Why is Italy never in Civ?

[Ahriman]

I can only name two great Roman monuments: The Colosseum and the Pantheon.

Well, no offense, but that shows *your* ignorance.
Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_monuments_in_Rome

Tons is Italian tourism is to look at Renaissance Italian stuff though. But almost none of it is to visit any *modern* Italian accomplishments.

So the present tense of:

and culturally, it is shining, it is the 1st address for many tourists in the world.

is rather odd.

People mostly go to Italy for its history, and its beauty, not any modern shining culture (exception; food).

But the historic stuff *is* awesome.

 

[MadMage86]

I did think some of the included countries in Civ IV were a little redundant... Germany/HRE, Turks/Ottomans and several others... but the HRE and Germany were the kicker for me.

Sortof along those lines I rather wish they'd have avoided generalizing the Native Americans. I mean, even that name is insulting as this is like calling everyone in Europe "Native Europeans". Pick one and roll with it - Souix, Cherokee... you get the idea. As far as a civilization goes, however... I think they were included out of pity.

Isn't america just the leftovers of England?

No. It's just where all the British with balls went.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Well, no offense, but that shows *your* ignorance.
Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_monuments_in_Rome

Tons is Italian tourism is to look at Renaissance Italian stuff though. But almost none of it is to visit any *modern* Italian accomplishments.

So the present tense of:

is rather odd.

People mostly go to Italy for its history, and its beauty, not any modern shining culture (exception; food).

But the historic stuff *is* awesome.

Wow, people in this thread seem particularly intent on insulting others.

Oh, would that I was not as polite that I am, so that I could fight back in a better fashion.

But here, I'll take advantage of the stereotype of Americans, and say that I'm not expected to know of anything outside of my country. So, just me knowing those two is a sign of genius.

 

[CMKMStephens]

I think the artist Giovanni Paolo Panini makes a decent summary of the Italy vs Rome thing in terms of material accomplishment

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panini,_Modern_Rome.jpg

 

[SMA333M]

There is no Italy because there is Rome !

They should include Dacia in one of the Civs...

 

[kivanc]

Anatolia has many monuments of many different empires but by means of income from tourism, turkey is not half of italy

so just to clarify; the success on tourism is not only about historical values and monuments. it is also about
* marketing (the most important)
* overall cultural wealth of the host country
* cafes, bars, loverboys, beautiful girls
* safe and comfortable cities
* the value given by host country, the money invested
* infrastructure, hotels, roads, etc
* natural beauty; lakes, forests, shores
etc.

And history of Italy is not only Rome.

 

[Ahriman]

Wow, people in this thread seem particularly intent on insulting others.

I really wasn't intending to be insulting. But an argument that says "Roman-era history is not important to tourists because I only know of 2 monuments" is not a very strong argument, wouldn't you agree?

I personally only know a handful of Mughal-era monuments in India, but that doesn't make me conclude that there aren't any more than that.

Personal experience is not a very good guide.
Ignorance was not the best word choice; I apologize. Perhaps "lack of experience" is less loaded.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I really wasn't intending to be insulting. But an argument that says "Roman-era history is not important to tourists because I only know of 2 monuments" is not a very strong argument, wouldn't you agree?

I personally only know a handful of Mughal-era monuments in India, but that doesn't make me conclude that there aren't any more than that.

Personal experience is not a very good guide.
Ignorance was not the best word choice; I apologize. Perhaps "lack of experience" is less loaded.

Thank you. Experience I can understand. Ignorance I'm still offended at from Herrhals.

 

[civ_king]

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.


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


Umm... everyone?


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.

uh they reintroduced European knowledge; algebra, chemistry, Fibonacci numbers, medicine, astronomy, architecture, music...

The reason why Macedonia vs. Grece, unlike China vs. Mongolia, are not represented as distinct civs is just a limitation of a narrow game design. But these gross simplifications of Firaxis's shouldn't misled us into thinking that Alexander's empire "makes more sense as a Greek civilization than a Macedonian one". Anyway, my original argument was that Greek mainland, under Philip and Alexander’s rule, was more like conquered land than a cohesive and independent state. So I think that to regard Alexander's Grece as a truly unified nation is dubious to say the least. It seems to me that this argument still stands regardless of you comparison with of Macedonia/Greece with China/Mongolia, unless I've somehow missed the point of your comparison.



