I think everyone is aware the Eastern Roman Empire was never called the Byzantine Empire in its time. People do love to point out the same widely known facts over and over as if they are making original points.
Anyway, it was a separate entity, A) because it had already become a de-facto separate state from the Western Roman empire whilst that still existed, and B) because over time it's Greek language and later Orthodox faith came to be significant in defining its character.
We aren't really concerned with what they called themselves, after all, Mehmed II proclaimed himself Kayser-i Rûm on the conquest of Constantinople. Distinguishing them from the Western Roman Empire is done because it is most useful and makes sense.
In fairness, I never claimed I was making an original point! (but I appreciate the snark )
My point was that following the logic of your other comments, China should be split up in this game for those very same reasons.
TBH I agree with this statement. Problem being this is not how OP phrase his/her question.
I don't mind having multiple China(s) in a Civ game - or, China would fit Huamnkind's "per era" model better - but "Byzantines-Romans" is an entirely different beast to deal with.
So why does the Western half have a more legitimate claim to be the "Roman Empire" than the Eastern half? Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople during his reign and it was the capital of the Eastern half till it fell.
However, when asking any Byzantinists this question, they will certainly tell you "Byzantines are not Romans" because their empire was also different from the Roman Empire in many other ways. Viewing Byzantines and Romans as the same just because of their identities is not much different from viewing Britons and Celtic Britons as the same people.
But there is legitimate political continuity between the two. There is an unbroken chain emperors from Constantine, and Augustus, through Basil II and even further.
Anyway, it was a separate entity, A) because it had already become a de-facto separate state from the Western Roman empire whilst that still existed, and B) because over time it's Greek language and later Orthodox faith came to be significant in defining its character.
That kind of like saying that the England of Richard the Lionheart shouldn't be called England because today England speaks a different language and follows a different religion.
Personally I can accept multiple China(s) and multiple Rome(s) altogether. On the other hand, Civ is a game about a single leader leading a culture from Bronze Age to Space Age - in other words, it puts a strong emphasis on chronological continuity, even if that continuity is debatable in reality. Under this logic, a lot of chronological different cultures are being pulled together - the Holy Roman Emperor who drives an U-Boat, for instance. As a result, assign one leader to a series of semi-related cultures together as one civ become a typical design choice - and the leader model is one of the selling point of Civ series, who can blame the devs for that.
Moreover, if we do the separation, we would also facing many other questions on design guidelines - Roman Republic is very different from Roman Empire, shall we separate them? Anglo-Saxon England is very different from Norman England, shall we separate them? Early Bakufu Japan is very different from Edo Japan, shall we separate them?
In any case, I very much understand that if the devs want to keep their design choices simple. Currently, the only separation we have are just Romans and Byzantines and French and Gauls, and I find that okay.
We can also change the name of Byzantines to "Fake Romans" because who cares what literally the rest of the world think, the only name that is valid is the one from the western europeans.
Seriously, the split of western and eastern roman empire was a measure to try to survive hard times, but the continuation of roman institutions is way more real, natural and gradual than the Ottoman conquest or any claim from the West or the russians. It is an exaggeration to think that those other claims have the same value than the way Eastern Roman empire continued the legacy of Rome.
Then when did the Eastern half stop being "Roman"? Which emperor of the East is that last "Roman" Emperor? Because, last time I checked, the continuity of empire wasn't broken when one dynasty overthrew another during the pre-Diocleatian Roman Empire so why shouldn't that apply for the post-467 Eastern Empire.
Seriously, the split of western and eastern roman empire was a measure to try to survive hard times, but the continuation of roman institutions is way more real, natural and gradual than the Ottoman conquest or any claim from the West or the Russian. It is an exaggeration to think that those other claims have the same value that the way Eastern Roman empire continued the legacy of Rome.
There existed a strong continuation between Byzantines and Romans, especially on institutions, law codes, and even customs, not to say self identification.
