Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-data: April 2002:
[freeciv-data] Re: Cities in rulesets

[freeciv-data] Re: Cities in rulesets

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: Cities in rulesets
From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:30:22 -0700
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

scripsit Uros Lepota:
> TK> FWIW, into the 20th century Greeks in Anatolia referred to themselves as
> TK> Romoi ( == `Romans' ) -- there was no distinction between Greek, Roman,
> TK> and Christian as identities.
> TK> There's really no need for a Byzantine ruleset, as it would be merely
> TK> duplicative of the Greek and Roman rulesets.
>     Maybe.. but.. It was an independent empire called Byzantine.. Not Greece..
> It was a empire with Roman state organization.. Senate etc. but with eastern
> influence.. (Greece, Egypt, Persia...)... Remember.. Justinian coded Roman Law
> as we know nowadays.. 

Freeciv does not model _states_ so much as _cultures_.  That is why
there is no Holy Roman Empire nation.  You could hardly argue that the
Empire was insignificant!  It is subsumed, as is the Kingdom of Prussia,
the Third Reich, and the Bundesrepublik under `German'.  We can't
introduce a new nation for every change of government.

Of course, the choice of which rulesets are included has been, I
suspect, more a product of the national origins and interests of the
developers than any rational programme--hence we have Silesians and
Bavarians as separate from the Polish and Germans, but all the cultures
of the Indian subcontinent are lumped together.

Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]