Why ask for an Italy civ when you can reasonably ask for two Italian based civs?

Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,378
Location
Texas
The only thing I disagree with you on is "a true Italian civ": it does not exist. If you want a modern Italy, go for Sardinia, if you want something cool go for Sicily, or the dark horse: Etrurians.
Not even the Kingdom of Italy under Victor Emmanuel II?
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
21
Location
Marchesato di Saluzzo, Italian peninsula
Not even the Kingdom of Italy under Victor Emmanuel II?
Well, definitely not. At least not as Italy itself. Cavour, whom I proposed for Sardinia, served as PM during his reign, but VE II is quite disliked because when he was crowned King of Italy he assumed the name of Vittorio Emanuele II instead of Vittorio Emanuele I, hence suggesting that the unification war was just a conquest war done by Savoy family, so he is not liked in the Southern Italy. Moreover, he was not that good of a king, (a bit like all our monarchs if I can say so), he liked hunting and women and was not a great politician (hence why I chose Cavour for the Kingdom of Sardinia). Finally, monarchy is quite badly considered by Italians, as Savoy did the infamous "jump sides" thing, just to flee and put themselves under Allied's protection, leaving Central and Northern Italy to face the real horrors of wars, occupied by nazis and filonazis, this part of Italy really suffered from a civil war in addition to WW2
 

Duke William of Normandy

King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
3,611
Location
Rouen, Normandy
Well, definitely not. At least not as Italy itself. Cavour, whom I proposed for Sardinia, served as PM during his reign, but VE II is quite disliked because when he was crowned King of Italy he assumed the name of Vittorio Emanuele II instead of Vittorio Emanuele I, hence suggesting that the unification war was just a conquest war done by Savoy family, so he is not liked in the Southern Italy. Moreover, he was not that good of a king, (a bit like all our monarchs if I can say so), he liked hunting and women and was not a great politician (hence why I chose Cavour for the Kingdom of Sardinia). Finally, monarchy is quite badly considered by Italians, as Savoy did the infamous "jump sides" thing, just to flee and put themselves under Allied's protection, leaving Central and Northern Italy to face the real horrors of wars, occupied by nazis and filonazis, this part of Italy really suffered from a civil war in addition to WW2
...Well, that somewhat ruins my idea of Cavour as a Unique Governor for Vittorio Emmanuelle II. :p
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,378
Location
Texas
Well, definitely not. At least not as Italy itself. Cavour, whom I proposed for Sardinia, served as PM during his reign, but VE II is quite disliked because when he was crowned King of Italy he assumed the name of Vittorio Emanuele II instead of Vittorio Emanuele I, hence suggesting that the unification war was just a conquest war done by Savoy family, so he is not liked in the Southern Italy. Moreover, he was not that good of a king, (a bit like all our monarchs if I can say so), he liked hunting and women and was not a great politician (hence why I chose Cavour for the Kingdom of Sardinia). Finally, monarchy is quite badly considered by Italians, as Savoy did the infamous "jump sides" thing, just to flee and put themselves under Allied's protection, leaving Central and Northern Italy to face the real horrors of wars, occupied by nazis and filonazis, this part of Italy really suffered from a civil war in addition to WW2
What about Guiseppe Garibaldi? I know he didn't officially lead Italy per se though, I guess with Gandhi and Ba Trieu as leaders, I can still see him be a possibility. Surely some sort of unified representation of Italy has to sit well with some present-day Italians?
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
21
Location
Marchesato di Saluzzo, Italian peninsula
What about Guiseppe Garibaldi? I know he didn't officially lead Italy per se though, I guess with Gandhi and Ba Trieu as leaders, I can still see him be a possibility. Surely some sort of unified representation of Italy has to sit well with some present-day Italians?
Imho no. He did not play such a big role, like for example Gandhi, as after 1861 he was kind of set apart, as politicians feared he might use his volunteers to do a coup and he, disgusted by politics, retired/was forced to retire. It could be possible to use him as a Great General, with a retire bonus giving some loyalty pressure against cities of civs you're at war with (to represent how he used rebels against Borbons to conquer South Italy)
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
Because that's how it is for basically everyone else tbh. You don't have separate Sparta and Athens civs; or separate Palenque, Calakmul, and Tikal civs; or separate Prussian and Bavarian civs.