(I'm a fan of Anthony Kaldellis, who is an important advocator of Roman-Byzantine continuity, which influenced the field of Byzantine studies a lot.)
On the other hand, there also existed a strong discontinuation between Byzantines and Romans, especially on language, religion, and general culture traditions.
We can't really be quantitative and say "the continuation is larger" or "the discontinuation is larger"; there is not a black-or-white answer.
At this point, I think this is not a question a game developer can easily solve. All they can do is probably follow the general convention, which is considering them as different polities.
There existed a strong continuation between Byzantines and Romans, especially on institutions, law codes, and even customs, not to say self identification.
There also existed a strong discontinuation between Byzantines and Romans, especially on language, religion, and general culture traditions.
We can't really be quantitative and say "the continuation is larger" or "the discontinuation is larger".
At this point, this is not a question a game developer can easily solve.
No, it isn't an easy distinction, but it was one that the developers could have comfortably made. Byzantium really rides the line of ambiguity well, to the point that juxtaposed against comparisons between other polities like say the Timurids/Mughals, Persia/Macedon, Denmark-Norway, even arguably Scotland and England ... it really probably should have been blobbed when we have a blobby Phoenicia, India, and China.
I think one of the great things about alternate leaders was the ability to show how certain contiguous cultural/political paradigms endured. I think it actually minimizes the Roman legacy to separate it from Byzantium when we treat India and China as entities surviving across 2-3 milennia, despite both undergoing entire ethnic and cultural regime changes, while Rome can't be given that same distinction. It's denying Rome a bigger role as one of the few civs that gets two leaders, all for the sake of hair-splitting to serve euro-centric, exceptionalist agendas.
1. Probably because for the past 4 iterations they've made Rome and Byzantium distinct civs. Plus this is probably the most distinct Byzantine civ they've made with the "Greek/Macedonian" Basil II, over the usual more "Roman/Latin" influenced Theodora and Justinian.
2. As for Kublai leading China, well he also leads Mongolia, so I don't think there was a need for them to do a separate Yuan civ. Plus his ability does synergize with both from a gameplay perspective.
Byzantium really rides the line of ambiguity well, to the point that juxtaposed against comparisons between other polities like say the Timurids/Mughals, Persia/Macedon, Denmark-Norway, even arguably Scotland and England ... it really probably should have been blobbed when we have a blobby Phoenicia, India, and China. I think one of the great things about alternate leaders was the ability to show how certain contiguous cultural/political paradigms endured.
Using of alternate leaders to represent continuity is something I really agree with - it really opens up new possibilities while not moving away from Civ's good old leader-centered model.
Problem being the whole mechanic is poorly implemented - Gorgo is totally meh; Chandragupta and Eleanors just don't synergize with their Civilizations' abilities; Kublai synergizes well with China and Mongolia but himself is so plain and boring. That's not to say that "who can be an alt leader for which civilization" is already touching the borders of something a game developer cannot comfortably answer, and they chose to following what was in Civ VI and V.
Overall, even though I have hope of the future of the civ series, I still believe there are some questions that are out of the scope of developers. Guess it would be better to left these kinds of questions in a fan forum, or in the hands of modders, instead of game developers or even historians - historians tend to not making a black-or-white answer.
There's a simple answer that I've not seen stated - and if it was, apologies for missing it. It's because Byzantium as a separate entity is more marketable. There isn't a single pack in the NFP that doesn't have recognizable civilization attached to it. I'm sure it would be just as possible to create a Mauryan civ or Yuan dynasty civ that plays distinctly different from the baseline India and China, but there likely was no indication that they would sell well, so they were delegated to alt leaders.
And beyond that, one other reason I can think of is - the Roman empire we traditionally get in the base game doubles as an Italy stand-in. Byzantium is separate not because it has nothing in common with classical Roman Empire, but because it has nothing in common with modern Italy.
