Why is Italy never in Civ?

[Tamed]

And no, I don't mean Rome, I mean Italy. Medici, etc -- those types of Italians. It's really a slap in the face to include a faction like the Songhai but never Italy.

 

[Camikaze]

Europe is not devoid of representation in Civ. Africa is. They like to fill out the map a bit.

And Italy as a Civ just doesn't warrant inclusion at all, unless there were to be a hundred or so civs in the game. Perhaps some civs that make up what is now Italy would be more deserving, ut certainly not Italy itself.

 

[pi-r8]

Because they always put the Romans in, and it would be weird to have both Romans and Italians. Plus for earth maps- there's so many european civs, and so few African and South american civs. They need to balance it.

 

[NYHunter]

Italian contribution to history is very important, however, Italy and Rome would share the same cities. Even if spelled differently they represent the same geographic location, and the realist crowd would go on a rampage.

I do not agree with this but it is the main reason.

 

[Decimatus]

If you guys want a place in Civ 6, you are just going to have to spend the next 5 years conquering Europe. Sorry.

 

[NYHunter]

However, it should be pointed out that Florence and Venice are in as city-states. But, of course, that is not the same as being able to play as them.

 

[Tamed]

I'm sort of apalled as an Italian at people saying our place in history is not important enough to be added when Civs like the Zulu (organized savages) are in the game.

Lorenzo De Medici was a great leader of Florence for many years and there's just so much rich culture and history. You could even go the controversial route and add Moussolini as a leader.

As for the real world map scripts, that is not a valid reason. The earth map in Civ 4 sucks terribly, it's not even balanced at all and places on the map like Cuba and Hawaii don't even make sense -- don't even get me started about Africa. I would wager a claim saying 95%+ of the Civ population plays scripts that aren't earth most of the time.

As for city names, Italy has a VAST amount of cities that don't have roman names, maybe not well known ones but come on, who goes around saying "Oh yeah, Coazxluatia, I know that one."

 

[Chimera1804]

I'm sort of apalled as an Italian at people saying our place in history is not important enough to be added when Civs like the Zulu (organized savages) are in the game.

That's not what's meant. I would say that it's maybe not important enough relative to the other European civs. Let's face it, in WW1 and WW2 Germany and England (for Europe) were pretty dominant*. So when it comes to choosing Civs in the game Firaxis has to pick x number from this continent, x from that, etc. to keep it all balanced (and not just for maps). Also, while I know this is more or less what you're arguing against, the Romans were chosen to represent Italy...the Roman Empire was one of the greatest empires ever to exist. People would go berserk (I don't think that's an exaggeration either) if Rome was booted in favor of a more modern Italy

So if you want to make a case as to how Italy has been more important in European history than any of the European civs in the game, you can go for it. But I have a feeling that you're going to have a hard time.


*Not comprehensive...just off the top of my head from what I remember...

 

[Camikaze]

I'm sort of apalled as an Italian at people saying our place in history is not important enough to be added when Civs like the Zulu (organized savages) are in the game.

Again, it's about geography.

And secondly, no one is saying that Italy has been historically insignificant. But it has only been around as an entity since 1861, and has been moderately important, although certainly not pivotal, in that time. And it doesn't come close to matching the likes of the other European civs. Given that civs need to be geographically spread, which European civ would you have Italy replace?

 

[Takeda]

If anything europe is over-represented in Civilization, not every european civilization can be represented in the game. They picked the largest and most historically significant european civilizations: england, france, germany, russia, and spain. As well as including some ancient european civs, like Rome and Greece.

Civilization has to represent the whole world. Which means that some european civs, even significant european civs, will have to get excluded in favor of sometimes less significant non-european civs, like Mali or the Zulu. Every sub-saharan african civilization was pretty insignificant historically, but some of them have to be included to give that region some representation in the game, even at the expense of much more significant european or asian civs.

 

[weltraeumer]

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...

 

[Michigamer]

I see where you're coming from, Tamed. When you look at all the contributions of Italians to Western Civilization - the Renaissance, sculpture and art, the Divine Comedy, scientists like Galileo and Fermi and Volta, opera and classical music, the fact that Italy is the center of the Catholic Church...Italy is truly remarkable.

However, it is the powerful kingdoms and great empires that make their way into the game as civs. Political and military predominance are the main factor. Look at Africa. You could make a good case that the best choices as civilizations were the Yoruba/Oyo Empire, Hausa States, and Benin Empire, as well as Songhay or Mali. These societies were literate, organized, and produced some fascinating sculpture and art. But it is the Zulu who have made their way in every version of the Civ games. Why? because Shaka's Zulu army was utterly dominant against neighboring kingdoms, and later they were one of the few African kingdoms to actually put up strong military resistance to the European colonizing nations.

Italy is analogous. Of all the large European nations, Italy is the one that was a fractured collection of city-states for most of its history. A united kingdom finally appeared in the late 1800's, and yet Italy was still not as powerful as Germany or Britain or Russia or France. Italy was late to begin colonizing outside Europe, and so only gained a few scattered colonies. In World War 1 Italy seemed to play a secondary role and was not rewarded with many spoils. In World War 2 Italy got in over its head and had to get bailed out by Nazi Germany in Greece and again in Libya, and eventually was overrun by the Allies. The point is, there has been no important Italian empire and few famed military leaders. This is the main reason why Italy gets the shaft.

