Why is Italy never in Civ?

[Chalks]

The problem is, that it may have the 7th or so largest, but at what cost?

Well, at the cost of people going off on rants about it on internet forums without actually reading what the guy was replying to, I guess.

 

[civ_king]

Greece is somewhat unnecessary, I concede that

Modern Italy hasn't been successful when compared to their EUROPEAN neighbors

Renaissance Italy was overshadowed by Al Andalus, does anyone know about them? nope, because they were Arabs in Spain, they revitalized European culture,

Vikings? They influenced England outright, Dublin? Viking settlement... The Vikings were not barbarians, they were exceptionally strong and collected tribute from much of EUROPE and has successful trading posts, they owned Russia, Sweden was also powerful

Why are you whining about being represented by Rome, the Roman Empire was the greatest European empire

Also Songhai was powerful in its area and is a space filler,

to call the Zulu barbarians is ignorant, they also fill space

 

[Ahriman]

As to Alexander’s empire, it was, strictly speaking, more a Macedonian Empire than a unified Greek state.

Declaring that the Hellenic empires forged by Alexander were Macedonian not Greek is like calling China Mongolian. There clearly needs to be a representation of the Hellenic world, and Greece makes more sense as a civ than Macedonia does.

And the Hellenic world obviously had far more impact on the world than post-Roman Italy.

The UU could be "compagnie di ventura", which were the mercenary bands led by the condottieri.

Fair enough, though (like many Italian phrases) that is rather a mouthful for a unit name.

Bermuda. Show of hands for number of people who have heard of this place

Umm... everyone?

Al Andalus, does anyone know about them?

Yes.
Most people here aren't particularly ignorant.

But to say that Al-Andalus revitalized EUROPEAN culture (as in, christian Europe? Outside of Iberia?) is clearly wrong.
I wonder what Charles Martel would have to say about that claim....

They were incredibly advanced, but I don't think there was that much diffusion to Christian Europe.

Also hard to claim that Renaissance Italy was overshadowed by Al Anadalus, because it was basically gone by the late 15th century (the peak of renaissance Italy). Peak of Muslim Iberia was long before the renaissance.

 

[Green Tea]

you're an idiot...as your name suggests. Vikings DIRECTLY influenced the future of England, for example as soon as the Romans went away. Canute and later the William the Conqueror of the Normans (meaning northern men, who originially came from Scandinavia) were the only powers to really influence England early on. The Russians too (Novgorod, Moscow, and Kievan rus) were all Viking tribes...I could go on.

The only reasons Europe started unifying in the slightest during these times was because someone needed to defend against the endless viking raids...not that it helped much. The Viking era waned ended after their conversion to Christianity, and bribes in the form of land and tribute (Normans, f.ex).

again, someone else who needs to be quiet and go home.

I'm Swedish and I think the inclusion of Vikings is ridiculous. It's almost fantasy.

We don't really know that much about the vikings and they never were a state as such.

I'd prefer to have Denmark or Sweden in the game. Both were major powers in Europa and it wouldn't be hard to make a case for either to be included in an expansion(not for vanilla though).

 

[weltraeumer]

I'm Swedish and I think the inclusion of Vikings is ridiculous. It's almost fantasy.

We don't really know that much about the vikings and they never were a state as such.

I'd prefer to have Denmark or Sweden in the game. Both were major powers in Europa and it's would be hard to make a case for either to be included in an expansion(not for vanilla though).

Nah. It´s not about power or economy or landmass, it´s about love and romance and the vikings, beside the celts, are always one of my favourite.
Who really wants to play Sweden or Denmark? Except swedish or danish people... Don´t get me wrong, those countries are totally cool, I always loved those drunk swedish people in my town
But these countries (same with Italy) don´t cause any mythical bonds to me...

 

[Danielos]

Nah. It´s not about power or economy or landmass, it´s about love and romance and the vikings, beside the celts, are always one of my favourite.
Who really wants to play Sweden or Denmark? Except swedish or danish people... Don´t get me wrong, those countries are totally cool, I always loved those drunk swedish people in my town
But these countries (same with Italy) don´t cause any mythical bonds to me...

Mythical bonds??

I miss Atlantis in Civ too...

 

[Ahriman]

Who really wants to play Sweden or Denmark?

Gustav Adolphus was badass....

 

[weltraeumer]

Mythical bonds??

I miss Atlantis in Civ too...

yeah yeah yeah, Atlantis my ass

 

[Everstar1981]

Why not have two "modes", old world (or ancient) countries and city-states and new world nations.
For example:
Rome for old world, Italy for new world.
Native American tribes for old world, United States for new world (yes i know not a perfect example).

Then you could have more nations but they wouldn't overlap in weird ways. Since most ancient world nations no longer exist in their current form, it would make some sense. You could still play new world civilizations at 4000BC, it would just give a different set of countries without crowding the map with too many new ones.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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

The difference is there is a direct political and linguistic connection between modern Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. Also, the Turks that ruled the Ottoman Empire are the same that are in Turkey today. Italy includes so many non-Romans that it isn't really comparable.

"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.

