Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by João III, Apr 7, 2021.
Suleiman the Magnificent leading the Eastern Rome
would be a horrible idea and WILL trigger Greeks.
I will go further: if the Byzantines are Romans, and the Ottomans took the Byzantine throne and claimed to be Romans, therefore the Ottomans are Romans. It is as simple as that! What do you mean? Nobody agrees with that awful syllogism?
When someone mention the Roman, most people instinctively think about Rome, specifically Ancient Rome (-753 to 476), more specifically its Empire phase (27 to 476), even more specifically the 150 years between the rise and the apogée leading to the Roman Golden Age or the Pax Romana. It started roughly from the rise of Julius Caesar and August Caesar ("0th" and 1st Emperors) to the death of Marcus Aurelius (the last of the 5 good Emperors), between the years 27 and 180.
So far, no mention of the 2 other phases: the Kingdom (-753 to -509) and the Republic (-509 to -27). The good thing is that Firaxis wouldn't dare to put Romulus as a leader!
That's why a Byzantine's leader cannot be a Roman's leaders: the depiction of the Roman in the game only encompasses the Pax Romana from 27 to 180. Also, there could be some dissonance about having a Byzantine leading the Roman when the Byzantine empire didn't encompass Rome in his border. Justinian & Theodora could be the sole exceptions to this statement.
Meanwhile, China wasn't depicted as specifically. Instead, it was always seen as that country that goes througth multiple rises and declines but still here for 2 millenias straight. That's why the franchise had put Qin and Mao as leaders, as the first rise and the ultimate decline of the dynastic China.
heck Yuan isn't the first time we had non-han Chinese Empire.
look at Jin dynasty for example.
The way the Civ series depicts them Rome is an empire that rose and then fell, whereas China is a continuous culture with peaks and valleys. That's not to say that the arguments in either direction are wrong. I like the idea of depicting the continuity and change of culture in a game and that's why I'm very excited for Humankind. The Civ series, however, has been trending towards "de-blobbing" the civs it represents and so having multiple Chinese dynasties in the game as separate civs could make sense, but to me it feels wrong. This is most likely just my bias as Westerner.
There is, however, something to be said for representing the continuity of Chinese culture through the Mandate of Heaven. The name of China's ability, "Dynastic Cycle," hints at this, but the gameplay fails to follow up in any way. There was, I remember, a really cool mod someone made for Civ V where you start as the Xia dynasty and your capital and names (I think) change as you progress. I'd say, in the next Civ, either do something dynamic like that with China, or split it into a few dynasties. (If the later happens, we'll argue about which should be included! )
I was responding to the question of why the "western empire" had more legitimacy to call themselves "Roman". The simple answer is that the empire was born in Rome and that for a very long time, Rome was it's cultural and political capitol. Hence, Roman. It's quite simple.
And regardless of whether both parts of the empire were unified at one time, they eventually did split, and the eastern part survived another 1000 years. To say that the surviving part of the empire is "just still the Roman Empire" is nonsensical. There's value in identifying it as something else because that makes it easier to talk about. Hence, Byzantium. That doesn't mean that the people weren't "Roman" (though they really weren't in most ways).
I mean, this idea that the two entities must be one because of an unbroken line of rulers is bizarre. First, because Rome had a ton of breaks in the chain. Like, lots. Second, because nobody is applying that logic elsewhere. Is Brazil really just Portugal?
Sorry if that's the impression I gave, but that's not what I was going for. I just think it would be more interesting (and arguably more accurate) to see Byzantine emperors combined with "regular" Rome. Or alternatively, different takes on Chinese empires in game instead of the monolith as it is now, similar to the Roman vs. Byzantine split we have
That describes like 90% of the posts in this forum. Well said.
Now that I think about it, could've been really interesting to have the Manchu in the role Scythia currently has
or have Timur the lame
This is just bizarrely literal to me. Like you can only call yourself Roman if the city of Rome is located inside your political borders completely ignores how Romans of the imperial period, both before and after 467, saw themselves.
To me, this is like saying any state that wasn't part of the original 13 colonies isn't part of America. Everything changes over time, even the Roman Empire pre-467. Like Constantine adopting Christianity is a bigger break than anything the Eastern Empire did after 476 but that's not considered the end of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Empire saw themselves Roman, because they were and therefore are. What being "Roman" changed over the course of time, the founders of the Republic wouldn't recognize the Roman of Augustus's heyday and Augustus wouldn't recognize a lot of Rome of Theodosius's reign but that doesn't anyone of them less Roman.