Besides, getting two Italies while India remains an amorphous blob is practically an insult.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
21
Location
Marchesato di Saluzzo, Italian peninsula
Because that's how it is for basically everyone else tbh. You don't have separate Sparta and Athens civs; or separate Palenque, Calakmul, and Tikal civs; or separate Prussian and Bavarian civs.

Besides, getting two Italies while India remains an amorphous blob is practically an insult.

Well, sukritact, first of all thank you for all the awesome mods you gave us in these 4.5 years. I know it isn't really in topic, but it's the least I can do! I remember downloading several of your mods, but unluckily my computer is not very fast, so if I want to actually finish the game before I die of oldness I have to play with no mods :(

Second, thank you for actually giving a negative response which is not mentioning Rome, as it means you clearly know that Italy is not Rome (and I wouldn't expect less knowledge from you with all the mod content you created, clearly you are a history knower).

Finally, thank you for also giving out examples and argumentations to counter my proposal. First of all, I remember you that my two civs were thought of as a "divertissement" from me and my history graduate friend and in response to people asking for Italy without having any clue of it, just for the sake of asking Italy proposing leaders like Lorenzo de Medici or something like that (doesn't make sense).
As I said, the proposal of 2 civs is mainly a provocaqtion to those asking for Italy and a "cautelative" measure for myself: Italy is called "the land of 1000 clocktowers", with lots of regional rivalry and I didn't want to be called a homer just for proposing only my region.

Finally, you said that we don't have separate Sparta and Athens civs, but they were in more or less the same time frame and, most importantly, other than holding Olympics together (which means a common cultural base), they were capable of putting the internal fights aside and join forces towards a common enemy (Persian invasions).
In Italian history, on the contrary, you have an Italian state asking for a continental power to come down in Italy and fight their enemy (generally asking for help to France, but ghibellini also invoked the Emperor). Final remark: these two civs are heavily different in culture (one is Viking/Arab/German based and the other has French influencies) and time (>600 years set them apart) plus the fact that Italy is a vague concept: you mentioned that we don't have Bavaria or Prussia (two which I would love to see for sure), but a Germany civ in that case can make sense, as there is a common idea of German culture + the German empire (HRE, but still) existed through all the middle ages. Not wanting to sound Eurocentric, but you could almost say that Italy is a smaller European India, for how both are peninsulae, separated at North by high mountain chains and heavily culturally diverse on regional bases (even though a single Indian region has 2x Italian population).

For sure, you being Asian are closer to me than India (even if of course very far from Indian culture I suppose) and have more knowledge than I have, but I just wanted to point out that, if we have England and Scotland or France and Gauls, there is not a reason we shouldn't have two Italian civs too (apart from limited resources, of course I agree some areas like Africa and native NA tribes should be done before Italian civs because of how they are underrepresented), but I 100% agree with you that we should have a proper Indian representation instead of the blob we have right now.

Thank you once again for your constructive criticism on this proposal and for all the fantastic mods you gave us, sorry if my response was a bit too long!
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
As I said, the proposal of 2 civs is mainly a provocaqtion to those asking for Italy and a "cautelative" measure for myself: Italy is called "the land of 1000 clocktowers" with lots of regional rivalry and I didn't want to be called a homer just for proposing only my region.
You do you! I do enjoy making designs, hence my modding repertoire. But you made this thread with the rather provocative title of "Why ask for an Italy civ when you can reasonably ask for two Italian based civs?", so I am going to respond giving my reasoning for why I think two Italian civs are completely superfluous.

