What's the Most Important African Civ?

I'd have to say the Ethiopians. They have a history from the beginning of humans to King Solomon and Bilqis to Labilela up to Haile Selassie and the Italians. They made many advances not found in other parts of Africa, and are still running now. The Egyptians and Carthaginians are so overrated;) .

You know that your answering by yourself, right?

If you want a fair poll you need to say except Egypt because otherwise there's no competition.

Though I'm not a huge fan of Egypt, it's by far the most "important" (of course it depends on how you define important) of those you have in the poll.

If you want a fair poll you need to say except Egypt because otherwise there's no competition.

He's got a point. If Egypt had not been on there I would have certainly voted for Mali. Egypt (as well as Carthage, actually) was far more influenced by the Mediterranean than Africa itself, with the exception of the various times Nubia attacked it or controlled it.

I say Morocco. First university in the world is there. Lots of technological innovations etc and Ibn Batutta. W/o Morocco and the Moors that came from here Europe wouldn't have had things like the windmill.

I say Morocco. First university in the world is there.
r u sure ?
I always thought the Nalanda University was among the first. Or maybe some chinese confucian smthing ...


As for the OP - you should have omited Egypt from your poll.

Why? Egypt is in Africa.

Egypt. But...

Why? Egypt is in Africa.

Even in Civilization 3, the Egyptians were considered a "Medieteranean" civ.

r u sure ?
I always thought the Nalanda University was among the first. Or maybe some chinese confucian smthing ...


As for the OP - you should have omited Egypt from your poll.

As in continually operated to the present.

Why? Egypt is in Africa.
Because it is obvious that it's the most important one. I would've really like to read arguments in favour of the other civs for the 2nd most important one. Alas, this thread will require no argumenting whatsoever.
As in continually operated to the present.
Oh, cool. :)

Egypt, Carthage, Numidia, Mali, Songhi, Ghana, Abyssina, Zanzibar, Nubia, Congo Kingdom, Kingdom of Benin, Sokoto, Morroco, Almovarids, Almohads, Fatamids,

far too many to choose just one.

Egypt, with the civilisations of West Africa (eg. Almoravids, Mali, Benin, etc) close second.

Because it is obvious that it's the most important one. I would've really like to read arguments in favour of the other civs for the 2nd most important one. Alas, this thread will require no argumenting whatsoever.

It's not obvious to me. If you can explain what makes Egypt so "obviously" more important than Ethiopia or Mali I'll be very interested to hear it...

It's not obvious to me. If you can explain what makes Egypt so "obviously" more important than Ethiopia or Mali I'll be very interested to hear it...
I'm not sure what the OP meant by "important", but this was my reasoning.

I guess i thought what would happen if Egypt the civ was radicaly different from what it was. This was the first thought that came to mind:
What if instead of them, some hippie civ would not put the jews into slavery -> no more Moses leading the jews to Israel -> no more christianity -> no more islam -> etc.

But probably because it has a long (known) history - we can have these kinds of chaos theory effects.

However Egypt (the land) is very hospitable, so if Egypt (the civ) were not living there, then some other would just be in their place.
It would be intresting to think what would it be like if the land was a barren desert w/o the Nile. That was the second thing that crossed my mind. If some other civ would be in it's place then it would be the one with large "importance" instead of the egypteans. So i thought, what if there could be no important civs there ...

Those were my first thoughts i guess.
I should mention that knowing little about the others' history didn't help them ... :mischief: (not that i know much about egyptean history anyway)

It's not obvious to me. If you can explain what makes Egypt so "obviously" more important than Ethiopia or Mali I'll be very interested to hear it...

Egypt is (as far as we know) one of the oldest civilisations and have wide reaching influence over the rest of the world, especially "western" and Islamic civilisations. Mali or Ethiopia did not have that kind of influence, although they are nevertheless very important to history.

On the other hand, the Ethiopian civilisation lasted for longer than the Egyptian one did (into modern times). Don't forget, also, that there was a time when Ethiopia had the largest merchant fleet on the planet, and traded all down the African east coast and across the Indian Ocean.

It's true that Ethiopia hasn't had all that much influence upon other civilisations, but then, I'm not convinced that Egypt did so either; it seems to me that its influence was mostly as a sort of ideal. For example, it was fashionable in late antiquity to attribute philosophical or religious ideas to mythical ancient Egyptian sages, to make them seem older and supposedly therefore better. Take the Hermetic corpus, for example. Now that's influence of a sort, I suppose, but not a very full-blooded sort.

As for Moses, that's a poor example, given that no-one knows whether the story of the Exodus is true or not. You can't base a claim like this upon uncertain mythology. You might as well say that Ethiopia is more important because Solomon gave them the Ark of the Covenant.

I'm not necessarily saying that Ethiopia is a more important civilisation than Egypt; but I certainly dispute the claim that the matter is obvious.

As much as I agree with the need for discussion, Plotinus, it would seem the polls indicate otherwise. Egypt is winning by a considerable margin (26 votes at the moment).

