Why is Basil II separate from Rome, but Kublai rules over China?

@EgonSpengler Zaarin and I were discussing the Hittites the other day - we have what we need for them. Not Cahokia though.

But I don't agree with interpreting the Chinese dynasties as also-ran and almost-were. They were successive political iteration of one largely continuous civilization.

Now I will say, your idea of pre-Qin unification warring states, THAT might be a case worth pursuing - except again we run into a little problem called "selling the game in China" (and "only so many spots in the game" - if we're going to have also-ran or almost-were, we might want to focus on the fallen empires of continents that got swept into post-renaissance European conquest first).

 

Considering the Hittites have appeared before in Civ 3, I see no reason why they can't return someday. They had enough information before to make it work.

 

Civ III was before leaders had to speak their own languages, though.

But per Zaarin, Hittite should be doable.

 

Ah that reminds me of the metaphysical conundrums during metaphysics class: if you replace all planks from a boat at sea one by one, is it still the same boat?

To me the answer is rather obvious: you first have to distinguish between the material entity and the idea or concept of the boat. Me being an idealist, would argue the second as being of the essence. By that logic, the idea of Rome still very much continued in Byzantium. So yes, Basil II "should" rule Rome too.

 

Historiographically and culturally (they were Greek/Orthodox) they are not considered the same. While they both shared the same title as Romans, and the Eastern Roman Empire continued to refer to themselves as Romans, they were very different from the original Latin Pagan Roman Empire that is always portrayed in the game.

The Byzantine Empire is a fusion of Greek culture, Eastern Christianity, and Roman institutions in its own unique right. They are markedly different from one another. The Roman State itself did continue, but a State alone doesn't make a civilization (*cough* Gran Colombia and Canada *cough*). The Ottomans, after all, considered themselves the continuation of Rome, alongside Russia, the HRE, etc. The Roman Empire's legacy was popular to co-opt, though yes Byzantium had that claim and the continuation of the institutions.

RE: Chinese dynasties, Kublai Khan was Mongol Emperor, and then legitimized his rule over China by proclaiming his own dynasty. I'm not saying that either split/not split is perfect, but there are reasons for each that are more than "arbitrary" and "pop culture".

Basil II is too far removed from the Latin Roman Empire to lead Rome. If it were Justinian/Theodora, it would work especially since they actually conquered and held much of the Western Empire after its fall. But really, I don't mind either approach since they were still the Roman Empire, I just recognize the distinctions as to why the Byzantine Empire is considered separate historiographically.

China is considered to have existed for thousands of years in some form, not just by the Chinese, regardless of the dynasty that rules it, or the current government's position. While it would be awesome to have more Chinese leaders, or maybe some areas split off, China is a storied and large civilization that has managed to stand the test of time. The main ethnic group is referred to as "Han" after all, comprising nearly 20% of the global population, the single largest ethnic group and taking its name from the China that existed more than two-thousand years ago. There are similarities and continuities that make sense with China that don't make sense with Byzantium/East Rome as the "same polity".

This is something Humankind is interested in dealing with, the cultural splits and fusions and I look forward to exploring more.

Now if you ask me about splitting INDIA which was never 100% united until recently and is largely different culturally across the entire dang subcontinent...you bet I'm ready to split the heck outta that blob.

 

This is not an easy topic, and probably everyone has their own mesures here. Here is how I see this problem in the context of the game.
Let's take my home country example here. Poland.
It is common agreement that Poland as a state was born in 966 after adopting western Christianity by Mieszko I. So we have a certain starting point. But does it mean Poland was raised from nothing? No. There were Slavic pagan tribes who lived here and are our ancestors. Some people may even consider them as Poles and incorporate their culture, into a larger polish cultural and historical sphere.
How about implications for a game and a possible Civilization pick. For majority of people, those tribes are not part of polish history, so if only we had a fine leader, a tribe with a good story, etc, and everything that is needed to consider some culture as a potentially playable Civ (more on that further) there would be no problem to incorporate this tribe in a game. But for those who consider pre-Christian Slavic tribes that were living along the Vistula River, as Poles, they are already represented in a game by polish Civ. So no room for them here. This example is of course exaggerated, but Poland is a rather easy example of Modern Nation Civ with the exact starting point of its history.
But let's take Italy. Things are starting to be more complicated here.
The modern Italian State was created in 1861 after unification. And again does it mean Italy was raised from nothing? No. But where is this starting point? And here is a problem. The rise of Rome? Some people would agree. Even more, official State Italian interpretation would say Rome was the beginning of what we now know as Italy. Of course, we can say it is overinterpretation. So if it is not a Fall of Rome so maybe a raise of Italian City-States? Perhaps yes. Every Medieval and Renaissance Era Italian City State contributed to modern Italy. But can we say those often very different City-States created something we would call "Civ" or more precise distinct culture? With all differences between Venice and Papal State? Or Tuscany and Sicily? Or was it as we call it here a "blob"? So perhaps the starting point of Italy was a reunification in 1861.
What it has to do with a game itself?
Well from extended Italian definition Italy is a Civilization that started in the ancient era from Rome through Renessaince City-States ending on the modern Italian Republic. From this point of view, there is no space even for Rome in a game. We should have just Italy.
Others would say Italy as a Civilization started after the fall of Rome, so Venice, Tuscany, Papal State, Sicilly are all just parts of Italian Civ. But Rome is a distinct Civ
If we stick to exact starting point of modern Italy then Italy as a Civ should refer only to the last 160 years.
In the end, we would spend the rest of our lives on endless historical or ideological discussions without a good and achievable conclusion.
So what is important for Civilization in a game. In my opinion, it is:
1. Distinct culture we may distinguish from the others.
2. Organized and permanently existing by a certain period of time political structure, or at least strong leader with a good story behind.
3. Historical sources that can describe this culture sufficiently enough to give this Civ UI, UB, UU etc.
4. A good story and theme no other can tell us.
5. Known language their leader can speak and known settlements the game can use.
6. The main theme that can be incorporated into existing game mechanics we want to use.
7. The fact we will not feel a significant loss if we incorporate this Civ and water it down in the larger one.
8. Important to the world history or at last worth knowing.

