The Rome Thread

[Evie]

If that sounds like nationalist claptrap to you - if acknowledging that a country does not fundamentally end because its political systems have gradually shifted from one form to another - sounds like nationalist claptrap to you - I don't know what to tell you.

Countries evolve and change, that doesn't stop them being them.

It's when a country is destroyed, when they cease existing, and someone (much) later rise and without obvious connection of people or culture other than base geography claim succession that I have a problem, so, yes, Saddam, yes, Mussolini, and yes, the Holy Roman Empire - those were pretenders long after the empire whose legacy they claimed fell, and with no clear connection. It's when occupiers who have made no meaningful attempts to integrate, who remain utter outsiders, and are seen as such by their people, claim succession by virtue of conquest that there is a problem. It's when you claim succession to some distant nation because of some genealogical accident that I have a problem (so no Moscow), or just based on some abstract parallel (so no America) that I hace a problem.

Those are problems. Not the gradual and unavoidable evolution of institutions over time, which is just perfectly normal change withoutnehich no nation could ever thrive or even exist for extended periods.

And if we want to talk about spouting nationalistic propaganda, pretty much all the argument against Byzantine legitimacy are rehashed western catholic propaganda to position catholicism over orthodox christianity as the true heir of Rome. So, you know.

Also and finally, you know very well I'm one of the least granular posters here. I *am* on the records saying I'd be fine with Charlemagne as a dual French and German leader rather than a separate Frankish civ (I just don't want a Frankish civ INSTEAD of France and Germany). on the record opposing a proposed Maurya civ because they'e one part of a long string of related Magadhi dynasties. And I've been very vocal against breaking down China. Among others.

So, where you get the idea that I generaly oppose relatively reasonable claims of continuity, I don't know.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Rome:
UB - All Roads Lead To Rome
UU - Corvus
UI - Bath
Leader #1 - Hadrian (The Greekling)
Leader #2 - Lucius Junius Brutus (Founder of the Republic)
possible Leader #3 - Diocletian (Tetrarchy)

1. Isn't Corvus a wargear addon to all Roman Polyremes (Triremes are the minimum galleys that can mount corvus boarding drawbridge)?
2. I'd like Leader #2.
3. Is there any good 'Christian' leader of Rome since Constantin I? the Roman Empire seemed to rolling down hill under the rule of Christian leader, but under Olympianites Rome is much better.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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.

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?

The Rome-Byzantium thing again?

- America seceded from GB violently as an independent republic, Rome-Byzantium in NO way was like this.
- Egypt and Nubia relation was about a dynasty of either of them conquering the other, this is NOT the Rome-Byzantium relation.
- Seljuks to Ottomans is closer since there are some "legacy" elements between them but still did not happened under the mantle of transforming institutions through centuries of gradual reforms done by a changing empire.
- HRE, Ottomans, Russia, etc. None of those have any continuity with gradual change, neither self recognition as "Roman" by the people themselves, political claims by unrelated foreigns is not the same as the literal children of Rome calling themselves romans like their parents did, this is NOT the same as a guy in Moscow claiming to be "roman" after marry a empire-less princess, or germanic king claiming what their ancestors destroyed centuries before, or a turkic guy after take the last citadel of a dying empire.

Different religion? Excuse me but that change was done by a Roman emperor in the version of traditional western history. The max extend and power of the "Byzantine" empire was under emperors that spoke Latin, used it as official and claimed to be Roman like their people. The whole greek thing was not even a strange thing considering the Roman culture was mostly Greek influenced long before even be an empire and their helenophilia was evident at their golden age, or should we forget that "Grecolatin" culture is a thing?

Seriously where are the people arguing about Cyrus and Nader Shah being leaders of the same civ?
This is an issue of pure recognition of "Byzatium" as different by the western centric historical tradition, people were taught to see this Rome-Byzantium division and that would sell the game, there it is, matter of average player's recognition.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Byzantines (DLC #4 or 5):
UB - The Five Patriarchs
UU - Dromon
UI - Hippodrome
Leader #1 - Justinian AND Theodora (Renovatio Imperii)
possible Leader #2 - Irene of Athens (The True Roman Empress)

1. Dromon should be GENERIC Melee ship. it is used also by everybody else around Byzantium. be there Italians, Islamic States in Mediterranean (and maybe Indian Ocean), and even North Atlantic Kingdoms (Before Nefs, Cogs and Holkes replaced them simetimes later on).
And it should be Medieval ship. also should look medieval. like this.

