They're in the box when it ships.

Didn't they make the list of "will never ever ever" be in civ??

sniker? the Mali deserve to be in that box more then the Mongols do.

With the profound influence of Khans on both China and Europe?

Hardly.

Maybe not more than Mongolia, but more than many of the 31 in C3C.

Anyway, this has already been discussed in the Mali thread: 119101

With the profound influence of Khans on both China and Europe?

Hardly.

explain away then, dear Dearmad; I eagerlly await what profound enlightenment your going to shed upon me of previouslly unkown influnces that the glorious Mongols gave to an awestruck world other then yet another batch of bloody barbarians from the steppe who couldnt even keep thier own culture.

who were the mali?

I think they should add Ethiopia as well into Africa, as it was the only country in Africa to escape colonization, defeated a European Power to do that...and decisively at that, plus of course the fact they have lots of history, biblical and non-biblical. =)

explain away then, dear Dearmad; I eagerlly await what profound enlightenment your going to shed upon me of previouslly unkown influnces that the glorious Mongols gave to an awestruck world other then yet another batch of bloody barbarians from the steppe who couldnt even keep thier own culture.

No, first you explain how they did not influence china and europe. :lol:

The mali influenced no one outside of their little (albeit rich) realm of the Niger river. Big deal. Yawn.

No, first you explain how they did not influence china and europe. :lol:


easy; all they did was impose thier rule; they adopted local languages, cultures, people, and within a generation, they werent even a significant army any longer, they had to rely on local peoples; combien this with internal tension, and it slittle wonder that the Mongol broke up; thier was no true unfying factor, as they barelly had a common culture; once emersed int eh realms of other civlizations, they ditched what they had, and took up the traditions of other, eventually marrying so throughlly, that no trace of them actually lingers in most fo the lands they conqoured.

thier only contributuion was allowing the peaceful travel of Marco Polo to the orient


The mali influenced no one outside of their little (albeit rich) realm of the Niger river. Big deal. Yawn.

A) you dont have a clue about economics, do you :rolleyes: when somthing is commodity in a particuler, such as Gold in the Niger area, it dosent have a great deal of local value; yet, the mali were still rich- why were they still rich? because they were a source for megalithic trade routes that stretched into Europe and Mid east liek no others, and were ten fold more important then the sil rout which the Mongols monopolized ever was

B)So much Niger gold coem fourth thats its estimated that well over a third of ALL middle age gold came from it, and the fortune of natiosn was dependent on it; th ebullion market woudl collapse for a period because so much gold came fourth into the middle east

C)The world renowned site of Timbuktu (immortilized int he phrase "From Zanzibar to Timbuktu) was renowned site for Islamic scholars, and they came from all over the islamic world to go attend the schools thier; this means, if you didnt figure it out already, that Sahel region scholarship effected, if minorlly at the fringes, everyone from the west coast of Africa to Central Asia, and down right into Indonsia; a land area that dawrfs the Mongol empire, and is only surpassed by the evolution of Roman culture into today's western civlization

D)the king sof the region undertook a number of military campaigns inwhich to extend the influnce of Islam in Africa, somthing that, one might note, has had a very lasting influnce upon the world; a hell of alot more important and lasting then anything the mongols ever did.

...eventually marrying so throughlly, that no trace of them actually lingers in most fo the lands they conqoured.
I just want to point out that, although you may not know it, here in Poland we still have a Mongol ethnic group several centuries later. This is just to show that the world is not all black or white.

I just want to point out that, although you may not know it, here in Poland we still have a Mongol ethnic group several centuries later. This is just to show that the world is not all black or white.


do they activlly call themselves mongol, or are they true to life, Mongols whom at any time may ride thier Steppe breed ponies out into Russia or beyond?

The answer shoudl make the reality of thier situation clear. they arnt True Mongols.

Sure, Mali deserves to be in, but what's all this bashing on the mongols? The mongol empire did in fact have profound influence on west / east communication in the middle ages. Russia is still a connected empire from Scandinavia to the Pacific, mostly as a direct result of the Mongol empire. The mongols also secured the west / east trading routes, eventually leading to Marco Polo and his family getting into contact with China. Marco Polo was a wonder in Civ 2. The mongols, in my opinion, have affected history more so than Mali. Why are you arguing with economics and culture? Isn't history what this game is about?

XEN Said:

easy; all they did was impose thier rule; they adopted local languages, cultures, people, and within a generation, they werent even a significant army any longer, they had to rely on local peoples; combien this with internal tension, and it slittle wonder that the Mongol broke up; thier was no true unfying factor, as they barelly had a common culture; once emersed int eh realms of other civlizations, they ditched what they had, and took up the traditions of other, eventually marrying so throughlly, that no trace of them actually lingers in most fo the lands they conqoured.

thier only contributuion was allowing the peaceful travel of Marco Polo to the orient



A) you dont have a clue about economics, do you :rolleyes: when somthing is commodity in a particuler, such as Gold in the Niger area, it dosent have a great deal of local value; yet, the mali were still rich- why were they still rich? because they were a source for megalithic trade routes that stretched into Europe and Mid east liek no others, and were ten fold more important then the sil rout which the Mongols monopolized ever was

B)So much Niger gold coem fourth thats its estimated that well over a third of ALL middle age gold came from it, and the fortune of natiosn was dependent on it; th ebullion market woudl collapse for a period because so much gold came fourth into the middle east

End of Xen
----

Heh. On this argument the Fuggers, and Medici, should be a Civ. :crazyeye:

do they activlly call themselves mongol, or are they true to life, Mongols whom at any time may ride thier Steppe breed ponies out into Russia or beyond?

The answer shoudl make the reality of thier situation clear. they arnt True Mongols.

WTH? Dude, you are seriously screwed up. Do the Mali still control Gold in Africa? They're the poorest nation there just about now. So they don't deserve to be called Mali since obviously" they're culture died out without a trace...

Ick, man you have no rationale thinking in your posts.

Mali had a profound influence on modern-day culture, because it was there, in Timbuktu, that the world's first university was built.

Academies were built in greece a long time before... and other places exported the idea before Mali ever did. No influence.

That's not the same. A university is not just a school, although today they tend to look like a school more and more, alas. Universities are also constructed for the purpose of concentrating research, where previously this was left to the individual scholar.
Universities were 'exported' from Mali to Arabia and from there to Spain and the rest of Europe, and from Arabia also to the east along the silk route.

Dearmad, I don't understand your "no influence" statement. What constitutes influence in your mind? Are we talking about influence on your life or the culture in your particular neighbourhood? Or some elusive "world culture"? Or would you actually maintain that the Mali empire and the civilization of that region had nothing to do with modern West Africa?

It sounds like you basically couldn't care less about West Africa... which isn't necessarily a scandal in itself.

However, West Africa has its own tradition of civilization which developed on its own, though it had strong ties to Islamic civilization. 'Sahelian civilization' is a term referring to all of this tradition and includes the empire of Mali as well as the earlier Ghana and the later Songhay. The way I see it, the Civ4 design team has chosen Mali to represent all the Sahelian civilization, which is cool.

As for the Mongols, I don't really like to see them as a civ. Not because I think they somehow had less effect on world history - quite the contrary! I think they had a much greater effect on it than West African civilization. However the Mongols did not really affect the world as a civilization, since they weren't a civilization. They were a collection of nomadic tribes with a common identity and a leader but no cities, writing, or permanent construction whatsoever. No historian would consider them a civilization by the strict definition.

I wouldn't mind a Turkic Central Asian civ though, to represent the urbanized people who thrived on the Silk Road (think Samarkand, Bokhara, Kabul, etc). That would be the closest we should get to Mongols.

The Mongols should much rather be in as some kind of huge barbarian horde event - that would be the coolest solution IMHO! They'd storm around the map, pillage a lot and raze some cities to the ground; others they'd govern but after a while the cities would revert due to the non-existent culture of the Mongol rulers.

I agree with Xen on the terms of influence of the Mali versus the Mongols. The only affect Mongols had on Western Civilizations were destructive roles. Am I the only that knows of the Silk Road? The Byzantine Empire already had connections with both India and China before the Mongol raids. Mongols raid destroyed Russian, Caucasian, Persian, Arab, Assyrian, Armenian, and Greco-Roman culture. Their influence on civilizations were nothing less than the influence of the Bubonic Plague.

I think the best Civ for Turktic Civilizations would be the Tanurians. They allied with the Mongols, Nestorian Persians and Chinese against the Ottomans, Seljuks, Zoroastrian Persians and Jihadist Arabs.

Hmmm, replace the Ottomans and Mongols, for generic Turk's.

That sounds good.

But i still think they should add the Ethiopians...or Axumites...same thing.

Maybe go as far as Zimbabweans?

Heh. On this argument the Fuggers, and Medici, should be a Civ. :crazyeye:

A)learn how to Quote

B) In all fairness, while thier exact poltical entities wont be represented, nations in thier areas will be, and on a real world map, one can easilly imagine that the economic prosperity, or decline fo such nations, if it were translated ot the real world, would be based ont he actions of such internal structures.

of course, thats assuming you look beyond face value, which you seem to have a hard time doing with west african civlization already, so perhaps you shouldnt bother.

WTH? Dude, you are seriously screwed up. Do the Mali still control Gold in Africa? They're the poorest nation there just about now. So they don't deserve to be called Mali since obviously" they're culture died out without a trace...

Ick, man you have no rationale thinking in your posts.

1)proove thier culture "died with out without a trace" when I look to west Africa today, I see a group of nations who, unliek most of the rest of Africa, arnt constantlly in turmoil (though they have, and have had thier fair share, I suppose), and arnt in a constant spirl of economic and social declinel rather I see countires whom are are the slow path of success, after being delt a rather terrible hand in the game fo geographic resources, nations whos only great binder since civilizations arose in the region has been, and continues to be thier unique civlization and culture

2)Do they still control the gold in Africa; no.

Do the Mongol still control a quarter of the world? no.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are the Mali still and important regional plyaer in Africa? Yes

Are the Mongol still in important in any regard? No.

Academies were built in greece a long time before... and other places exported the idea before Mali ever did. No influence.

Acadmies were closed down in Greece by Justininan; or rather, the last one was (because Acadmies and the other traditions of higher learning were all sponsored by Pagans; which the devotley christian Justinian couldt stand apperentlly, so he closed 'em down, and kicked them out)

after the closing of the greatest Athenian Academy, thier were no more institution of higher learning and reserch until the rebith of classical civlization in Italy; influnced, weather you want to accept it or not, by the prestigious islamic school in Timbuktu, which had world renowned fame at the time (because, belive it or not, things that you, an dother have never heaqrd of do still still have importance, and in this case, a great deal of it)

Are the Mali still and important regional plyaer in Africa? Yes

Are the Mongol still in important in any regard? No.

Seriously -- to be fair -- comparing the Mongol Empire to present-day Mongolia, the Mali Empire to the Republic of Mali, the Ghana Empire to the Republic of Ghana, and so on, is weak and utterly ridiculous.

Other than a sense of historical nostalgia (either imposed by colonial means, or self-acclaimed), there is nothing consistent between these present day countries and their ancient/medieval players.

Or would you like to sit here and argue that Kampuchea, Syria, Armenia, Poland, Lithuania, and so on are still going strong after centuries of amalgamation and decline? :P

Seriously -- comparing Mongolia to the Mongol hordes, the Mali Empire to the Republic of Mali, the Ghana Empire to the Republic of Ghana, and so on, is weak and utterly ridiculous.


I'm only covering the base of his counter-argument; better to crush silly retorts with answers of equal absurdity then to let them stand, and let it appear that they have [any] validity to them.

:blush: Don't call me stupid, who are the Malinese?

Dearmad, to quote someone, click the quote button on the bottom right of their post

:blush: Don't call me stupid, who are the Malinese?

They were an African empire in the "Sahel" Region of West Africa; this was, more or less, the boundaries of thier empire-


http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mali/hg_d_mali_d1map.jpg

I hope that helps some :)

I think they should add Ethiopia as well into Africa, as it was the only country in Africa to escape colonization, defeated a European Power to do that...and decisively at that, plus of course the fact they have lots of history, biblical and non-biblical. =)They ceased to exist in the 1930's when Italy conquered them.

They ceased to exist in the 1930's when Italy conquered them.

ceased to exist? hardley; the Italian conquest was hardley what one might consider an overall success, and while I;m no expert, i've heard the conquest was far from complete by the time Italy got its head straight again anyway.

Generic Turks? At least they havent pissed everyone off. Ask the neighbors of Turkey who likes the Ottomans, then ask the Tanurians and Russians how they feel of each other. Kazakhs have a space program, missile program, and great relations with almost the entire world.

