.

The difference between Byzantium and this other sucessors of Rome as Holy Roman Empire, Otoman, Muscovite and Fascist Italy is only Byzantium will work as a dual leader for a single civ to Rome.
For example, if Ottoman and Rome was united in a single civ, what is a possible idea, but we will be without the Turks civs what is very iconic.
Russia is also a very iconic civ and Fascist Italy should never be portraited as civ because be a civ is a honor who fascist don't deserve.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I just disagree, I just don't see problem in semi mythological leaders as Dido or Gilgamesh. As I would like to see more as Quetzalcoalt of Toltecs or Xango of Oyo.

I mean if Civ was to have a myth spinoff or Mythology mode, then I’d be happy to include Shango, Dido, and Bilgamesh (but not Quetzalcoatl. He did not reign over the Aztecs, and the last time he “came down to earth”… Hernan Cortez was a Son of a *****!). But, this is real history we’re dealing with here.

The difference between Byzantium and this other sucessors of Rome as Holy Roman Empire, Otoman, Muscovite and Fascist Italy is only Byzantium will work as a dual leader for a single civ to Rome.
For example, if Ottoman and Rome was united in a single civ, what is a possible idea, but we will be without the Turks civs what is very iconic.
Russia is also a very iconic civ and Fascist Italy should never be portraited as civ because be a civ is a honor who fascist don't deserve.

But this is unfair then. Therefore, America and Britain are the same (which I, as an American, can quickly answer NO to), the Egyptians and the Nubians are the same (which they are not, the only way someone would be thinking that is through Piye’s Kingdom), and the Ottomans and the Seljuks are the same (Yes, they were in Anatolia, but NO, they were very different).

While Rome was focused on military and trade and construction, the Byzantines were more relied on faith and some culture. The Romans believed in paganism, Byzantines in Orthodox Christianity. Byzantium was more intact with the Silk Road than the Romans. While Rome spent a lot of time on conquest, the Byzantines had a brief period of reconquest under Justinian, then had to focus on defense against the Caliphates.

Is that good enough?

 

[Henri Christophe]

but not Quetzalcoatl. He did not reign over the Aztecs, and the last time he “came down to earth”… Hernan Cortez was a Son of a *****!

Quetzalcoalt is also the name of the feathered serpent of Aztecs.
But it is also the name of one king of Toltecs, is that king of Toltecs who take sail on Atlantic sea promising came back one day to conquer everyone and is inspired in that myth of Toltec's Quetzalcoalt who Montezuma II believed be the Spaniards the descendents of Toltec's Quetzalcoalt.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Quetzalcoalt is also the name of the feathered serpent of Aztecs.
But it is also the name of one king of Toltecs, is that king of Toltecs who take sail on Atlantic sea promising came back one day to conquer everyone and is inspired in that myth of Toltec's Quetzalcoalt who Montezuma II believed be the Spaniards the descendents of Toltec's Quetzalcoalt.

I think you mean

Cē Ācatl Topiltzin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but then again he too is mythologized.

Sid Meier, if you hear me, may your heavenly grace allow a Civ Mythology spinoff to please our ever-hungry souls.

 

[Evie]

Mythological leaders are bad enough, mythological civs are just no.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But this is unfair then. Therefore, America and Britain are the same (which I, as an American, can quickly answer NO to), the Egyptians and the Nubians are the same (which they are not, the only way someone would be thinking that is through Piye’s Kingdom), and the Ottomans and the Seljuks are the same (Yes, they were in Anatolia, but NO, they were very different).

While Rome was focused on military and trade and construction, the Byzantines were more relied on faith and some culture. The Romans believed in paganism, Byzantines in Orthodox Christianity. Byzantium was more intact with the Silk Road than the Romans. While Rome spent a lot of time on conquest, the Byzantines had a brief period of reconquest under Justinian, then had to focus on defense against the Caliphates.

Is that good enough?

You edited it later, I just saw now!


I have a single argue why Byzantium and Rome should be just one, the self understanding of the people of Empire.
And the name "Byzantium" just appear in the history around the iluminism, several years after the fall of Constantinople.

So, when Byzantium was alive, they call they self Romans. And this self understanding is the most important.

 

[Patine]

The difference between Byzantium and this other sucessors of Rome as Holy Roman Empire, Otoman, Muscovite and Fascist Italy is only Byzantium will work as a dual leader for a single civ to Rome.
For example, if Ottoman and Rome was united in a single civ, what is a possible idea, but we will be without the Turks civs what is very iconic.
Russia is also a very iconic civ and Fascist Italy should never be portraited as civ because be a civ is a honor who fascist don't deserve.

Well, the others should definitely be separate, or in Mussolini's case, not in game, the Byzantines are definitely different enough in every meaningful way to be separate, too. A Byzatine, "alternate Roman leader," would be being put on a base civ chasis that did was not at all Byzantine, in nature, and it would be highly jarring.

I just disagree, I just don't see problem in semi mythological leaders as Dido or Gilgamesh. As I would like to see more as Quetzalcoalt of Toltecs or Xango of Oyo.

Putting mythologized who existence is dubious beside historical ones has always been highly jarring. A spin-off, maybe, but not in a base iteration.

