Not Constantinople

[Switch]

Not that there's ANY room in Europe anyways. They would barely be able to fit in 3 cities

If Firaxis is planning on a 2nd XP, I think they'll be looking more towards the ancient american civs, and maybe another african civ. I think with the next they should focus a lot more on wonders, buildings, units, and official scenarios using all of the new additions with proper integration (and maybe include pediaicons for the extra units )

[Patroklos]

It should be remembered that the Byzantines survived nearly 1000 years after the fall of teh Western Roman Empire. While they always called themselves "Romans", they were a vert unique civ that Byzantinists will argue to the death about, which in the end was more greek than Latin. Even spoke Greek after 700AD.

[monkspider]

You're absolutely right Patrok.

[Switch]

Well in that case, the Byzantines are covered already with the Romans and Greeks. They would be good for a post-Roman Mediterranean scenario, but in practical play they would be a bit too much.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It should be remembered that the Byzantines survived nearly 1000 years after the fall of teh Western Roman Empire. While they always called themselves Byzantines, they were a vert unique civ, which in the end was more greek than Latin. Even spoke Greek after 700AD.

I will cede to you the fact that much of their culture was influenced by both the Greeks and the Romans. But again, a lot of this arose from the fact that Constantine shifted power to Constantinople, a city in the E of the empire. More Greek influence was in the E of the empire. But they were still Roman, no question about that. They are commonly referred to as the Roman Empire in the East.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Asterothe
I am pretty sure that the city is named way
before 1930.

The only problem is Uskudar which is an
area in anotolian part of Istanbul is a city .

No, it was 1930.

http://viking.no/e/turkey/e-bysant.htm

[Traelin]

Originally posted by twilight
Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul was not named Istanbul until 1930

Okay, but the city is the same. I only wanted to say, that this is a real problem for other Civs, too. London and Londinium for eample. But you said it already and this comment is completely useless but to say that I am no completely historic fool ;-)))

But the Byzantines is not only Rome again. They were, but in the 7. or 8. centuries there was an Basileos Herakleios, after that the byzantine Empire was a middleaged byzantine Empire, a greek and new one. I think it must be there.

Interesting. I didn't know Londinium was a city in the Roman city list in Civ III. But Constantinople was the same name for both the Ottomans AND the Byzantines. And Byzantines were a finger of the Roman Empire. I see no good argument to include them in the game if you have the Romans.

[Patroklos]

Now we have come into what is actually a very heated debate in the actual dicipline of history (I know this becauce I study under one of the premeir professors fighting to recognize the differerance between Roman and Byzantine). I conceed, the state origin is most definety from Rome. However, it is a point of fact that by 700AD, and most definetly by 1000AD, there was no cultural link whatsoever to the old Rome. Not even religion, for the Christian faith had gone through its various transformations and there now existed the Orthodox and Roman Catholic factions, even further forcing one to recognize the differance.

I woud ask you this, 1000 years from know will the culture of America resemble at all that of today. I would say that our culture now has little in common with that of 200 years ago. I would be like saying the Anglo Saxon kingdom was the same as England, or that the Empire of Charlemaingn is the same as France. The fact is that there are few cultural, and in fact even ethinic, similarities after so long a time.

I often wonder why the civ series incudes civs that were founded in the 1000ADs, when the game starts in the 4000BCs.

[Asterothe]

Originally posted by Traelin


No, it was 1930.

http://viking.no/e/turkey/e-bysant.htm

I'm gathering information.
Will reply when I am ready.
It's my city. I'm almost
sure about what I said but
I'm looking for more arguments.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Now we have come into what is actually a very heated debate in the actual dicipline of history (I know this becauce I study under one of the premeir professors fighting to recognize the differerance between Roman and Byzantine). I conceed, the state origin is most definety from Rome. However, it is a point of fact that by 700AD, and most definetly by 1000AD, there was no cultural link whatsoever to the old Rome. Not even religion, for the Christian faith had gone through its various transformations and there now existed the Orthodox and Roman Catholic factions, even further forcing one to recognize the differance.

Ah, excellent! -- I wish I had seen this an hour ago -- the following is an EXCERPT from my last post to the "Opposition To Arabs" thread -- we've digressed some

Comments are appreciated ...


1. The "Byzantine" Empire certainly stems from the final division of the Roman Empire into two sections, for administrative purposes in 395 CE (note that this follows about a century of chaos over trying to administer the Empire with two "co-emperors", Constantine "the Great" having begun as one such, seizing the throne of the west in 312 and becoming sole ruler in 324; he renamed "Byzantium" "Constantinople" in 320, initially intending it as the "Christian" capitol of the empire as opposed to the pagan one in Rome.

Often ignored, but of HUGE importance, was his decision to divert all Egyptian wheat from Rome to Byzantium in 328.

By this time, what most of think of as the "classic" Roman Empire was long gone. Citizens were stripped of their rights; peasants, in a foreshafowing of feudalism, were tied to the land; artisans were forced to supply the army at fixed rates.

Critical differences East and West:

(a) in considering the "fall" of the Roman empire, astonishingly few people comment on how vastly more urbanized the east was than the west -- and thereby wealthier, with access to more trading partners etc. (this obviously predates the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455 -- the capitol had actually been removed to Ravenna in 404). In short, the different entities actually had very different economic infrastructures.

(b) the eastern empire was dominated by a different culture than the west -- Greek speaking and "minded"

(c) the same problems of scale which had made ruling the combined empire unwieldy in the first place was echoed in early Christianity, with separate authority going to western and eastern patriarchates -- and confounded by a plethora of "heresies", more plaguing in the west than east as (I would argue) there were more cultures/tribes/civs to convince and incorporate than in the east.