To be clear, on a theoretical level, this is all fine. I have no problems having separate Athens and Spartan Civs, separate Kingdom of Sicily and Republic of Venice civs. You could make separate Calakmul and Tikal civs too. There IS a very clear argument to be made that they all should be separate. Back in Civ 5, I made a Tuscany civ, and helped some friends make a separate Milan civ. We also split Greece up into Athens, Sparta, Pergamon and Macedon. We also broke Egypt into half a dozen pieces. I'm only arguing against this on a "should Firaxis actually ever do this" level. There are limited resources, and if they ever decided "You know, we need Rome AND Venice, AND Piedmont-Sardinia" in the same game while Africa the Americas remain as sparse as they currently are, I'm gonna cry Eurocentrism and possibly boycott the thing out of principle.

On the other hand if the next Civ game somehow has Siam, the Khmer, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali, the Zulu, Kongo, Benin, the Ashanti, Kilwa, Great Zimbabwe, the Hausa, Morocco, the Chola, the Mughals, the Mauryans, the Haudenosaunee, the Haida, the Shoshone, the Cree, and the Navajo already, then go ahead. You seem to acknowledge that those regions could do with more attention, so perhaps we aren’t disagreeing at all here.

(>600 years set them apart)
In a game where Germany is led by a Holy Roman Emperor, but has a U-Boat as a unique unit, where Eleanor of Aquitaine and Victoria both rule England (about 700 years difference), where there China's Unique Unit (ca. 1350 AD), and their Leader (ca. 210 BC) is separated by about 1500 years, this is not a valid point.

In Italian history, on the contrary
To be frank: there's nothing special about intra-Italian politics. It's a bunch of squabbling city-states with related cultures, that we consider one group today because there's a unified state. No it doesn't quite make sense for Lorenzo de Medici to found and rule Palermo, or for Enrico Dandolo to be controlling Genoa. But neither does it make sense for Pericles to rule Sparta when the man is known for controlling the anti-Sparta faction during a war where the entire Greek world was basically split between Athens and Sparta.

The Mayans are probably an excellent comparison (and its politics during the Classical period HAS been compared to that of Italy). Multiple squabbling states. Varying degrees of influence from outside cultures. Multiple Mayan languages that are not necessarily mutually intelligible. From the cities I mentioned for instance Tikal and Calakmul were intense rivals during the Classic Period (250–900 AD). Tikal's culture and architecture was influenced by foreign invaders after they were conquered by Teotihuacan who installed a new dynasty there, whereas Calakmul's lineage was native Mayan, tracing its roots back to El Mirador. Lady Six Sky herself ruled Naranjo, which was a smaller City-State that was part of the Calakmul side of the alliance. Strictly speaking, it makes no sense for her to rule Tikal. She may not have identified with them or their culture. She still can found and rule Tikal.

Besides, like it or not, we ultimately do have an unified Italy. If you get down to it, we never did have a unified Mayan state, or a unified Cree state, or a unified Maori state. Meanwhile Gran Colombia stuck around for 12 years and broke into a million pieces.


they were capable of putting the internal fights aside and join forces towards a common enemy
I'd like to point out saying "And France, England, the HRE united long enough to fight the Third Crusade" doesn't really mean we should have a united Christendom civ :p

For sure, you being Asian are closer to me than India (even if of course very far from Indian culture I suppose) and have more knowledge than I have
India is a mess, frankly. It covers millennia, two language families (at least all the major languages of Italy are from the same family), and too many religions. And then the Muslims attacked and made everything even more confusing (Mughal civ when TBH).