Ottomans and Mongols are animals. They lived in people's buildings or had them build palaces for them and tried to pull it off as their own culture wonders. The world wouldve been better off without them.

The world would be better off without most "civilizations," actually...

A)learn how to Quote

B) In all fairness, while thier exact poltical entities wont be represented, nations in thier areas will be, and on a real world map, one can easilly imagine that the economic prosperity, or decline fo such nations, if it were translated ot the real world, would be based ont he actions of such internal structures.

of course, thats assuming you look beyond face value, which you seem to have a hard time doing with west african civlization already, so perhaps you shouldnt bother.



1)proove thier culture "died with out without a trace" when I look to west Africa today, I see a group of nations who, unliek most of the rest of Africa, arnt constantlly in turmoil (though they have, and have had thier fair share, I suppose), and arnt in a constant spirl of economic and social declinel rather I see countires whom are are the slow path of success, after being delt a rather terrible hand in the game fo geographic resources, nations whos only great binder since civilizations arose in the region has been, and continues to be thier unique civlization and culture

2)Do they still control the gold in Africa; no.

Do the Mongol still control a quarter of the world? no.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are the Mali still and important regional plyaer in Africa? Yes

Are the Mongol still in important in any regard? No.



Acadmies were closed down in Greece by Justininan; or rather, the last one was (because Acadmies and the other traditions of higher learning were all sponsored by Pagans; which the devotley christian Justinian couldt stand apperentlly, so he closed 'em down, and kicked them out)

after the closing of the greatest Athenian Academy, thier were no more institution of higher learning and reserch until the rebith of classical civlization in Italy; influnced, weather you want to accept it or not, by the prestigious islamic school in Timbuktu, which had world renowned fame at the time (because, belive it or not, things that you, an dother have never heaqrd of do still still have importance, and in this case, a great deal of it)


I know how to quote- it screwed up last time, little man.

So here's a big one for your enjoyment (god its fun to yank your chain, you type and type and type and so angry about it. >12,000 posts... whatta life you must have, boy. Get out of your mom's house and see the world beyond the computer screen once in awhile, maybe? Nah...

And Ghana was more important than the Mali. But I guess I've never heard of this stuff... gee shucks.

Oh gotta go, mommy's calling me to dinner...

easy; all they did was impose thier rule; they adopted local languages, cultures, people, and within a generation, they werent even a significant army any longer, they had to rely on local peoples; combien this with internal tension, and it slittle wonder that the Mongol broke up; thier was no true unfying factor, as they barelly had a common culture; once emersed int eh realms of other civlizations, they ditched what they had, and took up the traditions of other, eventually marrying so throughlly, that no trace of them actually lingers in most fo the lands they conqoured.

thier only contributuion was allowing the peaceful travel of Marco Polo to the orient
I think you're oversimplifying. It is true that they vanished quickly as an empire with a unique identity, but you shouldn't underestimate their significance to history. The Mongolian Empire created a safe route for explorers, diplomats and scientists, which helped to accelerate Europe's ascent from the Dark Age by learning from the Chinese in a way previously was impossible.

sniker? the Mali deserve to be in that box more then the Mongols do.
You die when you stand, Byzantine fiend! :mad: :sniper: :ar15: :ninja: There will be no mercy, neo-Roman scum :p

OK, enough of that :D It is kind of pointless arguing about who is more deserving than who, and arguing about it without shades of grey. I wouldn't have expected anything more than what has been shown, and I wasn't disappointed. Objectively speaking, there is pathetic difference between France, England, and Germany as opposed to Mali, Mongolia and the Inca, and yet all three are considered worthy of inclusion by most and the latter three considered unworthy by the same majority. Personally, I would consider the latter three better inclusions than say Germany, the Vikings or Spain, but hey - who gives a rat's arse right? Mali was a great empire, and the Mongols had a great one two. Both were incredibly important in world history in different respects. Get over it.

BTW: And what does Mongolia vs. Mali have to do with Mali being included in Civ 4 officially? A bunch of petty SPAMmers you all are. You should be ashamed of yourselves... :mischief:

And Ghana was more important than the Mali. But I guess I've never heard of this stuff... gee shucks.

Which of Ghana, Mali and Songhay to include is at best a debatable issue. Songhay probably was the most powerful in terms of military power and so forth ; Mali is the most well-known (thanks to Mansa Musa and his spendings on the way to Mecca), etc.

Trying to single out ONE of the trio for inclusion is an excercize in futility, they all have strong points. In the long run, it's probably better to pick up one of the three and present them (by the pedia) as a representative kingdom of the big three of the Sahel.

And I agree with Mongoloid Cow. Mongolia vs Mali is a pretty stupid fight anyway - especially as every last report we've seen indicate they are both in the game, so it's not like one is pushing the other out. What Mali DID push out of the game was a civilization whose only claim to fame was fighting a rebellion against the brits using primitive weapons and winning at least one battle (but losing the war anyway), aka the Zulus.

Mansa Musa over Genghis? Not sure there. Mansa Musa over Shaka? Anytime.

easy; all they did was impose thier rule; they adopted local languages, cultures, people, and within a generation, they werent even a significant army any longer, they had to rely on local peoples; combien this with internal tension, and it slittle wonder that the Mongol broke up; thier was no true unfying factor, as they barelly had a common culture; once emersed int eh realms of other civlizations, they ditched what they had, and took up the traditions of other, eventually marrying so throughlly, that no trace of them actually lingers in most fo the lands they conqoured.Your ignorance is showing, Xen. There is a reason why there's a Mongolia still existing today.

In China at least, the Mongols established the Yuan dynasty (1279-1368; already significantly more than a generation, esp when considering Genghis Khan rose to power in the early decades of the 13th century), and when it fell, the Mongol emperor just rode back to the steppes.

The Ming Chinese sent 5 huge expeditions into the steppes but never managed to destroy the Mongols.

The Manchus wisely allied themselves with the Mongols. They had to fight hard to destroy the power of the Dzungars, a West Mongol tribe.

thier only contributuion was allowing the peaceful travel of Marco Polo to the orient

A) you dont have a clue about economics, do you :rolleyes: when somthing is commodity in a particuler, such as Gold in the Niger area, it dosent have a great deal of local value; yet, the mali were still rich- why were they still rich? because they were a source for megalithic trade routes that stretched into Europe and Mid east liek no others, and were ten fold more important then the sil rout which the Mongols monopolized ever was

B)So much Niger gold coem fourth thats its estimated that well over a third of ALL middle age gold came from it, and the fortune of natiosn was dependent on it; th ebullion market woudl collapse for a period because so much gold came fourth into the middle east

C)The world renowned site of Timbuktu (immortilized int he phrase "From Zanzibar to Timbuktu) was renowned site for Islamic scholars, and they came from all over the islamic world to go attend the schools thier; this means, if you didnt figure it out already, that Sahel region scholarship effected, if minorlly at the fringes, everyone from the west coast of Africa to Central Asia, and down right into Indonsia; a land area that dawrfs the Mongol empire, and is only surpassed by the evolution of Roman culture into today's western civlization

D)the king sof the region undertook a number of military campaigns inwhich to extend the influnce of Islam in Africa, somthing that, one might note, has had a very lasting influnce upon the world; a hell of alot more important and lasting then anything the mongols ever did.The Mongols did achieve one significant task - they unified the East and West long enough, for a massive exchange of ideas, technologies and animals/plants. And as the militaristic/conqueror civ, they're the epitome of it.

Regardless, I'm happy that the Mali are in, since they're pretty unique. :)

I think the best Civ for Turktic Civilizations would be the Tanurians. They allied with the Mongols, Nestorian Persians and Chinese against the Ottomans, Seljuks, Zoroastrian Persians and Jihadist Arabs.Who are these 'Tanurians'? I don't believe I have ever heard of them...

I know how to quote- it screwed up last time, little man.

So here's a big one for your enjoyment (god its fun to yank your chain, you type and type and type and so angry about it. >12,000 posts... whatta life you must have, boy. Get out of your mom's house and see the world beyond the computer screen once in awhile, maybe? Nah...

And Ghana was more important than the Mali. But I guess I've never heard of this stuff... gee shucks.

Oh gotta go, mommy's calling me to dinner...

alright big boy, if you worldlly in your ways, why dont you make a real counter argument' chances are, your not educated enough to do so

more over, I;ve been here a couple years, and I post my mind when ever I think it appropreiate such actions tend to alot one quite a bit of post count; my life is my own concern, though for whats its worht, I'm more then willing to bet its significantlly more interesting in both form and function then what you might call your own; but that dosent particuraley matter to me; your an insiginificant, whom cant even make a real argument against somthign that quick serach in an encyclopedia might end for you; I've traveld to forign lands, and I;ve had, and continue to have my adventures; and from how you speak, it seems unlikelly youve had any such expereiences to increse your world view.

@XIII- you know I love ya, but your going to have to qualify your statement; name me 5; just 5 ideas that made any sort of go between during during the Mongol overlordship of eurasia; thier are none; gunpowder has incresing evidence that it was invented by the Arabs, and regardless of the Mongols, was spreading into europe via assorted Turkick groups beginning to learn the use of it; silk, which isnt really an idea at all, was no longer important; Europe had producing its own silk since Justinian; the main point for future exploration by COloumbus wasnt to reach china; it was to get to the indies, the source of SPices, which were the valuble trade good from the far east; China was an important merchant destination, yes; and the Mongols made trade much easyier; but that was the extent of it; thier was no great ebnifit to ANYONE because of the unless you count already rich Italian merchant familles getting even richer, and the countless thousands of dead the Mongosl left in thier tracks as "benifits". Idea swapping? hardley; The west viewd the east as a bunch of uncivlizaed barbarians, and likewise, thats how the east viewed the westl each was a source of valuble trinckets, or a market for goods, and for europe, it was land ripe for conversion to christianity, but little else; any ideas swapped came via the Arabs; not the Mongols

Just as an aside here guys, I think Dearmad doesn't actually know too much about history. His arguements lack real merit not because he is dumb, or "wrong", but because it seems he has chosen to educate himself in subjects other than world history. What he is giving is his own personal opinion, and as annoying and aggravating as it is, you have to cut him some slack. History is not an exact science, and therefore Dearmad's opinions should also be listened to. All I would suggest is that he takes a small interest in history that does not relate to warfare, and not jump to conclusions before he has fully considered all sides of a historical event/nation, etc.

As for Xen, I'm really glad to see that you support the idea of Mali being included as a civ. You understand that WAR does not equal HISTORY, and that there are millions of tiny aspects that affect the historical significance of everything, including culture, trade, and economics. In fact, there are many cases of civs with strong cultures holding on to their uniqueness even after being conquered, and trade routes carrying that culture throughout the world.

Finally I'd like to point out that both the Mongols, and Mali had huge effects on history in their homelands and beyond. All we can do is come up with well-educated interpretations of what constitites "historical significance", and attempt to sway eachother's opinions in a peaceful manner, without resorting to insults. As a student of European history, I personally feel that as far a Europe is concerned, Mail had a far bigger impact due to the spread of their culture and trade to the middle east, and eventually into Europe. The Mongol influence is more or less restricted to the eastern parts of Europe, who have been under attack from central asian nomadic horsemen since long before the Mongols came around, and long after(Huns, Sythians, Sarmatians, and Magyars/Hugarians to name a few).

Thanks for listening to may say, and good luck. Ciao, e buonna fortuna tutto.

:crazyeye: Mali sounded Asian to me.

This can only be a good thing. Now if they start adding more Asian and American civs, I'll be quite content with this aspect of the game.

I know how to quote- it screwed up last time, little man.

So here's a big one for your enjoyment (god its fun to yank your chain, you type and type and type and so angry about it. >12,000 posts... whatta life you must have, boy. Get out of your mom's house and see the world beyond the computer screen once in awhile, maybe? Nah...

And Ghana was more important than the Mali. But I guess I've never heard of this stuff... gee shucks.

Oh gotta go, mommy's calling me to dinner...