Actually, I'd love to see Al-Andalus in the game. I guess that people would object on the grounds that it "overalps" with Spain, or that it should be represented by a generic Arab civilization. The real problem as I see it is that Civ4 (and probably Civ5 too) doesn’t really allow fragmentation of lager empires (Civ4’s Vassal States didn’t really succeed in simulating that properly, but I hope that Civ5’s Puppet States and City States will be somewhat better).The Moors and the Berbers certainly deserve to be in the game as a major civilization: Al-Andalus could then spawn as a fragment of the Moors.



Although I do happen to think that Italy roughly falls into the same European league as Spain, France or Germany, I am not in the business of arguing that country X is more influential than Y. These argument are often silly, and I have no interest in getting bogged down in these kind of comparisons. In fact, I don't even think that some other civ should be excluded in order to make room for Italy.

Rather, I am for increasing the total number of civs and introducing a more dynamic game mechanics whereby ancient cultures rise, collapse and get gradually replaced by their modern counter-parts. With a system like that in place, Italy may emerge later in the game as the closest continuer of ancient Rome.

Unfortunately Al Andalus is not adequately covered by the Spanish as they tried (and failed) to obliterate it (culturally). and the Arabs focused very little on Al Andalus which is even to this day neglected by them

What about the Sistine Chapel, the Basilica of Saint Peter (I'm counting it!), the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Cathedral of Milan, etc.?

I can only name two great Roman monuments: The Colosseum and the Pantheon.

3/4 Italian ones are more Catholic than Italian and two of those are in Vatican city

Actually, France is the most visited tourist destination.


Italy is #5 (but this is data for 2008, may have changed, but I doubt it changed much).

France is awesome

I did think some of the included countries in Civ IV were a little redundant... Germany/HRE, Turks/Ottomans and several others... but the HRE and Germany were the kicker for me.

Sortof along those lines I rather wish they'd have avoided generalizing the Native Americans. I mean, even that name is insulting as this is like calling everyone in Europe "Native Europeans". Pick one and roll with it - Souix, Cherokee... you get the idea. As far as a civilization goes, however... I think they were included out of pity.



No. It's just where all the British with balls went.

They included the Turks? mine doesn't

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Didn't you read it? I said I'm counting it.

And Catholic monuments can still be Italian, you know. Catholic isn't a nationality.

 

[Willem]

And no, I don't mean Rome, I mean Italy. Medici, etc -- those types of Italians.

The Medici weren't Italians, they were Venetians. There was no Italy back then, it was just a bunch of city states and minor nations.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

The Medici weren't Venetians, they were Florentines.

 

[Willem]

The Medici weren't Venetians, they were Florentines.

Oops, my bad. My knowledge of that time period is a bit vague. At any rate they weren't Italians. There was no such thing then. It wasn't until the Napoleanic era that it became unified. Aside from the Romans and the modern era, Italy has never even been a nation. So I don't see why they should included in the game other than as Romans.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

No, they were Italians.

If you say that the Medici's couldn't be described as Italian, would you be willing to say that Pericles wasn't Greek?

 

[Willem]

If you say that the Medici's couldn't be described as Italian, would you be willing to say that Pericles wasn't Greek?

Good point. Still the Roman influence on the area is so overwhelming, it just wouldn't make sense to have a seperate Italian civ in the game. One Rome is enough.

 

[civ_king]

Didn't you read it? I said I'm counting it.

And Catholic monuments can still be Italian, you know. Catholic isn't a nationality.

It's the Italian Catholic Church right? oh wait

 

[Lone Wolf]

While Rome =/= Italy, I think that including Rome gives Italy some partial representation as well. Including both Rome and Italy would be just like including France and Germany with the HRE under the leadership of Charlemagne .

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

While Rome =/= Italy, I think that including Rome gives Italy some partial representation as well. Including both Rome and Italy would be just like including France and Germany with the HRE under the leadership of Charlemagne .

So by that logic, Italy should be in.

 

[sköldpadda]

...linguistically, it wasn't the continuation of the Roman Empire...

[note: quote cherrypicked from a larger post]

A large portion of Europe (and actually, the world) is carrying on a linguistic continuation of the Roman empire.

 

[Lone Wolf]

So by that logic, Italy should be in.

By that logic, it shouldn't. Including HRE was stupid, and we don't want more stupid stuff.