I don’t know much about Indian history frankly, I just know enough to be able to say they certainly need more love than they’ve been given.

if we have England and Scotland or France and Gauls, there is not a reason we shouldn't have two Italian civs
Frankly, I think Scotland was a Eurocentric choice. Meanwhile France and Gaul is probably even more distant than Rome and Italy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
21
Location
Marchesato di Saluzzo, Italian peninsula
You do you! I do enjoy making designs, hence my modding repertoire. But you made this thread with the rather provocative title of "Why ask for an Italy civ when you can reasonably ask for two Italian based civs?", so I am going to respond giving my reasoning for why I think two Italian civs are completely superfluous.

To be clear, on a theoretical level, this is all fine. I have no problems having separate Athens and Spartan Civs, separate Kingdom of Sicily and Republic of Venice civs. You could make separate Calakmul and Tikal civs too. There IS a very clear argument to be made that they all should be separate. Back in Civ 5, I made a Tuscany civ, and helped some friends make a separate Milan civ. We also split Greece up into Athens, Sparta, Pergamon and Macedon. We also broke Egypt into half a dozen pieces. I'm only arguing against this on a "should Firaxis actually ever do this" level. There are limited resources, and if they ever decided "You know, we need Rome AND Venice, AND Piedmont-Sardinia" in the same game while Africa the Americas remain as sparse as they currently are, I'm gonna cry Eurocentrism and possibly boycott the thing out of principle.

On the other hand if the next Civ game somehow has Siam, the Khmer, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Mali, the Zulu, Kongo, Benin, the Ashanti, Kilwa, Great Zimbabwe, the Hausa, Morocco, the Chola, the Mughals, the Mauryans, the Haudenosaunee, the Haida, the Shoshone, the Cree, and the Navajo already, then go ahead. You seem to acknowledge that those regions could do with more attention, so perhaps we aren’t disagreeing at all here.


In a game where Germany is led by a Holy Roman Emperor, but has a U-Boat as a unique unit, where Eleanor of Aquitaine and Victoria both rule England (about 700 years difference), where there China's Unique Unit (ca. 1350 AD), and their Leader (ca. 210 BC) is separated by about 1500 years, this is not a valid point.

To be frank: there's nothing special about intra-Italian politics. It's a bunch of squabbling city-states with related cultures, that we consider one group today because there's a unified state. No it doesn't quite make sense for Lorenzo de Medici to found and rule Palermo, or for Enrico Dandolo to be controlling Genoa. But neither does it make sense for Pericles to rule Sparta when the man is known for controlling the anti-Sparta faction during a war where the entire Greek world was basically split between Athens and Sparta.

The Mayans are probably an excellent comparison (and its politics during the Classical period HAS been compared to that of Italy). Multiple squabbling states. Varying degrees of influence from outside cultures. Multiple Mayan languages that are not necessarily mutually intelligible. From the cities I mentioned for instance Tikal and Calakmul were intense rivals during the Classic Period (250–900 AD). Tikal's culture and architecture was influenced by foreign invaders after they were conquered by Teotihuacan who installed a new dynasty there, whereas Calakmul's lineage was native Mayan, tracing its roots back to El Mirador. Lady Six Sky herself ruled Naranjo, which was a smaller City-State that was part of the Calakmul side of the alliance. Strictly speaking, it makes no sense for her to rule Tikal. She may not have identified with them or their culture. She still can found and rule Tikal.

Besides, like it or not, we ultimately do have an unified Italy. If you get down to it, we never did have a unified Mayan state, or a unified Cree state, or a unified Maori state. Meanwhile Gran Colombia stuck around for 12 years and broke into a million pieces.


I'd like to point out saying "And France, England, the HRE united long enough to fight the Third Crusade" doesn't really mean we should have a united Christendom civ :p

India is a mess, frankly. It covers millennia, two language families (at least all the major languages of Italy are from the same family), and too many religions. And then the Muslims attacked and made everything even more confusing (Mughal civ when TBH).

I don’t know much about Indian history frankly, I just know enough to be able to say they certainly need more love than they’ve been given.

Frankly, I think Scotland was a Eurocentric choice. Meanwhile France and Gaul is probably even more distant than Rome and Italy.

