Would would the fans like from a Civ 6 Byzantium

[j51]

I think it would be awesome if the Byzantines got a unique work: The Icon. It could be both a Great Work of Art and a Relic. I actually thought of that before Civ 6 was even announced. Pretty cool, huh?

 

[Redaxe]

Also the push by European powers (mostly the British) to liberate Greece from Ottoman rule was based on a Romantic view of greek history and philosophers. Especially the superiority of greek thoughts and liberty over the Romans and others.

Its certainly interesting - there was a long period (after Constantine & Justinian) where the word Greek / Hellenes was seen as synonymous with paganism and was thus dropped by the Christians.
I'm no expert on the subject but a quick bit of searching seems to reveal that the idealism of Hellene & Hellenism may have been reintroduced by Gemistus Pletho who was one of the last Byzantine Greek philosophers who reintroduced Plato to Italy and thus ended the dominance that Aristotle had over Western European thought.

He appears to actually be a fan of the gods of olympus and advocated a return of the Peloponnese to the systems that it was managed by during the ancient world.

I suppose he could argue that by the 15th century the imperial & political ideology of the Pentarchy & Byzantine Emperor was spent and a new system was needed, although the Ottomans obviously had different plans.

Although that still doesn't explain how this thought became more dominant in Greece by the time the war for independence started. In same ways I think would have been cool if the Greeks still called themselves the Roman Empire after 1830. I always felt that Rome had a more impressive legacy then ancient Greece and well the only country that calls itself something similar is Romania - after all there was no "Ancient Greece", it was really a collection of CityStates not a unified nation

 

[Redaxe]

I think it would be awesome if the Byzantines got a unique work: The Icon. It could be both a Great Work of Art and a Relic. I actually thought of that before Civ 6 was even announced. Pretty cool, huh?

Interesting concept - although I wonder if it would be better suited to a religious belief but certainly very interesting idea - I suppose it would provide culture, faith & tourism.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Its certainly interesting - there was a long period (after Constantine & Justinian) where the word Greek / Hellenes was seen as synonymous with paganism and was thus dropped by the Christians.
I'm no expert on the subject but a quick bit of searching seems to reveal that the idealism of Hellene & Hellenism may have been reintroduced by Gemistus Pletho who was one of the last Byzantine Greek philosophers who reintroduced Plato to Italy and thus ended the dominance that Aristotle had over Western European thought.

He appears to actually be a fan of the gods of olympus and advocated a return of the Peloponnese to the systems that it was managed by during the ancient world.

I suppose he could argue that by the 15th century the imperial & political ideology of the Pentarchy & Byzantine Emperor was spent and a new system was needed, although the Ottomans obviously had different plans.

Although that still doesn't explain how this thought became more dominant in Greece by the time the war for independence started. In same ways I think would have been cool if the Greeks still called themselves the Roman Empire after 1830. I always felt that Rome had a more impressive legacy then ancient Greece and well the only country that calls itself something similar is Romania - after all there was no "Ancient Greece", it was really a collection of CityStates not a unified nation

Its hard to argue Rome's legacy is greater than Greece's legacy when Greece's legacy is Rome.

 

[Atlas627]

I think it would be awesome if the Byzantines got a unique work: The Icon. It could be both a Great Work of Art and a Relic. I actually thought of that before Civ 6 was even announced. Pretty cool, huh?

But the Byzantines were all about NOT worshipping Icons

 

[Zaarin]

who reintroduced Plato to Italy and thus ended the dominance that Aristotle had over Western European thought.