With long keel and spar, and no beaky rams. since everyone in the mediterranean stopped using ones. but I don't really know what does a long spar of Mediterranean Galleys (including Dromon and Chelande) does. is it a new kind of ram? it doesn't seem to work that way either since ramming is no longer done by the middle ages.

Not this

^ There's still below waterline ram bow. which I don't think it is a valid in the middle ages anymore.



The Byzantine variant should be called 'Fire Dromon' and it has flamethrower.

And how good Irene is? except that she further alienates Latin Church, and unintentionally gave rise to Charlemagne. if she ever shown up here, Charlemagne should also be leader of either France or Germany so she can have a matching rival.

 

[Patine]

If that sounds like nationalist claptrap to you - if acknowledging that a country does not fundamentally end because its political systems have gradually shifted from one form to another - sounds like nationalist claptrap to you - I don't know what to tell you.

Countries evolve and change, that doesn't stop them being them.

It's when a country is destroyed, when they cease existing, and someone (much) later rise and without obvious connection of people or culture other than base geography claim succession that I have a problem, so, yes, Saddam, yes, Mussolini, and yes, the Holy Roman Empire - those were pretenders long after the empire whose legacy they claimed fell, and with no clear connection. It's when occupiers who have made no meaningful attempts to integrate, who remain utter outsiders, and are seen as such by their people, claim succession by virtue of conquest that there is a problem. It's when you claim succession to some distant nation because of some genealogical accident that I have a problem (so no Moscow), or just based on some abstract parallel (so no America) that I hace a problem.

Those are problems. Not the gradual and unavoidable evolution of institutions over time, which is just perfectly normal change withoutnehich no nation could ever thrive or even exist for extended periods.

And if we want to talk about spouting nationalistic propaganda, pretty much all the argument against Byzantine legitimacy are rehashed western catholic propaganda to position catholicism over orthodox christianity as the true heir of Rome. So, you know.

Also and finally, you know very well I'm one of the least granular posters here. I *am* on the records saying I'd be fine with Charlemagne as a dual French and German leader rather than a separate Frankish civ (I just don't want a Frankish civ INSTEAD of France and Germany). on the record opposing a proposed Maurya civ because they'e one part of a long string of related Magadhi dynasties. And I've been very vocal against breaking down China. Among others.

So, where you get the idea that I generaly oppose relatively reasonable claims of continuity, I don't know.

Using the term, "nationalist," was probalby a term of frustation, I admit. The thing is, a certain trend has been growing on these sub-forums, in terms of discussing potential civ's, that has, in fact, been blocking and hampering actual discussion, even to the point of loggerheads. You and I have both, at times, been guilty, but I don't we, at all, are the worst for it. The notion that certain posters get stuck on ideas of which civ's are, "appropriate," or not (to the point of, "acceptable," or not, or even, "why is this brought up again"), where, rather than discussion, it's, "this civ has no place as a separate or extant civ, and these are reasons, and I want to treat them as objective truth, and not just my opinion, and you are objectively WRONG for wanting this civ, mostly because I don't like it and I say so, and I may slots from some unknown number or distribution kept open," in various levels of intensity, vehemence, and presentation in paraphrasing of that core sentiment. Do you, at all, see what I mean?

 

[Henri Christophe]

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

I still think unfair the notion of Germany before 1871.
I think it's a white privilege have it's history understood as that.
Because other nations of the game don't have this extrapolation of their concept of nation, as for example the Aztecs who couldn't have Benito Juárez as leader.

If Germany can be understood as the same civ to leaders who lead the area before 1871, other civs should have the same extrapolation.
The best example where it can be extrapolated is a Guarani-Paraguayan civ. Where it can have a Guarani leader as Sepé Tiajaru with Paraguayans units or a Paraguayan leader as Solano López with Guarani units.