On the other hand, there also existed a strong discontinuation between Byzantines and Romans, especially on language, religion, and general culture traditions.
We can't really be quantitative and say "the continuation is larger" or "the discontinuation is larger"; there is not a black-or-white answer.
At this point, I think this is not a question a game developer can easily solve. All they can do is probably follow the general convention, which is considering them as different polities.
Roman Empire was bilingual (Latin and Greek being the two languages used in administration, that's why all Roman statesmen taught their kids Greek) and that hasn't changed with the Byzantines though it's harder to see today because Aromance speakers are just so few and far between (and no one cares about Romania) and Christianity, while developing later, was certainly one of its pillars just as much before "Byznatines" as after them.
Of course if we're being completely honest then late Byzantine Empire and Early Republic have very, very little in common. But so is (Southern) Song China absolutely alien to the Han Empire. Speaking a different language, residing over a different part of the world and basing itself on playing its neighbors off of each other and keeping power in check through extensive bureaucracy, just as Byzantines speak a different langauge, tried to but never re-established full control over all of Italy, played its neighbors off of each other and ended up settling on massive bureaucracy to keep power in check.
If you want to say Song definitely deserves its own civ/faction/culture then I'm 100% behind it. But Byzantines are basically the same thing and no less or more worthy of being treated as separate.
I feel like this is a case of better in theory than in execution so far. Chandragupta just does not mesh well with India's playstyle and Eleanor is okay with France but awful with England. Greece's ability is so flavorless and utilitarian that it would work well with any leader. Kublai works with both Mongolia and China but the Great Wall is just kind of pointless for him and kind of weird from a flavor perspective.
Problem being the whole mechanic is poorly implemented - Gorgo is totally meh; Chandragupta and Eleanors just don't synergize with their Civilizations' abilities; Kublai synergizes well with China and Mongolia but himself is so plain and boring. That's not to say that "who can be an alt leader for which civilization" is already touching the borders of something a game developer cannot comfortably answer, and they chose to following what was in Civ VI and V.
I do think Eleanor works okay. With France you want to build TS anyway with wonders. For England its not obvious but if you turn on the Monopolies and Corporations game mode you can now fill your RND with product slots to flip cities.
As for Chandragupta well maybe you want to conquer your neighbors just so you can have multiple religions in your cities?
At least there's an alternative for Gandhi which is all that really matters, right?
Roman Empire was bilingual (Latin and Greek being the two languages used in administration, that's why all Roman statesmen taught their kids Greek) and that hasn't changed with the Byzantines though it's harder to see today because Aromance speakers are just so few and far between (and no one cares about Romania) and Christianity, while developing later, was certainly one of its pillars just as much before "Byznatines" as after them.
Of course if we're being completely honest then late Byzantine Empire and Early Republic have very, very little in common. But so is (Southern) Song China absolutely alien to the Han Empire. Speaking a different language, residing over a different part of the world and basing itself on playing its neighbors off of each other and keeping power in check through extensive bureaucracy, just as Byzantines speak a different langauge, tried to but never re-established full control over all of Italy, played its neighbors off of each other and ended up settling on massive bureaucracy to keep power in check.
If you want to say Song definitely deserves its own civ/faction/culture then I'm 100% behind it. But Byzantines are basically the same thing and no less or more worthy of being treated as separate.
Thank you for the supplement, and I do agree with your overall argument - but for your conclusion, I must say, I don't think black-or-white statements like "basically the same thing" for questions like these is a good idea. Overall, I feel like the current design logic cannot provide a good answer for question like these in general.
If you want to say Song definitely deserves its own civ/faction/culture then I'm 100% behind it. But Byzantines are basically the same thing and no less or more worthy of being treated as separate.
Honestly, even if Firaxis keeps doing blob civs like China, India and so on I would much prefer them to focus on a specific period instead of trying to capture a civ over the course of hundreds or a thousand years. I like civs like Macedon and Gran Colombia that are focused on a specific period because they are really flavorful and have a really nice synergistic game play that you don't get with other civs like China or Germany.
