Refugees

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Prussia]it all depends on your definition of "sacking," and "destroying."[/q]

Or does it depend on your defintion of 'is' .

[q=Prussia]Generaldoktor only proved my fact of "almost sacking Constantinople," but I don't know what he did to support YOUR argument.[/q]

Read on my padawan:

[q=Prussia]Come on, those barbarians wanted the entire world to go up in flames. They were trying to destroy EVERYTHING.[/q]

In response to:

[q=Yosho]
No one was really trying to destroy Rome, though. They just wanted to grab all the loot they could and then leave.[/q]

I think Generaldoktor's post seems to support Yosho's point, but then again:

[q=Prussia]I don't even know if they destroyed Rome or not. I will admit that when I said "they wanted the whole world to go up in flames," it was an extreme exageration.[/q]

Quite a quaint way of saying you were wrong. I'm just trying to hold up historical accuracy in the face of "extreme exag[g]eration"

--

[q=Yosho]Well, that depends how you define "cities" and "empires".[/q]

Granted, but if the Celts were an empire with cities, enough so to be included in CivIV, then so were the Ostrogoths and Visigoths.

For example, the Visigothic Empire under Alaric II around 500 AD:



And the Ostrogothic Kingdom after Theodoric the Great (hired by the Eastern Roman Empire) killed Odacer in Ravenna (which became the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom) and took over his Kingdom:



--

[q=Generaldoktor]Yeah, I did some more reading in the afternoon (in the States.) There were several barbarian "kings" of Rome, including guys like Odacer, Ricimer and Guildobard, prior to Belisarius taking it back. After the era of Justinian, Italy was lost forever to the Romans.[/q]

Indeed. There is some very interesting history in the final years of Rome, especially how some of the so-called "barbarians" were actually empire builders. Odoacer, for one, took over all of Roman traditions as an Emperor. He was named Patrician by Emperor Zeno of the Eastern Roman Emperor (who was given the regalia of the Western Empire, last held by Romulus Augustus before Odoacer took over). This lasted until Zeno decided he had enough and sent Theodoric the Great, another "barbarian", to take care of the issue... which began the Ostrogotic Empire.

The Lombard history of Italy is very interesting as well, especially how it ended (with the Pope calling Pippen, son of Charlemagne to take the crown from the Lombards).

[Prussia]

No, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to tell you.

You are putting together quotes that would seem like they contradict themselves, and they do, but they are talking about different things. You are shaping the argument into, "Prussia posted he loves bananas. Then he posted he hates bananas. Then he posted he thinks they are okay."

But that's not how it happened.

[Prussia]

And the Ostrogoths and Visigoths weren't nearly and well-known as the Celts, which is why they won't be put in Civ any time soon.

[Xorbon]

What about all those "goth" kids? They're keeping that Gothic tradition alive

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Prussia]they do, but they are talking about different things. [/q]

Bull****... but keep backtracking.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Prussia
Come on, those barbarians wanted the entire world to go up in flames. They were trying to destroy EVERYTHING.

This is quite a silly thing to say. Like other civs of the time, the "barbarians" just wanted food, treasure, and booze. One of the well-known sackings of Rome, by Alaric, romanticised in pop. lit. (which it sounds like you've been reading) as wanton destruction of exquisite culture by bloodthirsty savages, was actually nothing more than a little frat party. The Visigoths were migrating from C. Europe to Spain, came close to Rome, said to themselves "Hey they have food and women and wine in there, let's check it out," got drunk, got rowdy, and then left.

Oh, I was too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so if you've already apologised for this silliness, then I apologise.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Granted, but if the Celts were an empire with cities, enough so to be included in CivIV, then so were the Ostrogoths and Visigoths.

For example, the Visigothic Empire under Alaric II around 500 AD:

...

And the Ostrogothic Kingdom after Theodoric the Great (hired by the Eastern Roman Empire) killed Odacer in Ravenna (which became the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom) and took over his Kingdom:

Yes, but notice that those were both after the fall of the Roman Empire. The major cities they controlled on your maps were former Roman cities, and these cities had a much, much lower population living in them then they did during Roman times; a lot fewer people lived in cities during this period then they did during Roman times. Also note that neither kingdom lasted long, and that even while they existed, they were centrally controlled only in the loosest sense.

[sparkyal]

ok, so back to refugees. I like the idea of having them. It's funny, only modern history really mentions the problem (I'm pretty sure this is correct).

the idea of having refugees is actually really cool. they would even exist when a city is taken, not just razed.

Will it make it into civ iv? good question. civ v? maybe.

sparky

[Prussia]

You know what, whatever Imran, you win.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by sparkyal
ok, so back to refugees. I like the idea of having them. It's funny, only modern history really mentions the problem (I'm pretty sure this is correct).

the idea of having refugees is actually really cool. they would even exist when a city is taken, not just razed.

Will it make it into civ iv? good question. civ v? maybe.

sparky

Supposedly "higher powers" involved in design monitor our threads here (and presumably CFC's; whoever said theirs are more foolish obviously hasn't seen this one lately , ) so maybe they might see something in the refugee idea.

I didn't think about it originally, but generating some refugee points when cities are merely taken, not razed; is actually a pretty good idea. Paris in June, 1940 generated a huge amount of refugees south, which paralyzed the last of the French military effort. Troy, if it existed, was reportedly depopulated; there's even a Greek play about it, ("The Trojan Women") and all those Carthaginians went somewhere. (Troy maybe was "razed", but the Romans built a new Carthage as a minor capital for their part of North Africa.)

