Now i may be wrong about this but what did African Civs really do history wise? Seem like all the were was conquered(SP) by some other nations, so my knowledge of Africa's history is not great. Do we really need african civs in Civ4 ? I could see Europe nations, Asians, Mid East, and American Nations. But why should we put Africa or a certin African nation in the game?

Civ isn't just about history, but also the what ifs that could've occured. What makes a civilization great isn't just its military prowess.

Well they were fairly influential in the middle ages, (Gold-salt Trade) and they accomplished far more tech wise than any of the New World Civs (because they were still somewhat connected to Eurasia)

Their historical influence is hurt because they were isolated and so Europe didn't deal directly with them much until it was significantly more powerful (mostly they dealt with Europe through Northern Africa /Middle Eastern Civs like the Arabs) The East Africans also were trade partners of China and India (again not known much because China was deciding to shut down its trade just as the Europeans were beginning to reach sub-Saharan Africa.)

(after all if you eliminate every civ that's been conquered by the modern era you have to eliminate Rome... sort of silly given that is #1 on most lists of civs to include...)

i just want you to know that this thread probably wont stay open long....you have opened a gigantic can of worms...i personally dont get to excited about this topic..but many do...

none the less..i voted yes we do..i think the game would be odd if it didnt include at least one repersenitive of the worlds regions.

and P.S. even though i hate when people start saying..well way back when this tribe did this..i will admit that as a westerner , i do not no much about africa but things of great importance did happen there. just because we dont study them should drown them out. if ghengis khan would have conquerd africa instead of asia and parts of europe..you probably wouldnt know much about him. sad truth ;)

I do think people know little about African history. For most of my life i thought they lived in tiny little huts and running around with spears. Mabye i should start a topic on African History in the History section.

AHHH!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST ASKED THAT!!!
Just kidding.

Ya, I voted yes, especially because of the new Religion aspect of Civ4. Africa has a very interesting history of it's religion. Of course, my #1 pick would be Ethiopia over Mali or Zimbabwe because it was strongly influenced by side-stream Islam, side-stream Judaism, and side-stream Christianity. Africa was also very active in trade: across the Indian Ocean, the Saharra, and the Atlantic Ocean.
My two cents.

Oh, and I assume we are dealing with sub-Saharan Africa, those Carthaginians and Egyptians conquered a whole lot. In fact, one of the reasons history doesn't mention conquests within Africa is because the idea of land as property and a representation of power is an entirely Western concept. Sub-saharan cultures viewed people as property (or, to be politically correct, people as a representation of collective power). Within this thread of understanding there have been many powerful African civilizations like the Bantu. On the other hand, the definition of "civilization" hardly fits this African model.

Don't forget that pre-First Punic War the Carthaginians were a dominating power and also had one of the largest and most highly trained navies around.

I'd also quite like to see the Ethiopians (Abysinnians sp?) around

1)yep- Ethiopia is one of the longest continuing nation in the history of the world; and the only intteruption was a (realitivlly incomplete) domination by the Itallians just pre-WWII

2)Carthage isnt a African power.

and for the record, I voted yes.

Don't forget that pre-First Punic War the Carthaginians were a dominating power and also had one of the largest and most highly trained navies around.

I'd also quite like to see the Ethiopians (Abysinnians sp?) around
Wasn't Carthage a Phoecian(SP)? City state?

yeah ok, i'll admit self-ownage here. I was talking more from a point of view that the civ was based on the african continent

IIRC, it was founded by Phoenicia.

Many Phoenician cities in North Africa united under Carthage just as many Semetic cities in Mesopotamia united under Babylon.

What do you guys think of post #6. I'm anxious to hear an opposing view-point on African conquests and power.

I for one agree with you. it also be VERY entertaining to see "Rastafarianism" as a religion in civ 4 ;)

It would be very strange if there was/were no African civ/civs. The problem is that civ's benchmarks are based on western values and (sub-saharan) African civs are beaten by most other civs in this sense, it also doesn't help that African history is almost zilch (I mean we know very little rather than nothing happening after they found out about fire) and there isn't a major African civ today to remind us of Africa's power.

Basically civ needs African representation, but I'd be astonished if vanilla had more than one (competition is rather fierce after all), and by african I mean sub-saharan African rather than being on the continent of africa (the latter being the real literal meaning, of course).

Although we all know Mali are the sole representatives.

Superkrest's right. We've already had a couple of rather nasty long running threads on similar topics. It's really not such a good idea to revisit them.

Africans are the ones who started humanity, and The reason you don't see them as a 'influential' group of people is because generally all the civs that are influential in Africa are generally not regarded as 'African' because their in north africa. I find this absurd because just because 'siberia' isn't influential does this mean we shouldn't have any Asian civs? Or just because Amazonians or iniuts aren't influiential we shouldn't have any American civs?

Egypt was African, Carthage was African. Ethiopia actually does have it's own history and line of kings and so on. Morroco was the only Islamic state to never be conquered by the Ottomons in west.