(d) the "Byzantines" utilized a different military structure than anything Caesar would have recognized.

-- all these factors (and some brilliant generalship) led to a "golden age" for Byzantium in the 6th century when it reconquered all of North Africa and Italy and the southern tip of Spain, subsequently suffering mightily at the hands of the Avar Khanate and the first Arab Caliphate.

"Rome" was dead and gone by the 5th century, Byzantium endured until 1453.

SO -- different populations, cultures, languages, religions and timeframes sound like two Civs to me ...


Best Regards,

Oz

[monkspider]

Wonderful work Ozzy.
I agree completely with the statement that Byzantium and Rome can be viewed as seperate civs. Certainly if England and America, France and Celts, Babylon and Arabs, etc etc can be seperate civs, Byzantium can as well.
Interestingly enough, I used to be one of the most outspoken opponents of Byzantium being considered a seperate civ. But the more I studied them, the more truly unique from Rome they began to appear. I am now wholeheartedly in the pro-Byzantium camp these days.

But anyway, like I said earlier, the reason Firaxis didn't give the Turks "Constantinople" is so they can give it to the Byzantines later. Interestingly enough, you won't even find "Constantinople" in the Roman's city list.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I often wonder why the civ series incudes civs that were founded in the 1000ADs, when the game starts in the 4000BCs.

I would think it was to generate attention. The number of people that would care to check out the game would drop if it was to not include the big names such as Rome. If you were to list only civs that fit the age, you would end up with a bunch that most would not be familar with and not care about. It is just godd business.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by vmxa1

I would think it was to generate attention. The number of people that would care to check out the game would drop if it was to not include the big names such as Rome. If you were to list only civs that fit the age, you would end up with a bunch that most would not be familar with and not care about. It is just godd business.

I've come to believe that the two "best" starting point for history-spanning games (now that we can change how many years a turn represents!) are ca. 1000 BCE (when at least a lot of the ancient world's "household name" Civs could plausibly be snuck onto the map) and ca. 1000-1100 CE when the vast majority of the present-world Civs (absent America) could be in place, along with a few cherished "possibilities" like Byzantium!

Of course, these dates cannot be precise -- some "fudging" will, of necessity, be inevitable -- although, for my (working title) "1000 CE" mod, I'm actually focusing, as much as possible, on 1070 CE -- the Norman Conquest has taken place (i.e., England exists), Charlemagne's empire has effectively split into Germany and France; the Vikings are past their marauding days -- and the crushingly decisive battle of the Turks over the Byzantines at Manzikert occurred in 1071 ...

-Oz

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by monkspider
Interestingly enough, I used to be one of the most outspoken opponents of Byzantium being considered a seperate civ. But the more I studied them, the more truly unique from Rome they began to appear. I am now wholeheartedly in the pro-Byzantium camp these days.

Thanks for the compliment!

BUT -- far more important, as I've suggested in (ahem) more than one thread, the distinguishing feature between arguments/polemics and discussions is an open mind!

to you!

-Oz

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Ah, excellent! -- I wish I had seen this an hour ago -- the following is an EXCERPT from my last post to the "Opposition To Arabs" thread -- we've digressed some

Comments are appreciated ...


1. The "Byzantine" Empire certainly stems from the final division of the Roman Empire into two sections, for administrative purposes in 395 CE (note that this follows about a century of chaos over trying to administer the Empire with two "co-emperors", Constantine "the Great" having begun as one such, seizing the throne of the west in 312 and becoming sole ruler in 324; he renamed "Byzantium" "Constantinople" in 320, initially intending it as the "Christian" capitol of the empire as opposed to the pagan one in Rome.

Often ignored, but of HUGE importance, was his decision to divert all Egyptian wheat from Rome to Byzantium in 328.

By this time, what most of think of as the "classic" Roman Empire was long gone. Citizens were stripped of their rights; peasants, in a foreshafowing of feudalism, were tied to the land; artisans were forced to supply the army at fixed rates.

Critical differences East and West:

(a) in considering the "fall" of the Roman empire, astonishingly few people comment on how vastly more urbanized the east was than the west -- and thereby wealthier, with access to more trading partners etc. (this obviously predates the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455 -- the capitol had actually been removed to Ravenna in 404). In short, the different entities actually had very different economic infrastructures.

(b) the eastern empire was dominated by a different culture than the west -- Greek speaking and "minded"

(c) the same problems of scale which had made ruling the combined empire unwieldy in the first place was echoed in early Christianity, with separate authority going to western and eastern patriarchates -- and confounded by a plethora of "heresies", more plaguing in the west than east as (I would argue) there were more cultures/tribes/civs to convince and incorporate than in the east.

(d) the "Byzantines" utilized a different military structure than anything Caesar would have recognized.

-- all these factors (and some brilliant generalship) led to a "golden age" for Byzantium in the 6th century when it reconquered all of North Africa and Italy and the southern tip of Spain, subsequently suffering mightily at the hands of the Avar Khanate and the first Arab Caliphate.

"Rome" was dead and gone by the 5th century, Byzantium endured until 1453.

SO -- different populations, cultures, languages, religions and timeframes sound like two Civs to me ...


Best Regards,

Oz

This is a pretty good article I found on the web.

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM

Hrm, now I'm not so sure how I feel about this debate. It appears the Byzantines were a mixture of Greek, Roman, and Islamic cultures. Maybe they should be a separate Civ. If so, I stand corrected. Let me think about it some more.