Could you be more pathetic?? :rolleyes:

@XIII- you know I love ya, but your going to have to qualify your statement; name me 5; just 5 ideas that made any sort of go between during during the Mongol overlordship of eurasia; thier are none; gunpowder has incresing evidence that it was invented by the Arabs, and regardless of the Mongols, was spreading into europe via assorted Turkick groups beginning to learn the use of it; silk, which isnt really an idea at all, was no longer important; Europe had producing its own silk since Justinian; the main point for future exploration by COloumbus wasnt to reach china; it was to get to the indies, the source of SPices, which were the valuble trade good from the far east; China was an important merchant destination, yes; and the Mongols made trade much easyier; but that was the extent of it; thier was no great ebnifit to ANYONE because of the unless you count already rich Italian merchant familles getting even richer, and the countless thousands of dead the Mongosl left in thier tracks as "benifits". Idea swapping? hardley; The west viewd the east as a bunch of uncivlizaed barbarians, and likewise, thats how the east viewed the westl each was a source of valuble trinckets, or a market for goods, and for europe, it was land ripe for conversion to christianity, but little else; any ideas swapped came via the Arabs; not the MongolsThe Mongols aren't my particular field of interest. As a Chinese, I have more reason than you to detest them. :p

Gunpowder being invented by Arabs? Come on...

The Mongols aren't my particular field of interest. As a Chinese, I have more reason than you to detest them. :p

Gunpowder being invented by Arabs? Come on...


I dont detest them; they just have nothing that gives them any merit in the first place ;)

as for Arab-Gunpowder connection; its late, but tommorrow I'll do a little scouting, and hopefulyl can find soem good internet sites to give credence to the claim; either way, if the arabs didnt invent gunpowder, they very rapidlly surpassed everythign the chinese ever did with it very, very quicklly; thsi dosent seem particuraley plausible, and leads to thier being some logic behind the thought that the arbas just wholesale invented it; thiers more evidence to back up this claim, but as I said before, it'll have to wait until tomorrow to be fleshed out.

I dont detest them; they just have nothing that gives them any merit in the first place ;)

WHAT :eek: !?!? The Mongols created the largest empire in history. Maybe the British Empire was slightly larger (not sure about this) but there's was all spread out in little colonies. The Mongols were one chunk of land.

Just an interesting fact, during on of ugly's campaign's, his army travelled 275 miles in 3 days. That is insane.

Ottomans and Mongols are animals. They lived in people's buildings or had them build palaces for them and tried to pull it off as their own culture wonders. The world would've been better off without them.

I dunno about anyone else, but this seems to skirt a little too close to breaking some sort of Code of Conduct. I'm going to hazard that the fact that you're Greek has a lot to do with the enmity you're showing towards the Ottomans, and by extension Turkey itself.

I would caution you by saying that no empire is without faults, none at all.

- Rep.

China invented gunpowder; the Arabs invented the first hand-held gun (which was wooden and fired arrows, btw).

Well if people can be Anti-American on here, I will protest against the Agressor State that occupies Northern Cyprus and just flew 44 Fighter Jets over my hometown island a couple of days ago. They also moved their military base from inner Anatolia to Izmir and Turkey only has offensive Military units and transports to carry tanks island to island. I have a right to speak out against policies of nations too. Otherwise all of you have to stop the Bush bashing and complement him on his war on Iraq. well then? let me speak what I want.

Tanurian Turks, are early Central Asian Turks that roamed the areas of present-day Turkic States like: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzabekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, (another State that is in China: T****stan, I forget) and the Alans or Caucasian Albanians or Azerbaijani Turks.

During the early Islamic Jihad, when Arabs attacked Zoroastrian Persia, the Tanurian Turks, China and Mongolia were allied up against the Islamic Arabs, the pre-Islamic Seljuks and pre-Islamic Ottoman Turks. After a successful Jihad, the Ottomans and Seljuks slowly converted to Islam as they married Arab princesses.

Well if people can be Anti-American on here, I will protest against the Agressor State that occupies Northern Cyprus and just flew 44 Fighter Jets over my hometown island a couple of days ago. They also moved their military base from inner Anatolia to Izmir and Turkey only has offensive Military units and transports to carry tanks island to island. I have a right to speak out against policies of nations too. Otherwise all of you have to stop the Bush bashing and complement him on his war on Iraq. well then? let me speak what I want.
Yeah, and I'm sure the Turks can be pissed off too that the Greeks invaded Cyprus in the first place, and a whole heap of crap the Greeks have done to Turkey. I don't hold anything against you, but sheesh! Get over it. There is a world of difference between the Ottoman Turks and the Mongols. And for the people who say the Mongols never did anything for trade or the spread of technology, you are quite simply wrong. The largest thing they did was actually made the Silk Road safe. Especially in the Middle East, the Silk Road had become run down and plagued with bandits, and the Mongols reestablished the trade and killed the bandits off. And that they never built any cities or did anything worthwhile in a good sense is a load of bull**** too. Many cities (such as Samarqand and Bokhara) they rebuilt to state greater than before.

I still don't know what that has to do with Mali BTW ;)

WHAT :eek: !?!? The Mongols created the largest empire in history. Maybe the British Empire was slightly larger (not sure about this) but there's was all spread out in little colonies. The Mongols were one chunk of land.

Just an interesting fact, during on of ugly's campaign's, his army travelled 275 miles in 3 days. That is insane.

http://img136.echo.cx/img136/5986/wooo6qz.gif


*yaaaaaay, good for them, they had a fast army that coudl travel over soem of thoe most land mark lacking, open land in the world on horseback. wonderful, really.

And for the people who say the Mongols never did anything for trade or the spread of technology, you are quite simply wrong.

prove it. ;)


The largest thing they did was actually made the Silk Road safe. Especially in the Middle East, the Silk Road had become run down and plagued with bandits, and the Mongols reestablished the trade and killed the bandits off. And that they never built any cities or did anything worthwhile in a good sense is a load of bull**** too. Many cities (such as Samarqand and Bokhara) they rebuilt to state greater than before.


are my eyes decieving me? for I see no technology ;)

http://img136.echo.cx/img136/5986/wooo6qz.gif


*yaaaaaay, good for them, they had a fast army that coudl travel over soem of thoe most land mark lacking, open land in the world on horseback. wonderful, really.

That was just an interesting fact I felt like posting. You've avoided my real point. They created the LARGEST empire in history.

Xen, I think you're going a bit far in your criticism of the Mongols. The point should be whether the Mongols are worthy of being in the Civ games as an actual civilization -- I don't think so myself and there we probably agree. They were great achievers yet they were strictly not a civilization (although they were of course a people, an ethnicity with its own culture).

The fact remains that the Mongol invasions were a huge event in world history. Empires were toppled, dynasties wiped out and once great cities burnt to the ground - across Asia from China all the way to Central Europe. That an obscure race of nomads was able to achieve this seems against all odds! They contributed greatly to history if only by the radical changes that they brought to the political map.

We could have a long debate of whether they made a positive contribution but then we're truly on thin ice since it's unclear what is truly positive and negative in this context.

I still don't want to see the Mongol as a civ in Civ4 - to have them build up an enlightened and productive urban empire and then steamroll their enemies with their industrial might and endless armies of conscript infantry.... hmm, something's wrong there!

yeah it's just as wrong as the Hanging Gardens of Moscow, which shouldn't happen in the game either it's just too wrong! ... *rolls eyes*

On the Arab invention of Gunpowder

If you have a beef with anything presented here, dont take it up with me; take it up with the origional authors; I'm just presenting what they have already written here.
Thier seems to be some evidence that the chinese were using gunpowder in "firelances" as early as 919; but considering that the components used in :Greek fire" which had a counter part in china coudl be used for similer effect, and that if the chinese had been using it for such purposes, did not exapand on its deveopment for over a huindred years, when, apperentlly, the arabs and europeans immediatelly saw the potentials for it, and promptlyl left the chinese eating thier tracks in gunpowder application dosent strike me as somthing all that likelly- to this end, thier is no doubt that the chinese made use if at least soem fo the lememnts of blackpowder; but the invention itself is a specific ratio of these elements.

- "Whether such technology originated in China, or in the Middle East, is still open to some question.
The fact that no "arms", nor high power explosives were mentioned by the Polos as late as 1299, yet Arabic works exist describing Black Powder prior to their journeys, strongly suggests that Black Powder was of Arabic and not Chinese invention. "
("A chronology of Black Powder" by Richard D Frantz)

-"The earliest known reference to the refining of saltpetre appears in an Arabian text dated 1240. Therefore it is extremely unlikely gunpowder was discovered prior to that year. Among the many claims to have discovered it are the Chinese, Hindus, Greeks, Arabs, Germans and English. Within the well-recorded histories of the first four there is no written evidence which would satisfy a historian that any of them discovered or used gunpowder before it came into use in Europe. If one of their people had discovered it some writer doubtless would have mentioned the fact."
(http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/gunpdr.htm)

-Specifically, "Saltpetre, the principal ingredient of Black Powder first appears in the writings of Arabian, Abd Allah, in 1200."
("A chronology of Black Powder" by Richard D Frantz)

-while not important in the slightest, while looking over sources for the use of Guns at the Italian siege of Forli(which is apperentlly accurate, but it comes in the late 11th century, which would around 80 years after an arabic invention, so while it supports the arab invention, its just worth this passing note really, as it obviouslly didnt take off in europe outside Italy- which in itself isnt surprsing; Italy was europe's technological, and military heartland anyway), I found out that infamous siege weapon, the Petard, has a name that is French for "little fart".

-thier was an intriuging source lending credent to an Arabic invention of blackpowder as early as the 10th century; the article itself is relitivlly well writtin, but it slinks are borken, and the article is somewhat suspect; I'll give the link to it however http://www.apomie.com/arabhistory.htm

-I would continue my search; but once you start getting porn advertisements on google for this stuff, you know its time to call it quits ;) perhaps I'll coem back in a while, and look for more sources

Xen, I think you're going a bit far in your criticism of the Mongols. The point should be whether the Mongols are worthy of being in the Civ games as an actual civilization -- I don't think so myself and there we probably agree. They were great achievers yet they were strictly not a civilization (although they were of course a people, an ethnicity with its own culture).

The fact remains that the Mongol invasions were a huge event in world history. Empires were toppled, dynasties wiped out and once great cities burnt to the ground - across Asia from China all the way to Central Europe. That an obscure race of nomads was able to achieve this seems against all odds! They contributed greatly to history if only by the radical changes that they brought to the political map.

We could have a long debate of whether they made a positive contribution but then we're truly on thin ice since it's unclear what is truly positive and negative in this context.

I still don't want to see the Mongol as a civ in Civ4 - to have them build up an enlightened and productive urban empire and then steamroll their enemies with their industrial might and endless armies of conscript infantry.... hmm, something's wrong there!

perhaps I'm not clear; I never said they had no impact; but they had relitivlly little impact, compared to *rea; civlization* (mind you, the Mongols of Gengis Khan couldnt even forge metal; all thier weapons were gotten from the chinese, who had wished to play the mongols against each other; which had been a good tactic in the past (and one similerlly empolyed by the Roman empire often enough in its day). but the impacts of it are overexaggerated, while the effects of the arabs, or rather, islamic based civlization as a whole, are hugelly donwplayed at the same time. The mongol empire lasted only a short while as a unfied entirty, and once split up. the situations was, all said, one marginally different then before the mongols had invaded; the same old empires, but new names and new leaders.

But the Mongols drove hordes of peoples in front of them when they expanded towards Europe, those people ened up settling in Europe and some even got as far as northern Africa. Without the Mongols Germany would have laid somewhere in the Ukraine (so to speak).

Im not saying they had a very advanced culture but much of Asia and Europe (and in extension America) is what it is today because of the Mongols.

But the Mongols drove hordes of peoples in front of them when they expanded towards Europe, those people ened up settling in Europe and some even got as far as northern Africa. Without the Mongols Germany would have laid somewhere in the Ukraine (so to speak).


nah, the kingdom/empire/ state of Poland-Lithuania handled the Germanic Teutonic knights very well, and broke thier power when they (the Teutons) had the audacity to face them (Poland-Lithuania)

Was I really being that unclear, or do you find my statement so absurde that you choose to talk about something that has nothing to do with the topic?

prove it. ;)

are my eyes decieving me? for I see no technology ;)

Xen, the Mongols invented the technology of the steppes horse archer. While the Huns used similar tactics, the Mongols perfected the concept, using superb mounted archers divided into Tens, Hundreds, and Thousands to simply mow down anyone who stood against them. This innovation has to be regarded as on a par with Chivalry, which gives you knights in Civ3, or Military tradition giving you Cavalry. If there was a branching tech tree that each civ followed on its own, Steppe Horsemanship would certainly be the tech that would give the Mongols the Keshik. While they left no lasting legacy in terms of art, temples or education, conquest has a culture all its own.

Was I really being that unclear, or do you find my statement so absurde that you choose to talk about something that has nothing to do with the topic?