And back to main topic of Rome, if we extrapolate the notion of Germany to before 1871. Why Rome can't be extrapolated to after 476 (I mean, why Rome and Byzantium are two civs?)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I still think unfair the notion of Germany before 1871.
I think it's a white privilege have it's history understood as that.
Because other nations of the game don't have this extrapolation of their concept of nation, as for example the Aztecs who couldn't have Benito Juárez as leader.

If Germany can be understood as the same civ to leaders who lead the area before 1871, other civs should have the same extrapolation.
The best example where it can be extrapolated is a Guarani-Paraguayan civ. Where it can have a Guarani leader as Sepé Tiajaru with Paraguayans units or a Paraguayan leader as Solano López with Guarani units.


And back to main topic of Rome, if we extrapolate the notion of Germany to before 1871. Why Rome can't be extrapolated to after 476 (I mean, why Rome and Byzantium are two civs?)

Because, a civ is defined by culture, not politics.
Guarani and Paraguay have different cultures.
Same with Rome and Byzantium
Same with Mexico and the Aztecs
But the HRE and Germany had the same culture, therefore the same civilization.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Because, a civ is defined by culture, not politics.
Guarani and Paraguay have different cultures.
Same with Rome and Byzantium
Same with Mexico and the Aztecs
But the HRE and Germany had the same culture, therefore the same civilization.

Culture is way more relative!
For example, Germany and Austria have the same "culture" but was two distinct civs on Civ 5.


And about Guarani/Paraguay. Paraguay still speaking the Guarani today, so it's a clear cultural continuation.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

1. Dromon should be GENERIC Melee ship. it is used also by everybody else around Byzantium. be there Italians, Islamic States in Mediterranean (and maybe Indian Ocean), and even North Atlantic Kingdoms (Before Nefs, Cogs and Holkes replaced them simetimes later on).
And it should be Medieval ship. also should look medieval. like this.
View attachment 675083
With long keel and spar, and no beaky rams. since everyone in the mediterranean stopped using ones. but I don't really know what does a long spar of Mediterranean Galleys (including Dromon and Chelande) does. is it a new kind of ram? it doesn't seem to work that way either since ramming is no longer done by the middle ages.

Not this

View attachment 675084
^ There's still below waterline ram bow. which I don't think it is a valid in the middle ages anymore.



The Byzantine variant should be called 'Fire Dromon' and it has flamethrower.

Ok

And how good Irene is? except that she further alienates Latin Church, and unintentionally gave rise to Charlemagne. if she ever shown up here, Charlemagne should also be leader of either France or Germany so she can have a matching rival.

That’s why I’m adding her - Charlemagne.

I had an idea of a set of DLCs/an expansion based around historical rivalry and diplomacy.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Culture is way more relative!
For example, Germany and Austria have the same "culture" but was two distinct civs on Civ 5.

I agree here for Germany and Austria as the same culture.

And about Guarani/Paraguay. Paraguay still speaking the Guarani today, so it's a clear cultural continuation.

Does Paraguay’s government consider Guarani mythology as their national religion? Faith is an important part of a culture.

 

[Evie]

Ah, yes. Now I see what you're talking about.

In which case I can only refer back to what I've often repeated - anything I say is said without any objection to Byzantine argument. At a personal level, I'm indifferent to Byzantium; which is to say I'm okay if they're in and I'm okay if they're out. So you won't hear me arguing against their presence ; and you will hear me acknowledging that there are good reasons to distinguish them from the earlier Roman Empire in civ terms (specifically, the Pagan Empire/Christian Empire split, which largely correspond with the move of the capital to Constantinople), even if politically they were the same. As I have in this very thread.

Yes, it echoes argument against including Byzantium in favor of ridiculous mergers. And arguments made for other dumb merges (yes, like Aztec-Mexico or Maya-Mexico, or Babylon-Iraq, or lumping France and Germany into a Frankish civ). But even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and on the Rome-Byzantium political continuity being clear-cut, they are. I'm not so worried about what stopped clocks argue for that I'll pretend they're wrong when they're stating facts.

(There's also a lot of nuances to many of these other questions which often tend to be shoved aside by the binary "same civ/not same civ" discussions, particularly when it comes to the continued existence of indigenous cultures - and therefore civilizations - since those cultures are undeniably continuing, to some degree within the colonial nations (and affecting the history of those colonial nations), but not as the colonial nations, that makes some of those discussions a lot more complicated than the aforesaid binary.).

