What is the deal with Ancient Walls vs Medieval Walls?

[Redaxe]

Considering that the strongest pre-gunpowder era city walls were the Aurelian Walls of Rome and the Theodossian Walls in Constantinople and those were both built well before the medieval euro-centric castle era. (I'm talking city walls here so that excludes the great wall of china)...

Maybe I'm nitpicking but this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I've noticed that a lot of medieval policies & technologies are also in a sense contradictory.

Castles were built because large cities in middle-age europe simply didn't exist. And most states didn't have the wealth to build fortifications on the scale that the Romans did - Castles were ideal for the times because it gave sufficient protection to the lord and his property - they generally weren't intended to protect large populations.
So I don't see how medieval walls can be considered as stronger than roman era walls but heck the world lost the knowledge in how to make concrete after the Romans disappeared.
Yes there was some technological advantages by the high middle ages but no country had the wealth or productive output to be able to match the scale of infrastructure that the ancient empires could build until the 19th century.

I suppose another example is feudalism/serfdom. That really is a regressive outcome as impoverished people traded there freedom to be under the authority of their local lord. They were no longer citizens of an Empire and could participate in the affairs of the state, I wouldn't call that progress... The only advantage in serfdom is that it gave more freedom then slaves would have but feudalism only occurred with the decline of classical era urban economies.

 

[Mercade]

Not really sure what the question or point is, but the deal with Ancient Walls is that they represent city (or dwelling, if you argue there weren't enough early cities) defenses. Even if not every town in 10 BCE or 600 CE had Theodossian Walls, where people lived they defended their homes with walls of dirt, palisades, forts (around which towns also formed), etc. So if you're looking at it from a game perspective, it's a perfectly logical step for them to split the walls (one of the first builds in Civ 5) into old walls and medieval walls.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

For the sake of a tech tree that shows a steady march of progress (rather than what actually happened), the Civ franchise has always given many of the accomplishments of the Classical period to the Medieval. In vanilla Civ V Currency and Engineering (the latter unlocking aqueducts) were Medieval techs (iirc this was changed in one of the expansions). In Civ IV, Philosophy (!) was a Medieval tech. That's all completely indefensible historically, but ah well. The Medieval Era plays a bit better this way.

 

[Redaxe]

Not really sure what the question or point is, but the deal with Ancient Walls is that they represent city (or dwelling, if you argue there weren't enough early cities) defenses. Even if not every town in 10 BCE or 600 CE had Theodossian Walls, where people lived they defended their homes with walls of dirt, palisades, forts (around which towns also formed), etc. So if you're looking at it from a game perspective, it's a perfectly logical step for them to split the walls (one of the first builds in Civ 5) into old walls and medieval walls.

I suppose the original post might have come across a bit random and convoluted but it just seems such an artificial distinction to separate walls into medieval and ancient....

In reality there was no distinction. An Empire built walls in respect to the amount of wealth and labor force it had available. Certainly technology was a factor - The Theodossian Walls for instance employed a lot of engineering technologies so the structure would be more resistant to earthquakes in a tectonically unstable area. But again science wasn't necessarily a linear process - it depended upon the wealth and labor pool you had available.

It just seems to be that 'medieval' walls should be placed at the Engineering or Military Engineering technology... It really isn't related to Castles. Castles were largely a product of the political realities of medieval Europe - they trace their evolution back to Byzantine and Roman border forts and even earlier in history.

 

[Cyon]

We also have renesance walls, they seem even stranger

 

[Siptah]

I guess for the sake of immersion you may refer to the fortifications you mentioned as medieval walls and when you are building ancient walls, think of the famous walls at Uruk, Hattusa, Buhen, Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham (although the latter is more a castle type) and the likes. There are later walls in the game as well (Renaissance?). So historically late medieval city walls (Vienna and Nuremberg for example) can be imagined as these last type of walls. I have no idea how the fortifications further east were in medieval times. Maybe there its all different.

 

[Bonci]

We also have renesance walls, they seem even stranger

Actually renaissance walls were quite different from medieval and ancient ones!
They were designed to deflect cannon balls and not to keep infantry outside (not so much).