And to top it off everyone has roots coming from Africa at some point...so how can they not be influential? :-P

Egypt is a Arabian and a Mideast nation. Carthage we already went over that. I am not sure what you mean by we all have roots in Africa? I don't, my family is from Japan my roots are in Asia. Please don't start this Humans came from Africa bullcrap.. When Humans first started to appear the lands were more closer together, and there was no such things as Africa, Europe, Asia and so forth.

A
Egypt was African, Carthage was African.

not particuraly; both of them have by far more in common with middle eastern antions in both ehtnicity of populations, and, even more so in culture; that they are located in "Africa" is actually the least important factor in how to classify them.

Ethiopia actually does have it's own history and line of kings and so on. Morroco was the only Islamic state to never be conquered by the Ottomons in west. of the two listed, only Ethiopia can be considered to be "truelly african"


And to top it off everyone has roots coming from Africa at some point...so how can they not be influential? :-P just because Africa is a cradle fo humanity dosent mean its influential at all (though mind you, I'm firmlly for African civlizations being included in civ4, such a shoddy form of argumentation is not a good way to get your point across)

...And again this debate rears its ugly head. Ghafhi and Pimpmastabola would be proud of you, bloodofages.

When Humans first started to appear the lands were more closer together, and there was no such things as Africa, Europe, Asia and so forth.

false; the word was geographically identical for all intents and purposes at the time of initial human evolution; glaciation woudl change some of this marginally, but not significantlly with the exception of hindering migration.

...And again this debate rears its ugly head. Ghafhi and Pimpmastabola would be proud of you, bloodofages.

you have just been awarded to the status of hero im my ranks doronron..lol :beer:

...And again this debate rears its ugly head. Ghafhi and Pimpmastabola would be proud of you, bloodofages.
Thanks..I think. Who were they? We can look at like this. If the Garden of Eden was suppose to be somewhere in Iraq or some other place in the middle east, so does the mean Humans really started there? What study shows the we came from Africa? If so wouldn't all humans be black? Humans could had adapted but really the skin color would have not changed no matter if its a cold or hot place. Or even wild animals could not change your skin color. BUT this is way offf topic.

African culture has influenced us in all kinds of ways. Look at music, for instance. And influential to who, anyway? It would be hard to argue that it didn't have plenty of influence on modern Africans.

But the influence argument is so tiresome anyway. Civ should be a game that showcases the civilizations of the world - the lost ones, the influential ones, all the civs that were important in an area for a time. Take a snapshot of the world every few centuries - pick a few of the most important civilizations in each continent at that time - that's who should be in Civ. Otherwise you just get a deterministic game that can't be played for any "what if" value.

Thanks..I think. Who were they? We can look at like this. If the Garden of Eden was suppose to be somewhere in Iraq or some other place in the middle east, so does the mean Humans really started there? What study shows the we came from Africa? If so wouldn't all humans be black? Humans could had adapted but really the skin color would have not changed no matter if its a cold or hot place. Or even wild animals could not change your skin color. BUT this is way offf topic.

lighter skin tones offers a natrual advatage of being able to produce vitamin D; the more tan you are (or black) th eless vitamin D your body can self produce; thus if conditions allow for a lighter skin tone (as they only do in certian areas) natural selection will favor those who can produce vitamin D on thier own (and thus do not have to rely on an outside source that may or may not be sustainable) and so lighter skin tones willd develop (over long periods of time, obviouslly, and if conditions allow)

If the Garden of Eden was suppose to be somewhere in Iraq or some other place in the middle east, so does the mean Humans really started there?

Lol.

What study shows the we came from Africa?

Loads of them. The biggest evidence is genetic and archaeological. There simply weren't any homo sapiens outside of Africa before a certain date, but then we see from archaeological remains that they spread out, because they left a footprint behind them - tools, remains, etc.

If so wouldn't all humans be black? Humans could had adapted but really the skin color would have not changed no matter if its a cold or hot place.

It doesn't have anything to do with the temperature. There are many theories about why it evolved; ranging from less UV radiation from sunlight in northern areas, to sexual selection in different cultures, to a simple random mutation. Nobody even knows for sure where it originated - could have been in Africa, for all anyone knows. All that's known for fact is that skin colour tends to get lighter in northern populations - this is true even for pre-columbian native Americans, so it's a good guess it has something to do with sunlight or some other condition like that.

Loads of them. The biggest evidence is genetic and archaeological. There simply weren't any homo sapiens outside of Africa before a certain date, but then we see from archaeological remains that they spread out, because they left a footprint behind them - tools, remains, etc.


.

But have the really dug deep enough into other places? Like over is Europe or some Asian nation? Or have they just kept the digs over in Africa?

Egypt is a Arabian and a Mideast nation. Carthage we already went over that. I am not sure what you mean by we all have roots in Africa? I don't, my family is from Japan my roots are in Asia. Please don't start this Humans came from Africa bullcrap.. When Humans first started to appear the lands were more closer together, and there was no such things as Africa, Europe, Asia and so forth.

Buy a globe and look again: Egypt is in Africa.

