Should be last poll run by me on this topic...


Civs considered "in" due to vote and original assumptions:
Chinese, English, French, Germany, Greeks, Japan, Rome, Russia, Egyptians, Persians, Indians (from India), Aztecs, Americans, Babylonians, Arabs, Spanish, Vikings.

From the last poll -

Here are the new additions and the votes:
Americans.......56.......58.95%
Babylonians.....58.......61.05%
Arabs.............57.......60.00%
Spanish..........56.......58.95%
Vikings...........58.......61.05%


Here are the civs that got knocked out of the competition:
Austria.........21......22.11%
Polynesia......17......17.89%
Sioux...........12......12.63%
Hittites .......11.......11.58%


This last poll should be interesting due to the limitation (honor system of course) of two votes. There are a couple of options that I will suspect get only one vote out of a hundred...


Thanks to everyone that participated in the previous two polls!

Mongols and Iroquouis... most civilisationish... IMO :)

Ottoman and Brazil

Maya and Inca, and I've stated why before. Some VARIETY, people.

Mali and Ethiopia. I really wanted Maya, but I'd like two African Civs to balance the game

Who, besides the Mongols, controlled Central Asia before Peter the Great? The Turks maybe. I guess the Ottoman Turks are close enough, they persisted on two continents(+ Magrib). It is hard however to throw out the great African and American civs. Not enough known history, however, forced me to not pick them. Oh... and pick Brazil before Portugal, Spain had less cultural and physical dominance over the Amazon and Eastern South America than Western Iberia.

Maya & Israel

Look at the breakdown:

1 African (Egypt)
1 North American (America)
1 South American (Aztec)
3 Near East
3 Asian
8 European (if you include Russia)

I gotta say, this forum made some bad calls. This is one of those times that I'm glad that Civilization isn't a democracy.

No fans of Carthage?

BTW, Aztecs are in North America (Central America), not South America. Also, many people vote on what they believe their historical significance was, not whether or not they lived on a part of the map where other majors civs did not.

South America and Africa definitely suffered in this set of polls... I would like to believe they would perform better in a larger one shot poll (same kind of poll here except you choose 19 civs out of 50 or 60 choices).

Unfortunately, "historical significance" has been tainted by the writers of history.

If you're not on top, you're not signifigant. Failed civilizations that wink out of existence cannot contribute to the writings, either, so that doesn't help much.

I voted Mongols and Mali. Although I don't reckon Mali would be in Civ 4 though.

WTH are you not voting for Carthage? You CANNOT have Rome without Carthage! :hammer:

Just because you're not on top now, or just because you're not around now, doesn't mean that you were never significant. Many civilizations did not last, but made a huge impact. Moreover, just because people don't talk about it now doesn't mean that it never happened.

Significant is relative to who controls the popular voice. Is genocide any less significant because it's in Africa? Well, if you judged by popular opinion, the unfortunate answer is yes. But that's not the way it should be.

genoicide is significant and regretable everywhere, but we are not talking about genocide, we are talking about historical achievments. I'll use the example of Persia (just cause I can). Persia is in the middle east, and is surrounded by a bunch of other civs that many would like to include. Their achievements including conquering a large area of land (far bigger than the Aztec empire at its height, and pretty much unrivaled until the time of Alexander the Great (and even than, it was only short lived) and the Roman empire (which, although it conquered a large territory itself, could never conquer the Persians). Also, many great architectural achievements were built in Persepolis, the largest army anywhere in the world at the time could be assembled from the empire's subjects (the Persian invasion of Greece was the largest invasion of Europe until Normandy), they unified the land, using the aramaeic language. I probably could think of more.

I could think of dozens of achievements of a Mali or an Abyssinia/Ethiopia, but because people have swallowed the version of history where Europe "civilizes" a bunch of "noble savages" rather than conquering a series of complex and prosperous kingdoms, any vote will reflect that. Their history has unfortunately been ignored in most of academia.

Once again, this is one of those times where I'm glad that Civilization is not designed by democracy.

If you're not on top, you're not signifigant. Failed civilizations that wink out of existence cannot contribute to the writings, either, so that doesn't help much.

So, basically, only put modern, powerful civilizations in. The rest isn't "on top". Right? :crazyeye:

Quebec?!?...That's just silly...

Quebec?!?...That's just silly... :lol:

There should also be a Prince Edward Island "Spud" Civ, and a Newfie Civ by! :p

Quebed Quebec Quebec Quebec
and iroquois (because I would vote algonquines since they saved quebec)

Celts, because though theyre a European civ its unique and important enough to diserve its own place.