@Gabryel Karolin:
Hahaha! :lol:

Don't sweat it. You were clear but this is not a thread worth getting angry over.:)

I believe the Mongols invented the postal services. Not sure if we should consider that a positive contribution to human civilization ... :p

Black Powder was gradually improved from the 10th century all the way till the 18th century; there is no sudden leap except for the initial discovery in China, supposedly by a cook.
The gunpowder was first used for rockets and cannons (it is a fable that China only used it for fireworks); the Mongols brought it to Europe in the 13th century.

Was I really being that unclear, or do you find my statement so absurde that you choose to talk about something that has nothing to do with the topic?

yes, I find it flat out absurd; the germans never had, and never woudl have ever coem close to creatign nay sort of a stable political entity which woudl lead to any sort of future claims for land beign german up to the ukrain, even if the mongols had never existed, period, end of argument. the existing powers of Polan, Lithuania, and Russia ALL coudl have counter German agression, and moreover, they DID counter Germanic based aggression by the Teutonic knights into thier spheres of influence.

happy now?

Xen, the Mongols invented the technology of the steppes horse archer. While the Huns used similar tactics, the Mongols perfected the concept, using superb mounted archers divided into Tens, Hundreds, and Thousands to simply mow down anyone who stood against them. This innovation has to be regarded as on a par with Chivalry, which gives you knights in Civ3, or Military tradition giving you Cavalry. If there was a branching tech tree that each civ followed on its own, Steppe Horsemanship would certainly be the tech that would give the Mongols the Keshik. While they left no lasting legacy in terms of art, temples or education, conquest has a culture all its own.

1) the mongols invented nothing; Horse archers were estbalished as far back as the late rbonze/early iron age by the Assyrians, and step nimads seem to have already been quite adtapted to thier use as soon as they got thier hands on horses strogn enough to carry them into war.

2)wonderful, they had a good army; any indepth investiagtion will reveal that thier army was orginized, by coincidence, alogn the sam elines as the Roman army before it; the only thing the Mongols had going for them was that life on the steppes was as hard as it was, and was a natural trainer for full time soldires; everythign else was either luck, or common sense, with more then healthy dose of brilliance from less then common military leaders; and history fleshes this out; once the mongols had thier ocnquests, and settled down to rule, they fell apart, bit by bit, because after thier intial conquest, they had no edge.

3)if you call killing hundreds of thousands, runing entire country sides for hundreds of years (Iran, now a wasteland, was once rather verdant and green, until the mongol cam, and destroyed the earth works that lent to the land its arableness; without the channels, the land desertified.) and more then just killing and plundering (the fact that they didnt rape all the much is to thier credit I suppose; rather, they just outright killed) and then sat down, and adopted the culture of the conqoured peoples is culture? hardley. the fact that they merged themselves into the cultures they conqoured is more then conclusive that any Mongolian cuilture was only a result of thier prior way of life, and once under the influnce of a real civlization, they eagerlyl cast aisde thie rold ways to adopt the forms and functions of what was reveald to them.

Wow. Why are so many people so eager to assume that a culture is worthless. May I suggest that you actually go out and read a few books instead of ranting and raving on an internet forum about something you know so little about.

The Mali had a profound influence on world history. To suggest that they don't belong in the game is ridiculous. Fortunately no one seems to take any argument against them seriously so I don't have to waste much space on them.

The Mongols had an even more profound effect on world history. Xen, you seem like a smart guy and I'm glad you are defending the Mali, but when it comes to the Mongols you don't know what you're talking about.

You are discussing the Mongols from the 12th century to the early 13th century. During this time they only first unified as a people, and their first noticeable act was an outward aggression against the Jin empire which had kept them fighting amongst themselves for so long.

During the course of conquering China, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Russia, they had a profound influence on the areas they touched. Allow me to give a few examples.

Siege Warfare was completely altered from China to the Middle East by the Mongols. They built more powerful siege engines than had ever existed by combining Middle Eastern and Chinese techniques, which had never been done before. True many of their engineers were not ethnic Mongols, but do we call the Atomic Bomb a German invention? I don't think so.

Alexander Nevsky came to power by being a stooge of the Mongols until he had the means to resist them. If you don't know who he is you shouldn't be arguing about historical influence.

Qubilai Qa'ans patronage of Buddhism gave the religion a significance in China that still exists today. Later Ming emperors were described as incarnations of Qubilai Qa'an in how they took his legacy of a secular Chinese emperor and a Tibetan lama working together. This was also a fundamental part of Ch'ing politics, thanks to the Mongols.

The Mongol influence on the world certianly didn't end with the Yuan. For example :

The Mongols after the fall of the Yuan produced Buddhist artists and writers whose works are still regarded highly today. The great artist Zanabazar for example.

Direct descendants of Chinggis Qa'an ruled Central Asia for five centuries. The Chinggisid principle was so important in that area that Timur (known to the west as Tamerlane) went to great lengths to fabricate a Mongol history.

The Manchu army was composed of a good number of Mongol troops. In fact in the Eight Banners system the Mongols had higher status than anyone except the Manchus. Many of these Mongols learned Chinese and played prominent roles in the Ch'ing Empire.

The Mongols were one of the five ethnic groups given status by Shianlong's Ch'ing Empire. His attempt to create a seperate but equal sort of state highly praised the Mongols culture and history. If they were good enough for Shianlong, they are good enough for me.

Babar, who founded the Mughal dynasty in India was of Mongolian descent. In fact he considered himself a failure in life for not retaking Central Asia, which was the land he was born to rule. Although I suspect anyone who thinks the Mongols aren't worthy of being a civilization feels the same way about the Indians.

The Mongols put the first named Dalai Lama in power. If you think that didn't influence history you are a fool.

The Mongols played a huge role in the schisms of Tibetan Buddhism, specifically the conversion of the Jibzumdumba Khutughu (spelled wrong) from Sa-skya Pa to Dge-lugs-pa was a huge event in the history of Tibetan Buddhism.

In short, if you want to learn about something go read a book or three. Don't sit around saying "I'm going to think this way until someone can prove me wrong" especially when what you want to learn about is history and the place you are waiting to be proved wrong about something is a computer game forum. :)

Almost all of the reasons people are giving for not including the Mongols I think would be more appropriately applied to the Germans, but that's a different subject. :)

The Greeks invaded Cyprus??? That's funny, the United Nations has 100s of resolutions describing those people as Turks. And they still occupy Northern Cyprus, violating the Geneva Convention they have brought 120,000 colonists. My house is in Northern Cyprus, why the f*** cant I go to it? Because Greece invaded? You obviously dont know what youre talking about.

Wow. Why are so many people so eager to assume that a culture is worthless. May I suggest that you actually go out and read a few books instead of ranting and raving on an internet forum about something you know so little about....

In short, if you want to learn about something go read a book or three. Don't sit around saying "I'm going to think this way until someone can prove me wrong" especially when what you want to learn about is history and the place you are waiting to be proved wrong about something is a computer game forum. :)

Almost all of the reasons people are giving for not including the Mongols I think would be more appropriately applied to the Germans, but that's a different subject. :)

Didn't want to quote the whole thing and make it really long, but great argument.

Describing the Mongols as one civ is incorrect. To be accurate. you would have to have the Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate, and the Timurids...but by having the Horde, a lot of Russian city names would be duplicated, and with the Timurids a lot of Persian names. Then of course those empires fell apart, and you had Kazan, Uzbek Khaganate, Crimea, restored Persia, the Moghuls, etc etc. Should the Malinese be included? There's no reason they shouldn't. There really should be a set of standards that Firaxis follows for determining if any civ should be included.

@Vlad Tepes; I'll concede the point of how much the mingol may have had influnece on world affairs; at least in regard ot Tibet(I had no idea of the Mongols influence in that particuler area, thank you for brinign it my attention :), and the Rise of Russia(though one can very easilyl imagine a Russia far better off arsing if the Mongols had never swept in in the first place; but what ramifacatiosn such a development woudl have are profound)...

...but I still have yet to see nay proof of any technological benifit the mongols gave anyone, which seems to be the main point of argument for the mongols inclusion; it simpley didnt happen; and to be sure, I'm skepticle of how far you can stretch the definition of "mongol"; I've not a person whos very ethnicty based in regards to history, which most mongol arguments seem ot hinge on; culture is where its at, an its undeniable, most mongols readilly threw away thier own culture, and adopted local traditions whole sale; if you can call the result of that "mongol" isnt a view I agree with

you people are arguing like a bunch of mongolian half breed vulcans;)

if anything they shoulda include the hebrews or israelites after all 2 major religions spawned from them besides their own and they still exist today sorta spread all across the globe .. and there hasnt been a newspaper that doesnt liek to bash them in the headlines every now and then ..hey i would really very influential .. and of course numerous empires have tried to extinguish them .. yet the israelites/hebrews/jews or whatever u wanna call them still endure .. and those other empires are all gone or a shadow of their former selves

now what was soemoen complaining about barbaric hordes? oh ya that sounds like germany other than gas chambers what else did they produce? that influenced teh world ....

p.s. i am sure there will be expansions and deserving civs that were left out will be included in the expansions so lets not worry too much about which civs are in and which are out

(now i am sure i will get flamed so i am putting on soem fireproof coat)

...but I still have yet to see nay proof of any technological benifit the mongols gave anyone,

The same could be said of half the other civilizations in the game.

which seems to be the main point of argument for the mongols inclusion;

That's not the way I see it. The (sensible) argument for including the Mongols is their profound religous and political effect on the world.

I'm skepticle of how far you can stretch the definition of "mongol"; I've not a person whos very ethnicty based in regards to history, which most mongol arguments seem ot hinge on; culture is where its at,

Once again, this same argument applies to half the other civs much morseo than it does to the Mongols. There isn't even a "German" self-identity until VERY recently historically for example.

an its undeniable, most mongols readilly threw away thier own culture, and adopted local traditions whole sale;

Completely and utterly wrong, as even the first attempt to learn history would have shown you. Mongols did not only hold on to their Mongol identity they held on to the specific name of the family and ancestry they descended from for centuries.

Central Asia : Until the 1900s it was a very important part of regional politics to have a ruler who was descended from Chinggis Qa'an himself. How is this possible if they threw away their culture? It isn't.

China : Even the Mongols who served the Ch'ing still thought of themselves as Mongols until the fall of the Manchus. Did they speak Chinese? Of course, they needed to talk to people. Did they eat Chinese food? You can't exactly get nomad cuisine in Beijing (a city the Mongols built by the way.) Did they still consider themselves Mongols. You bet.

Russia : The Golden Horde, which may have been a seperate political entity from the Yuan was certainly Mongolian culturally, existed for centuries as an important regional player. In fact the Kalmyks, who emigrated in the 16th century got up and left Russia en masse in order to avoid Catherine's reforms that would have attempted to inflict Russian culture and politics on them.

Did they adopt local practices? Of course they did, all peoples do. But it wasn't as quickly and drastically as say, the Europeans who settled America decided they weren't subjects to their leaders anymore.

As an anology consider this - The British who colonized all over the world destroyed and pillaged almost everything they found, didn't introduce any new technology that actually had a beneficial effect, and quickly adopted local customs when they settled areas. Did that stop them from being British? Of course not.

There is no argument against the Mongols inclusion that can't be more aptly applied to any of the other civilizations in the game.

Please do your homework before marginalizing entire peoples.

Thank you for reading.

[Edit, screwed up one of the quotes]

Describing the Mongols as one civ is incorrect. To be accurate. you would have to have the Golden Horde, Chagatai Khanate, and the Timurids...but by having the Horde, a lot of Russian city names would be duplicated, and with the Timurids a lot of Persian names. Then of course those empires fell apart, and you had Kazan, Uzbek Khaganate, Crimea, restored Persia, the Moghuls, etc etc. Should the Malinese be included? There's no reason they shouldn't. There really should be a set of standards that Firaxis follows for determining if any civ should be included.

Well to be fair describing the Romans or the Greeks as one civilization is also incorrect, and flat out wrong when considering China. But you can't expect a game like this to include multiple Mongolian civilizations. Look at all the fuss it's caused just to include one!

Btw. The Timurids weren't Mongols. :) Timur WISHED he was a Mongol. But he wasn't. :)

The same could be said of half the other civilizations in the game.