Buy a globe and look again: Egypt is in Africa.
I know where Egypt is located at but its consider a mid east country.

I agree with the majority here -- this thread is incredibly stupid and should be closed.

Let's not include Rome since it was conquered! And the Aztecs (and all Native American nations!) And Mesopotamia! The Americans haven't been in the world that long, so let's not include them, either!

This thread walks like racist, talks like racist, and stinks like racist. What does that make it?

I agree with the majority here -- this thread is incredibly stupid and should be closed.

Let's not include Rome since it was conquered! And the Aztecs (and all Native American nations!) And Mesopotamia! The Americans haven't been in the world that long, so let's not include them, either!

This thread walks like racist, talks like racist, and stinks like racist. What does that make it?
For one thing i am not a racist. Also if you don't like the thread don't post in it and don't look at it.

I do think people know little about African history. For most of my life i thought they lived in tiny little huts and running around with spears. Mabye i should start a topic on African History in the History section.

Well they are one of the areas of the Old World that was not kind geographically, the Sahara cut them off from everyone else, so
1. Ideas they came up with are rarely recognized, (because by the time the rest of the world heard about it they forgot whose idea it was or came up with it on their own first)
2. They weren't able to get the ideas from the rest of the world as easily, so they had to come up with more on their own
3. Finally they had less people than the other part of the Old World which meant fewer new ideas

They did have some degree of contact (unlike the New World) so they were able to reach fairly high levels, but adding in the general problem of movement inside Africa and the lack of good ports, they were prtty much doomed to Not be one of the first true World powers (which most of the larger Western European nations did). By that point one group of people was basically going to take over the world, with everyone else's fate based on how far behind they were due to geography and random cultural/political developments...Which is why East Asia now includes native world powers, and why the New World includes world powers of strongly European descent.


Essentially they get left in the 'extra' section of the history books because Europe was the region to make first worldwide impact, so most other regions get that 'extra' because Europe's worldwide impact stopped them from having worldwide impact (Asia being the exception because it was effectivelly balanced with Europe)

The American civ in Civ 4... Do we really need it? I mean, sure, they made a lot of great cultural, scientific, and economic advances, but you know, they never really won a full scale war against another power on their continent, and frankly, they come a bit late in history.

It's not that I'm predujiced, or anything, but really, this civ could be scrapped for a far more useful and influential civ like Abyssinia or Chola.

I think every inhabited continent should be represented.
If only from a marketing standpoint.

But have the really dug deep enough into other places? Like over is Europe or some Asian nation? Or have they just kept the digs over in Africa?


Don't be silly. MORE digs are funded in Europe. They show that there were originally Neanderthal inhabitants, who exist alone there for a long time and then simply disappear when homo sapiens arrive, spreading from the south.

Even if homo sappiens originated in africa that doesnt mean anything in terms of civilization. Back then no one even cared about a distinction of continents, and, ofcourse, no one had made one either. Even if the earliest homo sapiens were 100% always and only from africa that still would be in reality completely insignificant as far as the significance of africa in global civilization is concerned. To argue that it mattered (in the theoretical case that we accept 100% that the initial claim about descendance is accepted) would be like arguing that it mattered in the life of famous scientist X. that when he was yet unborn, but inside the womb of his mother, his mother was in some african country, which she left even before she gave birth to famous scientist X. (or in the best case shortly after she gave birth to him). As that person would simply have had no relation with africa whatsoever, since there would have existed in him no notion of his life there, likewise even if the first homo sapiens were all from africa that wouldnt matter in reality because at their age they simply couldnt make any distinction between the african soil and the european or asian soil (or could just have viewed the african one as less promissing, and so they left from it). Still they would have created no cilivisation, and thus no way of forming complex concepts of the world. Africa is seen as a continent today, and was seen as one in the time of the ancient greeks as well (named Lybia), but its conceptualisation shouldnt anachronistically be linked to the homo sappiens.

Also dont forget that some of the same homo sapiens stayed in africa. Wouldnt it be more reasonable to claim that they were more influenced by it? Perhaps then a lot of influence from africa isnt the best thing that can happen to a homo sappiens! (sorry, i am in pseudo-nietzsche mood now, due to needing some sleep) :)

There is clearly a distinction between sub-saharan africa, and egypt-carthage. The ancient egyptians themselves AFAIK viewed their southern neighbours as very different from them. You could argue that this was also the case in europe, when large parts of it (almost all) was considered barbaric by greece and rome. The difference here is that later on the situation changed (for many reasons). In Africa it never did, and that mostly seems to have happened due to the trade isolation of the sub-sahara. A crude way of noticing the same thing is the way things develop in a game of civ3: if a civ is far away from the rest then it will lag behind in tech nomatter what, and will never be able to get to the same level, unless (this in civ3) it builds a disproportionately large number of cities, in relation to the other civs. An african civ in zaire, or zululand, wouldnt have much to do with trade, so no one would be arriving in its ports with new ideas. It would have to form its own tradition, and would have perhaps little need of changing it, even less if it didnt appear to be facing any threat from anywhere else. Noe look at the ancient greek city-state world: hundreds of city states in a generally mountanous space, which isnt very large either, but is where three continents meet. They would face the need to expand, so they make colonies. They trade with non-greeks as well, so that they could have more stable trade deals that arent affected by the more complicated and dangerous political situation in the greek world (Athens for example impoted large amounts of grain from the black sea coast). Now look back at the central african civ: it expands to some extent, faces no adversary there, or faces an adversary only after it has expanded to an already very large for its needs space. It has the luxury to not care about its neighbours traditions if it isnt threatened by it, and indeed its neighbour isnt in a different state than it, so their decision for non hostile co-existence is mutual. But what started as a luxury, slowly meant the absolute death of any ability of sub-saharan civs to ever mean anything important in our world.

