Xens' criteria for what makes a good civ

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II


well, come on now... let's try to keep in mind the circumstances... they were charging a wall of metal in a space only about fifty feet wide and they were going up against one of the most well-trained military machines ever to have marched across the earth... they weren't exactly starting off with good odds.

They were staring at impossible odds. Regular Persian infantry had wicker shields and six foot spears. Hoplites had 9 foot spears, large shields, and bronze body armor. Immortals weren't much better, and still couldn't compete.

Louis XXIV: Interesting. So you think that they should maybe have some kind of mounted archer as their UU? What would these be called?

That's an interesting thought. I might have to say no. Although Cavalry were more important than the armies of the west, they weren't unique in the east. Horse Archers were used by the Assyrians before them, and continued afterwards with the Parthians. The Huns and Mongolians had no connection to the Persians, and used the same Horse Archer. The Persian strength was the Archers and Cavalry, but I would keep the Immortal, just because it is famous. Unfortunatley, I really can't think of any good stats within the confines of the regular game. Firaxis bent some rules, and made it the most powerful ancient unit in the game. (If it isn't the most powerful, the Mounted Warrior is, which is another historical inacuracy).

There isn't much one can do, unless one is making a specific scenario about the time. A scenario about the Persian invasion would work fairly effectively (Make Hoplites, especially Spartan Hoplites, much better than Persian infantry, but give Persia 250,000 units )

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Xen


This..."thing", just happens to be the best cavalryman of its age, created to fight the Sarmatians, Parthians, and Persians, and then refined to take on the Mongols and Huns & Co., the Cataphract was the most versatile fighter of its time.

Now then, with this super-soldire in hand, why did Byzantium still fall? simple, even though such troops help evewn out the odds, the simple numbers of enymy troops from jealouse nations were simply to much,combined with the failing of the Thematic system due to greedy rich men (It's always is there falt for these things...) and Byzantium was skrewed.

and some proof that the Byzantiens deserve a unit, as descisive and important for so long as the knight? well the proof of the matter comes from the fact that even though the Mighty Generals Belisarius and Narses (general and superp command under non-emperors being the other big equalizer in the Byzantine empire, also another thing which had begun to wain by the fall of the Thematic system) had reconqoured so much old Roman territory, yet -relativly- soon after there deaths a good deal of the land was lost, making me think that the Cataphract was a unit better for offensive actions (which the few time the Byzantines did do it was done with great success, just ask Justinian, or Basil II) while the rest of the Byzantine milatary was more primed for deafense- in civ terms, a army of Cataphracts (more powerful knights), and pikemen.

OK you'v3 convinced me But I still think it sounds more like a medical condition than a military force

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns


OK you'v3 convinced me But I still think it sounds more like a medical condition than a military force

funny, but i dont think Cataphracts cause cataracts.....

 

[Tathlum]

To Gainey bo:-

-Who else wears kilts and drinks lots of whiskey!

The Irish.

 

[Gainy]

You weren't supposed to answer...
Alot of people from Scotland are from Irish decendancy, so that should be acceptable

 

[OxfordPferd]

Byzantinum - Capitol Byzanz
Ottomans - Capitol Istanbul

Don't you see a problem?
we haven't got a Civ with Konstantinopel as the Capitol!!

 

[Xen]

Rome gets to found Byzantium- and no one saw a problem there...

my justifacation for it is that the ottomans did not start out in Istanbul, they had to invade it to make it theres, better to give it to a civ which had the city its capital its entire existence, save some trouble with a "latin eastern empire", but that was quelled soon enough

 

[Dargoth]

Why the Cataphract?

You could use the Fire Galley/War Galley/Gun Galley or Byzantine Infantry

(Yes I got the list from Medevial Total war)

 

[Patroklos]

I would like to point out that the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire. The term Byzantine is only used by academics to refre the the later part of the history of the Roman Empire, not as the name of the political entity. The "Byzantines" did even call themselves that, always refering to themselves as Roman. Yeah, their empire went through some drastic changes over 1500 years, but so have many other states (England, France, Russia) and we don't considert them different entities over time.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Why the Cataphract?

You could use the Fire Galley/War Galley/Gun Galley or Byzantine Infantry

(Yes I got the list from Medevial Total war)

Great idea! Let's put them all in!

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I would like to point out that the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire. The term Byzantine is only used by academics to refre the the later part of the history of the Roman Empire, not as the name of the political entity. The "Byzantines" did even call themselves that, always refering to themselves as Roman. Yeah, their empire went through some drastic changes over 1500 years, but so have many other states (England, France, Russia) and we don't considert them different entities over time.

