Why is Italy never in Civ?

[Magma]

Yes, because being a total a-hole is the BEST way to win an argument.

So tell me then, O wise man, who was the king of the Vikings? Where was the Viking capital? Who ruled as an overking over every Viking tribe? Well?

While I agree that Vikings is a silly name for a civilization then calling them barbarians is just insulting. So obviously you agree with your first statement.

I would suggest you try to read up on the Vikings a little to bring yourself out of ignorance. Visiting Wikipedia is a good way to start.

 

[Charles Martel]

Key difference here between Ancient Greece and Renaissance/Modern Italy: the Greeks actually came together and formed a massive empire under Alexander the Great. Sure Greece STARTED as a collection of city-states but it was unified and became a world power (if not the world power of the time). Italy just hasn't done that.

I don't buy that. The city-states in mainland Grece did not spontaneously “come together to form an empire”. Rather, they were conquered by a foreign ruler: Philip of Macedon. Neither Philip nor Alexander were strictly speaking Greek, but Macedonian. I see no special merit in achieving unification as a result of foreign conquest. To have Alexander as a Greek ruler alongside Pericles is just a gross simplification of Firaxis's.

Anyway, Greece was just one example among many. Medieval Germany, the Aztecs, the Celts, the Vikings, etc. were not politically cohesive either. In-game Civilizations need not be unified national states.

 

[Chalks]

I don't buy that. The city-states in mainland Grece did not spontaneously “come together to form an empire”. Rather, they were conquered by a foreign ruler: Philip of Macedon. Neither Philip nor Alexander were strictly speaking Greek, but Macedonian. I see no special merit in achieving unification as a result of foreign conquest. To have Alexander as a Greek ruler alongside Pericles is just a gross simplification of Firaxis's.

Anyway, Greece was just one example among many. Medieval Germany, the Aztecs, the Celts, the Vikings, etc. were not politically cohesive either. In-game Civilizations need not be unified national states.

The fact is that the Italian civilization is what the Roman civilization turned in to. Regardless of how significant the Italian civilization has been since the fall of the Roman empire, that empire is far more significant than anything Italy has done in its wildest dreams.

When selecting civilizations from different parts of the world, they are chosen by their most significant era. The most significant era of people living in Italy was the Roman empire, so that's what you get. Do you get Iraq? No, you get Persia. Do you get Sweden? No, you get the Vikings. Do you get modern arabic Egypt? No, you get ancient Egypt.

 

[Ahriman]

On Martel's objections:
You concede that Italy as a Nation (ie post unification) has had little impact. But the other examples you come up with mostly did have significant impact as a unified nation.

"Greece" in Civ represents the entirety of the Hellenic world. Greece unified to fight the Persians even before Alexander (when did Italy unify post-Rome pre-1860?), and then Alexander's Hellenic empire (and successor states) were obviously hugely important.
Both Prussia and Germany had major world impacts as a unified state.
The Aztec example is a better example for you, but again there's not much choice for the entirety of central/north America. And the Aztec Triple Alliance had pretty significant regional dominance.
The "Vikings" are a weird choice for a Civ. I think they end up making it in because of the romanticism of the Viking imagery, and because of the useful archtype of sea-raiders for gameplay purposes. I can definitely think of better choices than "Vikings".

And what is Renaissance Italy's importance anyway? Artistic, musical and architectural, absolutely, and some technological innovation in armor, weaponry and siegecraft. But how much political influence did any of the States have outside Italy itself? They were always too busy feuding with each other to have much impact on the outside world. The Pope had significant power, but that is better modeled with an Apostolic Palace type mechanism.

The over-representation argument is a reasonable one. I would definitely say that Spain should make it in long before a modern Italy, or arguably Austria. I'm not saying that there isn't an argument for a Renaissance-focused Italian Civ, merely that its well down the list; definitely not in the top 20-25 or so.

[Though... those claiming that modern Italy is the cultural descendant of Rome are really just wrong. Roman culture was extinguished in the west pretty thoroughly through the Dark Ages. The Lombards and Vandals were not Roman. The geographic overlap reduces the case somewhat for a separate Italy, but does not rule it out entirely, witness the eventual inclusion of the HRE, or of both Ottoman and Byzantine Empires.]

* * *
If you did have an Italian Civ, Condoterri or Lancia Spezzatze (sp?) could easily be UUs.