Actually, in the Middle Ages both Plato and Aristotle were put on a pedestal, but because none of Aristotle's writings had survived in Europe no one saw the inherent conflict between their philosophies (and therefore with Christian theology, on account of the fact that Christianity is deeply entrenched in Neoplatonism [see: the Gospel of John, which begins with "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God"]). Then during the Crusades and Reconquista Muslim Arabic copies of Aristotle were found, which caused a startling revelation on the discovery that much of Aristotle did not seem to be compatible with the Platonic principles of Christianity. Much of the work of St. Thomas Aquinas was dedicated to justifying Aristotle to the principles of Christianity, just as Mimonides had done with Aristotle and Judaism. So it would be much fairer to say that Western European thought was dominated by Plato than Aristotle, even though Aristotle was held in high regard.

 

[SMcM]

That's a very unprecise comparison.

Yes, because, if anything, America and England are actually more close.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, because, if anything, America and England are actually more close.

Not quite, for all of America's 200+year existence, England has existed in parallel. England has only really been a junior partner in the past 60-70 years
(FDR is I think the first that would make sense as an English leader)

Wheras "Byzantium" was either wholly part of the Roman empire...or it was the only Roman Empire
(Best comparison would be if Napoleon conquered the British Isles)

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I'd like to see Byzantium as something other than a religious civ. Certainly, Christian theology (really, disputes over Christian theology) was very important to the intellectual culture of the empire; but Civ V has pretty much already covered that, and it would be nice to go a different direction.

I could see them as a Civ that specializes in diplomacy. The Byzantines are famous for surviving for a thousand years in an extremely dangerous world through the use of cunning as much as brute force. They would often pay nations not to attack them, and when they were attacked they would often bribe in a third party to fight their attackers. Alexios Komnenos, in particular, was a master of this. Some sort of increased penalty (warmonger? unhappiness?) for attacking them could make sense. Or maybe Byzantium can bribe other Civs to wars at half price.

Also, it's high time we got a Varangian Guard UU. Seriously!

 

[SofNascimento_]

Yes, because, if anything, America and England are actually more close.

Uh, no.

The Eastern Roman Empire existed for some 1000 years after the Fall of the West and it changed a lot in that period. So, if you compare the "Byzantine Empire" from the reign of Justinian with the Roman Empire from the reign of Theodosius they are very similar. Indeed, even as far as Heraclius claiming the Roman State was anything different is totally arbitrary.

After the Arab conquests things started to change much more, but still there was no break from Ancient Rome. They didn't see themselves any different, they never fought an independe war against Rome, nor did they perceive themselves differently.

Even culturally they are more similar than one might imagine.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd like to see Byzantium as something other than a religious civ. Certainly, Christian theology (really, disputes over Christian theology) was very important to the intellectual culture of the empire; but Civ V has pretty much already covered that, and it would be nice to go a different direction.

I could see them as a Civ that specializes in diplomacy. The Byzantines are famous for surviving for a thousand years in an extremely dangerous world through the use of cunning as much as brute force. They would often pay nations not to attack them, and when they were attacked they would often bribe in a third party to fight their attackers. Alexios Komnenos, in particular, was a master of this. Some sort of increased penalty (warmonger? unhappiness?) for attacking them could make sense. Or maybe Byzantium can bribe other Civs to wars at half price.

Also, it's high time we got a Varangian Guard UU. Seriously!

Gandhi already has the increased penalty for attacking them.

Alexios could have decreased war weariness/warmonger for anyone at war with the same power they are (Victoria attacks Alexios, Teddy will get decreased war weariness/warmonger points for declaring war on Victoria...assuming he is at peace with Alexios)

 

[Ebrim]

I would like it not to exist. We already have Greece and we have Rome so having a Byzantine Empire is just as weird to me as having a HRE when you have Germany. This is something I really didn't like in CivIV and don't want to see come back.

 

[Zaarin]

I would like it not to exist. We already have Greece and we have Rome so having a Byzantine Empire is just as weird to me as having a HRE when you have Germany. This is something I really didn't like in CivIV and don't want to see come back.