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Ah, yes. Now I see what you're talking about.

In which case I can only refer back to what I've often repeated - anything I say is said without any objection to Byzantine argument. At a personal level, I'm indifferent to Byzantium; which is to say I'm okay if they're in and I'm okay if they're out. So you won't hear me arguing against their presence ; and you will hear me acknowledging that there are good reasons to distinguish them from the earlier Roman Empire in civ terms (specifically, the Pagan Empire/Christian Empire split, which largely correspond with the move of the capital to Constantinople), even if politically they were the same. As I have in this very thread.

Yes, it echoes argument against including Byzantium in favor of ridiculous mergers. And arguments made for other dumb merges (yes, like Aztec-Mexico or Maya-Mexico, or Babylon-Iraq, or lumping France and Germany into a Frankish civ). But even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and on the Rome-Byzantium political continuity being clear-cut, they are. I'm not so worried about what stopped clocks argue for that I'll pretend they're wrong when they're stating facts.

(There's also a lot of nuances to many of these other questions which often tend to be shoved aside by the binary "same civ/not same civ" discussions, particularly when it comes to the continued existence of indigenous cultures - and therefore civilizations - since those cultures are undeniably continuing, to some degree within the colonial nations (and affecting the history of those colonial nations), but not as the colonial nations, that makes some of those discussions a lot more complicated than the aforesaid binary.).

Wait who are you talking to? I mean I’m fine leaving Byzantium too.

 

[Evie]

I agree here for Germany and Austria as the same culture.

Does Paraguay’s government consider Guarani mythology as their national religion? Faith is an important part of a culture.

By that standard, Caesar, the Guarani people are no longer Guarani, since they have in fact changed religion.

This is because it's a bad standard. Religion can be a shorthand to represent vastly more profound changes in a society that can mark a cultural separation (such as with the Pagan/Christian Empires), but the idea that changing a single component of culture fundamentally ends the culture, even with religion, does not follow from that.

(And the other post was in response to my ongoing discussing with Patine).

 

[Henri Christophe]

the Guarani people are no longer Guarani, since they have in fact changed religion.

The Guarani converted to catholic church already in XVI century, when the first jesuits arrived.
And even if we made a Guarani civ, the best unique building should be a church called "redución"

The only difference between Guarani and Paraguay is because in XVIII century every corner in the world should have a state in it, and some Guaranis was in Paraguay, but there is a lot who is out of Paragauay as in Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil.

But even there is difference between Guaranis and Paraguayans, to a game purpose, they could be considered just one civ to try to tell a history of continuation.
And Germany made the same, when pick up leader who lived before 1871.

At a personal level, I'm indifferent to Byzantium; which is to say I'm okay if they're in and I'm okay if they're out

I'm totally against Byzantium, since the word Byzantium is an anacronic way to call a Christian Rome.
Also, all civs there I played (5and 6) had Byzantium. They never tried to do a game without Byzantium.
I mean, I think the best option isn't take out totally Byzantium, but make an alt leader of Rome. Maybe even the Ottomans could be also alt leader of Rome.
But not the Russians, their clame are to weak and also not Mussoline, because we shouldn't do fascist leaders at all.

 

[Evie]

I know Henri. That's what I'm saying - that Guarani culture now is Catholic, but it's still a continuation of Guarani culture.

And I know you're against Byzantine culture. Believe me, I've noticed.

(And while I'd be also okay with a Byzantine leader for the Roman civ, no, the Ottomans have no business being part of the Roman civilization. Or a Byzantine one. They were conquerors who claimed the title because they conquered the city, and in no meaningful way a continuation of the Roman state or culture, or the Byzantine one)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Oh. I guess that I was wrong about Guarani and Paraguayan culture. I’m not that knowledgeable in South American history.

I'm totally against Byzantium, since the word Byzantium is an anacronic way to call a Christian Rome.
Also, all civs there I played (5and 6) had Byzantium. They never tried to do a game without Byzantium.
I mean, I think the best option isn't take out totally Byzantium, but make an alt leader of Rome. Maybe even the Ottomans could be also alt leader of Rome.
But not the Russians, their clame are to weak and also not Mussoline, because we shouldn't do fascist leaders at all.