Well, first of all thank you for reading all my looong post and replying point to point to all my sentences and of course I can't but agree with you on almost all you said.

Regarding Germany, well that was a very poor choice imho and I remember it being heavily criticized already in 2016. They should just have gone with Barbarossa as HRE leader and their unique unit as the Landsknecht (even though the "Defenders of the Land" were more a Pike and Shot replacement, so we're talking about 400 years anyway) and put Bismarck as Germany leader (even though you might argue he was more Prussian, despite serving as Chancellor of unified Germany for around 15 years iirc (should be 1871 to 1888 if memory doesn't fail me), while Cavour died two month after unification. What I hope to have you concede me is at least that Germany has a longer tradition of common national identity when compared to Italy, as even though it unified just in 1871, still there had been a German volk (I know this is a very cursed word, especially when talking about Germans themselves but I hope you see what I mean) while the concept of Italy, despite being present already in the Middle Age (ask Dante. Moreover, why has Dante still not been added to the game? You can't play the limited resources card on Great Writers and anyway more Great People are always good, plus he is considered the greatest poet ever to live, not my opinion but T.S. Eliot's one, whom I regard as quite influential, just to name one of his supporters), yet there was not a common culture imho along the whole Boot and it still is not there if I can say so myself, as an Italian.

However, what you have correctly read, I named this thread provocatorily so and for the exact same reason you have pointed out: I'm sick of people who keep asking for Italy to be added into civ. It does not deserve its place for what we did after Italy was born! Mediocre Kings, even worse politicians, the only known name being the one of a dictator (who still has some estimators in Italy but can never ever be a fit choice. never ever) who after saying Hitler was a madman to be eliminated sided with him and followed him in the darkest things mankind ever did. And Gengis Khan is a distant name, surrounded with almost mythology, so he can get away with his genocides, but modern dictators should never have their place on a game like Civ, especially given how inclusive it became compared to like C IV. So you see I say that Italy does not need to be in the game and I'd rather see Songhai, an Indian subcontinent civ, some more Native American tribes (even though they can be problematic, as for the fire given by the Cree's addition) before I see an Italy civ and even then I'd be unsatisfied with it, because it could not be a good civ and would be badly implemented 99% sure, I can tell you this.

As said, I put both the civs because I didn't want to be under attack because I included Piedmont and neglected the South, poor South always bullied by the North, the South who introduced train to Italy, the South which had the most beautiful city in the world, a capital at the level of Paris and Madrid and blablabla; if you lived in Italy you would just know how a minefield it is to talk North vs South. Being a Piedmontese myself I couldn't avoid talking about Sardinia (which is the Italian Prussia let's say) because it would be the one I can talk about with more knowledge; on the other hand, I could not avoid putting a Southern Kingdom (and I think I managed to put together something at least decent, considered I don't have as good a knowledge of South as I have of my own region) to avoid backfiring from my own compatriots.
And as I said, in the hope FXS developers ever sere this thread is: please please, don't give us a bad Italy which would be "plastic" (can you give me this point at least? That Italy would be as "fake" a civ as other modern day ones, so they would undergo all criticism had with Australia and Canada once again?) but please go the same route as Civ V: one civ located in the Italian peninsula, whose capital is not Rome and is not from modern days. Then you can pick Longobards, pick Venice again, pick a Tuscan civ (similar to Greece as in the fact that they had a messy internal situation), Etrurians, Ostrogoths, Norman Sicily or Piedmont, Sardinia from the Middle Ages so you can have a strong choice as a female leader in Eleonora d'Arborea, but please don't give us a "Italy" civ. So as you can see I'm not saying "there should be two distinct Italian civs", the title was provocatory and I would be extremely happy if just one of the two or another italic civ made it to the game.