Except that the civilization of Greece clearly represents the city-states of Ancient Greece (and possibly Alexander's Hellenic empire), not Medieval Greece; meanwhile, Rome clearly represents the unified or Western Empire. I would argue that Byzantium is not, in fact, represented in the game by Greece or Rome, and while clearly inheriting the historical and cultural traditions of both civs, was distinct from both. The fact that they called themselves Romans is a non-argument: the Germanic Holy Roman Empire called itself Roman; the Islamic Sultanate of Rum called itself Roman. "Rumi" means "the Roman." Everyone called themselves Roman; it doesn't mean they were the civilization of Rome.

It's worth recalling that Byzantium was arguably the high point of Medieval European civilization, certainly the high point of Medieval Eastern Europe. Western Europe was bedazzled by the wealth, culture, and learning of Byzantium--just ask the Fourth Crusade.

 

[Ebrim]

Except that the civilization of Greece clearly represents the city-states of Ancient Greece (and possibly Alexander's Hellenic empire), not Medieval Greece; meanwhile, Rome clearly represents the unified or Western Empire. I would argue that Byzantium is not, in fact, represented in the game by Greece or Rome, and while clearly inheriting the historical and cultural traditions of both civs, was distinct from both. The fact that they called themselves Romans is a non-argument: the Germanic Holy Roman Empire called itself Roman; the Islamic Sultanate of Rum called itself Roman. "Rumi" means "the Roman." Everyone called themselves Roman; it doesn't mean they were the civilization of Rome.

It's worth recalling that Byzantium was arguably the high point of Medieval European civilization, certainly the high point of Medieval Eastern Europe. Western Europe was bedazzled by the wealth, culture, and learning of Byzantium--just ask the Fourth Crusade.

I didn't say anything about people in ERE calling themselves Roman but the ERE is clearly an offshoot of the, well, RE. Yes, they were quite distinct and became more distinct over time (like people tend to do) but I think there's enough continuation with both classical Greek and Roman roots that we can pretty well consider it covered or at least low priority. As for people calling themselves Roman, since you brought it up, I'm pretty sure that you'd agree that people in the ERE had a much better claim to that legacy than either the HRE or Turkish states that moved into Asia Minor later. Not all people who claim to be Roman are equally Roman and the ERE had a pretty solid claim and that's kind of the point.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Except that the civilization of Greece clearly represents the city-states of Ancient Greece (and possibly Alexander's Hellenic empire), not Medieval Greece; meanwhile, Rome clearly represents the unified or Western Empire. I would argue that Byzantium is not, in fact, represented in the game by Greece or Rome, and while clearly inheriting the historical and cultural traditions of both civs, was distinct from both. The fact that they called themselves Romans is a non-argument: the Germanic Holy Roman Empire called itself Roman; the Islamic Sultanate of Rum called itself Roman. "Rumi" means "the Roman." Everyone called themselves Roman; it doesn't mean they were the civilization of Rome.

It's worth recalling that Byzantium was arguably the high point of Medieval European civilization, certainly the high point of Medieval Eastern Europe. Western Europe was bedazzled by the wealth, culture, and learning of Byzantium--just ask the Fourth Crusade.

They could make the Byzantines even more distinct from the Roman civ by choosing a Medieval leader like Alexios Komnenos rather than one of the Justinian/Theodora pair.

Either way, though, I agree that the Byzantines were more than different enough from their Roman predecessors in culture, religion, language, administration, etc, to warrant a separate civ. And I don't think anyone would contest that the Byzantine Empire is historically significant enough to make the cut.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

They could make the Byzantines even more distinct from the Roman civ by choosing a Medieval leader like Alexios Komnenos rather than one of the Justinian/Theodora pair.

Either way, though, I agree that the Byzantines were more than different enough from their Roman predecessors in culture, religion, language, administration, etc, to warrant a separate civ. And I don't think anyone would contest that the Byzantine Empire is historically significant enough to make the cut.