 

[kivanc]

well well Italy is more or less what´s left of the roman empire... so why including the remains? and btw. they suck awful nowadays...

this seems SM's idea about italy. most disagree with that but i agree completely.
ottoman empire = turkey
roman empire = italy

if you guys believe italy isn't represented by rome, then italy should be IN as it is simply very important.

"they suck awful nowadays". i just noticed that. are u joking? still now, italy is 1of the biggest economies in the world, and culturally very important.

 

[climat]

Poor Italians They had always been overshadowed by "brilliant" Romans.

 

[Herrhals]

The Romans were the only thing to happen on that peninsula. Apart from a few rare spin-offs during the ren. era, Italy has done jack.

If Italy gets included, there's about a billion other unworthy 'civs' to be put in. At that, all these unworthy civs, would be a better option than Italy as a country.

 

[Herrhals]

"they suck awful nowadays". i just noticed that. are u joking? still now, italy is 1of the biggest economies in the world, and culturally very important.

I just noticed that. are u joking? Italy has a TERRIBLE economy, and whatever gains they do get, is nullified by their governments being one of the most corrupt in the world. Not to mention, they are so far into stinking debt like Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, USA, that they might just bankrupt within the next 5 years. The world's economies have all tanked, but will even more if these corrupt governments default on their loans. Government securities were supposed to be safe, that's what kept these governments afloat financially, now they're *youknowwhat*.

 

[Chalks]

I just noticed that. are u joking? Italy has a TERRIBLE economy, and whatever gains they do get, is nullified by their governments being one of the most corrupt in the world. Not to mention, they are so far into stinking debt like Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, USA, that they might just bankrupt within the next 5 years. The world's economies have all tanked, but will even more if these corrupt governments default on their loans. Government securities were supposed to be safe, that's what kept these governments afloat financially, now they're *youknowwhat*.

Italy has the 7th largest (GDP) economy in the world. Notice that he said "biggest" not "most super dooper".

 

[Charles Martel]

On Martel's objections: You concede that Italy as a Nation (ie post unification) has had little impact. But the other examples you come up with mostly did have significant impact as a unified nation. "Greece" in Civ represents the entirety of the Hellenic world. Greece unified to fight the Persians even before Alexander (when did Italy unify post-Rome pre-1860?)

Here is the first example that springs to mind: in 1167, most of the cities of Northern Italy formed an alliance called the Lombard League. The League was supported by the Pope and defeated the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I. (Here, one could make an analogy with the Delian League defeating the Persian empire). As a result, Italian towns gained considerable independence from the Empire and gradually evolved into the city-states of the Renaissance period. After defeating Frederick, the Italian city-states saw no need for maintaining the alliance, which was therefore dissolved, but there is no denying that they were culturally-linked and that they collectively ended up having a huge impact on human civilization.

As to Alexander’s empire, it was, strictly speaking, more a Macedonian Empire than a unified Greek state. Its successor states, such the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, may have had great importance... but to consider them as the legacy of some sort of “Greek national unification” is, in my opinion, stretching things a bit too far. It’s more correct to say that mainland Greece was conquered by Macedonia, but kept having a strong cultural influence (which it retained even after the Roman conquest).

As to the Italian UU: "Condottieri" were the mercenary's leaders, so I think that the term is more appropriate for some special type of great general. The UU could be "compagnie di ventura", which were the mercenary bands led by the condottieri.

 

[Chalks]

Here is the first example that springs to mind: in 1167, most of the cities of Northern Italy formed an alliance called the Lombard League. The League was supported by the Pope and defeated the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I. (Here, one could make an analogy with the Delian League defeating the Persian empire). As a result, Italian towns gained considerable independence from the Empire and gradually evolved into the city-states of the Renaissance period. After defeating Frederick, the Italian city-states saw no need for maintaining the alliance, which was therefore dissolved, but there is no denying that they were culturally-linked and that they collectively ended up having a huge impact on human civilization.

As to Alexander’s empire, it was, strictly speaking, more a Macedonian Empire than a unified Greek state. Its successor states, such the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, may have had great importance... but to consider them as the legacy of some sort of “Greek national unification” is, in my opinion, stretching things a bit too far. It’s more correct to say that mainland Greece was conquered by Macedonia, but kept having a strong cultural influence (which it retained even after the Roman conquest).

As to the Italian UU: "Condottieri" were the mercenary's leaders, so I think that the term is more appropriate for some special type of great general. The UU could be "compagnie di ventura", which were the mercenary bands led by the condottieri.

Are you saying that modern Italy has more historical significance than Greece?

Because if you are then quite frankly, you're off your head.