Regarding Mayans, I don't have such a good knowledge of Mesoamerican civs, so I have to trust you here. I never thought of them as a "fake" civ, but that is for sure because my view is Eurocentric (and if you concede me this, basically all world History is a bit Eurocentric, especially for what concerns Americas which were wiped out by European colonists, sometimes intentionally, sometimes less (through pandemics), so we refer to Mayans or to Aztecs or even to "Native Americans" when probably they would have 10-15 different population names if tehy were Europeans, I acknowledge this.)

For the Greek bonding together to face a common enemy and the parallel with the Crusade I have to admit you hit me, I had a good laugh :lol:. However, I think it is quite different from France, England and HRE uniting for the third crusade, as they were each one with its own language, sovereign and culture, while Greek city states, despite being almost constantly at war had the same language and a culture which was for sure more homogeneous than Medieval European states/Empire, can we agree? (And talking about Middle Ages, Eleanor and Victoria are spaced by centuries, but they indeed ruled over the same Kingdom, despite there being two civil wars in between, but with the same capitals, same language and same borders more or less. So my two civs would be more England and Scotland in terms of spacing and culture)
Of course we should have a city list which is 100% different for Gorgo and Pericles, with each one being able to found cities which were in the influence of their relative capitals.

And for India I 1000% agree with you and I remember one quote from I think a British XX century scholar saying "Hinduism is like a beautiful orchid transplant: it is indeed beautiful and satisfies our eye, but is a man-made creation, bred in a greenhouse which you will never find in nature", meaning that Hinduism is not even a single religion itself but more an umbrella term invented by English rulers to please the eye (="to make it more simple to understand and describe"), while in reality it is more similar to using the term "3 Religions of the Book" to describe Hebraism, Christianity and Islam (the order I wrote them is just their birth order), as they all have a single God, a single Book and recall themselves to Abraham. So yeah, India should definitely have its own 3-4 civs, but it won't happen because otherwise no more Gandhi nukes the world memes and we don't want this :nono::nono::nono:
 

Yudhisthira

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
76
Location
इन्द्रप्रस्थ
I think a British XX century scholar saying "Hinduism is like a beautiful orchid transplant: it is indeed beautiful and satisfies our eye, but is a man-made creation, bred in a greenhouse which you will never find in nature", meaning that Hinduism is not even a single religion itself but more an umbrella term invented by English rulers to please the eye (="to make it more simple to understand and describe"), while in reality it is more similar to using the term "3 Religions of the Book" to describe Hebraism, Christianity and Islam (the order I wrote them is just their birth order), as they all have a single God, a single Book and recall themselves to Abraham.

It's risky sometimes to trust British Scholars when it comes to 20th century India. :mischief:

Anyway regarding claim of 'Hinduism being made by Britishers like plant in green house'. Here I m quoting Professor Michael Witzel who is senior professor at Harvard University & considered top authority on Indology in western world. I could have quoted Indian scholars but I realized lately they suffer credibility problem in west.

Prof Witzel - "
When I was working in Nepal during the seventies (1972-77) and occasionally later on), I noticed that many elements -as well as structures – of rituals, customs, and beliefs have continued from the Vedic period into modern Hinduism; nevertheless, I was also aware of the fact that such correspondences are not recognized very easily. What is necessary is a Vedic specialist who takes a close look at the practices of modern Hinduism. This, of course, is usually not done, as the myths and ‘theology’ of Hinduism seem to be that of the Epics and the Puranas, and these are regarded as something intrinsically different from the preceding Vedic period.
We may, however, easily find individual examples where Vedic concepts and beliefs have been perpetuated into modern times.

