Why is Italy never in Civ?

[Willem]

As for Greece being in twice, as Greece and the Byzantine Empire, well it was twice a superpower, whereas Italy was one only as Rome

The two aren't the same at all. While Byzantium may have had alot of Greek influences, they also had Roman ones as well, and developed their own unique culture. Saying that they were just Greeks is like saying that England and the US are one and the same.

 

[Gresharas]

Italy didn't switch to a democracy because of America. They abandoned the monarchy because of its support of fascism after Mussolini had been discredited. And, of course, it was a constitutional monarchy because most nationalistic movements started off as democratic movements before monarchs (Victor Emmanuel II and Wilhelm I) took advantage of the situation.

I agree about the pre-existant movements. But my "gunpoint" entry it is documented. There where partisan groups that where litteraly "not invited" to the constituent. Those who won the war, directed the process. As I already stated, I don't think they did it wrong, in the end. I'm simply pointing out that they DID chose who where welcome and who wasn't: several laic formations, democratic ones, where left out without a valid reason. They where important on the territory, but even if they don't, it feels odd to have a democracy starting by cherrypicking who's in and who's out. Heck, even our referendum about being a monarchy or a democracy is under suspicion about heavy ruse.

About the Statuto Albertino: The Statuto took form only because in that moment the king was weak and intellectuals strong, and survived after the '49 because the dinasty was weak by his abdication. The statuto was a strong unity tool, so he stayed. I'm not exactly a fan of the Savoia* but at least they where good at diplomacy.

* Hard to find one here: in piedmont the "small folks", who lived at strict contact with the dinasty, had a lot to say on the Savoia on why from time to time one king showed to be strong, while the others showed to be... weakwilled.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I wouldnt mind seing Italy in, but they are just another ottomans (although obviously more civilized) a power of medium significance. Rome was the superpower of its day.
As for Greece being in twice, as Greece and the Byzantine Empire, well it was twice a superpower, whereas Italy was one only as Rome

While I see what you are saying, what's the point of a 6000 year civ game if we have a different game civ for each big era of a historic civilization's history? The Byzantine Empire is just a made-up modern term for the medieval Roman Empire anyway (and yes it had predominantly Greek culture, but the Romans were always very Hellenised) ... the Romans and Greek don't need an extra half civ.

Anyway, if we define the "Byzantine Empire" as starting in the 7th century, or even the 6th, it was never more powerful that the Ottomans were. I think if the Ottomans are "medium significance", then the same goes for the medieval Romans.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wouldnt mind seing Italy in, but they are just another ottomans (although obviously more civilized) a power of medium significance. Rome was the superpower of its day.

I realize the whole Turkish-Greek thing is none of my business, but I'm not sure it's fair to imply the Ottomans were uncivilized (especially compared to Europe).

As for Greece being in twice, as Greece and the Byzantine Empire, well it was twice a superpower, whereas Italy was one only as Rome

Well, I'd argue Venice was a superpower. And, with the Byzantines, are the Greek or Roman? One could argue either way and be right.

 

[Pangur Bán]

And, with the Byzantines, are the Greek or Roman? One could argue either way and be right.

All Greeks from the early Roman Empire until the modern period were "Romans". There's no contradiction. "Greekness" was imported ... sorry ... "reintroduced" ... to "Greeks" from the West.

 

[Tusked]

All Greeks from the early Roman Empire until the modern period were "Romans". There's no contradiction. "Greekness" was imported ... sorry ... "reintroduced" ... to "Greeks" from the West.

'cept for the part where they spoke (including the emperors after Justinian) y'know... Greek.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I wouldnt mind seing Italy in, but they are just another ottomans (although obviously more civilized) a power of medium significance. Rome was the superpower of its day.
As for Greece being in twice, as Greece and the Byzantine Empire, well it was twice a superpower, whereas Italy was one only as Rome

Obviously more civilized, you say?

Until about 1700, the Turks and Arabs were the height of culture and advancement!

Of course, all through the first part of 1100-1700, they had to defend against the Crusades, but they were still very cultured.