Ethiopia, we need more African civs, and this is a civ with reasonably rich history, also it was the only African country that resisted European colonization of Africa (not counting Liberia, but thats a special case).

cmon Israel

requirement: they must be in a locked alliance with the US

Israel and Iriqouis

Maya and the Dutch (naturally). The world ows alot to these two civs too!

Voted Israel and Celts.

The Maya or the Aztecs? The Maya lasted longer, made greater contributions to science. The Aztecs conquered a large region with their warriors and the country of Mexico could be seen as a continuation of their civilization. Then again, the Aztecs succeeded the Olmecs before the Spanish succeeded the Aztecs. What happened to the Maya anyway? Disease, the Aztecs? I'm pretty sure the Spanish did not topple their civilization. In a perfect civ4 both should be represented.

It's too bad written Mesoamerican history is so sparse, then again future civilizations (including ours) improved themselves by reading such written histories. The more written history => the larger impact on subsequent civilizations => the more applicability to a modern game devoted to civilization's history.

Cm'on, everybody, vote quebec. QUEBEC QUEBEC QUEBEC.
Le Québec a plus de chance que l'ukraine. Ce combat doit être gagné!!!!!

Vive le Québec libre!!!! Vive le FLQ!!!!

Celts and Poland. Not trying to be Euro-Centric, btw.

Celts, because they had a far greater culture than most people had ever imagined, and their artwork and history survive to this day (predating most other civilizations).

Poland because, well, I always thought it would be nice to have Poland in the game. Being 25% myself, I'd like to play a couple games with Germany and smack the living bejeezus out of them, so in my world, Polish jokes would be replaced with German jokes.. :lol:

Just my 2 cents.

Tibet and Mali. Would have voted for Ethiopia too if I had another vote, though I guess its a bit too close to Egypt, but that could be said about Tibet/Mongolia too.

Thanks for all the votes so far (72 at the moment).... when I made the poll I made a mistake by setting the date too near...

LAST DAY TO VOTE!

I voted for Ethiopia and the Mongols

@mastertyguy - How can you justify Quebec? Canada is hardly a justifiable civ. And unlike Quebec, they have actually had a chance to influence the world.

I voted Zulu and Iroquios. But really, I don't mind so much about the exact civs as long as there is a relatively even spread from around the world (ie, not 50% European civs!!! :eek: ).

Thanks for all the votes... In previous polls, i tried to seperate out the civs that had a statistically significant lead... in this poll the winners were:

Mongols and Ottomans

but if a larger group were admitted it would include the above plus: Celts, Dutch, and Israel.


I voted for the Mongols (to provide conflict for Russia and China), and Zulus (to be another much needed African country).

The two glaring errors that was produced by this series of polls:

1) Lack of a South American civ.
2) Not enough African civs.

So the final tally would be:
Chinese, English, French, Germany, Greeks, Japan, Rome, Russia, Egyptians, Persians, Indians (from India), Aztecs, Americans, Babylonians, Arabs, Spanish, Vikings, Ottomans and Mongols.

European:
English, French, Germany, Rome, Greeks, Spanish, Vikings

MiddleEast/South Asian:
Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs, India

Asian:
Japan, Chinese, Russia, Mongols

Africa:
Egyptian

North America:
America

Central America:
Aztecs

South America:
None


My Personal preference: Take out Arabs and replace with Inca. IF there were more than 19 civs allowed - I would still add Inca at the expense of arabs and then add dutch, portugal, carthage, zulus and ethiopian.

Craterus22, you point out the error wonderfully. I'm not sure what the solution is... but there needs to be AT LEAST two civs per continent.

Also, the way you organize the continents isn't quite right. South Asia is not a part of the Middle East, South Asia is a part of Asia. And I wouldn't isolate Central America. And I'd hardly call Russia Asian.

With that:

(1) North America: USA
(1) South America: Aztecs (for all intents and purposes)
(1) Africa: Egypt
(4) Near East: Ottomans, Persians, Babylonians, Arabs
(4) Asia: Mongols, Japan, India, China
(8) European: English, French, Germany, Rome, Greeks, Spanish, Vikings, Russia

To me, the "peripheral" Civs... Vikings, Spanish, Mongols, MAYBE the Arabs. The other ones you simply could not get away with removing from the game. These three (maybe four) are the only ones that could get swapped around.

But you'll probably find many Europeans willing to stick up for the Spanish and Vikings. And warmongers love the shortlived Mongols.