I used here examples of Poland and Italy, but the list above is universal for every Civ in the context of the game. I hope it helped to explain my point of view.
Why I think Venice is a better choice than Italy
Why I defended "Celtic" Civ and was against considering Scotland as a Celt alternate
Why I don't like the idea of modern Norway and Denmark as an alternate for Viking culture
etc.

 

Out of curiosity, what're your thoughts on Scythia's implementation?

 

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I'd be all for returning to static "leader heads" with just text below showing the dialogue in whatever language your regional version of civ is. It just seems like a whole lot of work and overhead for (let's be honest) just not that much payout.

 

I utterly disagree with #2. Organized political unity is not a requirement of a civilization.

It can support evidence that a particular group is a civilization, it's no requirement. It may be that for most civs their most interesting leaders are going to have ruled over the united civ (as is the case with Polish civilization), but that's not a rule, just an observation.

 

... or at least a strong leader with a good story behind it. #2 has two parts

 

I think if you talk to 5 influential historians, you'll get five different answers as to what a distinct "civilization" is. It's kind of a moving target. Should "Western Civilization" be a singular unit? It's spoken of all the time. There's more leeway than people arguing about this leading on to. It can be anything you/the developers want.

But anyhow, in the original vision of the game "back in the day" it was mostly large politically unified empires.

 

In my view, this whole discussion boils down to an extremely subjective/nationalistic measurement of what separates one civilization from another. I generally agree that Byzantium should be a part of Rome in a game as blobby as Civ 6, but I would rather see China/India split rather than see Rome and Byzantium merged.

 

I mean, even a strong leader is debatable to me because of what it might read (are we talking strong as in most of the civilization followed him? Or whar sense?)

I would agree with "a notable leader with a good story", though.

SammyKhalifa - Greece (especially now that macedon is separate), Vikings, Phoenicians, Iroquois, Mapuche, Maya, Scythia, Sioux, Shoshone, Maori and probably a dozen others I'm forgetting all say that political unity has never been a requirement in Civ. Nor should it be.

 

I am ok with them.

 

Scythia might have not had the best implementation, city-list wise, but they do fit the criteria of certain populations did live in urban areas, even if they were sometimes inhabited by Greeks as well.
Greeks actually regarded them as the most civilized of the barbarians, in that regard.

The definition of a civilization, in game, is a playable faction.

I guess you could argue in the first game Greece was politically unified with Alexander leading, but when most people think of Ancient Greece they think of the accomplishments of the individual city-states, especially Athens and Sparta. There's a reason why Athens has mostly been the capital of Greece in the first place and not Pella.

Technically the Aztecs were also an alliance of city-states but well Tenochtitlan was always the strongest.

I would put Atilla in that category and one of the only reasons why we got the Huns.

 

I am talking about Civilization as a game feature definition. Not a historical one. Historical and academical point of view in this context is not even important. It is wasting of time

 

I read a book about Attila a while back and also wrote a paper on him iirc. There are some cools facts about him you won't find on Wikipedia, that's for sure.

 

Yeah, it could be anything they think would be fun or popular though.

 

I do think Atilla and the Huns are interesting from a historical point of view, but really hard to implement in civ for reasons such as lack of city names that we know of, because of reasons. The UU is easy to think of, Horse Archer, and possibly a unique infrastructure could be a unique encampment or a unique stable, similar to Mongolia's current one.

The only solution that I can think of is to make it where your capital "Atilla's Camp" is the only one you can found and you have to conquer other cities to gain more.
It would also be interesting if the only district you can build were encampments, but would that be too limiting?

 

In fact it all comes down to it