Ancient Egypt actually had a lot more in common with the Numidians to the south then they did with Persia to the east. It only became arabic in the last thousand years. Before that they traded all the time with the south (Africa) Therefore I can confidently say that Egypt is an African Civ in every sense of the word.

Carthage also had nothing in common with the middle east throughout it's entire existence, they had their own culture, weapons (good luck finding elephants in the middle east...) And lived in African entirely. They are also an African Civ in every sense of the word.

Everyone has roots in Africa at some point. The world was identical back 100,000 years ago as it is now (with very minumal exceptions like the barring straight) Africa was still Africa as any continent was still any continent. And yes, humans oringinated and succeeded in Africa, without their success, we wouldn't be here.

The Numidians are another civ that was influential for bring in kettle drums and perhaps trumpets to the west. To the direct south of Egypt is an isolated christain society that has existed ever since the time of the Romans. They survived in utter isolation from the rest of the christain world. And are still around today.

Also you'll notice (mainly because of slavery) Africans are one of the most widespread and commonly found races on the planet.

It could be said that Africa has just as much influence as Asia or Europe.

For one thing i am not a racist. Also if you don't like the thread don't post in it and don't look at it.

You walk, talk and stink like a racist.

The American civ in Civ 4... Do we really need it? I mean, sure, they made a lot of great cultural, scientific, and economic advances, but you know, they never really won a full scale war against another power on their continent, and frankly, they come a bit late in history.

You mean except for the war for Independence, the war of 1812, the Civil War (which was almost as big as World War II in terms of its casualties for the U.S.), the Mexican War, the "manifest destiny" wars against the Native American tribes ...

I'd count Mexican and maybe independance (depend on how important you think the French and Spanish were in it) out of all those. ACW was Americans killing Americans, doesn'T count for "another power". Natives don't quite qualify as "powers" either, and 1812 was a stalemate, not a win (and against a nation that was deadlocked fighting Napoleon, at that) :-p

You walk, talk and stink like a racist.
Like i really care what you think.

The American civ in Civ 4... Do we really need it?

Well, no, of course not. It's in there only because a lot of customers for the game are American and they like to see their own country in the game.

I expect Civ 4 will give me the option of excluding any tribe I don't want, and I'll use it to exclude the USA. It lacks all credibility to start in 4000 BC with a tribe that didn't exist as a separate entity until about 1776 AD.

Admittedly, the other tribes in the game didn't exist in 4000 BC either, but at least they come closer. Ideally, the game would kick off with tribes that really did exist in 4000 BC, and give them the possibility of evolving, merging, and splitting later on, as actually occurred in history.

You kow just cause the First humans started in Africa, it don't mean the first humans were black. Who know what Color we look like all the way back when?

Well, no, of course not. It's in there only because a lot of customers for the game are American and they like to see their own country in the game.


And more importantly, Firaxis and (IIRC) everyone who has made a game in the Civ series lived (and probably still lives) in America.

You kow just cause the First humans started in Africa, it don't mean the first humans were black. Who know what Color we look like all the way back when? Well, you couldn't really get a white african, a nice, crispy red at best...

The evidence for skin colour (hair colour too) being linked to the sun's strength and average day length is very strong indeed, a formula that perfectly matches the indiginous people of all areas of the globe (in terms of the skin colour to the sun they receive) I should reference the New Scientist article on this but it's probably premium content and the website is terrible to search anyway.

Someone mentioned lack of ports. Africa has quite a few good ports on the Mediterranean coast and the Indian Ocean coast. There are also ports on the Atlantic coast but those were built in the past 125 years. It is interesting to note that the term for coast, sahel, is also the term given to the borders of the Saharan desert. It can be construed that there were also African ports in West Africa (hence the inclusion of Mali). The whole Eastern coast of Africa was teeming with trade. The language of Swahili became the lingua-franca of the Indian Ocean!

And when did northern Africa stop becoming African? Possibly when the Greeks and Phoenicians laid claim to the coast. The Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and the Carthaginians can be claimed as the desendents of non-African peoples. Anyways, Egypt was purely African at least until 325 BC (skin color should not be an issue...).

Well, you couldn't really get a white african, a nice, crispy red at best...