The difference between the Roman empire of Julius Ceaser and Justinians Byzantium is a hell of a lot bigger than the difference between the English, French, and Russians and their ancestors of several hundred years ago. I do not see those three peoples speaking a completely different language, taking up a completely different area, or having a completely different cultural identity. The difference between the Romans and Byzantines can best be compared to the difference between the Mongols and the Turks, 2 civilizations who are both in the game. The Turks and Mongols both come from the same peoples, however the Turks fled into Anatalia and established an empire and culture that is distinctly there's, although largery based on other cultures such as the Arabic one. Much the same, Constantine walked away to a different land, took up a different people (see below), started a civilization that acknowlidged their ancestry, yet produced their own distinct culture, which was partly based on middle-eastern and greek cultures.

Some of you are arguing that the Byzantines were themselves Roman. Absurd. Although they probably considered themselves Romans, the ethnic make up of the Byzantine empire would hardly be Roman. The west Roman empire was a whole mix of people. Mainly Romans, along with other cultures they annexed. The East Roman Empire was also a mix of people's, although a completely different one from the West Roman Empire. There were your rare Romans who actually descended from the Romans of Julius Ceaser, but there were also Armenians, Greeks, Slavs, Avars and a couple of dozen other groups which probably also considered themselves "East Roman".

The "Roman" factor was what they considered themselves because their great leaders descended from Romans (though I find it hard to believe that as time went on they stayed "pure Romans"). Just like America is considered an "English" country, but it's people are hardly english (Even W.A.S.P.'s are by now a mix of other European peoples), the Byzantine PEOPLE were as different from the Roman PEOPLE as the Americans are from the English (Even though the leadership in both America and Byzantium were similiar to their counterparts). The people were however essentially different. Not only that, but accomplishments-wise, the Byzantine empire was far ahead of it's western counter-part. So much so that when Byzantine thinkers fled to Rome after Constantinople fell, they were the ones who sparked the rennaisance (along with the arabic philosophies brought in from the crusades).

 

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by OxfordPferd
Byzantinum - Capitol Byzanz
Ottomans - Capitol Istanbul

Don't you see a problem?
we haven't got a Civ with Konstantinopel as the Capitol!!

No, I really don't see a problem

Rome has Byzantine
The Ottomans have Istanbul
And Byzantine has Constantinople

3 seperate cities.

If you're worried about them being from technically the same spot, why aren't you upset that Athens and Sparta are united? (Not exactly relevant, but both weren't historically correct).

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by OxfordPferd
Byzantinum - Capitol Byzanz
Ottomans - Capitol Istanbul

Don't you see a problem?
we haven't got a Civ with Konstantinopel as the Capitol!!

No. Unless you play on a world map, I'd hardly be worried about that.

Babylon-Baghdad? They're basically the same square.

I know we all want to have a nice playable world map, but that's simply not possible. History wasn't made so we could enjoy a 140x140 world map evenly covered by historically important civs. Sometimes, if you're choosing civs based on their accomplishments (which is what civ3 should be based on), you'll get little quirks like that.

 

[Dargoth]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II



Great idea! Let's put them all in!

I knew someone would say that

 

[Schmek]

Dargoth:
if you mean by a fire galley, a boat that is set on fire and 'self detonates', then it can not be byzantine because it was a dutch invention.
Just as Philips is a dutch company which invented the radio, television and cd. (read company)

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Schmek
Dargoth:
if you mean by a fire galley, a boat that is set on fire and 'self detonates', then it can not be byzantine because it was a dutch invention.

he mostly means a byzantine war galley that shoots "greek fire "

 

[Inhalaattori]

"Greek fire" as I have understanded it, was very effective weapon, and it was used only by Byzantium.

No other civ know the consistence of "Greek fire". It would be wonderful choice, but I believe they choose these catapharac- things. At least in scenario there should be galleys with greek fire.

 

[Dargoth]

Originally posted by Schmek
Dargoth:
if you mean by a fire galley, a boat that is set on fire and 'self detonates', then it can not be byzantine because it was a dutch invention.
Just as Philips is a dutch company which invented the radio, television and cd. (read company)

Nope.

A Fire Galley was basicly a Galley with the Medevial equivelant of a Flamethrower on it.

As for "Fire Ship" I was under the impression that Drake was the first one to use them when he attacked the Spanish fleet in 1588....

 

[StabbingNirvana]

come on guys. what other empire wiped out whole nationalities? (ie: the ostrogoths and some other people in north africa. the name escapes me) they also established the cyrillic alphabet (the one used by the slavic peoples and russians). sure it was 2 monks or religious people that made it but they were monks and/or religious people from the byzantine empire

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by StabbingNirvana
what other empire wiped out whole nationalities? (ie: the ostrogoths and some other people in north africa. the name escapes me)

the vandals