I can see where you’re going. I can accept Byzantium and Rome being the same civ (at the cost of my happiness)
But when you say the Ottomans could be alt Roman leaders - you’ve gone too far.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

(And while I'd be also okay with a Byzantine leader for the Roman civ, no, the Ottomans have no business being part of the Roman civilization. Or a Byzantine one. They were conquerors who claimed the title because they conquered the city, and in no meaningful way a continuation of the Roman state or culture, or the Byzantine one)

But rhe Roman - Byzantine - Ottoman (dis)continuum brings up another interesting problem with these discussions.

IF we accept that Ottoman was a disconnect from the previous 'Roman' continuum dating back to the Roman Kingdom, then how do we argue for a continuum of all the Chinese dynasties, including the conquest dynasties of the Mongols and Manchus or the largely Northern Barbarian aristocracy of the Tang? Yes, they all 'adopted' to various degrees the Chinese civic, social, and cultural norms, but in return I could point to the fact that Constantinople was the largest Greek-speaking city in the world until the 1920s, so can we 'prove' that the Ottoman disconnect was that much of a disconnect?

In other words, do we identify the Civ by the culture of the Leaders or the culture of the Followers, who are usually numerically the bulk of the population?

And, related, the Ottomans' rapid expansion was partly because of they were basically an agglutinative society: they were (for the time and even today) remarkably tolerant of anybody and invited every religious, social, and cultural group into their tent. That, to some degree, seems to have been a characteristic of most of the pastoral central Asian groups, so that the signs of their physical culture are practically indistinguishable. We call certain archeological sites 'Patzyric' or 'Scythian', but in truth the artifacts are almost identical and the identification is largely because we 'know' that it were Scythinas living there at the time - and sometimes we turn out to have been wrong, but the artifacts don't particularly distinguish among them, and only the religious artifacts tell us that a group was Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, or pagan: religion is also remarkably 'flexible' and has little effect on their physical culture and society.

So, back to the question: how do we distinguish societies/cultures when the 'new' culture is just apparently a veneer over a basic continuing physical and social culture, whether that base is Greek, Roman, a combination of the two, or Chinese, Cimmerian, Scythian, or Hephthalite? Acknowledging that the longer a Leading Veneer remains over a cultural Base, the more the base and the veneer will change into Something New, given the model of both the Chinese and Byzantine/Ottoman examples.

More pertinent to the game design, can we come up with a rule for distinguishing 'real' differences among the cultures that justify making them a separate Civ or just an Alternate Leader or even relegating them to City State status?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Oh. I guess that I was wrong about Guarani and Paraguayan culture. I’m not that knowledgeable in South American history.

I can see where you’re going. I can accept Byzantium and Rome being the same civ (at the cost of my happiness)
But when you say the Ottomans could be alt Roman leaders - you’ve gone too far.

Maybe we could do it step by step.
First on civ 7 just mix Rome and Byzantium in a single civ.
And later on civ 8 have also Mehmed II and Charlermagne as Romans emperor.
Or maybe just a scenario who we are able to play multiple ends to the Roman empire.

IF we accept that Ottoman was a disconnect from the previous 'Roman' continuum dating back to the Roman Kingdom, then how do we argue for a continuum of all the Chinese dynasties, including the conquest dynasties of the Mongols and Manchus or the largely Northern Barbarian aristocracy of the Tang?

That's a great question!
China was conquered by the mongols and it's stablished a Yuan dinasty who is represented in Civ6 with a dual leader.


Is conquest a factor of continuaty of empires?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe we could do it step by step.
First on civ 7 just mix Rome and Byzantium in a single civ.
And later on civ 8 have also Mehmed II and Charlermagne as Romans emperor.
Or maybe just a scenario who we are able to play multiple ends to the Roman empire.

How about they just keep it as is?

 

[Evie]

The Chinese dynastic succession is messy that way, yes. To what extent each of them represent a foreign takeover as opposed to the establishment of a new dynasty over the same state (or the reestablishment of the previous state under a new dynasty) is a mess. In those circumstances, I generally favor just adopting the traditional Chinese historiographic view unless there's a really good reason to ignore it (which there may be for the Yuan and Qing, not so much for the rest.