The evidence for skin colour (hair colour too) being linked to the sun's strength and average day length is very strong indeed, a formula that perfectly matches the indiginous people of all areas of the globe (in terms of the skin colour to the sun they receive) I should reference the New Scientist article on this but it's probably premium content and the website is terrible to search anyway.
I wasn't really being serious when i said that.

The USA was build by Europeans... why should they be in?

_________
A bit quick in the reply... didnt see North King's reply... wooups :blush:

Frankly, this thread is stupid and should be close. Africa definitely deserved a mention in a global historical game like Civilization I,II,III,IV,V,VI,... Don't let stereotypes and racism get in the way.

So the Africans are defeated by technologically superior European imperialists. The Romans were defeated by hordes of disorganised tribes (lets not call them barbarians) that are technologically inferior to them. So why do we include them? Because they helped shaped our modern WESTERN societies, but don't forget that the ancient Africans societies are as important to Africans as the Romans do to us.

End of story.

bloodofages...told you this would get to be a very nasty thread. n e way..nevermind the history or what who did when...all the worlds areas should properly be repersented...nough said

I am sorry bloodofages, but this is the stupidest poll I've ever seen. And I voted in it.

You cannot seriously argue that Africa should not be respresented in a game with the scope of Civ - even with a limited amount of civ choices. It comes across as arrogant and small-minded.

And I don't want to put you or anyone else down despite my first statement - but you'll probably actually enjoy reading up on the history of Africa and other parts of the world. Also remember that just because a history wasn't written and recorded by a people, doesn't make it any less important or impacting on life.

And Atrebates - good point about the development of the human race. Things like blue eyes came about in some humans near the poles because of the lack of sunlight and the snow and ice reflecting light. The Chinese are naturally built "smaller" as they had adapted to living on the steppes and their diets. Those sort of things are really pretty interesting.

Maybe this goes a little further off-topic, but according to something or other I've read - the Australian Aboriginie (apparently an earlier inhabitant of North America than the later natives) are the most genetically dissimlar to Africans (as a whole) when comparing the so called races on earth. That said, the genetic differences between the races is ridiculously small anway.

Ancient Egypt actually had a lot more in common with the Numidians to the south then they did with Persia to the east.


I think you mean the Nubians -- the Numidians lived somewhere near Carthage.

And yes, of course Africa's civilizations should be represented, and there's a sore need for Subsaharan civilizations. Mali is a good first choice, and perhaps Ethiopia will get in with the first expansion. Much better choices than the Zulu ever were.

And when did northern Africa stop becoming African? Possibly when the Greeks and Phoenicians laid claim to the coast. The Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and the Carthaginians can be claimed as the desendents of non-African peoples. Anyways, Egypt was purely African at least until 325 BC (skin color should not be an issue...).

I think, though, that it would be important to note here that Egypt was really a culture of the Meditteranean sphere. It was in the continent of Africa, sure, but culturally its probably more accurate to go by bodies of water in early times, at least in some locations. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, you're better off dividing things between the east coast, which had extensive contacts with the Middle East and beyond, and the west coast, which revolved around ancient Mali and its predecessors, than to lump them all together.

Someone mentioned lack of ports. Africa has quite a few good ports on the Mediterranean coast and the Indian Ocean coast. There are also ports on the Atlantic coast but those were built in the past 125 years.

There were probably a few trading ports before that, in Mali at least (and possibly long before that). The Phoenicians were known to trade down that way, as were a few of the later European cultures. Many of those later cultures traded with Mali, and one of Mali's distinguishing features was that they were using the Niger as a key method of transporting large quantities of goods. If they didn't have proper piers at river settlements, they certainly had quays. And I wouldn't doubt if they had at least one or two proper ports near the mouth of the Niger, for trading abroad.

Ya, I probably should have clarrified the Atlantic ports of Africa portion. Ports existing before the arrival of Europeans were put out of buisness or destroyed by Imperialism, unlike ports like Mogadishu and Alexandria which have been in continuous operation (save, during sieges) since their construction.

It is probably best to divide the world (or at least Africa) by coasts, like Mediterranean, Indian, Atlantic, etc....

Maybe this goes a little further off-topic, but according to something or other I've read - the Australian Aboriginie (apparently an earlier inhabitant of North America than the later natives) are the most genetically dissimlar to Africans (as a whole) when comparing the so called races on earth. That said, the genetic differences between the races is ridiculously small anway. Guessing that's the founder effect, of all the major races aborigines almost certainly had the smallest starting pop. and so any unusualities are exacerbated... probably had the least contact with the founding African stock too.

@HourlyDaily-Any idea why blue eyes are better up north? Does snow relect more at bluer wavelengths or is it the distance the sun's light passes through the atmosphere that reduces other wavelengths?

Anyway, apologies to everyone else who find this severely off-topic... think this debate could do with cooling off.