I'll have to ask you to substantiate that particuler claim



That's not the way I see it. The (sensible) argument for including the Mongols is their profound religous and political effect on the world. they may have had a religious effect on the woirld; but effecting religion in Tibet is hardley "profound"



Once again, this same argument applies to half the other civs much morseo than it does to the Mongols. There isn't even a "German" self-identity until VERY recently historically for example.
not really; while the Germans havent been much, if theve had one things, it been a nation aidentity, and its somthign theve had since the time of Varus and his Legions;


Completely and utterly wrong, as even the first attempt to learn history would have shown you. Mongols did not only hold on to their Mongol identity they held on to the specific name of the family and ancestry they descended from for centuries.
bull****. pure and simple; my own familyl name has a heritage stretching back tot he time of the Romans, and while i proudlly uphold this familly name, it hardley makes me anymore Roman then the next man; descent and genes are nothing, activlly practiced culture is everything


Central Asia : Until the 1900s it was a very important part of regional politics to have a ruler who was descended from Chinggis Qa'an himself. How is this possible if they threw away their culture? It isn't.

China : Even the Mongols who served the Ch'ing still thought of themselves as Mongols until the fall of the Manchus. Did they speak Chinese? Of course, they needed to talk to people. Did they eat Chinese food? You can't exactly get nomad cuisine in Beijing (a city the Mongols built by the way.) Did they still consider themselves Mongols. You bet.
:rolleyes: those areas are hardley exents of the empire such as the Mongols whom conqoured China, or those that established themselves in Persia, whom, ironically, were also the most important "mongol" states; all the otheres were of little status, particurlay after it was learned how to squarley defeat Mongol armies


Russia : The Golden Horde, which may have been a seperate political entity from the Yuan was certainly Mongolian culturally, existed for centuries as an important regional player. In fact the Kalmyks, who emigrated in the 16th century got up and left Russia en masse in order to avoid Catherine's reforms that would have attempted to inflict Russian culture and politics on them.

Did they adopt local practices? Of course they did, all peoples do. But it wasn't as quickly and drastically as say, the Europeans who settled America decided they weren't subjects to their leaders anymore.
You may have a point; but considerign they they seem to have kept thier culture ONLY because the land they lived [b]neccesitated it isnt much of an example, when the mongol conqerors of say china wholesale abandoned thier old ways, and today are infact considered just another Chinese Dynasty by some


As an anology consider this - The British who colonized all over the world destroyed and pillaged almost everything they found, didn't introduce any new technology that actually had a beneficial effect, and quickly adopted local customs when they settled areas. Did that stop them from being British? Of course not.
A)the Brithish invente dloads of technology, most notirouslly, are responsible for puttign the entire world into the industrial revolution

B)the British hardley adopted local cutums; in fact it was wuite the oppiste, as they inforced thier own custums and cultures onto other peoples


There is no argument against the Mongols inclusion that can't be more aptly applied to any of the other civilizations in the game.
Please do your homework before marginalizing entire peoples.


[Edit, screwed up one of the quotes]
[/quote]of course thier is; mainlly because the Mongols, while a peoples whove had an impact on history, were hardley a civilization whos callibre matches the achievment sof greats such as Rome or China,and whos world wide contributions dont match even th emysteriosu mali, whos scolarchship and fame traveld accross the islamic and western world, whos nation served a progenitory of vast amount sof gold; enough to effect the economie sof entire regionsa world away from it, and were active spreaders of what was at the time, the worlds most active and dynamic culture- and while they have thier feats, soem of which I did not before now know of, its still makes hardley any sort of an argument for anything the Mongolins achieved being all that worht while.

am I attemping to marginalize them? No- I'm trying to proove that the rose coloured glasses people have looked at the Mongol at before arnt warrented, and that they need to open thier eyes to mysterious new peoples whom they may have never heard of before, because as it often happens, the "greats" are responsible for a bit less then they are credited, while the "little guy" gets no credit at all.

If it seem slike I want to kill the Mongols reputation at the expense of getting people to learn about new culutres, its sacrifce I'm more then ready to make

The Brits had a great empire but it's gone...
The French, La grande Nation! Hah!
The USA is only a few years old! No history at all!
The Germans are living in the middle of Europe. So what?

Man! Mongolia is a civ, everone knows. Mongolia has achieved a great empire and ruled over it and it was that great that no one ever will forget about it. Neither anyone will ever forget the Egyptians, Greek, Romans or the Germans (even if their "Empire" lasted only a few years - There were other influences from Germany far more worth to mention... (Beethoven or Einstein or Kopernikus)) or the British Empire or the huge culture of the Aztecs or Sumerians... This is what makes them important (at least when it comes to the decision about which civ should be in a game or not): You won't forget about them... I don't know much about Mali, but I take it as it is... :p

There's just a silly argument and discussion going on here:

The civilizations included (as far as we know yet) ALL deserve to be in! You can argue why the Firaxians don't include other civ's but you could argue that down to every tribe who once has been united and influenced the world in any way, so there's no point!! Why didn't they take Tibet or Australia or Sweden????? The simple answer is: Because they don't have the time and resources to implement everything they want. In terms of business it would be best to give every potential customer the opportunity to play as the civ (or the country or tribe or ethnic group, whatever...) he/she feels he/she belongs to...


BTW, I can see XEN grinning about all the howling in this thread! :D Very funny! :lol:

BTW, I can see XEN grinning about all the howling in this thread! :D Very funny! :lol:

:D quite right ;)

as XIII, Oda Nabunaga, or Mongoloid Cow can tell you, I'm nothing if not a trouble maker on this forum :mischief:

Why do you think I've been steering wide away from confronting you on the mongols topic? :-P

I'd guess its because I have a penchent for dragging out argument into long, draw out slug-fests for the sole reason of beefing up my post-count ;)

I'd guess its because I have a penchent for dragging out argument into long, draw out slug-fests for the sole reason of beefing up my post-count ;)

It certainly isn't because you know what you're talking about.

I've disproved your argument completely and you are still clinging to your stereotypical views with absurd statements like "affecting the religion of Tibet isn't profound." Go out and read a book and you'll realize what a fool you are. Just because it didn't affect Europe doesn't mean it wasn't profound. There's a large chunk of land called Asia that you might want to look into understanding a little better.

those areas are hardley exents of the empire such as the Mongols whom conqoured China, or those that established themselves in Persia, whom, ironically, were also the most important "mongol" states; all the otheres were of little status, particurlay after it was learned how to squarley defeat Mongol armies

What third rate website did you get this garbage from? It's wrong. Once again there are plenty of actual books on this subject and I encourage you to try to read one before you argue about it.

not really; while the Germans havent been much, if theve had one things, it been a nation aidentity, and its somthign theve had since the time of Varus and his Legions;

You're resorting to a ridiculous double standard here. If you're willing to say that those people were Germans when they had absolutely NO cultural identity as German people how are you going to spout this garbage about the Mongols giving up their identity which they actually held on to? This is very bad logic on your part.

bull****. pure and simple; my own familyl name has a heritage stretching back tot he time of the Romans, and while i proudlly uphold this familly name, it hardley makes me anymore Roman then the next man; descent and genes are nothing, activlly practiced culture is everything

Actively practiced culture in the sense that it dictated local and regional politics and even social interactions within the communities. Sorry to burst your bubble Xen but your pre-conceived notions don't measure up to the facts. You are reading my posts but you obviously are chosing not to understand them. You're giving the American standard of what a name means. Think a little broader.

when the mongol conqerors of say china wholesale abandoned thier old ways, and today are infact considered just another Chinese Dynasty by some

I can't take you seriously when you say stuff like this. Anyone who knows the first thing about Chinese history knows how completely wrong that is. There may be people who consider the Yuan just another Chinese dynasty but they are all working for the People's Daily. The people in China at the time certainly did not consider the Yuan to be a Chinese dynasty, and neither did the Ming or the Manchus (who by the way were more Mongolian than they were Chinese, although of course they were actually neither). Claims like this just make it clear how very very little you know about the Mongols and how very very much you want to put them down for no logical reason.

Trying to get into an argument about who is "more" of a civilization than anyone else is silly and I won't get drawn into that.

You haven't yet made a point about why the Mongols shouldn't be included other than their lack of technological invention....and as for that consider that the...

Inca never even invented the wheel, and they are included.

Aztecs did not invent anything that is still in use today in that part of the world or anywhere else. Sure pyramid building was impressive but its hardly a functional technology. Yet they are included.

Mali are so poorly understood that no significant technology of any type can be confidentally thought to be a Mali invention. Yet they are included.

Russians invented almost nothing of their own, they just (like the Mongols) took inventions of other people to new places through their massive land empire. Yet they are included.

In case you didn't pick it up the first dozen times - go out and read a book on the subject before you attempt to talk about it any more.

It certainly isn't because you know what you're talking about.

I've disproved your argument completely and you are still clinging to your stereotypical views with absurd statements like "affecting the religion of Tibet isn't profound." Go out and read a book and you'll realize what a fool you are. Just because it didn't affect Europe doesn't mean it wasn't profound. There's a large chunk of land called Asia that you might want to look into understanding a little better.

disproved? hardley; you merelly apply your logic to the back end of nowhere; sure it happens to be the Mongolian homland, and, obviouslly, they retianed thier native culture; but what about in thie rmighty conquests? outside the steppes, we dont see an onch of Mongolian culture; even in Tibet, thier significane is by effecting th elocal culture alreayd developed; not installign thier own culture into it



What third rate website did you get this garbage from? It's wrong. Once again there are plenty of actual books on this subject and I encourage you to try to read one before you argue about it.

give me links. give me titles. give me authors. I will read, give me the resources to do it.


You're resorting to a ridiculous double standard here. If you're willing to say that those people were Germans when they had absolutely NO cultural identity as German people how are you going to spout this garbage about the Mongols giving up their identity which they actually held on to? This is very bad logic on your part.
A)obviouslly enough, thier was a United german cultures; its the onlythign the held themtogether int he wake of threats such as the Romans and Huns

B)as I;ve said before, in the lands the mongols conqoured, the Mongols whole-sale threw away thier culture; perhaps this didnt happen outside the step but give me one god-damned example of when a Mongol over lord kept thier culture when out side the step- no, i dont mean retaining thier ancestry, I mean thier actual culture- you cant give one, you merelyl contijue to say how wrong I am, and how the mongol retined thie rnative culture in the native land- no **** sherlock, I've been saying they ditched it in there conqoured lands this entire time



Actively practiced culture in the sense that it dictated local and regional politics and even social interactions within the communities. Sorry to burst your bubble Xen but your pre-conceived notions don't measure up to the facts. You are reading my posts but you obviously are chosing not to understand them. You're giving the American standard of what a name means. Think a little broader.
prove it; give me the examples; the burden of the proof is you in this case, and I'm asking you to substantiate your claim by giving us either direct links to internet documents, or the titles of books and thier respective authors that can give clear cut documentation that the Mongols did in fact keep thie rnative culture in thier forign conquests, that they effected them in day to day life, and that this culture continues until they were deposed by native rulers



I can't take you seriously when you say stuff like this. Anyone who knows the first thing about Chinese history knows how completely wrong that is. There may be people who consider the Yuan just another Chinese dynasty but they are all working for the People's Daily. The people in China at the time certainly did not consider the Yuan to be a Chinese dynasty, and neither did the Ming or the Manchus (who by the way were more Mongolian than they were Chinese, although of course they were actually neither). Claims like this just make it clear how very very little you know about the Mongols and how very very much you want to put them down for no logical reason.
apperentlly, your views arnt shared by everyone; I've been here quite a while, and over that time, I've seen a few sinic posters around talk of these exact events, and including with how to regard the Yuan dynasty; the general feel is that they were legitmite dynasty by the end of thier reign because they did exactley what I've been claimign they did in thier non-steppe territioes; they nationalized, or in this case, sinisices to go along exactley with the native culture; sure they were founded by an invasion of steppe barbarians; but by the end they were just as Chinese as anyone in thier empire.



Trying to get into an argument about who is "more" of a civilization than anyone else is silly and I won't get drawn into that.
The definition of Civlization according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary

Civilization
1) a relitivlly high leval of cultural and technological development
2)the culture charactiersitc of a time or place
--------------------------------------------------
by this defintion, the Mongols dont even place as a civlization at all in the first definition; they cound't even forge metal by the time of Chingis Khan, let alone the fact that thier culture had stalled to be about the same peak of social development that was near universal amoung steppe tribes from the time Qin. if not before that.

the second definition would have them, but almost as if in a past-tense refernce, rather then an active or living culture



You haven't yet made a point about why the Mongols shouldn't be included other than their lack of technological invention....and as for that consider that the...
its not likes its the Mongols own fault they didnt have high culture or technology, its merelly the end result fo the land they lived on; the steppe neccissitate the sort of life style the Mongols developed for themselvs; they, when in new lands, that allowed for new styles of life, the Mongols opted to adopt them is no surprise; but the fact is, they didnt do anyworhtwhile other then a short lived conqouest of eurasia, and while it had a great deal of localalized importance in variosu regions, for the most part life went on as if the Mongols had never invaded in the first place


Inca never even invented the wheel, and they are included.
thats false actually; the wheel was known to the Incas, as well tas the Aztecks, and IIRC, the Maya as well, in mesoamerica, they lacked draft animals to make such an invention worhtwhile; why the Incas never made use of it beyond childrens toys we may never know, though I'd assume that the llama must make a less then enthusiatic pack animal at times, and that combined with the geography mush have ahd soem effect. we may never know the specifics of it however.