And I doubt you'll find many people passionately arguing to include the Inca, the Maya, the Sioux, the Iroquois, the Zulu, or the Abyssinians.

Also, the way you organize the continents isn't quite right. South Asia is not a part of the Middle East, South Asia is a part of Asia. And I wouldn't isolate Central America. And I'd hardly call Russia Asian.

You say tomato - I say something that sounds slightly different...

I organized them right... I did not state South Asia was part of the Middle East. I grouped them together because they are neighbors that are most likely to be in conflict in the same regional ballpark on most world maps.

I would say that Russia isn't part of western europe... they share a major border with asian countries (and the eastern part of Russia is fairly asian) and in most world map games I play they have more conflicts with mongols koreans and china.

BTW - Aztecs were not in south america - I would consider them to be in the southern part of north america.

Regardless, I wouldn't organize the civilizations in a way to suggest that there are more people in one area than there really are. It seems like the categories you set up were to migrate Civs out of Europe, so it doesn't look like Europe has that many when it actually does, and migrate more civs to the "middle east south asia" category so as to justify cutting out one of them.

If you're going to reduce the number of Civs, it comes back to Europe. Vikings or Spanish would be first to go, in favor of Civs in other parts of the world that are ignored by our largely Western populous.

I Think that the Vikings could be saved for future expansions, leving room for the Malinese, Inca, or Maya

personally I think as the game begins with the ancient age, that the game itself should begin with ancient civs.
americans are only within the last 300 years and thus are a modern civ and have really no place in a game that begins in ancient times.
carthaginians
etruscans
sumerians
hittites
mongols
xi
anasazi
olmec
celts
gauls
picts
rroma
ethiopians
nubians
zulus
ashante
those are names of only a few ancient civs.

if players want modern civs in the game, they should have the option to change the name of their civ as the game progresses.

just an idea

You're right - the Americans are most definately the odd ones out (and a couple of the European civs are too). But I think they were put in the game because most of the game's audience is in Europe or America and so the game designers wanted to allow for those patriotic sorts of people who want to play the game as "THEIR" civ... ;)

You're right - the Americans are most definately the odd ones out (and a couple of the European civs are too). But I think they were put in the game because most of the game's audience is in Europe or America and so the game designers wanted to allow for those patriotic sorts of people who want to play the game as "THEIR" civ... ;)

America deserves to be in. No Civ has had a bigger impact on global history in the past 100 years then America. Americas influence has stretched all over the globe

personally I think as the game begins with the ancient age, that the game itself should begin with ancient civs.
americans are only within the last 300 years and thus are a modern civ and have really no place in a game that begins in ancient times.

Talk about irrational. By your logic the mongols would self destruct halfway through the game because the ceased to exist. And need I remind you, the Americans are present in roughly 2 ages of the game's 4 ages. And if I really want to be picky, the last half of the middle age tech tree is technically also a period where the Americans exist since the technologies represent those of the late 1700s.

Please refer to this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116739) if you want to rationally argue this point.

America deserves to be in. No Civ has had a bigger impact on global history in the past 100 years then America. Americas influence has stretched all over the globe

England, Russia and Germany are three countries that have had huge impact in the world the last 100 years. Just as much as America/

England and Germany's day was in the industrial era, prior to WW2. But nobody's arguing that they shouldn't be in the game. Just that being on top in the industrial era and modern era counts for something, for all the arguments about how Civs need to be "ancient" to qualify.

Quebec?!?...That's just silly...

BINGO!!!! Thats what we've been saying for decades :lol:

now that you can choose which era to start in, it doesn't matter that america was born later than most other civs. sid meier civ has never been about playing the original civs (ie china india mesopotamia ) and having them duke it out. it's about choosing the civs that have made the greatest impact on world history since the dawn of time up to the present (including industrial and modern ages), and also allowing some of the other more memorable or flavorful civs. there should be diversity in choosing the civs--not just geographically or historically, but also regarding the age when civs were dominant. as such, america is a no-brainer as a representative for the modern age.

regardless of your personal opinions, america has been and still is one of the greatest influences in global culture--pop culture, technology, science, military, politics, business, video games ;). one can argue that portugal or spain has had only about the same duration in the spotlight as america. and their glory days have long been over, while america's impressions on world history are still being recorded and will have more to come. since much of the things that happen today and into the foreseeable future do depend on america's actions and processes.

if nothing else, american civ makes a great nemesis for some of you, who can then project your hostilities against america in this game.