To everyone, attack the argument not the person- keeps things nice and friendly(ish)

My personal picks for African civs:

Egypt and Carthage
Easy to see why. Nobody questions the signifigance of Egypt, and they're just really cool anyways. ;) Carthage impacted the development of the Roman Empire, which is one of the most important civilizations when looking at the foundations of modern Western/Central Europe. Carthage is also very signifigant

Zulus
While perhaps not as well understood as the Egyptians, they are a civilization many people can recall from history. With the average schmuck, being able to recall a civilization is noteable. Sorry, just a history student noting the lack of understanding in history amongst most people ;) However, like the Aztecs, there is a fun factor "What if the Zulu invaded England" just like Aztecs vs Spain. The Zulu are further south in Africa, although I might be wrong. So that'd also give a geographical spread in Africa.

Abyssinians/Ethiopians
Often undervalued and underappreciated this civilization is certainly well deserving of being a Civilization. Modern perceptions aside, it used to be a bread basket. There is a neat factor (with randomized start locations or random maps) that exists with all civs, what if they started in a different region/climate? (The old Guns, Germs, and Steel concept stating geography has much to do with the development of Civilizations).

Numidians?
I put a question mark, as I'm kinda sketchy on them. I think it could be done, and could certainly be justifiable. I just don't know of any major leaders. IIRC they're geographically in modern day Libya.

Mali
From what I've read the Mali are an African civ, am I wrong? When I first heard the term, to be honest, I wasn't sure if it was African or South East Asian. Those are two areas I'm now as well versed in, although am planning on reading up on. If they are African, then by all means keep them in! A new civ to whole game is neat!

I don't know as much about the Interior of Africa, but if they could find one for Western or Central Africa... then they should pick one and they'd have a good geographical spread.

Just my two bits. :) Remember, it'll only be a matter of time before people create addons/mods for various civilization from around the world, including Africa. If it's easy to add civs (or if the mods are handled like Civ III) I'll download any good Abyssinian or Zulu mod. :)

The good things about the civ games is that you can remove any civ in it that you don't want. I just know some will take that in the wrong way.

The good things about the civ games is that you can remove any civ in it that you don't want. I just know some will take that in the wrong way.

You can also keep all the existing civs and add a new one or two with removing the others. :) IIRC Doesn't Civ IV NOT have a predefined Civ limit? If that's the case we could easily see mods (setting aside graphics concerns) with 100+ civs.

If that's the case one of the 'bignames' in modding will create a "uber mod of many civs, faiths, civics choices, etc" which will include such a wide array of choices/paths that every game will indeed be unqiue. Just think, if you want to have a medium sized package: 35-50 civs, 10-20 faiths, more civcs option, etc. That should cover all regions rather well. Of course this might lead to so many choices it bogs the computer down, or complicates the game.

Keep in mind: Never will any man made project ever cover everything on every level. It'd be to immense of a project, and if achieved would require so much micro-managment (and likely raw power from a computer) that it'd be no longer fun or playable. Some realism has to be sacraficed to make it fun.

It's also heavily modable, so we can really play around with it and cover the areas (civs, faiths, units, or even city names) we'd like to tweak. No version will make everyone happy as no two people are the same. It will never be perfect, nor should we expect to be. Keep in mind expansions will come, and they can only do so much in the core edition. With as rich and vast a history as this species has, it's extremely hard to pick (21 in Civ 2, 18 (IIRC) in Civ II and Civ IV) Civs to represent humanity across time. Even if we did have 100 civs, you could find noteable/important/cool/fun civs left out.

Keep in mind:
IT IS JUST A GAME! :) HAVE FUN WITH IT, as that is what it is really all about.

May I kindly ask a mod to close this thread, so it doesn't get ugly(ier)?

Yeah, why is this still around?

African civilizations are definately needed - Mali, Ghana, the Zulu, the Ashanti are all worthy of inclusion (though I'd pick only one or two of those).

Fun fact - before the 16th century all of Europe's gold came from African empires which prospered off the extensive and sophisticated trans-Sahara routes.

All Gold from Africa? Not true, Gold has been mined in Wales for ages, at least 3000 years and probably more. Guarantee there are other deposits in Europe too, I think the Roman Empire had it's own sources before they nabbed welsh sources.

EDIT* reply to Andrew Jay beneath this post. Yeah, very true; African trade was considerable

Okay, maybe not all, but the vast majority until the Americas or Australia were discovered.

There's a good reason why the British coin was called the "Guinea"

However, the main reason I put that in, is the very developed African trade networks and trade empires associated with this.

Well their were alot of lies and false things said in here but I don't have time to dismiss them all. For the people who are saying that africa has no civs, maybe it is not their are no civs their but its just that any good african civ that exist you deny is african. I don't know how someone can say the moors aren't african i guess Morococians and Mauritanians don't know thier heritage they name their country after. I know that in the 2nd century Ethiopia was listed along with china, persia and Rome as the great powers of its time if that isn't enough then nothing will satisfy you anti-african people

Well their were alot of lies and false things said in here but I don't have time to dismiss them all. For the people who are saying that africa has no civs, maybe it is not their are no civs their but its just that any good african civ that exist you deny is african. I don't know how someone can say the moors aren't african i guess Morococians and Mauritanians don't know thier heritage they name their country after. I know that in the 2nd century Ethiopia was listed along with china, persia and Rome as the great powers of its time if that isn't enough then nothing will satisfy you anti-african people


