Would would the fans like from a Civ 6 Byzantium

[SofNascimento_]

On the contrary, the Sultanate of Rum and the HRE both believed themselves to be the legitimate successors of the Roman Empire

Yes, as I said, they wanted to legitimize their rule and invoke the Glory of Rome. But that's a totally different case from the Byzantine Empire. They were Rome. And that's my only point here. Saying the "Byzantines" were not Romans (for the majority of its existence) is just plain wrong. Two quotes from Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition:

Spoiler :

The fact is not in dispute: the Byzantines were Romans. The conventional
notion that Rome was for them only an adopted (and so implicitly
foreign) ideal of empire can probably be ascribed to the bias of past
diplomatic historians who were looking for manufactured ‘‘ideologies’’ in
official documents and who did not feel obligated to take a longer and
deeper view to explain the continuity and coherence of Roman society for
almost two millennia.8 This notion also reflects a western bias, as it makes
Rome into something external to the Byzantines which they only laid claim
to in the abstract for political purposes. In reality, abundant evidence
indicates that in late antiquity and Byzantium the idea of the Roman res
publica ‘‘was not only the legitimizing element at the center of political
ideology and self-representation at the imperial court but had also become
the point of reference in the personal field of self-consciousness of the
normal citizen.’’9 ‘‘We’’ are Romans in most texts written after the late third
century, whether by pagans or Christians, in Greek or Latin.

And

Spoiler :

But the existence of a single state and
political community with a continuous history lasting over two thousand
years defeats scholarly specialization. Periodization, in this case arbitrary,
requires new names such as ‘‘Byzantium’’ and new names suggest a different
‘‘essence.’’

and their people (including the Franks, who were not part of the HRE after Charlemagne) called themselves Romans well into the Middle Ages.

Really? The people in Europe indentified themseleves as Romans? I never read about that. From where is this coming from?

 

[Zaarin]

First: I'm not denying that the Byzantines were Roman, but I think it's reductionist to say that they were simply the continuation of the Roman Empire. They certainly developed into a very distinct civilization from that ruled by Augustus or even Trajan (or Constantine, for that matter).

Second: I will have to look up the citation, it was in one of the books I read in my Medieval Cultures class in college. Offhand, I would guess it was in The Mind of the Middle Ages by Frederick B. Artz, as that would make more sense than The Renaissance of the 12th Century by Charles Haskins, wouldn't it? And no, I'm not saying the people of Europe in general thought of themselves as Romans. I'm not saying the English or Spanish or the Irish or the Norse or the Wends thought of themselves as Roman, but the Franks (i.e., the French) did. Recall that Gaul was in the heartland of the Empire prior to its decline.

 

[Redaxe]

I'm not saying the English or Spanish or the Irish or the Norse or the Wends thought of themselves as Roman, but the Franks (i.e., the French) did. Recall that Gaul was in the heartland of the Empire prior to its decline.

Around 212 Caracalla gave Roman Citizenship to all people in the Empire. If you were a Roman living in Italy you had to identify yourself as Italian to distinguish yourself.

As for France it was ruled by the Merovingians (started by Clovis who united the Franks under a King - he could be considered the Father of France).
What he set in motion allowed Charlemagne to further consolidate the power of France as a new Empire. From this period the inhabitants of Gaul/France called themselves Franks.

You have to remember though the reason Charlemagne was crowned as a Roman Emperor by the Pope was for political purposes - I doubt the Franks really considered themselves Romans, they had a new identity.

The Pope wanted a new Roman Empire, because the old Eastern Roman Empire has been weakening itself in civil wars over iconoclasm while the Islamic caliphate was threatening Italy and other territories in the Mediterranean. Plus the Popes were tired of Byzantine emperors interfering with Papal governance and the cultural/language barriers between east and west were growing.

In other words the Popes wanted a new balance of power in Europe - they saw that the Byzantines were so far from their strength under Justinian that they could not be relied upon to maintain stability.

Around 800CE the East Roman Empire was probably around 10-15% of its former size under Trajan, I think the Pope saw the writing on the wall that a new Christian power was needed.

There was nothing Roman about the Frankish Empire though - it was purely for symbolic and political purposes.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Given that Greece's civ has been revealed I think they would make an excellent potential Byzantine flavor (with Romans as the other option)

-Culture bonus UI that encourages dense building around city in a defensible way
-Wild Card UA
[both indicating the complex legal factors of Byzantium]

UU is ancient reflecting a different era

Then a Leader UA to reflect the Defensive Medieval Byzantium
-Walls give more defense also provide food/housing/amenities/faith in the capital (smaller/defense only bonuses in other cities)
-Bonus to ranged naval units ?in your territory?/Dromon UU
-decreased warmonger/war weariness for civs that declare war on civs that are at war with Byzantium
-possibly some religious bonus as well

 

[Redaxe]

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."

