The Rome Thread

[Caesar of Bread]

How about they just keep it as is?

I agree.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Even then, I see no reason to make a separate Yuan civ, when we could just have Kublai Khan lead Mongolia.

On the topic of Rome vs. Byzantium there obviously is a direct connection between Constantine moving his capital east and continuing the Roman Empire from there. In my opinion, a leader like Basil II would be too far removed to be considered a Roman leader. However, a leader like Theodora I could possibly accept as an alternate Roman leader, but I would still prefer them to be separate.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Even then, I see no reason to make a separate Yuan civ, when we could just have Kublai Khan lead Mongolia.

On the topic of Rome vs. Byzantium there obviously is a direct connection between Constantine moving his capital east and continuing the Roman Empire from there. In my opinion, a leader like Basil II would be too far removed to be considered a Roman leader. However, a leader like Theodora I could possibly accept as an alternate Roman leader, but I would still prefer them to be separate.

True. After Heraclitus we really see a divide in cultures.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think the difference between Rome and China is the China still a country and always had the concept of Zhong Guo 中国, it means the center country.
On other hand Rome ends as at least 3 countries proclaming it self being sucessor of Rome (Russia, Austria and Turkey) and nowadays there is no country who proclaime to be descendent of Rome, don't even Italy.

 

[Patine]

I think the difference between Rome and China is the China still a country and always had the concept of Zhong Guo 中国, it means the center country.
On other hand Rome ends as at least 3 countries proclaming it self being sucessor of Rome (Russia, Austria and Turkey) and nowadays there is no country who proclaime to be descendent of Rome, don't even Italy.

This post seems to have no point I can catch. Care to paraphrase.

 

[Henri Christophe]

This post seems to have no point I can catch. Care to paraphrase.

@Boris Gudenuf start comparing Rome with China in the last page

 

[Patine]

@Boris Gudenuf start comparing Rome with China in the last page

Yes, I know. But the, "differences," you point out seem to lack relevancy to the argument about a civ in a Civ game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

Always being careful that the "traditional . . . historiographic view" isn't in fact blatantly or subtley Nationalistic and Propagandist at its base. As my ancient (Hellenistic Greek) history professor used to say, "Always start by examining your sources: always, always, always."

 

[AffineConstant]

I think the difference between Rome and China is the China still a country and always had the concept of Zhong Guo 中国, it means the center country.
On other hand Rome ends as at least 3 countries proclaming it self being sucessor of Rome (Russia, Austria and Turkey) and nowadays there is no country who proclaime to be descendent of Rome, don't even Italy.

The "one/center country" thing is a and always has been a propaganda tool in what we call China today. The reason it was needed at all is because the whole geographic region has been split up an amazing number of times, so if you're a conqueror having a cultural tool that justifies your reign is exceedingly useful. Which is little different from elsewhere, as far back as the first empires in the near east we can see cultural justification for sending troops over to conquer some place, and "it's because this was historically 'ours'" is probably the most common reason.

The thing to realize is this entire debate is a bit silly, because the way these decisions are made is based solely on what the average civ player today would recognize as a distinct current/historical "place" and most all of the discussions on here are super esoteric in nature. Does it matter that "Hellenistic Greece" wasn't a united thing as such, at least pre Alexander anyway? No of course not, because people have heard of "Ancient Greece" and want to play as "them", so good enough.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Well, some cultures think of themselves as successors of times they thought of “the old times”, a nostalgia that the world seems to have.
The European empires thought of Rome as “the good days of old”, the Song wished for the era of the Han, even now people have reminisces over times we know were good, but have gone away.
People look at the past due to the beauty it seems to have, which is something all humans may have.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Unique Structures: Roman Colosseum, Pantheon, Roman Bath

Roman Bath seemed like an odd choice to replace Aqueduct. I don't know if there is any historical president but I can imagine other cultures having something similar around natural hot springs or oasis.

Rome vs. Byzantium: From my understanding the capital was not moved by choice but by necessity. It more comparable to if Napoleon had conquered the British isles and the English government moved to Canada.

 

[Patine]

Roman Bath seemed like an odd choice to replace Aqueduct. I don't know if there is any historical president but I can imagine other cultures having something similar around natural hot springs or oasis.

Rome vs. Byzantium: From my understanding the capital was not moved by choice but by necessity. It more comparable to if Napoleon had conquered the British isles and the English government moved to Canada.

No, the move was about 100 or so years before Alaric sacked Rome.

 

[jsciv69]

Roman Bath seemed like an odd choice to replace Aqueduct. I don't know if there is any historical president but I can imagine other cultures having something similar around natural hot springs or oasis.