Levy’s analysis allows us to view Hinduism, just like any other religion, on its own terms, as a rather well-organized system of beliefs, rites, and customs. Western scholars sometimes do not see it this way. They are often dazzled by the endless array of gods, images, motifs, stories, mythical cycles, and so on, and by the infinite number of gods, images, motifs, stories, mythical cycles, and so on, and by the infinite number of smaller and larger rituals and festivals. The problem is compounded when these elements are set free from their selection and interrelations in a particular community and are set adrift in some unlocalized historical space. Scholars get lost in catalogs of the multitude of gods, symbols, and customs of Hinduism. Hindu (or Vedic) mythology is not just a jungle of tales that seems to sprout ever new shoots and branches like a jungle creeper or banyan tree. The tales are variations on a number of well-established themes and structures. It is just their effulgence and their multitude that confound. "

British XX century scholar

Out of curiosity, Do you remember his name?
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
21
Location
Marchesato di Saluzzo, Italian peninsula
It's risky sometimes to trust British Scholars when it comes to 20th century India. :mischief:

Anyway regarding claim of 'Hinduism being made by Britishers like plant in green house'. Here I m quoting Professor Michael Witzel who is senior professor at Harvard University & considered top authority on Indology in western world. I could have quoted Indian scholars but I realized lately they suffer credibility problem in west.

Prof Witzel - "
When I was working in Nepal during the seventies (1972-77) and occasionally later on), I noticed that many elements -as well as structures – of rituals, customs, and beliefs have continued from the Vedic period into modern Hinduism; nevertheless, I was also aware of the fact that such correspondences are not recognized very easily. What is necessary is a Vedic specialist who takes a close look at the practices of modern Hinduism. This, of course, is usually not done, as the myths and ‘theology’ of Hinduism seem to be that of the Epics and the Puranas, and these are regarded as something intrinsically different from the preceding Vedic period.
We may, however, easily find individual examples where Vedic concepts and beliefs have been perpetuated into modern times.

Levy’s analysis allows us to view Hinduism, just like any other religion, on its own terms, as a rather well-organized system of beliefs, rites, and customs. Western scholars sometimes do not see it this way. They are often dazzled by the endless array of gods, images, motifs, stories, mythical cycles, and so on, and by the infinite number of gods, images, motifs, stories, mythical cycles, and so on, and by the infinite number of smaller and larger rituals and festivals. The problem is compounded when these elements are set free from their selection and interrelations in a particular community and are set adrift in some unlocalized historical space. Scholars get lost in catalogs of the multitude of gods, symbols, and customs of Hinduism. Hindu (or Vedic) mythology is not just a jungle of tales that seems to sprout ever new shoots and branches like a jungle creeper or banyan tree. The tales are variations on a number of well-established themes and structures. It is just their effulgence and their multitude that confound. "



Out of curiosity, Do you remember his name?

Once again, as I previously said I can do nothing but cede and accept what you are saying, as - judging from your name and profile description (I’m not sure what alphabet is it, almost sure it’s from Indian subcontinent, I’d think Sanscrit but I’m almost sure I’m wrong) - you are Indian or from the Indian subcontinent, so you clearly know more than me on the subject.

However, the reason why I said, erroneously according to you, that Hinduism was not a religion but a collection of religion was to agree and reinforce the point sukritact was making, that India deserves more representationin the game for how historically ancient, geographically vast and culturally diverse your subcontinent is.

I quoted the supposedly British scholar because of how beautiful that metaphor was, not to say “this is the white man’s opinion and hence must be right” (this is why I dislike The Book of the Jungle, for I hate Kipling and his white man’s burden), please don’t get me wrong.

And also it was a big mistake, because my brain is now emptied of all “philosophical-historical” elements to make space for dc-dc converters and similar:
It was no Brutish scholar, but a great historian of religions like Hans Küng.
 

Yudhisthira

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
76
Location
इन्द्रप्रस्थ
I m not objecting to the notion of better representation for Indian subcontinent.

Just on view of Hinduism being some kind of British construct or collection of distinct belief systems.
Thou I am Indian but that is not important rather the facts supported by evidences & scholars are.