Yeah... if you're that way inclined, then just pick America as an AI and nuke them to hell in the modern ages!!! :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :D :lol:

America is pretty justified, being dominant for two out of four of Civ 3's ages.

I don't know why people implicitly link "civilization" with "ancient civilization". Especially when the ancient age is 4000 years long, and few of them lasted more than a couple hundred years.

Heck, Civ3 (or any of the previous or future Civs, for that matter) has never been about teaching a history lesson!!! :lol: The whole fun of the game is that things do NOT parallel exactly to (or even close to!) recorded history. So Hammurabi can meet and have a chat with Montezuma... and Elizabeth can have a cup of tea with Caesar and Cleopatra!!! :D

The mongols are a waste of space. If the only criteria for inclusion is land area we are not talking about civilization. I want the most influential civilizations not the largest land grabs

Babylonia
Persia
Summeria
Greece
Egypt
Rome
China
India
England
France
Vikings
Arab Empire
most important African civ
second most important african civ
The most influential South East Asia Civ
Celts
Incas
Aztec
most influential native american tribe

I even consider civs who have peaked now to be secondary, like the USA. And yes I am American, but we have been around for just to short a time and so come as a secondary civ in world history. Germany and Austria are others. That regions is much better represented by the vikings who later evolve into there modern counterpart much as the US evolves from the British.

But I have no illusions about this.

The most important African civs would likely be the Mali and the Ethiopians, but if you wanted a more southern civ, I would go with the Zulu.

Mali and Ethiopia are key. Although I wouldn't call for "The most important south east asian civ" without putting Japan in there first. Nor would I put the Celts or Vikings in there without Germany or the Turks or Russia in there first.

while yes, the 13 colonies came from britain, from even then 'til now, the us is still made out of numerous cultures and people - to simply the us as a mere byproduct of the british empire is to ignore the diversity that has and continues to develop in the us. of course, it's true, the us is highly allied w/ the british (altho don't forget, only a few hundred years ago the british were invading and burning down the white house!). but u have the spanish influenced west and southern states, louisiana was once french, not to mention the native americans who lived across the region. the us population today is hardly made up of those w/ english ancestry - even during the nation's founding, the us was still made up of seveal european ethnicties, including german, french, etc.

i mean, if one's reason to exclude to us is b/c it came from britain, then u mite as well take out the koreans and japanese, as they're believed to have migrated from china... or take out some european civs, i mean germany wasn't even a country until after the us was formed. the aztecs came much later in relation to the mayans, and only were around for a few hundred years.

b'sides, taking the world and mankind a button away from nuclear annihilation along w/ the ussr i think hardly makes them a secondary player in world history, not to mention sending people to the moon, fighting world wars, inspiring people to lead revolutions in their own countries, etc.

By the way, I have been cracking jokes about Quebec. It must be remebered that Quebec's french community have made important contributions to Canada, and the french heritage is is priceless

I'd like to see one that's not up there. Like the Khmers, Polynesians, Aboriginese, (Ghana, Mail, Songhai).

Ukraine?

The US should stay in the game, of course, even when it's a colony from europe. But there should be another civs that there aren't in the list.

I don't think anything will be changed at this late stage - all the civs are already confirmed. ;) You'll be able to mod new civs into the game, though. :)

The US should stay in the game, of course, even when it's a colony from europe. But there should be another civs that there aren't in the list.
Where do you want them to sell the game? In Afghanistan?

There are some good civs in here but why the ottomans and celts isn't that just kind of repeat of english and turks

no the celts are not english..there are remenants of them in england..but that is not were they originally hailed from..but (even though this will pee some off) i do think that it is not necissary to have both turks and ottomans

The mongols are a waste of space. If the only criteria for inclusion is land area we are not talking about civilization. I want the most influential civilizations not the largest land grabs

Babylonia
Persia
Summeria
Greece
Egypt
Rome
China
India
England
France
Vikings
Arab Empire
most important African civ
second most important african civ
The most influential South East Asia Civ
Celts
Incas
Aztec
most influential native american tribe

I even consider civs who have peaked now to be secondary, like the USA. And yes I am American, but we have been around for just to short a time and so come as a secondary civ in world history. Germany and Austria are others. That regions is much better represented by the vikings who later evolve into there modern counterpart much as the US evolves from the British.

But I have no illusions about this.


You leave out Spain, ...that is just silly...

What criteria did you follow to leave out Spain?. (Colonies in four continents, empire bigger than the Mongol one, and probably bigger than the british one in its heydays, conquer a almost a whole continent, the phillipines, some colonies in Africa, and still a bicontinental country, First civ to circumnavigate the world, etc...) Your criteria is not based in historic facts, obviously.