Rome vs. Byzantium: From my understanding the capital was not moved by choice but by necessity. It more comparable to if Napoleon had conquered the British isles and the English government moved to Canada.

Aqueducts are normally available for all Civs to build. But I think as Civs should have their own unique wonders. The Bath House sounds as Roman as a Toga.

 

[Patine]

Aqueducts are normally available for all Civs to build. But I think as Civs should have their own unique wonders. The Bath House sounds as Roman as a Toga.

The Japanese had a similar thing too, developed separately (as the Turkish and Hungarian Bath Houses and Western European Spa Towns have Roman roots, in origin), but, definitely, the Japanese analog aren't nearly as iconic to Japan (especially with Dojos and Shinto Shrines and such as options) as the Roman ones are to Rome.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Japanese had a similar thing too, developed separately (as the Turkish and Hungarian Bath Houses and Western European Spa Towns have Roman roots, in origin), but, definitely, the Japanese analog aren't nearly as iconic to Japan (especially with Dojos and Shinto Shrines and such as options) as the Roman ones are to Rome.

My own little 'rule of thumb' for Unique Buildings, Districts, or Improvements is:

Do they have a potential Wonder to cap it off?

The Roman Bath as a Unique for their cities is capped by the wonder:

Baths of Caracalla - not the largest of all the Roman municiple baths, but by reputation the most ornate and luxurious

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Roman Bath seemed like an odd choice to replace Aqueduct. I don't know if there is any historical president but I can imagine other cultures having something similar around natural hot springs or oasis.

A lot of uniques are basically enhanced versions of what the civilization did best. In the case of Rome, they definitely were the premier aqueduct builders of the Classical world. Attaching a Roman bath to an Aqueduct made the most sense.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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?

It seems like CIV6´s dual civs leaders were not the best implemented idea but in an conceptual level they fit for cases like Kublai Khan.
Now, how much is this needed in-game?
Well Mongols are always a must with Genghis Khan so anything more with others civs like China or even Persia is just a plus. About Jurchen/Manchu a Qing leader is an attractive option but the reality is that foundational leaders like Aguda and Nurhaci were already very significative historical figures that still represent their own culture elements. Nurhaci is particularly interesting in the way he used the role of cultural links in his diplomacy and legitimacy between Jurchen tribes (later "re-branded" Manchu by himself) and with Mongols and Chinese, plus his role in the foundation of the Eight Banners, certainly there is a justification for an interesting in-game culture unique mechanic for Jurchen/Manchu civ.

 

[pineappledan]

My top picks for a Roman leader would be, in order: Diocletian, Constantine I, Hadrian

All 3 are Imperial leaders, with the empire nearing or at its largest extent. They all in some way mark a transition. From the military anarchy into a bureaucratized late empire, a shift from Rome, the west, and paganism towards Byzantium, the East, and Christianity, and from expansion and conquest to stability and trade.

Diocletian's taxation, bureaucratic, and military reforms are very evocative of that mix of infrastructure and conquest that the civ franchise has settled into for Rome. He could give bonuses that relate to policies, civics, governance, and empire growth management. I think you could do some cool stuff with him as a leader that both feels very "Diocletian" while also feeling very "Rome"

Constantine I is a choice that is less in line with that production/infrastructure/conquest ethos, and would probably push Rome more religious. Nevertheless, he inhabits this incredibly pivotal place in Roman history, straddling the transition from the early empire, with a single capital at Rome to the Eastern-Western split that defined the late Classical and medieval world.

Hadrian, like Diocletian, has that perfect mix of construction projects and reform to his name that make him the prototypical embodiment of the "Roman" imperial stereotype. However, while Diocletian's accomplishments centered around reorganizing the political structures that governed Rome, Hadrian's legacy is found more in the literal structures he built, refurbished, or funded. He could have more of a straightforward production or wonder focus.

 

[pineappledan]

Nurhaci is particularly interesting in the way he used the role of cultural links in his diplomacy and legitimacy between Jurchen tribes (later "re-branded" Manchu by himself) and with Mongols and Chinese, plus his role in the foundation of the Eight Banners, certainly there is a justification for an interesting in-game culture unique mechanic for Jurchen/Manchu civ.

Just a note, Nurhaci never rebranded as the Manchu. He called his empire the Later Jin, as a reference to the earlier Jurchen Jin dynasty that ruled Northern China in the 11th century. Nurhaci's son, Hong Taiji, was the one who renamed them to the Manchus. After his father's death, Hong Taiji turned his armies west and north and conquered the Northern Yuan remnants, and the other Amur basin Tungusic federations like the Evenks. In recognition of his much more expansive and diverse empire, he rechristened and incorporated his new people as the Manchus, and inaugurated the Great Qing.