 

[Perfxion]

Civilization has to represent the whole world. Which means that some european civs, even significant european civs, will have to get excluded in favor of sometimes less significant non-european civs, like Mali or the Zulu. Every sub-saharan african civilization was pretty insignificant historically, but some of them have to be included to give that region some representation in the game, even at the expense of much more significant european or asian civs.

Just because American/European History classes label ALL non US/Euro history as insignificant because it does not matter until Europe took over, does not mean that its true. There are many civs in the game, and not in the game, that have a big major impact on world history. People who learn about it, just don't care about them. Its hard to say who has been more significant when all you are taught about Africa in history class is the ancient Egyptian empires.

The big problem with Italy, in Europe, who do you take out to add Italy in? England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome, Greece?

 

[Tamed]

I'm not saying take anyone out. I just wish the game wasn't limited. I honestly wouldn't mind two leaders sharing the same traits if we could get more leaders.

I just feel slightly shafted that Songhay is in Civ 5 (though I understand the need for representation) and the best Italy has to offer is Rome. I am Italian, I am not Roman. I do not feel Roman.

I feel Italy is every bit as important, as say Sumeria, The Vikings or Holy Rome from Civ 4, at the very least.

 

[Camikaze]

Trying not to get off the topic too much; what has Italy done of huge significance since its founding in 1861? How is that more significant that the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted for over 800 years and was composed of a very large portion of Europe?

And I too wish that the game wasn't quite as limited, but that's not the reality. It isn't a matter of unique characteristics so much as unique artwork, which, by the looks of things, is very resource intensive in terms of development.

 

[Takeda]

Just because American/European History classes label ALL non US/Euro history as insignificant because it does not matter until Europe took over, does not mean that its true. There are many civs in the game, and not in the game, that have a big major impact on world history. People who learn about it, just don't care about them. Its hard to say who has been more significant when all you are taught about Africa in history class is the ancient Egyptian empires.

Ok Perfxion, name one SUB-SAHARAN african civilization that had a major impact on the world outside of it's immediate territory. Just one. This is how we determine which civilizations had a major impact on history.

You should also note that I never said that non-european civs were insignificant. I said that sub-saharan african civs were insignificant. China, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, Arabia, Egypt, the Aztecs, etc. All fine examples of non-euro civs that greatly impacted the course of human development. I again challenge you to name one sub-saharan civilization that did the same. Keep in mind that we are talking about history* here, not pre-history.

*history being defined as the point at which humans began making written records of their exploits. Pre-history being defined as the period before written records existed.

 

[Gresharas]

I'm Italian but to be honest, Italy scarcely deserve a place in a small civilization roster. The best argument about why it is not included is, of course, that there is limited place and a world map to fill.



A more depth look:
Please, it's simple personal experience, other could have felt it differently, do not flame.

Spoiler :

First, we have already the Romans, which are what most italian nationalist stand for. And nowaday italian culture is a direct derivate of roman, french and spanish one, with a bit of everything else. Wait, look, french and spanish cultures are derivates of romans as well I will call it fair and keep the romans.

Second, our contribution to history, as a 150 years old country, is... well, ludicrous. The best I could say about my country is that we are imaginative people, good lovers, excellent cooks and terrible soldiers, with the possible exception of Peacekeeping.

I do not want do do wrong to our [very fractured, very glorious] past but we stood as a land of conquest for many centuries. This disrupted our identity, greatly improved our cultural variety, greatly improved our literature and greatly destroyed any ambition on self-improvement in the typical italian.

True to be told, most Italians don't feel Italians, one way or the other. Most people argue about corruption, and then evade taxes. Most people say that nepotism is bad, that the so-called Barons of Medicine and university are an evil to be eradicated, and then go to the most influential neightbour to ask for a job.

To me, we're not an accomplished nation. We're a bunch of children kept together by some long-sought ideal, gathered a century ago by some lousy monarch with the help of powerful neightbours. We're more like a burocratic, stately held republic that runs under theocracy and caste system

Maybe, just maybe, in a century or so we will form a more stable nation or - as I hope - integrate in Europe with all other countries and local nationalism* will be forgot for good. One could dream


*: to non-italians: in Italy we keep a very strong prejudice, for good and for bad, about every region one come from, about the way one behave, think, work and relate to friends. Often it looks like we got no Italians, but instead piedmontese, emilians, sicilians and so on. If not worse and go for city provenience. Often people couldn't even write in a barely readable italian nor, in some places, speak it. Those are the basis on which stand our identity

Wait, we could go for a culture victory. I can stand for it!

 

[Danielos]

It would be very difficult to come up with a unique unit for modern Italy, since they have pretty much sucked militarily. Also, who would be their famous leader? Mussolini?
You Italians should instead be proud of the Roman empire, which is well represented in the franchise.

 

[Magma]

You have the Romans. ;o

It'd be like including the Vikings, but also having Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

 

[CornPlanter]

when Civs like the Zulu (organized savages) are in the game.

Dont use the word savage when talking about zulu, you are igniting flames and racism discussions (learned the hard way). Apparently Zulu had well developed culture, science, architecture, literature, arts and technology.


Considering Italians, the only real reason I see is that we already have Rome (same city names, even Capital) and overall competition in Europe is really strong. Being city-states didn't prevent Greece or Mayans from getting in.