You miss the point though that none of these states (HRE, Ottomans, Franks, Sultanate of Rum) used Roman law (Corpus Juris Civilis) they used either their traditional barbarian tribal laws or islamic law. So firstly a completely different political system.
So there is no legal continuation

The HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum had no claim to the office of Emperor. The imperial insignia in Rome was sent back to Constantinople by the Goths.
So there is no official transfer of the Office of Roman Emperor to any of those states. One can't just call themself a Roman Emperor any more than I can call myself President of the USA without going through the American political system

The Roman Emperor followed in the traditions & political philosophies of the Roman state laid down by Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and other emperors. They also shared responsibilities with the Senate. There is no such comparison in any of the other states. To be a Roman Emperor was to be more than an autocrat - the very concept of Rome and being a Roman was a political ideology.
The political ideologies of the Roman Emperors have nothing in common with the HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum (these were states divided purely by race and language). The Roman Empire had evolved beyond that (hence why you see many Armenians, Illyrians, Isaurians etc becoming Emperor, not just Greeks)

As for the HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum there claims to be Roman Emperors was purely symbolic or an ego-trip. I can call myself God, it doesn't make it true.

 

[Zaarin]

You miss the point though that none of these states (HRE, Ottomans, Franks, Sultanate of Rum) used Roman law (Corpus Juris Civilis) they used either their traditional barbarian tribal laws or islamic law. So firstly a completely different political system.
So there is no legal continuation

The HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum had no claim to the office of Emperor. The imperial insignia in Rome was sent back to Constantinople by the Goths.
So there is no official transfer of the Office of Roman Emperor to any of those states. One can't just call themself a Roman Emperor any more than I can call myself President of the USA without going through the American political system

The Roman Emperor followed in the traditions & political philosophies of the Roman state laid down by Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and other emperors. They also shared responsibilities with the Senate. There is no such comparison in any of the other states. To be a Roman Emperor was to be more than an autocrat - the very concept of Rome and being a Roman was a political ideology.
The political ideologies of the Roman Emperors have nothing in common with the HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum (these were states divided purely by race and language). The Roman Empire had evolved beyond that (hence why you see many Armenians, Illyrians, Isaurians etc becoming Emperor, not just Greeks)

As for the HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum there claims to be Roman Emperors was purely symbolic or an ego-trip. I can call myself God, it doesn't make it true.

Thank you for reiterating exactly what I said.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I want Theodora

 

[Xen]

I for one mainly want

A) no theodora

B)cataphract as a knight replacement.

Everything else is negotiable.

 

[Redaxe]

All these discussion about the longevity of the empire made me think it would be nice to have a Byzantine UA/LUA which is the opposite of founding fathers. Founding fathers give you legacy bonuses that build up faster but to the same limit, I'd like to see a Byzantine UA where the legacy bonus builds up at the same rate but to a much higher theoretical limit.

Historically that makes sense, it was stable politically and kept the same "government type" for a very long time. Gameplay wise it would be fun as it allows you to build a highly specialised Civ which might start off weak but continuously gets better.

Actually that is a nice idea - one of the noticeable things about Civ 6 is that it looks like it pushes you from ancient government (chieften) to classical government (classical republic/oligarchy/autocracy) to medieval governments etc.... I think these distinctions are a bit arbitrary and I don't really see an evolution of the Autocracy government style in any of the medieval governments. Theocracy isn't an improvement from a classical republic or an autocracy (yet you are rewarded with more policies - that makes no real sense to me but for gameplay it works I guess). I might be mistaken but I'm not really seeing any medieval government types that reflect a continuation of the early autocracies - i.e. Ming Dynasty was probably more an autocracy than a monarchy yet the monarchy government seems to mirror too closely Western medieval states.

I dont' really understand the mechanisms behind the legacy bonus but I think it would actually be really sweet if Byzantium got a bonus from its government type that would encourage you to stick to one form of government. I originally thought perhaps an extra policy slot for Oligarchy/Classic Republic/Autocracy would work but since Greece already has that it feels a bit redundant.

Perhaps something like this - when you research Civil Service you may choose the Inherent Bonus of another Classical Era Government. The bonus lasts as long as you are a classical government. Combine that with a faster and better legacy bonus and perhaps you can get an interesting choice of government that no-one else gets?

 

[MistyRonin]

I originally thought perhaps an extra policy slot for Oligarchy/Classic Republic/Autocracy would work but since Greece already has that it feels a bit redundant.

I like that idea. And I don't think it's that redundant compared to Greece, as Greece obtains a wild card for all gov types of all eras, not only ancient era ones, so they would be "equal" to the Medieval ones.