I've played with Chandragupta a couple of times and aside from the extra amenities I've never really noticed the effect of Indian's ability on the games I've played with him.
There's a simple answer that I've not seen stated - and if it was, apologies for missing it. It's because Byzantium as a separate entity is more marketable. There isn't a single pack in the NFP that doesn't have recognizable civilization attached to it. I'm sure it would be just as possible to create a Mauryan civ or Yuan dynasty civ that plays distinctly different from the baseline India and China, but there likely was no indication that they would sell well, so they were delegated to alt leaders.
And beyond that, one other reason I can think of is - the Roman empire we traditionally get in the base game doubles as an Italy stand-in. Byzantium is separate not because it has nothing in common with classical Roman Empire, but because it has nothing in common with modern Italy.
I think something that would actually address both points you've made would be a full Italian civ similar to Germany's implementation, i.e. implement Italy, but harken back to when it was divided into city-states. It would also be a good way to take advantage of Italy as the birthplace of the Renaissance, something that is notably lacking among Civs despite being its own era. I think an independent Italian would marketable while Basil II (or other Byzantine emperor) could've still been an alternate leader, especially in light of Kublai
I wrote this line to show some of this ambiguity. It's not a mistake or an oversight. It's made to get people who don't know Byzantine history to get a little confused and to go look something up. I actually agree with both sides of this argument, maybe with the overall caveat that "all civilizations are cultural illusions - continuity and difference are also both illusions."
Using of alternate leaders to represent continuity is something I really agree with - it really opens up new possibilities while not moving away from Civ's good old leader-centered model.
Problem being the whole mechanic is poorly implemented - Gorgo is totally meh; Chandragupta and Eleanors just don't synergize with their Civilizations' abilities; Kublai synergizes well with China and Mongolia but himself is so plain and boring. That's not to say that "who can be an alt leader for which civilization" is already touching the borders of something a game developer cannot comfortably answer, and they chose to following what was in Civ VI and V.
I don't disagree with this, particularly about Kublai. Hopefully with the overhaul all of these civs/leaders get some stronger synergy/identity.
Overall, even though I have hope of the future of the civ series, I still believe there are some questions that are out of the scope of developers. Guess it would be better to left these kinds of questions in a fan forum, or in the hands of modders, instead of game developers or even historians - historians tend to not making a black-or-white answer.
We have the Prussians with U-Boats and Eleanor leading England. Black-and-white decisions were made, and to me it doesn't really matter how historically accurate they were so much as that they were historically interesting and broadened minds a bit. Art/media doesn't have to necessarily be truthful to create conversation, particularly when in the case of Byzantium most people are already aware of the truth. I'd rather have the truth smudged just a little bit and make people stop and furrow their brow and ponder "yeah, that's a perspective I hadn't considered" than give people precisely what they expected. That, to me, is the great disappointment of Byzantium; it could have been mildly enlightening instead of totally conventional.
We have the Prussians with U-Boats and Eleanor leading England. Black-and-white decisions were made, and to me it doesn't really matter how historically accurate they were so much as that they were historically interesting and broadened minds a bit. Art/media doesn't have to necessarily be truthful to create conversation, particularly when in the case of Byzantium most people are already aware of the truth. I'd rather have the truth smudged just a little bit and make people stop and furrow their brow and ponder "yeah, that's a perspective I hadn't considered" than give people precisely what they expected. That, to me, is the great disappointment of Byzantium; it could have been mildly enlightening instead of totally conventional.
It seems alot more resonable to split civs like India and China rather than combining civs like Rome and Byzantines. I suspect if we used Indian/China blob logic, europe should be like Rome, a germanic civ for scandinavia and much of centeral europe and a slavic civ for Russia and much of eastern Europe.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
![Andrew Johnson [FXS]](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/326/326908.jpg?1589646534){kind=avatar}