Anyways, Spain will be in CIV IV, just like the other 17 civs that they are already chosen, so, who cares about this poll.

no the celts are not english..there are remenants of them in england..but that is not were they originally hailed from..but (even though this will pee some off) i do think that it is not necissary to have both turks and ottomans


Oooooohhhhhh...... at least, one person that doesn't have a highly english biased knowlegde of history..... :hatsoff:

There are celts in France and Spain as well, but it seems that some people that spend more time playing Civ than reading don't know that. They don't follow soccer as well, that's for sure, I they did, they should know that there are two main celtic football clubs in Europe, Celtic of Glasgow and Celta de Vigo, One of then is british, the other is Spanish.

And as far as the USA is concern, The first european colonies and cities in USA where spanish, not english. Even California have been part of New Spain for more time than it have been part of USA. So, if you want to give an historic based opinion about which civs should be in the game, some people should read more history, and not english biased one.

Edit: you don't know what New Spain was? That probes that your knowledge of history is highly english biased.

if we are talking main land..then im sorry but that is wrong..jamestown is the oldest permanent settlement in america...but in the americas..well then yes..the spanish were definitly there alot longer. the aztecs and incans were gone before the mayflower arrived.lol. and about the the celts..i think that people confuse the celts with kelts.( i hope not ..but i sometimes get that impression)..but we cant also forget that the vikings set foot on newfoundland years before others...i wonder why the silly buggers never said anything

if we are talking main land..then im sorry but that is wrong..jamestown is the oldest permanent settlement in america...but in the americas..well then yes..the spanish were definitly there alot longer. the aztecs and incans were gone before the mayflower arrived.lol. and about the the celts..i think that people confuse the celts with kelts.( i hope not ..but i sometimes get that impression)..but we cant also forget that the vikings set foot on newfoundland years before others...i wonder why the silly buggers never said anything


I don't know how strongs are the evidences of the vikings setting foot in Newfoundland, so I am not saying anything about that. (I have a friend from St. John, I would like to go over there one of these days) Anyway, We can discuss about that if you like, but even if it is true, that doesn't change my statement, The Spanish were the first european civ to have colonies and cities in the USA. Newfoundland is not USA, and it is not even in the American continent, (it is an island).

And I am sorry about that, but St. Augustine is way older than Jamestown.

http://www.staugustinelinks.com/st-augustine-history.asp

I copy and paste the first paragraph.

Saint Augustine is the oldest European city in the United States. The area was first visited by Ponce de Leon in 1513, but it was Juan Menendez de Aviles who established the first settlement, almost half a century before the first English settlers landed at Jamestown. St Augustine grew to become the Spanish center of power in North America for almost 200 years.

http://www.tobacco.org/History/Jamestown.html

Copy and paste the first paragraph again...

I may not forget the gentleman worthie of much commendations, which first tooke the pains to make triall thereof, his name Mr. John Rolfe, Anno Domini 1612, partly for the love he hath a long time borne unto it, and partly to raise commodity to the adventurers...
--Ralph Hamor, then Secretary of Virginia


So, St. Augustine is almost 50 years older. As i said before, there is a lot of english biased history everywhere.


Nice to talk to you, goodbye.

my apoligies..youre right about st.Augustine.....the vikings did leave some evidence(i personally belive it..but hmm.) on main land labodor. but i will still contend to your side about spain being the first new world colonial power

Turks and Carthage good choices can be

The texts I've been able to see claim Jamestown was abandoned in the 18th century. Is this correct?

If so, that would make it the first truly lasting settlement, but it would make the "oldest settlement north of Florida" (which, to me at least, imply STILL being around) claim dubious : a better claimant might be the one-year-younger but still standing Québec City (founded in 1608).

Frankly, you have 2 different ways to do this. One is to put 19 civs into the game based purely on how powerful they were at their peak, how long it lasted relative to its age and how much they influenced the world from their peak to today. The 2nd is putting some civs that are not as powerful as some others for the sake of geographical balance.

From my viewpoint as somebody who was born in the Philippines and moved to the U.S. only recently, there have been only 3 powerful and influential Asian civs in history, excluding the middle east. China and India really dominated the continent all throughout history. Japan wasn't a pushover for a long period of time but they were a bit player for most of history who only became important in the industrial - modern age, but they are still very important. So for Asian civs, I think these 3 should go into the game.