Even if it's harder for us to think of good choices (due to the focus of our education, less having an impact on our present day, other reasons, or any/all of the aboce) I think it'd be a good thing to include some that were important on that continent/region, and some that'd simply be fun to play. It makes the game more fun, and creates a "I get to rewrite history!" feeling. :)

Plus some of those civs, IMHO, are just flat out cool. :D I miss the Zulu, as I while I only played them 1/31 of the time (I usually played as a random civ), I always had a blast playing them for some reason. Also, I read up on the Ashanti due to a recent post. They look like they'd be fun to have in, and I'd say they're important. :)

Although you're certainly right, a lot of these civs are under-estimated. Both due to what we focus on in education, and "the centers of power" in todays world.

If I were to mod the game to add a few civs, the Zulu and Abyssinians would be two of about five civs I'd add.

May I kindly ask a mod to close this thread, so it doesn't get ugly(ier)?
Go ahead. I really did not think this thread would have cause so much trouble, I have nothing against Africa. I was thinking in terms of history, i didn't know much about Africa so i figured they had little history. I figured Europe, America nations, Asian and Mideast nations had more history and i thought all of the "Empires" and nations over there was made by those people, i didn't mean to offend anyone.

BBC The Story of Africa (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index.shtml)
A great summary of African history, back to the dawn of time.

And a rather pertinent quote:

"When African nationalists were demanding independence in the 1960s, the Smith regime actually sanctioned historians to write a fake history on the origins of Great Zimbabwe, denying its African origins.

This was not different from the accounts of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century antiquarians, which linked Great Zimbabwe with Phoenicia, with Saban Arabs, with the Egyptians and the rest of the near East. We would call that, in the scholarly world, 'antiquarian revisionism' - trying to use old values to support a wrong cause altogether. "

Dr. Innocent Pikirayi, lecturer in history and archaeology, University of Zimbabwe.

i am sorry to see no zulu in civ 4, i need someone to make a shaka leader + zulu warrior after this piece comes out

can we stear clear of what they did when.....im pretty sure this thread was about weather or not we need them...the pole kinda speaks for its self. lets not start an argument about history....i think we should just stick to why the belong in the game. thats it.

duplicate post....sorry

A better poll might be how many civs before an African civ should be included.

I'd say they should be in once you have at least 8 civs and should be ~5-10% of the Civs overall
(PS I'm talking about Sub-Saharan Africa primarily)

Including the entire continent, I'm for roughly 15%, this equals about 3 out of 18. My three: Ethiopia, Egypt, Mali.

3 of 18 may be a bit much...its hard to replace any of the 18 without pulling repersentation from anywhere else....

Now that the 18 are already cemented into the game, I definatively would not want to pull out one of those. Of course, if they amp up the number to 31 in an expansion, 15% would be about 5. My 5: Carthage, Zululand, Ethiopia, Egypt, Mali

Including the entire continent, I'm for roughly 15%, this equals about 3 out of 18. My three: Ethiopia, Egypt, Mali.


We do have two out of three for the initial 18, and I see no reason to drop and of the other 16 of 18. Egypt and Mali are good, and in my eyes Eygpt is one of the "absolute essentials". I think it may be wise to add two more civs (a total of twenty), one of them being Zulu, the other being the Babylonians? Babylonians aren't African, but are one of the earliest civs! :)

If nothing else, it wouldn't be to hard to add the Zulus if they were to add one civ. They have city lists from the previous three games, they have great leaders/scientists... and they indeed have two leaders! (Take the female leader from Civ II perhaps). The UU would likely be the Impi (and it is a cool unit too).

Besides, I think most of us miss the Zulu! They're part of Civ-lore practicly! :)

For "by the end of Civ IV" they should have: Egypt, Mali, Zulu, Carthaginians without question. Depending on how many more they add in addition they should try to get either the Abysinnians or Ashanti (or both) in.

I hope no one takes it the wrong way, while I am all for the Mali being in the game... I'd choose the Zulu over the Mali, if only for the reason that the Zulu have been in the game since day 1 (and we're always in the core game of each Civ game), and that they are part of Civ lore.

I want my Zulu! :cry:

can we stear clear of what they did when.....im pretty sure this thread was about weather or not we need them...the pole kinda speaks for its self. lets not start an argument about history....i think we should just stick to why the belong in the game. thats it.
Very true, I just hope that my link can help inform some people. The main "reason" I hear for people denying African civs a place is simply that they don't know any better - they have little experience with African history.

i also think that 5/35 african/total is very reasonable.

Now i may be wrong about this but what did African Civs really do history wise? Seem like all the were was conquered(SP) by some other nations, so my knowledge of Africa's history is not great. Do we really need african civs in Civ4 ? I could see Europe nations, Asians, Mid East, and American Nations. But why should we put Africa or a certin African nation in the game?