Aztecs did not invent anything that is still in use today in that part of the world or anywhere else. Sure pyramid building was impressive but its hardly a functional technology. Yet they are included.


the Aztecs, like the Inca and Maya represent important new world developing civlizationsl if they had been left alone for another century, thier is no doubt they, or thier successors would have been just as sophisticated as the Roman or Chinese empires at thier height in antiquity


Mali are so poorly understood that no significant technology of any type can be confidentally thought to be a Mali invention. Yet they are included.
yet the end result of theologica scholarship that wne ton in its lands went on to effect the entierty of the islamic world, and how religious doctirne woudl be interpreted for ages; somthign that continues to be felt to this very day.


Russians invented almost nothing of their own, they just (like the Mongols) took inventions of other people to new places through their massive land empire. Yet they are included.
well, Dr. Tessla might dissagree with you on the specifics of not inventing anything worhtwhile; but the biggest difference betweenthe Mongols and Russians was that the Mongols were a one time event; they had thier un, and then they dissapered; the Russians built up a real agraian base society, a real settled civlization, and went on to build thier power base, and create a unique and lasting culture unliek anythign else the woirld had seen, combining elements o westnern Roman, eastern Chrsitan, turkick, and yes, they even took a page perhaps out of steppe culture perhaps wheen dealign in thos elands; and moreover, the Russians lasted; they have been around, and have been a major influencing factor now for centuries, and thier culture truelly has had a world impact; the mongosl had a one time hurrah, and then quicklly dissapere from the history books from being a power of worldlly importance, even becoming less then stellar in regional affairs


In case you didn't pick it up the first dozen times - go out and read a book on the subject before you attempt to talk about it any more.

You shoudl read the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" its purpose is essentially to record why things are the way they are, and have given me a real new look on what callsifies as civlization, and what in turn makes particuler civlizations important or not; the Romans, Chinese, the Mali, the English, and Arabs; these civlizatiosn have all left alasting impact on the entire world through methods of war, of culture, of science, scholarship, of the arts, and deutiful legacies which natiosn cling onto in rapture and astonishment of; the Mongols had a huge empire; but they had noen of technological glores, the wonder monument sof scholarlly arts, nor the lasting influcne of "doing things the Mongol way" other then wanton bloodseh and cruelty which isnt hard to find in any people at a particuler point in time. the only claim to fame for the mongols is that thier conquests enabled them to doa hundred regional thing things which led to soem real world turner events, but have non of the cultureal legacies that the firmer civlizatiosn have; the Mongolians have a distrinct culturel but its hardley one that has made a great world name for itself, not one that invites much awe or rapture, and it certinalyl dosent have much of any outside influnce; it is ALL these things that need to be taken into acount when judging a civlization, and you have to take them all incontext with other civlizations, nto stand them alone on a pedetal, to make passing, indipendent judgment- no, you need to throw it into the mix, and see how it ranks when compared to others; and that how I take my view of mongol civlization, and culture, how it, and its effects, and all thsoe criteria in which I have mentioned, compare with other civlizations, and cultures.

Here are some sources, read and understand them and you will see how completely wrong you are about most of the your points.

"Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford for the influence that the Mongols have had on the world for the past seven centuries. Start with this, it's easy to understand and written in layman's terms for the most part for a popular audience.

"A History of Inner Asia" by Svat Soucek for an introduction to the part of the world.

"Warfare in Inner Asian History" Nicola di Cosmo ed. Specifically "The Circulation of Military Technology in the Mongolian Empire" by Thomas Allsen. which will give you countless examples of how technology improved drastically as the result of the Mongol Empire.

"The Perilous Frontier" by Thomas Barfield for an understanding of how the Mongols revolutionized Asian warfare.

"The Veritable Records of Chinggis Khan" by Sarman and Uru'udai, and the documents contained in "In the Service of the Khan" Igor de Rachewitz ed. for primary sources on Mongolian rule and innovations.

"The History of the Yuan" by Song Lian, who most certainly didn't consider the Yuan a Chinese dynasty.

And for additional information consult the "Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol World Empire" by Christopher Atwood. It has every topic you could imagine.

Any people that had any kind of impact on history (ie, ALL people) deserve their place in a game called Civilization. Deserve their chance to "stand the test of time".

All the arguments can't deny that, and are just a bunch of hot electrons being thrown around.

Here are some sources, read and understand them and you will see how completely wrong you are about most of the your points.

"Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford for the influence that the Mongols have had on the world for the past seven centuries. Start with this, it's easy to understand and written in layman's terms for the most part for a popular audience.

"A History of Inner Asia" by Svat Soucek for an introduction to the part of the world.

"Warfare in Inner Asian History" Nicola di Cosmo ed. Specifically "The Circulation of Military Technology in the Mongolian Empire" by Thomas Allsen. which will give you countless examples of how technology improved drastically as the result of the Mongol Empire.

"The Perilous Frontier" by Thomas Barfield for an understanding of how the Mongols revolutionized Asian warfare.

"The Veritable Records of Chinggis Khan" by Sarman and Uru'udai, and the documents contained in "In the Service of the Khan" Igor de Rachewitz ed. for primary sources on Mongolian rule and innovations.

"The History of the Yuan" by Song Lian, who most certainly didn't consider the Yuan a Chinese dynasty.

And for additional information consult the "Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol World Empire" by Christopher Atwood. It has every topic you could imagine.

I've a look for them at my local bootstores (cant order off the internet; I dont plan on getting a credit card unless completelly necissary mind you) though I'm still skepticle on the over all impacts they may have made.

Any people that had any kind of impact on history (ie, ALL people) deserve their place in a game called Civilization. Deserve their chance to "stand the test of time".

All the arguments can't deny that, and are just a bunch of hot electrons being thrown around.

your right; but all these fight sar eover the pecking order of how actually get sot be represented, and represented first, without people having to go buy an x-pack

I've a look for them at my local bootstores (cant order off the internet; I dont plan on getting a credit card unless completelly necissary mind you) though I'm still skepticle on the over all impacts they may have made.

Weatherford's book should be easy to find. It just came out last year, most of the others are somewhat to very difficult to get ahold of I'm afraid :(

Any people that had any kind of impact on history (ie, ALL people) deserve their place in a game called Civilization. Deserve their chance to "stand the test of time".

EXACTLY :D

your local library should have those books

i agree with xen, tho mongolia is a great power and a deserving civilazation, thay had litel infulence on much of any thing as thay adopted local customs

Mali as a civ - sounds good to me. :cool: Africa really needed another nation, Egypt and Carthage were more Mediterranean civs.

your local library should have those books

this is daytona beach your talking about. thier is nothing much of any particuler worth ;) (though, perhaps thats changed; I havent been thier in a couple years)

to xen

not thaT i care one way or another if mongolia or mali or both are included

but babylon should have definitly been included regardless

Mali as a civ - sounds good to me. :cool: Africa really needed another nation, Egypt and Carthage were more Mediterranean civs.

why are people CONSTANTLY trying to take Egypt out of Africa? It's not just on here, I had a HIGH SCHOOL teacher once tell me that Egypt wasn't in Africa. Can someone please explain this to me

Here's one that made it from China to Europe as a result of teh travcel made possible by the Mongols - pasta and spaghetti. Ramen is more or less teh direct ancestor of pasta in culinary terms.

why are people CONSTANTLY trying to take Egypt out of Africa? It's not just on here, I had a HIGH SCHOOL teacher once tell me that Egypt wasn't in Africa. Can someone please explain this to me

Mostly because, while the "technical" limit between Africa and Asia is around Suez, practically speaking, Suez was MUCH less of a barrier than the Sahara. Egypt greatly influenced and traded with the other nations of the Mediteranean bassin and the Middle East ; conversedly, it had very little dealings with the rest of Africa.

The Mongols should much rather be in as some kind of huge barbarian horde event - that would be the coolest solution IMHO! They'd storm around the map, pillage a lot and raze some cities to the ground; others they'd govern but after a while the cities would revert due to the non-existent culture of the Mongol rulers.
That would make a really neat conquest.
I think the mongols were one of THE most influential civilizations ever. I had never heard of Mali, and it does sound important, but I think the Mongols were the wrong civilization to complain about (compare to mesoamerica). Someone recently said that the mongol role was purely destructive, which I believe is still a role that can greatly affect history. However, I've very recently come to a conclusion in my history class that the Mongols are the primary reason for the modern situation of west>east. As much damage as the mongols did to Europe, they did 100 times that to everyone else. There can be no argument, in the middle ages, the Arabs, Mughels, and Chinese were all vastly superior to Europe; Charlemagne had nothing on the Abbasids. Then the Mongols, Seljuks, and other steppe peoples swept in and raped and pillaged everything in sight.

Here's one that made it from China to Europe as a result of teh travcel made possible by the Mongols - pasta and spaghetti. Ramen is more or less teh direct ancestor of pasta in culinary terms.


rhialto, the pasta, gunpowder, printing press, silk exchange happened as a result of the Silk Road under the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. It wasn't Mongolian. That is why Silk is now produced in Lindos, Rhodes today. After the Empiror of Rome exchanged these technologies, he brought silk worm to Rhodes to compete with the Chinese. The Chinese Print Press was taken through Constantinople into Western Europe and for many years the West just stared at it, refusing to create a machine for their own languages. Are you relating the Mongol involvement with the Silk Road possibly instead of the actually exchange in technology?

RichardMNixon

It's actually pretty scary how possible that is in today's world too. Many people that arent exposed to the dogma of war, even through interviews and insight find it hard to grasp that even Civil societies today are fragile. Imagine that only hand fulls of people have knowledge in critical matters or political matters. All it takes is for those people to disappear, and instability would ensue.

Arabia had regions like the Abbasids and probably even Mali would be considered to be advanced in comparison to the West in the Middle Ages. But researchers and historians still believe that even in China's Industrial Age which was happening at the same time, that they would not have advanced much further in their isolation. Whether if it has to do with Communism, Natural Disasters, or other political factors, the Mongol invasions would not account for China latter falling behind.

One of the main reasons why it is important in the world today for all of us to stay in contact and have relations is to prevent this disparaty in technological advancement. Now today, even if something is invented in America, the entire world learns about it. Just, America uses economic strings to make certain technology available to certain people to keep our nation more advanced that the others. And the difference in technological advancement is not even so much that it would make that big of a difference. The strongest thing America has is the availablity of technology within our nation USA and the purchasing power the citizens of USA have in comparison to other current Civs.

Mostly because, while the "technical" limit between Africa and Asia is around Suez, practically speaking, Suez was MUCH less of a barrier than the Sahara. Egypt greatly influenced and traded with the other nations of the Mediteranean bassin and the Middle East ; conversedly, it had very little dealings with the rest of Africa.
Egypt had many dealings with Nubia and Ethiopia (including present-day Yemen).

Oh, not saying they had NOTHING to do with the rest of AFrica. Just sayign that, historically, Egypt is at least as much part of the mediteranean world as it was part of the African world.

Oh, not saying they had NOTHING to do with the rest of AFrica. Just sayign that, historically, Egypt is at least as much part of the mediteranean world as it was part of the African world.
and because of that, deny its africaness and bring it into the real civilized world. not to put too fine a point on it

I've always considered Egypt to be both 'African' and 'Mediterranean' - I consider Carthage to be the same, while Rome and Greece were\are 'European' and 'Mediterranean'.

IMO, the Med is a strange area - the nations bordering it have had relations with each other, and together seem almost separate from their respective 'home' continents, while still remaining very much a part of them.

Egypt is, without question, African. Geopolitically, however, its influence on the Mediterranean world cannot be ignored.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about the Mali?

Personally, rather than define culture groups by continent, I think more practical geographical terms are better. To whit:

Sub-Saharan Africa
Mediterranean
Northern Europe

I realise of course that teh gap between Britain and France isn't that clear cut, and it's even questionable which one France belongs to here, but it works a lot better imho.

Generic Turks? At least they havent pissed everyone off. Ask the neighbors of Turkey who likes the Ottomans, then ask the Tanurians and Russians how they feel of each other. Kazakhs have a space program, missile program, and great relations with almost the entire world.