The problem with Southeast Asia is the region has always been fragmented into lots of weak city-states and countries. Most paid tribute to China or India, maybe, until they were colonized by the Europeans.

The Mongols were only powerful for a very short period of time, though they did conquer a lot of the known world at the time. They ruled China for around 200 years, too, so it isn't that short. You can make an argument that they and the Turks represent the various Central Asian steppe people who were quite a force throughout history, though it's always different tribes being in the spotlight one by one. The Manchus and the Jurchen had their time ruling China as well. The Huns, Scythians, Sarmatians, Parthians, Turcomans, Tatars, etc. all enjoyed their time in the spotlight. IMO, it's best to have a representative civ like Mongols for them rather than just calling them the Asian Steppe people. The Turks are another Asian Steppe people but they're more known for their Ottoman empire so I think there should be another Asian Steppe people representative and that's the Mongols.

Most of the rest of the powerful civs are European and Middle Eastern. The most powerful African civs in history were Middle Eastern and Mediterranean European in culture as well - Egypt, Carthage, Almoravid/Almohad, etc.

My 19 civs in my opinion:
Americas (3) - U.S., 1 Native American tribe from expansion, 1 old Native American Civ (think Maya is the best)
Asia (4) - India, China, Japan, Mongols
Europe (6) - Britain, France, Germany, Rome, Greece, Russia
Middle East (5) - Babylon/Assyria/Sumeria (pick 1 but rather have Babylon), Persia, Ottoman Turks, Arab, Egypt (kinda a mesh of Pharaonic - ancient Egyptian, Ptolemeic - Greek, hey, Cleopatra is Greek and she's Firaxis' chosen model for Egypt and Islamic - modern Egypt)
African - 1 native African I'm not sure what

You leave out Spain, ...that is just silly...

What criteria did you follow to leave out Spain?. (Colonies in four continents, empire bigger than the Mongol one, and probably bigger than the british one in its heydays, conquer a almost a whole continent, the phillipines, some colonies in Africa, and still a bicontinental country, First civ to circumnavigate the world, etc...) Your criteria is not based in historic facts, obviously.


For the record historically speaking at its peak Spain had the 4th largest Empire it peaked in land area owned in 1790. The Mongels held the 3rd largest and was almost 2 million square miles larger than the Spanish.

But yes i agree Spain should be in.

Oooooohhhhhh...... at least, one person that doesn't have a highly english biased knowlegde of history..... :hatsoff:
There are celts in France and Spain as well, but it seems that some people that spend more time playing Civ than reading don't know that. They don't follow soccer as well, that's for sure, I they did, they should know that there are two main celtic football clubs in Europe, Celtic of Glasgow and Celta de Vigo, One of then is british, the other is Spanish.

Indeed true many people think that the Celts and the English hare the same thing. That is simply not true, if thats the case then we must ask who are the Britons ? The Britons are fundamentally who the English are. Who came first the Britons or the Celts ? although not conclusive archeological finds would suggest that the Britons are alittle older than the Celts. Not by a great deal tho. But it is an important factor to keep in mind that the Britions, British, English whatever you prefer to call them have been around for a very significant amount of time and historically have held the single largest empire ever just to mention one detail of there history. Bigger than the Soviet Unions empire at it peak, that is quite something. So for the English not to be on that list is confusing to say the least and all i can think is there was confusion with the Celts here.

For the record historically speaking at its peak Spain had the 4th largest Empire it peaked in land area owned in 1790. The Mongels held the 3rd largest and was almost 2 million square miles larger than the Spanish.

But yes i agree Spain should be in.

Well, my records say that the Spanish empire at is peak was during philip the second (1556-1598), not in 1790, where the spanish empire was composed of Spain, the french rosellon, The netherlands, Sicily, Sardinia, Milan, Naples, Oran, Tunisia, Portugal and its afroasiatic empire, all the discoveried america (brazil included) and the Philipines. It was 20 times bigger than the roman empire and the largest of the world ever. With territories in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas.

I know that in many places this is not recognized, mainly because they tend to separate Spain from Portugal, but during Philip the second, Portugal (and its empire) was part of Spain. Many of those places are english biased historians, where they try to demonstrate that the British empire was the largest ever, so they don´t take the joint of the Spanish and portuguese empires under Philip the second reign into consideration. But the fact is that Portugal was part of Spain between 1556-1598 and therefore, the spanish empire at its peak was larger than the british one.

Of course, England and Spain should be in, if you want to pick civs based on historical facts. I know that is difficult to leave out european civs from the game, but, if you want to be historically accurate and pick only four european civs, those should be Greece, Rome, England and Spain. Then, if you want to add more, we can study more history and discuss what else to add.