That extra card for ancient era gov types in addition to another bonus could be a cool Civ UA. Or maybe a Diplomatic Card for all govs (a la Barbarossa).

I personally wouldn't like that Byzantium got always a religion like Arabia, after all there was no religion founded in the Empire, it simply legalised Christianity that evolved to Orthodox Christianity when they drifted away from the Pope.

 

[Redaxe]

I like that idea. And I don't think it's that redundant compared to Greece, as Greece obtains a wild card for all gov types of all eras, not only ancient era ones, so they would be "equal" to the Medieval ones.

That extra card for ancient era gov types in addition to another bonus could be a cool Civ UA. Or maybe a Diplomatic Card for all govs (a la Barbarossa).

An extra policy could be ok, only concern is it starts to feel a bit repetitive and not very interesting when too many civs have overlapping abilities. Greece and Germany already get extra policies and there's a few wonders that do the same. I suppose you could make another exception though.
Ideally you would want Byzantium to keep its classical style of government through to the modern governments so you would want the classical republic/oligarchy/autocracy to get stronger as the game progresses. I don't think there has been any UAs that play with Legacy or Inherant Bonuses so thats definitely a niche.

I personally wouldn't like that Byzantium got always a religion like Arabia, after all there was no religion founded in the Empire, it simply legalised Christianity that evolved to Orthodox Christianity when they drifted away from the Pope.

Its always funny to read this because the Orthodox Christian view is that it was the Pope who drifted away from Orthodox Christianity..

As far as religion goes, well Arabia has sort-of become the religious focused civ but there is probably more room for a few more religious based civs but you wouldn't want too many more. If you are going to have a civ based around religion it's probably going to need some help with getting Great Prophet Points from somewhere. Kongo is interesting as it sort of lets you hijack another religion for your own use.

 

[DefiantMars]

I don't think there has been any UAs that play with Legacy or Inherant Bonuses so thats definitely a niche.

America's Civilization UA, Founding Fathers, increases the rate at which they accrue Legacy Bonuses. So that gameplay aspect is at least partially occupied.

 

[Pirate_1]

Hello! well thats my first comment in civ fanatics forum (still,civ1 is the first strategy game I played!!!!). Byzantium, like USA and former USSR, was a superpower so its economy, army legal system etc were of the best, just like the superpowers of today. But the best part of it was neither the ''greek fire'', or the buildings or the military and law academies. I think it's DIPLOMACY. The empire could not stand its enemies (thats why the were religious) just like that. Byzantium was at constant war, and if you have war but need ''luxuries'' and bath as well, strong army is not enought. Diplomacy did the jod and gave the empire life when the decline started.

I dont care alot about the game to be ''historically correct'' because that cannot happen, its a game . But a civ with advantages in diplomacy (something more than Greece in Civ5 or French in Colonization4) would be something different.

 

[Manifold]

The HRE, Ottomans, Franks & Sultanate of Rum had no claim to the office of Emperor. The imperial insignia in Rome was sent back to Constantinople by the Goths.
So there is no official transfer of the Office of Roman Emperor to any of those states. One can't just call themself a Roman Emperor any more than I can call myself President of the USA without going through the American political system

NO - that is fake news, it was always a part of the ceremony of coronation that the Citizens of the City of Rome to public homage the new emperor - a legacy of the Roman Republic lives on in the public United States presidential inauguration.

The Roman Catholic Church falsified the last will of Constantine the Great (Donation of Constantine).
With this document every Roman Catholic Christian in the world in this time believed that Constantine donated the western part of the empire to the pope in Rome.

So the pope was considered legitimate to crown a new Emperor and that was officially accepted by the East Romans later.

by the way my books tell me:
the Roman Empire was divided after the death of Theodosius the Great in 395 AD,
the Western Roman Empire (original: Imperium Romanum Occidentale) ceased to exist with the deposition of Romulus Augustus in 475 AD, The East Roman Empire (original: Imperium Romanum Orientale) never used the term Byzantine Empire for their realm. This term is a much later invention of a scholar when the East Roman Empire did not exist anymore.
The people how lived under the rule of the emperors in west or east where Roman Citizen, ergo Romans.

 

[Tamir Lenk]

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.

I really want a Komnenan Byzantine civ with Varangian UU, a focus on diplomacy and gold, and something to capture the reconstruction of their empire after Manzicurt. E.g. a UA that lets Byzantines buy or upgrade units to other Civ's UU and restricts the Byzantine empire from building units after the classical era. This would fit the genius of Alexius and his dodging the Crusaders by pawning them off to the Levant.

 

[Liufeng]

"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

Wouldn't that be the same ability as Arabia (about having a free religion ?)