Spoiler :

 

[Cyon]

Didn't know, thanks for info. Thought walls was chance less against canons, cool that you can build canon safe walls. But obviously we don't build walls anymore so I guess they are not safe from artillery strikes.

 

[Bonci]

Yeah they were proven ineffective in the long run, but against early artillery they were quite good!

Against modern artillery we use(d?) bunkers, gradually sinking ourselves in the ground

I wonder if we have seen something that nods at ww1/ww2 bunkers?

PS: here some more info!

 

[Cyon]

They look cool, I hope they will have that star shape in game!

 

[Siptah]

I wonder if they (Renaissance Walls) remain visible till the end. Most cities levelled their walls (at least partially) at some point in history.

 

[Uberfrog]

While the real reason we have a progression is entirely down to gameplay reasons, isn't it possible also to rationalise (historically) the technological progression in game based on the improvements in the quality of the defenders?

While the construction of the walls themselves may not have seen any improvement from classical times to the middle ages, walls are of course only as good as the people defending them. I'm not an expert, but surely the development of crossbows and arquebuses, and the wider use of arrow slits, murder holes and portcullises made walls more defensible?

 

[Brutus2]

I know it's fun to role-play actual history in Civ and I love TSL games as much as anyone but the simple answer to this question is that a Civ game is not supposed to be a year by year recreation of actual history. It's more of an "alternate reality" of sorts, like if some early event set the world on a different path from what we know.

The whole point of Civ is to re-write history, it's a "what if" game. As in, "What if the Romans lived next to the Aztecs, or what if the pyramids were built in Spain?" Sure in real life the fall of the Roman Empire led to a Dark Age but what if that never happened? What if masonry techniques had progressed and medieval walls improved on ancient walls?

 

[Barbarian King]

Considering that the strongest pre-gunpowder era city walls were the Aurelian Walls of Rome and the Theodossian Walls in Constantinople and those were both built well before the medieval euro-centric castle era. (I'm talking city walls here so that excludes the great wall of china)...

The Theodosian Walls could technically be considered medieval, and there were many medieval cities that did build walls (Carcassonne in France and Rothenburg ob der Tober in Germany being classic examples) so I think it is fine to have separate medieval city walls in Civ6.

The problem is that, from eurocentric point of view, there are no medieval technologies. Almost by definition, there was no development in technologies during the middle ages. After all, one of the hall marks of the renaissance was the development of science, technology and art that exceed the classical world.

It depends on what you mean by medieval. The broader definition encompasses the 5th-15th century, and there was a lot of technological progress in this period. While the first half of the medieval era was a time of slow progress (and, as has been observed in this thread, regress in some areas), there were some monumental developments even in that time. I always find it ironic when someone writes that there was no technological developments in the medieval period, considering that some of the biggest innovations in the field of writing itself happened in this period. The early medieval period is when word spacing, paragraphs, and punctuation really took off, which by bringing greater clarity to the written word probably laid the foundation for a lot of future technological development. All this to say, I disagree with the notion that a truly historical civilization game would have no technologies in the medieval period.

 

[Redaxe]

The problem is that, from eurocentric point of view, there are no medieval technologies. Almost by definition, there was no development in technologies during the middle ages. After all, one of the hall marks of the renaissance was the development of science, technology and art that exceed the classical world.

I wouldn't go that far. That is a very 19th century view that doesn't really hold up to the views of contemporary historians.

Here is a list of just some medieval technologies, buildings and also artistic achievements. While a lot of medieval technologies (things like better looms, wheelbarrows, mills etc...) seem quite trivial compared to some of the magnificent Roman inventions it is worth in bearing in mind that many of these technologies were paramount in reducing individual labor intensity and enhancing crop yields. Remember that slavery was the basis for the Roman economy and it removed incentive to innovate - slaves were cheap initially and provided a sufficient labor source. But the slaves had gained little to nothing out of there work so had no incentives to work harder or develop technology, and the wealthy plantation owners didn't care so much for innovation either or any technology was kept secret so it wouldn't spread. The advantage in the serfdom system over slavery is that farmers have more freedoms and can adopt technologies that may increase their standard of living.
So ultimately that increase in food production was the catalyst that allowed a resurgence in urbanization and more specialized trades. Ultimately it was an economic system that was much more healthy and sustainable than Rome's reliance on massive slave labor.