Edit: And I am not anti-english, just look at my sig.

Portugal and Spain were united from 1580-1640.
I think.

@ Urederra i have stacks of history book heres with me and ive done a fair bot of searching on Spain and i still can only get them to 5th place on worlds largest empires.

1st British Empire 1920
2nd Soviet Union 1945
3rd Mongols 1259
4th Russian Empire 1990
5th Spain 1790
6th Russian federation 1991
7th Chinese Empire 1792
8th 3rd French Republic 1930
9th USA and its empire 1945
10th Gokturk Khanate 580

From about the 7th spot upwards the sizes really go up suddenly.
Do you have any deatails on the land mass occupied by Spain during 1556-1598 ? im intrested in this.

Portugal and Spain were united from 1580-1640.
I think.

You are right, and that was the time when Spain had the largest empire, not in 1790.

Himalia, I have already told you what the colonies were, But findind them in a webpage written in english is as difficult as finding the size of the english fleet that lost the war of Jenkin's ear. (The english lost a fleet larger than the Philip the second invincible armada, but the war of Jenkin's ear remains unknown for most english population :D )

Ok the point that you are arguing is if you combine the two it would make them larger than the Spanish on there own in 1790. It seems you are not debabting that the sole Spanish Empire was large in 1790 than during the period of 1556-1598 but you stating that as Portugal was under Spanish (which is correct) rule during that period that when you combine the teritory of Spain and Portugal together in would be larger. For this i still must disagree simply beacause even if i add the land mass figures of both Spain and Portugal territories together (and being as favourable with any figures i have as possible basically always allowing them the benefit of the highest figure) still could only get them into second place and for that ive not allowed any favourable figures for any other nation. You mentiond a Spanish website a link to that would be fine.

Carthaginian and Iroquois for me

Carthaginian and Iroquois for meThe poll finished ages ago, dude... and the civs for Civ4 were revealed ages ago too. ;)

You mentiond a Spanish website a link to that would be fine.

There are several...

http://www.duke.edu/web/spanish-lit/docs/kamen.html
http://www.ub.es/hvirt/public/congres97/masac.htm
http://barrapunto.com/journal.pl?op=display&id=7169&uid=15667

I don't want this thread to go off topic, so I let it as it is, you said that when Portugal was part of Spain it made the second largest empire in the world, that's fine with me. The statement I made before remains valid for me, If you have to choose four european civs based in history, those would be Rome, Greece, England and Spain, If you add a fifth one, that would be Russia. Then we have to study more history to choose other european civs.

I notice that you are not affaid either, :D that's good.

Have a good day.

Thanks for the links. Some of its very intresting. As for England, Spain, Greece and Rome i would agree. For a 5th one i find it alittle tougher but Russia would be one of those on a shortlist.

I'd say Russia and France would be next on the inclusion list.

I realize this thread is pretty much useless now and the poll is done, but why wasn't Austria on your list? Austria has never been in a Civ game and I have no idea why. In terms of peak power, historical significance and especially culture, Austria is way ahead of just about all of the candidates you listed... I live in Quebec and even I know that's a terrible idea for a civ!

Even with the 32 civs after ptw and conquests, Austria was still left out. And don't say it was because the game already had too many European civs. Geographic diversity was obviously not an issue because there were seven civs crammed into the middle east (Sumerians?!).
This time around, let's give the Hapsburgs the respect they so sorely deserve.

Because Austria is a German power?

Theres all kinds of oddities on that list. England are not on it for one. They only had the largest Empire in history, have contributed alot scientifically, was the home of the industrial revolution and have been a recognised civilization since aboit 500AD known as the Britons at that point. Celts made it tho but i agree that the Celts should be on there.

Originally posted by Urederra
I know that in many places this is not recognized, mainly because they tend to separate Spain from Portugal, but during Philip the second, Portugal (and its empire) was part of Spain. Many of those places are english biased historians, where they try to demonstrate that the British empire was the largest ever, so they don´t take the joint of the Spanish and portuguese empires under Philip the second reign into consideration. But the fact is that Portugal was part of Spain between 1556-1598 and therefore, the spanish empire at its peak was larger than the british one.

Karl V and Phillip II were Habsburg and therefore ruled the Austrian Empire which included Spain, Netherlands, Milan and the colonies. So much for biased history...

I would love to have Austria included since we have a very distinct and long history. If the Ottomans are included Austria is a must-have.