& I don't think Hinduism being a religion in anyway goes against more Indian civs. I mean there r many civs who r Christian or Islamic. And there is no single Christian Civ or Buddhist Civ.
If anything proper understanding will help us to reach better conclusion which will help us in deblobing correctly.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,894
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
none from the Republican era, Mussolini definitely out of question and no King was ever relevant

Not even the Kingdom of Italy under Victor Emmanuel II?
As said by Alexander, Victor Emmanuel II is a great name to lead Italy in it's first appear.

we don't need Italy, we already have Rome
But I also agree with this statment, Rome maybe is enouth to cover the Italy as a Civ. Even maybe the lack of good names to be leader of Italy helps these absence.
Garibaldi or Lorenzo de' Medici as a leader
I agree with you these names aren't the best name to lead Italy, because they never lead Italy itself.
But, I think is possible to do a Italian civ lead by Garibaldi, he is kind of an amazing figure, he can also be an alternative leader to Rio Grande do Sul civ, if one day Fireaxis want to include breakway states of Brazil in the game.

The two possible civs I would have come up with are:
  • the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Italian state which led the unification process, led by Camillo Benso conte di Cavour, first Prime Minister of the unified Italy, who died two months after unification.
  • the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, the medieval portion of the HRE in Italy, possibly led by Federico II, grandson of Barbarossa, named German emperor at 18 (so we could also see him as an alt leader for Germany) and officially crowned at 26, under which science and culture flourished, leading also to the birth of Italian literature, around a century before Dante, who was an admirer of the Sicilian School.
But overall I don't like these subdivision of Italy, I don't want civilization to do a so overrepresentation of Italy in the game, the game is already very eurocentric.
But, if we want to choice some subdivision of pre unification Italy, I should pick Napoles because is bigger.
Or the papal states to have a Pope as a leader.
 

Xandinho

Deity
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,203
Location
Brazil
My first choice as an Italian representation is the Republic of Venice, but a unified Italian civ could be interesting too. It's strange that Civ6 doesn't have any Italian representative as a playable civ. Florence can be represented as a city-state and Santa Maria del Fiore as a wonder of the world.
 
Last edited:

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
178
Germany, Canada, and Australia would like to have a word with your bit on younger civs being unimportant…

I agree that Piedmont would be the best candidate for a city state civ pre Italian unification. But it is so limiting and they ended up unifying the country anyways so…why not just go with an amalgamation civ of Italy? We don’t need so many European civs but some kinda non-Roman Italian representation is what people obviously want.

I just don’t think it’s as hard as you’re saying. The economic/industrial prowess of the north (More TRs with extra production?) mixed with some extra GPP or culture (Commercial hub UD that grants GPP per building?) for a economic/cultural Italian Civ would be great. Maybe not 100% historically accurate-this ain’t EU4- but it’d representative enough and be a nice counterpart to Portugal who is economic/science. To me, as long as it’s representative and fun to play then it’d be great.
 

ManoftheHour333

Warlord
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
178
It is painful to be able to only like this reply once. Because I agree with 99% of what you said. I'm happy you enjoyed your time here, I'm happy to see other people say that, if France has 2.5 civs (because Gauls and France + Rome, which has many French cities in its list), then we (the Italians) clearly deserve to have a second representative in the game. I loved the proposal of Prussia, together with Assyria, as Germany is quite young itself (10 years later than Italy), so a preunitarian state would be perfect. And, despite having proposed it myself, I understand that 3 Italian civs on TSL are going to be bad (just like England+Scotland+France+Netherlands+Germany to be fair).
The only thing I disagree with you on is "a true Italian civ": it does not exist. If you want a modern Italy, go for Sardinia, if you want something cool go for Sicily, or the dark horse: Etrurians.
Oof “Italy doesn’t exist”…that sounds like a northerner who’s given up on the south now isn’t it. I mean, it’s rough when they’ve got the beaches and objectively better food…at least you have juve XD

(Obviously joking lol)
 
Top Bottom