Yet the Roman Empire didn't end with the Year of The Four Emperors, the Year of the Five Emperors or the Crisis of the Third century. Pretty much every European political polity since the Roman Empire had a break in the chain but England didn't stop being considered England because it was not longer ruled by the House of Wessex or France under the Bourbons considered an entirely new political entity. New dynasties came and went all the time in Western Europe yet you probably wouldn't question like France or whatever tracing their political lineage back to like Charlemagne. The Eastern Emperor in 476, Zeno, rule until 491 and soon after his dynasty was replaced by Justinian's and his was eventually replaced as well, just it had always been. The first real break in continuity post-476 is the Fourth Crusade, which happened like 250 years after Basil II's reign.
That would be a Barbarian clan.
That's definitely why there is no way to please everybody.
Either they keep China as one civ, or they split it but into who? You could easily do Han, Yuan, and Qing. But then somebody will definitely complain why there is no Ming civ.
Or so many of ancient Chinese kingdoms...
Is there a big difference between who Quin Shi Haung and Kubli Khan ruled? We have 4 pages of debate over if Byzantines and Romanss should be the same but I don't see any debate on the other way.
One, In modern perception, including to the best of my knowledge in China, Chinese history is perceived as continuous, with various leadership systems rising and failing. The ERE and Rome, on the other hand, is perceived as distinct from the Roman empire.
Two, because it's a bit quixotic to have a Roman Empire that doesn't include, well, Rome. Even if it's no longer the capital, it's pretty valid to object that the Roman empire is the empire of Rome. Losing it for a while is one thing, but the ERE existed outside Rome for nearly a millenium. At some point, it becomes the empire of Byzantium/Constantinople, a successor of Rome. Not Rome.
Three, because when the Roman empire splintered and gave rise to multiple claimant successor, all efforts to reunify it failed and the various splinters, successors and claimants went on for centuries shaping their identity as distinct states. Whereas China was routinely reunified (and is presently largely unified again) - none of its splinters lasted very long.
Four, because we only have space for so many civs in the game, and splintering China into dynasties hogs up even more of those rare spots, at the cost of far more distinct and unique civilizations. Splitting Byzantium, which existed for a thousand years after Rome fell, can be justified; but no Chinese dynasty even lasted close to that long, or formed such a distinct identity from the rest of China.
( Well, except the two dynasties of foreign invaders, but we already have a civ to represent the Yuan as Mongolians. It's the Mongolians. )
Byzantium is a low priority inclusion for me, but justifiable. Splitting China just is not unless we get 100+ civs.
Besides which, if we do separate dynasties, we shouldn't have Byzantium. We should have the Macedonian Empire and the Isaurian empire and the Komnenid Empire and the Palaiologid empire.
Lots of people saw themselves as "Roman". Greeks in Ottoman territory after the fall of Byzantium continued to call themselves Romans, too. That doesn't mean that they were. I answered a silly question with a literal answer.
Well, OK. If we can just redefine "Roman" every few years, then sure, everyone that wants to be Roman is Roman. But that isn't helpful. That's not how language works. There were substantial enough differences between the "Roman Empire" and the successor empire in the east that we came up with a new word to describe this new entity: Byzantium. We aren't just talking about technological advancement or border expansion (as we saw in the USA). We're talking about 1,000 years of different language, different religion, different customs, and so on. One thousand years.
Well, sure. But that's the point. There is no unbroken chain of rule in Byzantium, Rome, or anyone else. There is no continuity. So, the argument that some unbroken chain of rule makes Byzantium just Rome is nonsensical.
Why do you think that somehow you know better than professional historians? They use the term Byzantine Empire to distinguish that successor state from the original Roman Empire. Why shouldn't we do the same? In Civ terms, Basil II had nothing to do with Rome or the old Roman Empire. It would be really weird to call anything that he lead "Rome".
Sorry person from hundreds of year ago but, even though you have considered yourself Roman for your entire life and everyone in your family and town have considered themselves Roman for generations upon generations and have lived in a part of the world traditionally ruled by Rome for centuries you actually aren't Roman because you are idiot who doesn't actually know anything like smart people in the future do.
England and France have been around for a thousand years and I don't see you or anyone else arguing that the current nations don't have the right to call themselves that because they don't speak the exact same language or have the same customs and traditions.
Maybe I'm reading the wrong books but I've never seen anyone say that the Byzantine Empire isn't the Roman Empire. In 1453 Roger Crowley uses "Byzantine" and Roman interchangeably, lists Constantine XI's title as "Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans" and describes his signature as "emperor of the Romans" while in Shadow of the Sword Tom Holland almost always refers to them as Romans. The historians in the Netflix series Ottomans: Rise of an Empire use both Rome and Byzantium and I've never seen a usage that implied that Byzantium wasn't a continuation of the Roman Empire.
so if America fell like 2000 years later then dose that mean Americans now aren't American because there is no America 2000 years later?
Separate names with a comma.