Germany, however was not much of a power before the rise of Prussia long after Austria had established its empire. - I say replace Germany with Austria... ;)

Hmm i agree but removing Germany would be a poor choice. Austria have a place thats true but i would remove one of the others from that list first.

What about Canada? I think that they should be in. I mean, they are a great country. And why Quebec? Or is that supposed to mean Canada too?

as a canadian..i would like to see them..but i think there are far superior choices for a civ then canada...and if they were to remove any of the 18 from the list for canada..i think i would be dissapointed..but be careful..bringing up canada in any of these threads usaully causes an uproar

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde
Germany, however was not much of a power before the rise of Prussia long after Austria had established its empire. - I say replace Germany with Austria... ;)

Sorry if someone took this as serious suggestion (the smiley should have suggested otherwise).
However, I say Austria is at least as relevant as Spain, the Netherlands or the Ottoman empire and you would need it for scenarios from 14th century up to WWI anyhow. I don´t mind if they are not in the original release but I would like them at least for an expansion. I am quite positive that someone will mod them, I hope the leaderheads don´t prove themself as hindrance. I suggest Karl V or Maria Theresia as leaders.

Because Austria is a German power?

I think America is far more "English" than Austria is German. And I think the Dutch, who were in conquests, are far more German than Austria is.

What would be Canada's UU? Maybe a really cheap helicopter that falls apart...

... maybe Canada could have the special ability of buy units from other civs after those units have become obsolete.

A mountie on a ski doo..lol..

about the austria thing..i think the problem with adding a civ like that is the precident it sets...people of scottish decent will say they shouldnt be included as english and ukrainians will not want to be part of russia and soo on. not to say the dont deserve a spot..its just that they cant make everyone happy..so why try

... maybe Canada could have the special ability of buy units from other civs after those units have become obsolete.


Thats very mean but i love it. Then i see what part of the world you are from and that makes its even funnier. Great sense of humour score 10 points.

... people of scottish decent will say they shouldnt be included as english and ukrainians will not want to be part of russia and soo on.

I agree that the Scots and the Ukranians are distinct peoples with distinct cultures, but politically they are parts of Great Britain and Russia (well, the Ukranians were a part of Russia for a long time). But the only time Austria was ever a part of Germany was from 1938 to 1945, and during that period Germany controlled lots of areas that weren't necessarily German...

Thanks for the 10 points, Himalia. Where do I go to redeam them for a prize?

They can be traded in for obselete weapons :lol:

Ten points can be traded in for a submarine with a sunroof.

The problem, George, is that you're focusing on the NATION Germany. Austria, indeed, should not be accounted part of that.

But the historical German civilization? Historically, Austria was pretty much always part of that. The Roman Empire of the German Nation (better known as Holy Roman Empire) pretty much always included Vienna, Salzburg and so forth, from its founding some time after the Death of Charlemagne to its death at the hands of Napoléon nearly a millenium later.

Even after that happened, Austria was not out of Germany. Austria was still Prussia's major rival in vying for influence over the rest of Germany in the 19th century; Prussia ultimately won over Germany while Austria was forced to focus on its eastern territories (Hungary, etc).

Now granted, Germay led by Bismark or Hitler and with Panzer UUs is rather questionable for Austria.

Karl V and Phillip II were Habsburg and therefore ruled the Austrian Empire which included Spain, Netherlands, Milan and the colonies. So much for biased history...




Phillip II was born in Valladolid, Spain. And the country he ruled was Spain. The general trend in Spain was to consider everything that belonged to the empire part of Spain, not a separated colony. :)

Phillip II NEVER ruled Austria. When Karl V abdicated he split his territories between the Spanish Empire and the HRE; Phillip became ruler of Spain and Ferdinand (Karl's brother) took over the HRE, splitting the Hapsburg into two branches.

Quebec?!?...That's just silly...

Agreed.

A Quebec option over a Canadian option?

The Austrians were the 32nd civ in Conquests. Remember?
Charles V ruled Spain (which includes America) while he was the Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles V was king of Spain BEFORE he was the Holy Roman Emperor, IIRC.

IIRC, He stopped ruling Spain when he died. Of course, my memory is very vague.
And, of course, I'd lump Austria (the nation) with Germany, in a more wide-sweeping German/Nordic civ. My 2 cents.
The Great Austrian Empire is another matter. It only lasted 500 years. A great feat; but, not Civilization status.
I would like to see a Habsburg leader out-of-the-box in Civilization 4.

PORTUGAL of COURSE!!!!!!!!