Since unification, they've basically been inept in most major conflicts (the fighting against Austria in the Alps was one of the most brutal in the world, but it was basically a standstill. Fascist Italy was very ineffective in World War II. Even when supporting Bismark in the Franco-Prussian War, they achieved very little success). Economically and culturally, they fall behind the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan at the very least. The biggest reason for Italy's cultural spread has to do with the fact that so many emigrated from there. The problem is they did so because it was so poor. If you want to justify Italy being included, it should be based on medieval and Renaissance accomplishments, not modern.

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?

I remember discussing the formation of modern European states and their roots in the 11th and 12th centuries. The problem with the discussion is we kept having to say "ignoring Italy" because it would have made all the other states seem insignificant. With regards to the law and infrastructure European states as we know them are founded upon, the roots lie in Italy. By comparison, in the eleventh century, Germany was fragmenting and France wasn't really worth speaking of (it seemed more likely at the time that an Angevin state would replace a French one). I'd qualify that more than an "also ran."

 

[Chalks]

I remember discussing the formation of modern European states and their roots in the 11th and 12th centuries. The problem with the discussion is we kept having to say "ignoring Italy" because it would have made all the other states seem insignificant. With regards to the law and infrastructure European states as we know them are founded upon, the roots lie in Italy. By comparison, in the eleventh century, Germany was fragmenting and France wasn't really worth speaking of (it seemed more likely at the time that an Angevin state would replace a French one). I'd qualify that more than an "also ran."

Why? Because a Civilization's state in the 11th century is how we define it's historical significance?

You know what, if France had been insignificant in the 11th century and had STAYED insignificant, then it wouldn't be in the game. The thing is it didn't. Just because at one point in history Italy was more significant than France and Germany, that doesn't mean that it is overall more significant unless there is something magic about the 11th century meaning it is the only one that matters.

You know, there was one point in history when Italy was the most important civilization the western world had ever seen. It was called the Roman empire. So that's what you get, you don't get a second slot in the limited civilization list because at some point in the 11th century Italy was slightly more interesting than France. Seriously.

 

[Green Tea]

Nah. It´s not about power or economy or landmass, it´s about love and romance and the vikings, beside the celts, are always one of my favourite.
Who really wants to play Sweden or Denmark? Except swedish or danish people... Don´t get me wrong, those countries are totally cool, I always loved those drunk swedish people in my town
But these countries (same with Italy) don´t cause any mythical bonds to me...

Sweden was the biggest player in Europe for a while, and considering they were in Total War Empire I don't think it's such a bad idea, but it's not like I feel I've been wronged if you or firaxis disagree

 

[Green Tea]

Why not have two "modes", old world (or ancient) countries and city-states and new world nations.
For example:
Rome for old world, Italy for new world.
Native American tribes for old world, United States for new world (yes i know not a perfect example).

Then you could have more nations but they wouldn't overlap in weird ways. Since most ancient world nations no longer exist in their current form, it would make some sense. You could still play new world civilizations at 4000BC, it would just give a different set of countries without crowding the map with too many new ones.

It's ridiculous to have Italy in civ, as is to have Canada in the game. You have to get over your national pride.

 

[Chinese American]

Italy prides itself on Renaissance where the main action was reviving ancient Greek and Roman culture. In other words, Italy is an extension of these greater civilizations.

Sure culturally Italy were important during Renaissance. Post Renaissance contributions from other European nations were just as significant in regards to science, philosophy, etc. Moreover, in the same time period, except Italy, other European nations also colonized other continents, expanded the size of their territories, and spread their culture and language to millions of people.

Italy was important during Renaissance. But it was the other European nations who got the most out of it.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Chinese American, I'd like to qualify one point of yours.

In the same time period, except Italy, other European nations also colonized other continents...

I think you mean "other Western European nations". Even that doesn't quite work. Germany didn't colonize at all, and before you say, at the time, Italy was just as fragmented as Germany.

 

[civ_king]

Chinese American, I'd like to qualify one point of yours.



I think you mean "other Western European nations". Even that doesn't quite work. Germany didn't colonize at all, and before you say, at the time, Italy was just as fragmented as Germany.

Actually some parts of Germany did colonize, but before union

BTW Germany is Central Europe

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I divide Europe into Eastern and Western. It's easy when you're American, because that means that you are necessarily completely ignorant about the rest of the world, right, OP?

Seriously, I might be the only American in America who can pronounce Kyrgyzstan, but I'm not ignorant because I'm an American...

 

[civ_king]

I divide Europe into Eastern and Western. It's easy when you're American, because that means that you are necessarily completely ignorant about the rest of the world, right, OP?

Seriously, I might be the only American in America who can pronounce Kyrgyzstan, but I'm not ignorant because I'm an American...

Leave the Cold War mindset at the door, this is the Twenty First Century...
I can pronounce that too, and BTW I'm from California

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I was talking about the OP. He sounded a bit anti-American.

 

[kivanc]

Having debt doesn't mean you are going to bankrupt. And ~112% of GDP debt is not such a big deal! If u have many debts and if u still can pay it, this means you are rich. That's economy. Every country has debt. I bet USA is the state that has the most debts in the world.
Anyway, it is really funny to discuss if Italy is economically good or bad.
Moreover, whatever parameter you choose else than economy, italy would be in the first 10-15 of the world as well. health, education etc. maybe the only thing italy is not very good could be the army. but anyway, most european counties' armies are weak anyway.