The Arabs especially, the Turks weren't quite as cultured until they had Constantinople/Istanbul, and could stop warring, switch over to their peaceful civics, and crank out culture.

 

[Panzeh]

Why is Bavaria not included in civ?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Bayern is a part of Germany, and the Germany in this game includes the city-states, which include Bayern.

That's like asking why Athens isn't in Civ...

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

the Turks weren't quite as cultured until they had Constantinople/Istanbul, and could stop warring, switch over to their peaceful civics, and crank out culture.

I love how people around here describe history in terms of the game. XD

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I love how people around here describe history in terms of the game. XD

*bows*

Of course, it's a testament to the game's accuracy that we're even able to do such a thing...

Is it possible to say that since the Visigoths were so important to European culture, we should let them in? I've always wanted to play as Alaric...

 

[Pangur Bán]

'cept for the part where they spoke (including the emperors after Justinian) y'know... Greek.

'Fraid you didn't grasp my point.

Romans spoke many languages, originally just Latin, with Latin and Greek being the main ones from the early imperial period. From the high middle ages it was just Greek, remembering that until the long after the Slavic invasions Vulgar Latin was the major language of the Balkans.

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

If they include the Celts again in an expansion, I wanna see Vercingetorix. Why? He's got a cool name. Has an x at the end.

 

[kivanc]

guys, please, back to the topic italy.
we discuss everything 'cept italy; bavaria, greece, turkey, arabs, celts...

i would like to see italy IN but as long as romans will be, italy won't, or at least won't be IN vanilla. EPs maybe. the best solution would be sth like this
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9005131&postcount=77

 

[Louis XXIV]

If the idea that, as long as Rome is in, Italy won't is true, I wonder if the same would apply to Venice. Venice certainly has a legacy separate from Rome. It wasn't even a Roman city until the late Empire (after Caesar and Augustus were long dead, the Gladius had been abandoned, and half the army spoke German). This separates it from Florence or Naples, which were Roman cities (as well as removes the concern about Medieval Rome and the Pope being a continuation of classic Rome). It also had a significant empire that was outside of Italy and was the greatest naval power at one point.

 

[Ahriman]

Venice, Florence, Genoa, etc. make great City States, with obvious bonuses that they can give you; naval, culture, trade.

 

[tifa9292]

italy is already represented by rome. anyway too little space sorry
maybe expansion?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, clearly not everyone agrees that Italy is represented by Rome. This thread has diverged somewhat, but it hasn't diverged enough for 9 pages without that being quite a significant debate. I don't think Rome has ever been intended in the game to represent anything besides the Roman Republic and Empire (and not even necessarily the late Empire).

 

[BuckyRea]

Is it possible to say that since the Visigoths were so important to European culture, we should let them in? I've always wanted to play as Alaric...

I've seen a mod or two like that.

As for the OP question, I think it's silly not to say the Italian civilization is in gamplay as the later iterations of the Roman Empire. Despite the post-Fall Germanic coloring, Italian civilization is very much a continuation of Rome's. There's a reason why the word Renaissance starts with the suffix "re-". It was return to the roots of their own intellectual heritage and a countervalent to the influence of that middle east import called Christianity.

I'd like to see the new Civ 5 have the Italian civ name its later cities Genoa, Venizia, Milano, etc. Who here remembers in Civ 2 when the first city name you got after running out of the scripted cities was always "Naples" regardless of which civ you were playing?

 

[Louis XXIV]

It was return to the roots of their own intellectual heritage and a countervalent to the influence of that middle east import called Christianity.

Just because some people at the time thought of it that way and this view was distorted over time doesn't make it true. I can probably point to as many as points of continuity with the middle ages as reboots of Roman times. And the idea that the Renaissance was anti-Christian is absolute crap made up by people trying to incorporate the Renaissance into the Enlightenment when it clearly wasn't.

Or, as an alternative argument, the Renaissance wasn't exactly unique to Italy. It existed in France and the "Roman" Empire (of Germany) as well.