But choosing a medieval Byzantine leader for Rome would also be the perfect way to distinguish it from classical Rome (like having Barbarossa and Bismark for HRE and national German eras of German history)
Especially if the Byzantine leader also works with Greek civ.

 

[Zaarin]

They could make the Byzantines even more distinct from the Roman civ by choosing a Medieval leader like Alexios Komnenos rather than one of the Justinian/Theodora pair.

Either way, though, I agree that the Byzantines were more than different enough from their Roman predecessors in culture, religion, language, administration, etc, to warrant a separate civ. And I don't think anyone would contest that the Byzantine Empire is historically significant enough to make the cut.

Agreed, and I very much hope that we can put Justinian and Theodora to rest for once; I think Alexios Komnenos would be the ideal choice for Byzantium.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

"Would would the fans like from a Civ 6 Byzantium"

- gets a free religion (if you did not found one yet)
- can buy or trade for another civilization's pantheon or follower belief (somehow, I don't know how this could work)

basically the ability to change around your religion without relying on missionaries

 

[SofNascimento_]

Except that the civilization of Greece clearly represents the city-states of Ancient Greece (and possibly Alexander's Hellenic empire), not Medieval Greece; meanwhile, Rome clearly represents the unified or Western Empire.

If you want to see it that way, Civ's Rome represents the Principate, but not the Western Empire. First, there was never a political unity called "Western Roman Empire" and by the time the division became irreversible, both halves of the Empire were extremely differen than the empire of the Principate, to the point that we really can't say Trajan's Rome represent that phase. Indeed, a "Western Roman Empire civ" might not even have Rome as its capital.

The fact that they called themselves Romans is a non-argument: the Germanic Holy Roman Empire called itself Roman; the Islamic Sultanate of Rum called itself Roman. "Rumi" means "the Roman." Everyone called themselves Roman; it doesn't mean they were the civilization of Rome.

That's absurd.

All those other examples are people that wanted to claim "unimpeachably legitimate
sovereign authority, evoking the greatest empire the world had yet seen." As far I I'm aware they didn't, as a people, thought they were Romans. Onlt that they could claim that title for one reason or another.

The Byzantines on the other hands were literally the same people. They didn't conquer anything, they didn't want to legitimize their rule. It's just that they were Romans in 300 AD, still in 400 AD, 500 AD, 600 AD and so on.

 

[Zaarin]

If you want to see it that way, Civ's Rome represents the Principate, but not the Western Empire. First, there was never a political unity called "Western Roman Empire" and by the time the division became irreversible, both halves of the Empire were extremely differen than the empire of the Principate, to the point that we really can't say Trajan's Rome represent that phase. Indeed, a "Western Roman Empire civ" might not even have Rome as its capital.

...That's what I said.

That's absurd.

All those other examples are people that wanted to claim "unimpeachably legitimate
sovereign authority, evoking the greatest empire the world had yet seen." As far I I'm aware they didn't, as a people, thought they were Romans. Onlt that they could claim that title for one reason or another.

The Byzantines on the other hands were literally the same people. They didn't conquer anything, they didn't want to legitimize their rule. It's just that they were Romans in 300 AD, still in 400 AD, 500 AD, 600 AD and so on.

On the contrary, the Sultanate of Rum and the HRE both believed themselves to be the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire, and their people (including the Franks, who were not part of the HRE after Charlemagne) called themselves Romans well into the Middle Ages. Bear in mind that the "Fall of Rome" was a very nebulous thing and indeed there was no concept that Rome ever fell until the Renaissance, and the dates famously attached to its fall by Enlightenment scholar Edward Gibbon are arbitrary. One can make a (very tenuous) case for the fall of Rome as late as 1918: the Romanovs were descended from the royal line of Byzantium, after all, from whom they inherited the title "czar" (Caesar). I don't think many scholars would make a serious attempt to attach such a late date to the fall of Rome, but it does make the point that there was no one date at which Rome fell. It was a slow and steady decline, "not with a bang but a whimper."