The other factor of importance (this gets into political theory I guess). Many would argue that getting rid of the Empire was the best thing for Europe. It allowed a return to CityStates and smaller nations that weren't so hampered by bureaucracy and the burdens of the State that people ultimately had more freedom to innovate. Consider Columbus; he couldn't get funding for his voyage in Genoa, Venice or Portugual but ultimately Spain financed his venture. A large centralised state, where the Emperor is confined to a palace like a God in a temple can't operate like that.

That is the spirit of the renaissance - and it had its origins in the medieval towns that sprung up after the end of the Roman Empire. In contrast Rome after the 3rd century was turning into a police state and the individual had less and less freedoms and a spirit of apathy took over. In fact you can see that same thing happening today, particularly in America and the EU. One of the reasons why I think the EU should go, is that excessive centralisation and bureaucracy is ultimately good for no-one.

- Blast Furnace

- 3 field system & heavy ploughs more suited for the heavy soils of Northern Europe

- Carolingian script

- Flying buttresses & Rib vaults

- Ship Mill (actually reintroduced into Europe by Belisarius and it spread from there) it provided significant gains in productivity

- Stirrup (introduced from Asia but it was adopted by Europeans and revolutionized warfare and heavy cavalry)

- Pendentives (Used to create the Hagia Sophia Cathedral). This was a major step in geometry and architecture and was a bridge between the Roman Basilica and medieval/renaissance engineering. While it took nearly 1000 years to build a bigger building in Europe it still served as the biggest influence on Islamic and Christian architecture for many centuries and inspired architects and engineers to create much more bold and daring building designs.

- Mosaic Art in the Basilica of San Vitale - I would call this the Da Vinci of the early medieval/late antiquity period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_San_Vitale

- Code of Justinian (Corpus Civilis Juris) the Roman legal code was readopted and studied in Italy from the 11th century. It also formed the basis for many modern European legal systems

- Greek Fire (invented and used by the Byzantines) which was also adopted into grenades and flamethrowers

- Counterweight and Hand Trebuchets - also Byzantine inventions

- Universities

 

[dturtle1]

..... I always find it ironic when someone writes that there was no technological developments in the medieval period, considering that some of the biggest innovations in the field of writing itself happened in this period. The early medieval period is when word spacing, paragraphs, and punctuation really took off, which by bringing greater clarity to the written word probably laid the foundation for a lot of future technological development. ......

Wow... Cool, i did not know this(never actually though about it either ) But yes, that is an important medieval technology(from a Western point of view anyway). It should be represented in CIV some way.

 

[lindsay40k]

If you look at a lot of castles, much of the battlements are aiming into the settlement the owner ruled over, rather than the likely routes of attack by invaders. Roaming bands of barbarians were not as big a concern as uprisings!

Castles were perhaps more useful as a place to barrack troops with food stores already in place. Pitched battles were preferable to long, expensive sieges (admittedly partly because a castle will tend to have places where skilled archery can threaten siege engines, plus you tend to want to capture a fortification reasonably intact) - Cromwell demolished a lot of castles to deny the Monarchists places to stop and hold out.

It is kind of funny in Civ V when you settle an arctic station to grab three oil, and to prevent your oil rig workers being enslaved by battleships & pirate Destroyers you buy a stone wall, then a castle, and then you construct an armoury and military base for your bazooka-wielding security staff XD

 

[skyclad]

There is room for one great city wall in classical times standing above the rest (like the theodosian walls for example), due to the great engineer who instantly builds ancient and medieval walls for no maintenence. Its a fun addition that one city can be super fortified ahead of their contemporaries. But eventually they catch up with technology

 

[Sufyan]

The problem is that, from eurocentric point of view, there are no medieval technologies. Almost by definition, there was no development in technologies during the middle ages.

That is nonsense. The middle ages gave you liquor, soap and printing!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

EDIT: Sorry, I should have read the whole thread before responding. My post turned out to be redundant.

 

[Scaramanga]

I like it because it's kind of like cities being built on top other ancient cities like in real life.

It is maybe for game balance so that someone who fortifies early is not impregnable for the duration of the rest of the game.