 

[climat]

That seems a misunderstanding..

 

[Charles Martel]

Are you saying that modern Italy has more historical significance than Greece?

I never said that. And, for that matter, I am not even in the business of making such kind of silly comparisons. I am arguing that some of the familiar objections to Italy's inclusion, often heard in these forums, are rather weak and self-defeating because they would equally apply to the Greeks, Aztecs, Vikings, Celts, and other civilizations which obviously deserve inclusion.

 

[bonafide11]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long. Just let it die. There's no way Italy gets into Civilization. Rome is already in, Europe is already vastly over represented, and Italy isn't as historically significant as many other civs that are left out of the game. Civ doesn't just let anyone in the game. There are a limited number of available spots, so each civ should either be a significant power or do something significant historically in an under represented region.

 

[Chalks]

I never said that. And, for that matter, I am not even in the business of making such kind of silly comparisons. I am arguing that some of the familiar objections to Italy's inclusion, often heard in these forums, are rather weak and self-defeating because they would equally apply to the Greeks, Aztecs, Vikings, Celts, etc. and other civilizations which obviously deserve inclusion.

If you can argue that there is another European civilization being included that is less influential than modern Italy then I'd like to hear it.

Vikings were massively influential in northern Europe, including England, as well as being the first to discover North America, and they're looking extremely unlikely to be included.

The Celtic people (certainly in the context of civilization) tends to represent the race that inhabited almost all of Europe before the Roman empire and continued to exist with significant cultural influence long after in places like Scotland and Ireland.

And they're not being included either.

How on earth can you justify including a country that (ignoring the obvious Roman era) spent most of it's history either in a state of flux or as a European "also ran" with so many alternatives to choose from and precisely 0 slots left to fill?

 

[Chimera1804]

Current economic status is a relatively poor argument. For example, can any of you name the country with the highest per capita GDP (according to 2008)? Bermuda. Show of hands for number of people who have heard of this place, let alone know where it is. Bermudian-based insurance companies have paid out millions in claims for natural disasters in the US such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita. On top of it's economic status it also served as a military base in the WWs. It's got a unique culture with things such as Gombeys and Bermudian kites. It's older than the United States (heck there's a school that was founded in 1662...and still runs). Thus by quite a few of the arguments made in this thread we should have Bermuda as a civ, shouldn't we?

Of course not. It's a tiny little 21 sq. mile island in the middle of the atlantic ocean. It's population is under 70000. It's not even an independent country (it still belongs to Britain).

Yes that was an exaggerated example, but I think it brings my point across quite well. Just because your country has a good economy, has unique culture, or was militarily important does not automatically mean it should be a civ in Civ V.

As a side note Canada also fits in quite well with the arguments made in this thread (and perhaps less extreme an example as Bermuda)

EDIT: boy there were a lot of posts while i was typing that....(note to self: type faster)

 

[Chalks]

Current economic status is a relatively poor argument.

That's totally true, but the guy wasn't trying to say that - he was responding to a "Italy completely suck in modern day" comment rather than trying to justify its inclusion in the game.

 

[Trias]

Bermuda. Show of hands for number of people who have heard of this place, let alone know where it is.

I know this is besides your point, but I think most people will have heard of Bermuda, but only as place where lots of ships have disappeared.

 

[Chalks]

I know this is besides your point, but I think most people will have heard of Bermuda, but only as place where lots of ships have disappeared.

I take this as a veiled threat...

 

[Herrhals]

Italy has the 7th largest (GDP) economy in the world. Notice that he said "biggest" not "most super dooper".

This is a year outdated, but nothing has changed.
http://italyeconomicinfo.blogspot.com/2009/03/italys-economic-contraction-accelerates.html

The problem is, that it may have the 7th or so largest, but at what cost? The country is running a public debt ~112% of GDP, second only to Japan (luckily for Japan, its debt is mostly held by Japanese citizens and corps). Any country can boost GDP with enough spending, but the problem is that the money for spending needs to come from somewhere. Traditional economist thinking says government securities are fail-safe investment, and governments have no problems issuing this debt. It's basically like if you made 50k/year and you have debt at 110k (120% of your income/production (GDP)) because you had used your credit card without hesitation. Same problem, but grander. And another note, the Italian GDP has never been able to hold a consistent growth rate over consecutive periods. Now, in fact, it's shrinking fairly consistently

Back to the why Italy should not be a civ...everybody's beat the crap out of that topic. general conclusion? not in a million years.