First of all, There have been many great african nations. The Zulu, South Africa was the first nation outside the nuclear five and India to construct nuclear weapons. Second, although it may seem that the Africans were only conquored, that is not true. If they were, there would be no Africans left.... like the native americans who were conquored. Finally, quit being rascist

South Africa isn't the same as the Zulu.. At all, other than that it occupies part of the same location and a small minority or its citizens may be of Zululand descent. Your post doesn't make any good arguements. And I don't think someone's lack of historical knowledge makes them a rascist.
The Ghana, Mali, and Songhai and Axum/Ethiopia were sub-saharan African nations that had large, advanced empires and left a significant impact. In the middle ages, a large portion of south Europe and the mediterrainian's gold came from the Ghana, Mali, and Songhai (geographically occupied similiar area's). They were filthy rich, had universities, and planned cities that thrived on trade. The Axum empire (present Ethiopia) was also a considerable commercial power. The reason they all fell from importance is basically because Europe developed better sailing techniques and began sailing around africa to trade, cutting them out of the loop.
The Zulu, on the otherhand, are realy only famous for their conflicts with the British.

Edit: I'd say a bigger worry than what african civs Civ4 will include is will all their non-unique units be white agian. Maybe I just have a defenctive imagination, but a blonde-haired, pale skinned "Zulu" swordsman in a wolf hat kinda took me out of the game.

South Africa isn't the same as the Zulu.. At all, other than that it occupies part of the same location and a small minority or its citizens may be of Zululand descent. Your post doesn't make any good arguements. And I don't think someone's lack of historical knowledge makes them a rascist.
The Ghana, Mali, and Songhai and Axum/Ethiopia were sub-saharan African nations that had large, advanced empires and left a significant impact. In the middle ages, a large portion of south Europe and the mediterrainian's gold came from the Ghana, Mali, and Songhai (geographically occupied similiar area's). They were filthy rich, had universities, and planned cities that thrived on trade. The Axum empire (present Ethiopia) was also a considerable commercial power. The reason they all fell from importance is basically because Europe developed better sailing techniques and began sailing around africa to trade, cutting them out of the loop.
The Zulu, on the otherhand, are realy only famous for their conflicts with the British.

Edit: I'd say a bigger worry than what african civs Civ4 will include is will all their non-unique units be white agian. Maybe I just have a defenctive imagination, but a blonde-haired, pale skinned "Zulu" swordsman in a wolf hat kinda took me out of the game.
.
And all settlers are black. Does this mean that only black people ever settle places. No. Your placing to much emphahsis on race. Civ shouldn't put civs in because they are from a speific continenit they should be in their cause thier good civs. The African civs that should be in the game from point of view is egypt and axum/abysinnia(ethiopia) definitely. Extras could be carthage, the moors, zulus (I think the Fulani empire was stronger in terms of military), ashante, shongahi and mali are all good but there isn't that much space. Ethiopia and Egypt should be in their primarily for african civs

so my knowledge of Africa's history is not great

The post should have stopped here.

Morocco would be a nifty civ. The only Arabic nation west of Persia that was not conquered by the Ottoman Turks. They were always major players in the region until Europe carved up the rest of Africa and left Morocco without their resources. The Cordoba caliphate of Andalusia was one of the precursers of Morocco and Morocco had Berber, Moor, and Arabic ethnicities. They may not be top 30 caliber, but they are top 10 for Africa.

Morocco is not top ten for africa. They are not even a top ten west african nation.

Oops. My mistake. You've convinced me with THAT argument. Sorry.

I know there is Carthage, the Asante and Ghana/Mali/Songhai. I can't think of too many other WEST African civilizations, maybe the Kong. Who else is cooler than Morocco? Egypt, Carthage, Zulu, Axum, Swahili, Zimbabwe, Liberia???

EDIT: and we are not talking "nation" we are talking "civilization" which means are supposed to look through the lens of the past. You may be right (I am no expert), but your verbs were in the 'present' tense while mine were in the 'past' tense.

Oops. My mistake. You've convinced me with THAT argument. Sorry.

I know there is Carthage, the Asante and Ghana/Mali/Songhai. I can't think of too many other WEST African civilizations, maybe the Kong. Who else is cooler than Morocco? Egypt, Carthage, Zulu, Axum, Swahili, Zimbabwe, Liberia???

EDIT: and we are not talking "nation" we are talking "civilization" which means are supposed to look through the lens of the past. You may be right (I am no expert), but your verbs were in the 'present' tense while mine were in the 'past' tense.

Well maybe they could be considered a top ten but they never really seemed to be the centre of any empire.

True. They don't have a highlighted history. The Almoravids (from Morocco) entered Spain and rebolstered the fight to stop the Spanish Reconquista. Morocco also fended off the Ottomans and French and stayed completely autonomous until after WWI. They were also the intermediators for most of the trans-Saharan trade between West Africa and Europe. I don't know, there can really be any overlapping between Morocco and any other civilization. They fill a hole in geography and definately were a presence in the Western Mediterranean and West Africa. Actually, I think they led the only successful military campaign across the Sahara in 1591! Good-bye, Mali.