Ask neighbors of Greeks, who likes them - except Turks :) We gave 12 points to Greece in the latest Eurovision Song Contest :D
(just kidding)


Ottomans and Mongols are animals. They lived in people's buildings or had them build palaces for them and tried to pull it off as their own culture wonders. The world wouldve been better off without them.

(no kidding, seriously)
NO Civilization can be called "animals" - even if you hate them.

Some civs get power and conquer others. This is the rule. You have to accept it.

I think you have some bad feelings about the Ottoman culture. What makes a civ is the people living under that civ's control. Yes, true, lots of Armenian, Greek, Jewish and other people created Ottoman culture, as well as the Turkish ones. But, here we say an Ottoman culture. Ottomans were not a race, the name comes from a dynasty. The people lived under Ottoman control were not only Turks. Most important, they were NOT forced to be assimilated or converted to Islam. They were free in all their lives. Greeks and Armenians were in control of trade up to 19th century, when Jews gained more power and took control of most of the trade. Moreover, Ottomans, likewise all previous Turkish empires, had mercy to ones who accepted the Ottoman control. The most famous example is modern-day Edirne (former Adrianopolis - just to please you). Edirne surrendered to Ottoman forces, and Ottomans made a law that no Ottoman buildings should be build within the city. All people of the city were to continue their lives as they are used to. The old city still exist today.

I know the place of this subject is not here, so I offer not to continue this Greek-Turkish conflict in this post. (This includes your thoughts about the Cyprus Conflict). The subject of this thread is about Mali, so go on Mali.

hey nebuchadnezzar!

Look, I know that the animal comment was outta line and Im sorry to have said it cause it is wrong. I just get so pissed off and you are probably familiar with the various arguments Turks and Greeks are in about what was the truth and what was fabricated.

Even if you were to have said Adrianople, this city was in revolt against the Byzantine Greeks because as the Norman Franks, Ottoman Turks and Seljuk Turks were crushing us, our laws became more Conservative and they dispised our Empire at the end.

The part that pisses me off is not that we lost the Greco-Turkish War, which we deserved to lose; but Turkish policy against the Greek Orthodox Church and for the actions in Cyprus. I know that the Greek junta had a plan to unite and rid the Turks. They were a tumbling power and were desparate to do something to become popular. So I understand why Turkey invaded, but you never left, and you never returned property. I cant go back to my house, it has been illegally sold to foreigners and my family still has the deed to the house. Your presence in Cyprus is illegal in international law. Does anyone in Turkey ever try to understand that the Greeks in Cyprus did not want Union? Does anyone ever mention that taking land in Cyprus is the same as Greeks wanting to take land in Turkey? Your country simplifies atrocities like the Hellenic Massacres and Armenian Genocide as history, yet it says that the Cyprus issue is sensitive when the invasion was based off of random killings, hate crimes that even happen today in other countries, yet dont merit invasion or justification to cease land and property.

On Mali, my friend from Peace Corps is going in a couple of months, actually shes going to Mauritania but said she wants to visit Tombouctou.

I was really hoping for the Ashanti. It just sounds like a cool Civ and the leader can have the title Ghana since it meant King/Ruler. They were also rich in gold and I think they had those cool neck braces that stretch your necks. That would be an awesome leaderhead.

Neighbors of Greeks:

Italians love us.
Cypriots love us.
Albania think they are Illyrians. They promised to over-populate Greece as to annex it.
Vardar-Banovina dont speak Greek yet believe they led a Hellenic Empire.
Bulgaria is too poor to express what they think, the country appears to be Communist in lifestyle.
Egyptian Arabs have mutual interests in investments, when the Greeks were forced to choose citizenship in Alexandria where they were once allowed to live as Greek Citizens, thats when Arabs lost money when Greek investors left Egypt, today they are returning.
Egyptian Coptics want stronger religious representation as do the Ethiopians amoung Orthodox Churches. The Copts are reliant on the Greek stance against laws in Egypt that are pushing the true Egyptians out of Egypt. And Greeks were amoung the only people that stood against the terrorists that bomb Coptic buildings and businesses. The same terrorists that are commiting Genocide on Darfur.
Lybia was once a state that had highest foreign investment from Greece during the Shipping Tycoon Era. After the State terrorist acts, Greek investments were fully withdrawn. I dont know of any personal relations between these two States.

Greece is the highest investor in all the Balkans, so when their Governments praise Greece today in the News, I'm not sure how to perceive it. But Politics and individual people are two different things. I judge the individual Turks by his or her own composure, but I judge the country Turkey by it's politics and agendas (i.e. Aegean Army).

and because of that, deny its africaness and bring it into the real civilized world. not to put too fine a point on it

Some people might have that reasoning, yes.

Personally, I do it for a similar, but fundamentally different reason. I liek to call it the "Nightsky moon" effect. If you ever watched the nightsky you must have noticed how the full moon blots out many stars since it's so bright ; that's exactly what happens in history. Classify Egypt as part of Africa, and Egypt is ALL you'll ever hear about regarding Africa, because the other great african civilizations, great as they may be, are dwarfed by Egypt. (China has much the same effect on Asian history, where only Japan really breaks through).

If classifying Egypt as part of the Fertile Crescent/NEar/Middle East is what it takes to give places like Ethiopia, Mali, Songhay, etc their place in the sun, then I'm all for it.

Some people might have that reasoning, yes.

Personally, I do it for a similar, but fundamentally different reason. I liek to call it the "Nightsky moon" effect. If you ever watched the nightsky you must have noticed how the full moon blots out many stars since it's so bright ; that's exactly what happens in history. Classify Egypt as part of Africa, and Egypt is ALL you'll ever hear about regarding Africa, because the other great african civilizations, great as they may be, are dwarfed by Egypt. (China has much the same effect on Asian history, where only Japan really breaks through).

If classifying Egypt as part of the Fertile Crescent/NEar/Middle East is what it takes to give places like Ethiopia, Mali, Songhay, etc their place in the sun, then I'm all for it.

Cool way to sum it up. But the real question is, do Ethiopia, Mali, and Songhay deserve to be in the game? Are you going to tell me that they are among the 18 most important cultures in world history? Are you going to include Ethiopia but not Spain? Take Numidia over Germany? I think not.

This is the real issue:

How you decide if a nations culture is important?
Cause otherwise you can't figure out:
...the 18 most important cultures in world history?

How do you decide if a civilization is important? I suppose you look at the impact that civ has had on history/the world. It's really not that complicated. Example, England has had a major impact on history and influenced much of the world, Ethiopia has not. England should be selected to be in the game ahead of Ethiopia.

Some people might have that reasoning, yes.

Personally, I do it for a similar, but fundamentally different reason. I liek to call it the "Nightsky moon" effect. If you ever watched the nightsky you must have noticed how the full moon blots out many stars since it's so bright ; that's exactly what happens in history. Classify Egypt as part of Africa, and Egypt is ALL you'll ever hear about regarding Africa, because the other great african civilizations, great as they may be, are dwarfed by Egypt. (China has much the same effect on Asian history, where only Japan really breaks through).

thats actually an excellent analogy. However, if you take egypt out of africa, 1, you are taking egypt out of africa and if you don't see anything wrong with that well...,

and 2, you take it out and you still don't hear anything about africa. in the world africa is marginalized. As proof, board members are debating whether or not Mali DESERVES to be included in the game.

egypt and china cant be compared scalewise. Egypt controlled a small part of Africa during its prime. Now it was the most important part from a Mediterranean perspective. And guess who decides what goes in history books. Admittedly, my knowledge of ancient China is spotty, but I'd like to think the Middle Kingdom was alot bigger in comparion to Asia than KMT was to Africa. I would've thought Russia would've played a big part in Asain history, unless you meant history of Asian people instead of Asain countries. And that's what discussions like these really come down to

Cool way to sum it up. But the real question is, do Ethiopia, Mali, and Songhay deserve to be in the game? Are you going to tell me that they are among the 18 most important cultures in world history? Are you going to include Ethiopia but not Spain? Take Numidia over Germany? I think not.

i guess it depends on what part of the world you've decided to care about

How do you decide if a civilization is important? I suppose you look at the impact that civ has had on history/the world. It's really not that complicated. Example, England has had a major impact on history and influenced much of the world, Ethiopia has not. England should be selected to be in the game ahead of Ethiopia.

Yes, but it is the winners who write history not the most important people.

How do you decide if a civilization is important? I suppose you look at the impact that civ has had on history/the world. It's really not that complicated. Example, England has had a major impact on history and influenced much of the world, Ethiopia has not. England should be selected to be in the game ahead of Ethiopia.England did not even exist when Ethiopia had already influenced the world for millennia.

Now if duration is the criterium, then England is out and Ethiopia is in. If empire size comes first, England is in and Ethiopia is out. You can basically tell it any way you want, since there are so many civilizations that influenced the world one time or another and in one way or another.

explain away then, dear Dearmad; I eagerlly await what profound enlightenment your going to shed upon me of previouslly unkown influnces that the glorious Mongols gave to an awestruck world other then yet another batch of bloody barbarians from the steppe who couldnt even keep thier own culture.

Hmm...Look at Asia.

I don't see much Mali culture in India or China?

For the record, I reckon the Mali are a better choice than Zulus...

England did not even exist when Ethiopia had already influenced the world for millennia.

Now if duration is the criterium, then England is out and Ethiopia is in. If empire size comes first, England is in and Ethiopia is out. You can basically tell it any way you want, since there are so many civilizations that influenced the world one time or another and in one way or another.

Cultural 'fame' seems to be the market criteria - So the biggies like England will always be in.

.

Albania think they are Illyrians.

well, to be fair they (and the rest of the "slavic" bations east of Italy, south of the Danube are Illyrians as well)

*as far egypt goes, its influnece has never really been on the med sea, more like on just the middle east, unless we strart really giving economics a boost of cultural importance; its people are berbers, thier culture is inline with what one woudl expect out of iddle east, albeit highlly satyilized, and with soem unusual tendencies; but tendencies we dont find in Africa either mind you, and while egypt had a huge influence on Nubia, the Romans had a huge influnece on Axum, even further south, yet we dont call the Romans africans; its geographically a part of africa; otherwise, it can be put into the middle east, until the hellenistic period, where one can argue it was a med sea power, until arabs take over the nation.

Cool way to sum it up. But the real question is, do Ethiopia, Mali, and Songhay deserve to be in the game? Are you going to tell me that they are among the 18 most important cultures in world history? Are you going to include Ethiopia but not Spain? Take Numidia over Germany? I think not.

If you want to go harp about so-called "Historical importance" of a nation, I have three WONDERFUL targets in mind for you. They're called "Incans", "Mayans" and "Aztecs".

Fer de Lance - I've had more success getting people to know about Mali et al by excluding Egypt than by including them. No, the process is not automatic, but it's MUCH easier to make Mali/Ethiopia a major topic of African history if you exclude Egypt.

Take Numidia over Germany?

Yes. It's at test of time not a test of the last century and a half. Numidia existed longer and had more impact on world history than Germany ever will.

Ideally of course they should both be included.

I agree that they are weighing modern countries such as Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands too highly, but it also makes sense for marketing.
These are the countries people know, they'd be confused to see a game full of Numidia, Mali, Ethiopia, Khmer, Aryan, Mughel, Assyrian, Seljuk, and Hun...

Hmmm, replace the Ottomans and Mongols, for generic Turk's.

That sounds good.

Maybe go as far as Zimbabweans?

In that case, why not replace Portugal and Spain with Iberians? Those two have far more in common with each other than Ottomans and Mongols. Mongols and Seljuks maybe, but the Ottomans were never nomadic, they were set up by the Seljuks as a border against Byzantium and soon became more powerful than anyone else in the region.

Zimbabwe as opposed to Zulu?

Someone mentioned Guns, Germs and Steel.

One way to classify civilisations is by their foodkit. In Civ4, we have one civ with the Meso-American foodkit and one with the Andean-Amazonian foodkit. All the rest are Eurasian.

Except Mali.

Surely the South-Saharan foodkit deserves at least one representative. In previous incarnations of Civ, we had the Zulus. I agree that one of the West African Kingdoms is a better choice than than the Zulus and applaud Firaxis for making the switch.

Mali? Mali? is an insignificant Civ that was added just to get an African Nation included. I read some posts talking about what an important civ it was - lol-
yes the great mali navy- no army- no air force- no...the great Mali space program- no
the great- ...what a joke- it never was a great power- it influenced nothing- and it amounted to nothing-amused at how some will look up stuff like "mali exported lots of wheat" and then proceed to write about how great and worthy a civ it is- do you think these these minor arguements really convince a reasonable man that Mali is a worthy addition when anyone with half a brain knows that they included Mali just to cover the map- which is fine- just say that instead of trying to convince people of something that is not true.