Quetzalcoalt is also the name of the feathered serpent of Aztecs.
But it is also the name of one king of Toltecs, is that king of Toltecs who take sail on Atlantic sea promising came back one day to conquer everyone and is inspired in that myth of Toltec's Quetzalcoalt who Montezuma II believed be the Spaniards the descendents of Toltec's Quetzalcoalt.

Yes, an Aztec DEITY who should NOT be a civ leader. There is no hard evidence a Toltec Empire of anywhere near the significance or description from a much later codex ever emerged from Tulza, or that, if there was a ruler of Tulza who name and other features, inspired a deity, practically is known for sure about him, as a person.

 

[Patine]

You edited it later, I just saw now!


I have a single argue why Byzantium and Rome should be just one, the self understanding of the people of Empire.
And the name "Byzantium" just appear in the history around the iluminism, several years after the fall of Constantinople.

So, when Byzantium was alive, they call they self Romans. And this self understanding is the most important.

I have often said that self-reference in sharp contrast to standing state of affairs is highly dubious, though often I apply it to political ideology and religion, it applies here, too. The Byzatines were NOT the same society, culture, worldview, governing system, or military style - or even language - as the Romans. They were completely different.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

You edited it later, I just saw now!


I have a single argue why Byzantium and Rome should be just one, the self understanding of the people of Empire.
And the name "Byzantium" just appear in the history around the iluminism, several years after the fall of Constantinople.

So, when Byzantium was alive, they call they self Romans. And this self understanding is the most important.

Every single thing I said in the bold is an argument against your point. And to even further it: Heraclitus changed the language of Byzantium to GREEK from LATIN, therefore Hellenizing that area, and all of the Rome stuff was just a title. I can claim to be president of the USA, but I’m not. Byzantium could claim to be Roman, but no, by Heraclitus they had been different.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I have often said that self-reference in sharp contrast to standing state of affairs is highly dubious, though often I apply it to political ideology and religion, it applies here, too. The Byzatines were NOT the same society, culture, worldview, governing system, or military style - or even language - as the Romans. They were completely different.

High five to you, Mr. Patine.

 

[Evie]

Culturally, yes (and that's enough for a separate civ).

Politically, no. Politically, in all meaningful senses, the Eastern Roman Empire - the proper name of the Byzantine Empire, which is only a derisive western European name as part of efforts to delegitimize the ERE - was the Roman Empire. The idea that the Roman Empire MUST be the Pagan empire of the principate era is an artificial categorization being imposed by us to fit our preconceptions of what Rome should be, not an actual accurate depiction of the reality of Rome.

Henri, I take it that you now recognize the Holy Roman Empire as Germany?

 

[Patine]

Politically, no. Politically, in all meaningful senses, the Eastern Roman Empire - the proper name of the Byzantine Empire, which is only a derisive western European name as part of efforts to delegitimize the ERE - was the Roman Empire. The idea that the Roman Empire MUST be the Pagan empire of the principate era is an artificial categorization being imposed by us to fit our preconceptions of what Rome should be, not an actual accurate depiction of the reality of Rome.

The Senate was abolished in the 9th Century. The offices of state were far more convuluted and tangled, and numerous, than Roman ones - and most were new, and not analogs of Roman ones. Byzantine Emperors abandoned, early on, the pretense and fiction that the Republic still existed, which dominated the Roman Empire. The Themata were a completely different setup and scheme of local government than the Provincia. I could go on...

 

[Evie]

Gradual change in government do not, in fact, end political continuity. The Roman Empire has changed multiple times in its institution too. Diocletian build the heavier bureaucracy, for one.

The idea that it’s not the Roman Empire without institutions representative of a specific era of Roman history that fits our idea of what the Romans are is downright reductive. It pigeonhole Roman history to our image of what they should be, rather than deal with the reality of what Rome was - and how Rome changed. As all states do.

 

[Patine]

Gradual change in government do not, in fact, end political continuity. The Roman Empire has changed multiple times in its institution too. Diocletian build the heavier bureaucracy, for one.

The idea that it’s not the Roman Empire without institutions representative of a specific era of Roman history that fits our idea of what the Romans are is downright reductive. It pigeonhole Roman history to our image of what they should be, rather than deal with the reality of what Rome was - and how Rome changed. As all states do.

It sounds like you're quoting the sort of Nationalist lines you tend to detest.

 

[Patine]

It sounds like you're quoting the sort of Nationalist lines you tend to detest.

And, just so you're aware @Evie, I say this, not in vicious accusation, but for a sort of gentle reminder of, "stop, and listen to yourself," (or, "stop, and read what you've typed"), that many people nowadays need more often (including myself).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To chime in here, also note that "Roman Institutions" were by no means limited to Rome in any form. Virtually all of the 'barbarian' kingdoms and states that settled on the remains of the western Empire: Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks: the first thing they did was adopt the Roman political and legal forms and titles. This can get very confusing, when reading about a 6th or 7th century Visigothic leader or chief to find that he is a 'municiple tribune' when there is very little in the way of municipalities left anywhere west of the Balkans anymore. There is still, in fact, quite a bit of academic argument on just how much of the Roman legal and civic reality was left behind the forms and titles and for how long, but the fact remains that the Roman titles and political/civic 'formalities' had a long post-Roman life in western Europe.