Then there's the Hebrews in bondage--didn't Nebucanneezer or somebody get them for awhile? Saigon sent several countries "boat people" and Pol Pot sent a bunch of refugees over the border into Thailand, where they stayed in camps for years; then there are the post-1967 war Palestinians. (I'm not making light of any of these recent ones, by the way; they are all international tragedies. )

I am as anxious as anybody to bury the unfortunate "Sack of Rome" controversy that takes up so much space on this thread above. But two minor points for the most recent:

LordShiva: Can't blame you for not reading the whole thread, but, regarding that 410 A.D. Visigoth "sack" of Rome, I pretty much told them the same thing several posts up, quoting at one point directly from Gibbon to try to defuse it. The guy making the original comparison now admits Rome is a "misplaced example," at least regarding "razing," but some ugly words were exchanged first and I think you know how long that often takes to settle.

Prussia (and others): Ostrogoths and Visigoths have been in Civ; in the "Fall of Rome" scenario of Civ 3. They had historic names for whatever cities they founded and as good a chance as anyone else to form alliances and an "empire." (The Huns were in there too.) I feel the West Romans and Byzantines, both also represented, had a little advantage in that game scenario, though. It's worth playing, if you still have Civ3.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Yosho
Yes, but notice that those were both after the fall of the Roman Empire. The major cities they controlled on your maps were former Roman cities, and these cities had a much, much lower population living in them then they did during Roman times; a lot fewer people lived in cities during this period then they did during Roman times. Also note that neither kingdom lasted long, and that even while they existed, they were centrally controlled only in the loosest sense.

Yes, the maps were after the 'fall of the Roman Empire', but is the implication that the Roman Empire's fall made the heretofore known as 'barbarians' more civilized? Was Odoacer magically transformed from brute to civilized ruler ?

Remember, the Celts were considered to be barbarians by the Romans. The Celts, which we do have as a Civ, were in few ways better than the Ostrogoths and Visigoths (in fact, I think I'd rather have the Goths than the Celts, but that's neither here nor there). Their empires had similar central control and their cities were just as large in the era of Pax Romana.

Though... back to the refugee question . Albeit, if it engenders so much passion, perhaps it is meant to be in ?

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yes, the maps were after the 'fall of the Roman Empire', but is the implication that the Roman Empire's fall made the heretofore known as 'barbarians' more civilized? Was Odoacer magically transformed from brute to civilized ruler ?

Evidence suggests they did transform, over time. Clovis begat Charles Martel, who begat Charlemagne, who begat the ruling houses of medieval France and Germany. Burgundians became, well, the medieval scheming Burgundians, who would hand over Joan of Arc and make some splendid wine. Lombards became the great duchies of medieval Italy. Goths became the ruling families of Spain. Everybody knows what happened to Angles and the Saxons; they end up in England, in part, where the Norse beat them down for generations, but then, acculturation starts to work both ways. The only big losers here are the original Latin Romans and the unfortunate Greeks, including their later Byzantine versions; the latter of which end up pretty much as Turkish slaves for a millennia. Turks themselves go from horse barbarians to lush, cultured pashas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but not immediately after the fall of Rome. The "barbarians" of 600 AD were not much different from the "barbarians" of 400 AD.

[Generaldoktor]

Not sure this is worth splitting hairs over and exact dates are hard to derive. But in Gibbon and other writings on late Rome, the implication is that barbarians settling close to the Roman communities "Romanized" pretty fast. You see this described particularly in reference to Britain, where the legions were withdrawn and the former natives essentially adopted a Roman-style culture which they then had to defend themselves against Picts, Norse, Welsh and their former brethern from northwest coastal Europe.

It also explains how you get men like Odacer, Ricimer and Theodoric wanting to live in Roman style palaces and aspire to be Roman-recognized "kings." The Huns and Avars were the other extreme, of course; Attila was born in a wood hut and he died in a slightly larger wood hut. (Huns didn't do "cities" which makes them hard to game in the "Fall of Rome" scenario and "Ancient Med" mod of Civ3, where they are basically forced to follow the rules and build them like everybody else. They never perform as well as historically in those, due to the lost mobility.)

The Huns and the Avars of course also are the big losers in the post-Roman circus of barbarian "civs." Attila's empire broke up; the Avars were displaced and eventually wedged between the more organized, now "semi-barbarians" and the next wave of "wild ones," (primarily Turks, but also including the aforementioned Lombards, who themselves took up civilization later.)

I think it would be hard to argue dates, but I think this "civilization" process for Rome's former oppressors went faster than what you describe and was in progress even before Rome fell.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yes, the maps were after the 'fall of the Roman Empire', but is the implication that the Roman Empire's fall made the heretofore known as 'barbarians' more civilized? Was Odoacer magically transformed from brute to civilized ruler ?

Well, if by being "civilized", you mean "living in cities", or "ruling large empires", then yes, the change came right after the fall of the empire, and it didn't last long either.

Remember, the Celts were considered to be barbarians by the Romans. The Celts, which we do have as a Civ, were in few ways better than the Ostrogoths and Visigoths (in fact, I think I'd rather have the Goths than the Celts, but that's neither here nor there). Their empires had similar central control and their cities were just as large in the era of Pax Romana.

Cities just as large? Where you do get that from? If you take the celts living outside the Empire in, say, 300 AD, they did NOT have cities anywhere near as large as Roman cities at the same time.

And there was never a Celtic empire that had anything remotly like the central control, beurocracy, effective tax collection, public work projects, ect, of the Roman Empire.