With all due respect, troytheface, that post is worthy of an ignorant hick.

No army? At the time William the Conquerer was invading England, Mali was invading its neighbours with armies a hundred times greater in size. No navy? Fair enough, but neither did the Mongols, Aztecs, or Incas. Mali's geographical location didn't necessitate a navy, so I don't consider that a flaw anyway. No airforce? Neither did, umm, just about every civ before 1900. No space program? Neither does Japan, Spain, France (Ariadne is a multinational project), England, Germany, or Babylon. Better remove those too. As for exports, how about exporting enough gold, via a certain pilgimage, to destabilise the bullion market across half teh known world for several decades?

lol- not sure i should defend me post but i will give it an ignorant hick try....
reading the oft times wordy posts- (wordiness tends to get better grades in acadamia-which i suspect many of these wordy posters are still involved) i have the feeling that i am listening to someone that read a couple history books and took a logic class. Since i am close to a university i will ask the world history folks there to name 18 of the most signigficant civs. I assure u mali will not be one of the choices.
It is not grand reasoning- however, i do know that we all have our favorite civs and times of history we like to speculate about- asked a afghanistani social studies teacher about great civs and he goes on and on about afghanistan....it is personal and hardly definitive- as are most assertions based on interest. I suppose we could all have our own standards defining a "great Civ". I would use a civ's art work as one indication of worthiness-
But being an ignorant hick poster
i suppose that i am in the shadow of great history book readers that read english versions of texts and take all that they read as fact- and they can even quote and give sources.... :lol:
and by the way- i thought that Spain's import of gold was what destabilized the gold market....but hell- it could have been certain European leaders hording up all the gold and faking or producing this effect and then paying someone to write about how Mali mucked up things....
but all in all- they should have had Assyria- however, i like the camel archer uu- always thought they should have a camel unit :cool:

Since i am close to a university i will ask the world history folks there to name 18 of the most signigficant civs. Of course they will. If you ask the history folks of the university of Cairo. Or, if you ask anyone focusing on mediaval history (since the Ancient buffs will of course list you 200+ Ancient Civs first).
What makes me really upset in this discussion is not denying Mali to be among the "18 most important Civs of all times". Maybe they are not.
But, they of course were for several magnitudes more important for the World history than Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Sioux and Iroquois together...
As long as there is a single American Civ (except for the US!) in the game, it's ridiculous to deny Mali the significance.

and here i might disagree- aztecs, incans and mayans had lots of original art and buildings that people to this day visit- mali art may exsist but it is not on the same world stage as the aforementioned three- i say any civ that bases its claim to fame on economics rather than culture is doomed to obscurity-

Just a small note, i noticed this while reading through the threads.
Do not think that 'greek stud' (i would really doubt that he has ever come even near a woman in his life :lol: ) speaks for anyone other than himself. He is either immature or seriously problematic & should seek help :shakehead

aztecs, incans and mayans had lots of original art and buildings that people to this day visit
People = American Tourists?
And with that argument, Walt Disney would deserve to be included as Civ, and Mongols for sure have to be dropped.
Face it: The first American Civ that had any, even remote, significance for the rest of the World were the US (and those of course have a major impact).

Spain of course shipped a lot of (melted) gold from there to Europe; but, that was Spain, not the Aztecs (while Mali did export actively).
Again, I have no problems with the Aztecs or Incans or Mayans in Civ, they are worthy for their architecture or astronomy.
But, as long as those pre-Iron Age Civs and even pre-Bronze Age ones like the NA tribes are in Civ, any arguments for Mali or Mongols or Celts or Scythians or Tibet or Khmer or ... not "deserving" to be in are ridiculous.

walt disney? lost me on that one- disney world is just an amusement park inside of a certain civ. Maybe iroquios Casinos would be a better analogy- but i am talking art- not entertainment- art is often used in connection with spirituality whereas entertainment seldom is (think that incan or mayan or aztec ball games were linked to religion tho-as a matter of fact i have an new idea- that in the west sports are religion :eek:
In so far as the mongols- yes they are indeed a strange civ to argue for or against- they are the contradiction to my own reasoning- however , i would include them because of their size and how they just smashed everyone around them. Someone wrote an idea that an expansion pack could include all the great barbarian groups like the mongols the huns the vikings ect. - that is a good idea. It would be a nice option to choose a barbarian group where you don't build cities - u just conquer and war then try to hold things together and if u survive long enough u get to start to build cities like the vikings

disney world is just an amusement park
Exactly. A distinct style of "art", and lots of people visit it. ;)

there is a big difference in art made to facilitate worship and in art made to make a buck- however it has been said by many that Americans are spiritually bereft and maybe to many religion is entertainment.

I think that, as many others have said, Babylon was the main civ that was left out, and now there is no messopotamian civ, which is unfair ;\ Ofcourse in a way Persia covers that gap, but then its not the same.
Personally i would think that the incas are in mostly so that a latin american civ is in, and the aztecs are in for more shady reasons (probably a second civ, albeit mesoamerican, of that general type, didnt need to be in the original civ4). The Mali possibly are also in for the wrong reasons, if they werent centroafrican they wouldnt be in, just like other economic civs were left out. One could argue that if Denmark was in africa it would have been in instead of Mali for example. And i mention Denmark because there is no scandinavian civ.
Perhaps the arabs could have been left out, they werent a real civ anyway, and egypt was arabic later on so they could have covered that, but on the same logic the byzantine empire shouldnt be in- yet they byz empire isnt in the original game and very rightly so).

...Perhaps the arabs could have been left out, they werent a real civ anyway...


Yeah, I guess you're right. All they did was invent the entire field of mathematics as we know it today, including the concept of zero and decimal notation. Not really credible as a civ at all.

[/sarcasm]

Yeah, I guess you're right. All they did was invent the entire field of mathematics as we know it today, including the concept of zero and decimal notation. Not really credible as a civ at all.

[/sarcasm]

You are just trying to be antagonistic. My point was very clear, and was about whether the arabs are collectively one civ. There was nothing there against the arabs, nor was there anything regarding their achievements, so your post was rather silly :p
try to imagive a "christians" civ, it would be more or less equally uninteresting as an "arabs" civ.

Without being sarcastic i could very easily go on to make a comment about what you said about "the entire field" of mathematics, but i dont have any urge to say something against you for the hell of it. I suggest that you learn to react a bit less offensively though.

i almost replied to that one as well...there were the ottomen turks, and the seljek (sp)
turks- but i do not remember the great "arab" civ- and i was one of those that thought byzantine should not be included- tho i did like the dromon as a graphic.

I think the whole post makes no sense.
Civilization IV is a game. There is no point discussing if Mali should be in it or not because this is not a well funded research on History. This is a game and should be considered as it. The whole idea of comparing civilizations out of Historical context is ridiculous. One can not compare Sumeria and Korea because they where not in the same place, same era... Even the idea of Germany or Spain as a civilization can not stand in front of Greece (Ancient) or Persia. This post is a great example of how stupidity, anger and hate arise when people is well fed, healthy and bored. Get out, breath air and enjoy the fact that you are alive and in peace.
And, please, when entering to this sacred place always bear in mind that we are talking about a game. Licoln never dressed in leather, Xerxes never saw a rifle and probably the Colossus never increased comerce in Rhodas.

So good I posted it twice.

probably the Colossus never increased comerce in Rhodas.

that ti did do; even though it fell down around 50-60 years after its intial construction, it was still a MASSIVE statue, and still brough tin tourist attention; living in an area whos entire economy is based on tourism, i can attest that thier are few othe rmoneymakers quite like toruism, and naive (and annoying) tourists ;)

as far as the Arab-Byzantin question goes, I'm in favor of both being in; I can see the Varwnos argument in that thier certinally could be more islamic arbaic based civlizations, but thier inst too much room for them; Carthage will likelly be added in an x-pack, and so would babylon; with existing egpypt, Persia, and hopefully the greeks (the Ottoman turks I coudl live without, though they will likelly be included, and promptlly modded by me to be the steppe turks) thier isnt much room left.

mod out the ottomen's? they were the biggest empire up til that time dwarfing the
eastern roman empire's size -indeed personal preferences and reality are two distinct beasts....

well there were arabic caliphates, which were analogous to western countries, eg the abbasids, fatimids etc. Bagdad, where the '1001 arabian nights" were written wasnt in the same 'nation' as the al-Andalus. Just because we do not know much about arabs it doesnt mean that it is a great idea to have them collectively as one civ.
on the other hand the seljuks are clearly (no one doubts that, and turkish people ofcourse dont doubt it at all, unlike you :lol: ) the ancestors of the ottomans. The ottomans were just one seljuk tribe/sultanate, which slowly dominated over the rest, and over the balcans/byzantine empire.
But you do not really inspire the other person to discuss anything, and i wouldnt really interest myself with wondering particularly about what causes you to behave like you do.
good luck

You are just trying to be antagonistic. My point was very clear, and was about whether the arabs are collectively one civ. There was nothing there against the arabs, nor was there anything regarding their achievements, so your post was rather silly :p
try to imagive a "christians" civ, it would be more or less equally uninteresting as an "arabs" civ.

Without being sarcastic i could very easily go on to make a comment about what you said about "the entire field" of mathematics, but i dont have any urge to say something against you for the hell of it. I suggest that you learn to react a bit less offensively though.

If I was being offensive, it was only because you were being offensive against the Arabs. And while I am not an Arab, I play the Lorax, and I speak for the Arabs, for here the Arabs have no speakers.

And I said "Arabs" as a civ, not "Muslims". Contrary to popular belief, there is actually a place called Arabia, distinct from the Muslim world as a whole, in which people called Arabs live. It is a certain part of what is now Saudi Arabia.

If you wish to argue that they were not united are therefore not deserving of being called a civilization, I would like to point out that exactly the same case can be made against your Greece.


ok, saying the entire field is maybe a bit of an exageration, but not by much. Seriously, decimal notation made things such as multiplication and division trivially easy compared to doing it with Roman numerals. Try it some time if you don't believe me.

mod out the ottomen's? they were the biggest empire up til that time dwarfing the
eastern roman empire's size -indeed personal preferences and reality are two distinct beasts....

A)I'm replacing them with the Turks;a peoples whos over all importance and territoy dwafs the ottoman empire

B)the Ottoman empire was big poltical entity, but had relitivlly little cultureal impact aside from spreading islam into eastern europe; but considering most areas rejected it, that impact was limited; the Byzantines, by contrast, had a temendous impact on world affairs such as culture, politcis, and the geopolitcal situation from Sicilly to Jerusalem, and from Alexandria to the upoer shores of th eblack sea; the Ottomans were mainlly a regional player; a major regional player, but still just that, and outside of posing a threat for europe to unify agianst when attmepteing to invade asutria, and being yet another reason to circumanvigate the globe (both things already present with reasons for the europeans to do anyway) one is challenged to find hugelly lasting impacts for the Ottomans

I have to apologise, because i actually confused rhialto with troytheface :hmm:, i must be needing some sleep! :D

I wasnt being offensive against the arabs, you missunderstood me, i just claimed that they should be in in the form of a specific arabic civ, which would naturally replace the gneeric arab civ. You just missunderstood what my point was.

As for greeks, yes, i agree, and do not try to make me sound like a nationalist, for i am not making useless claims of descendance from people that lived 3000 years ago :p But Greece would at any rate be in, and dividing it in seperate civs would be useless since they will probably anyway appear in mods, something which isnt certain at all about the arabic civs (i am not sure if any civ3 mod has many different arabic civs).
But anyway, this is like beating a dead horse

What makes me really upset in this discussion is not denying Mali to be among the "18 most important Civs of all times". Maybe they are not.
But, they of course were for several magnitudes more important for the World history than Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Sioux and Iroquois together...
As long as there is a single American Civ (except for the US!) in the game, it's ridiculous to deny Mali the significance.
Don't overreact ... ;)
Mali is a fine choice, but the same holds for the Maya and the Iroquois.

The Iroqouis saved their regional currency market, after all, while Mali undermined theirs! :)

...Perhaps the arabs could have been left out, they werent a real civ anyway...

I wasnt being offensive against the arabs, you missunderstood me, i just claimed that they should be in in the form of a specific arabic civ, which would naturally replace the gneeric arab civ...

I think I see where the confuision lies now. You are thinking in terms of "Arabs" as a generic civ. But there was also a specific civ in that region with the same name, which is the one I'm thinking of.