On the other hand, the Ethiopian civilisation lasted for longer than the Egyptian one did (into modern times). Don't forget, also, that there was a time when Ethiopia had the largest merchant fleet on the planet, and traded all down the African east coast and across the Indian Ocean.

It's true that Ethiopia hasn't had all that much influence upon other civilisations, but then, I'm not convinced that Egypt did so either; it seems to me that its influence was mostly as a sort of ideal. For example, it was fashionable in late antiquity to attribute philosophical or religious ideas to mythical ancient Egyptian sages, to make them seem older and supposedly therefore better. Take the Hermetic corpus, for example. Now that's influence of a sort, I suppose, but not a very full-blooded sort.
Well yea - Egypt always held a fascinating aura during lots of moments in history. Some things may have been distorted.
As for Moses, that's a poor example, given that no-one knows whether the story of the Exodus is true or not. You can't base a claim like this upon uncertain mythology. You might as well say that Ethiopia is more important because Solomon gave them the Ark of the Covenant.
IIRC there was proof that the Exodus happend. Obviously not in the SF way it is described in the Bible. I mean i recall from some documentary that there was proof that a large number of jews left Egypt toward the east led by some dude. (but not ALL of them left - it would've been impossible)
I think it also showed the hypotheses that Moses was actually a priest of Osiris or smthing - or was it initiated in the Mysteries of Osiris/Isis ? I don't remember that one. They did mention the evidence was not nearly conlusive on this.
I'm not necessarily saying that Ethiopia is a more important civilisation than Egypt; but I certainly dispute the claim that the matter is obvious.
Well yea - but you have to admit, it would've been a FAR more intresting discussion if Egypt was out of the question in the first place. That's kinda what i was trying to point out.

As much as I agree with the need for discussion, Plotinus, it would seem the polls indicate otherwise. Egypt is winning by a considerable margin (26 votes at the moment).

I'm not surprised by that, but I think that's more to do with the glamorous image and name recognition factor of Egypt rather than anything else. I do think Egypt has much better PR than real influence on other civilisations.

IIRC there was proof that the Exodus happend. Obviously not in the SF way it is described in the Bible. I mean i recall from some documentary that there was proof that a large number of jews left Egypt toward the east led by some dude. (but not ALL of them left - it would've been impossible)

I can't imagine what that proof could possibly be...

I think it also showed the hypotheses that Moses was actually a priest of Osiris or smthing - or was it initiated in the Mysteries of Osiris/Isis ? I don't remember that one. They did mention the evidence was not nearly conlusive on this.

Similarly, I can't believe there's any evidence for that at all. Even the existence of Moses is pretty tenuous, let alone his religious background.

I'm not surprised by that, but I think that's more to do with the glamorous image and name recognition factor of Egypt rather than anything else. I do think Egypt has much better PR than real influence on other civilisations.
And that is why a thread w/o Egypt is needed - to teach us who only got the PR voice. :D
I can't imagine what that proof could possibly be...
I know you won't like it ... :mischief: ... but the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus) is too honking big for me to read.
I do have a question for you tho, (even tho it should be in the ask a theologist thread). I always believed that the jewish tribes left Egypt to go to some other place to find/take/invade which they found to be Canaan. If that may not have happend then how did they get there in the first place ? I gues they could've already been there, a mass migration toward Egypt would be just as odd as the Exodus. But still, if the exodus didn't happen, then the jews who were already there must've entered a pretty big "golden age" to get that powerfull in such short time.
Similarly, I can't believe there's any evidence for that at all. Even the existence of Moses is pretty tenuous, let alone his religious background.
I didn't buy that one either.

Egypt, no contest.

Egypt didnt really influence other civs.

I'm not surprised by that, but I think that's more to do with the glamorous image and name recognition factor of Egypt rather than anything else. I do think Egypt has much better PR than real influence on other civilisations.

I think you are dead-on here. The same thing goes for WW2 whenever there is a "pick some new leaders" thread up in the Civ4 boards...every other post is a pro-Hitler, pro-Hirohito, pro-Franco, or pro-<insert WW2 leader here> post. It gets sickening after awhile. Sometimes, it's just that people don't pay attention to some of the lesser known names, but everybody reads about the Egyptian pyramid-builders in elementary school.

I'm not necessarily saying that Ethiopia is a more important civilisation than Egypt; but I certainly dispute the claim that the matter is obvious.Did Ethopia build big pointless structures? No! Therefore they don't deserve any merit whatsoever.

Egypt didnt really influence other civs.

Yes they did. Why did we have an entire science called "Egyptology"? It's because Egypt had influenced world history more than most other cultures. Ancient Egyptian religion, architecture and mathematics influenced the "Western" world a lot (the concept of monotheism as far as we know began in Egypt, and the 365 days of the year comes from Ancient Egypt), and Egypt was also a major economic power from the times of the New Kingdom onwards. During Roman times it was important in supplying grain (and the occasional plague) to Rome, and remained an important centre of trade during the Muslim period. Muslim Egyptian scientists were also important (Ibn al-Haytham for example revolutionised optics). After AD1000 onwards the power in the Muslim world centred on Egypt, whether it was the Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mohammad Ali's era, right to the modern era.

Did Ethopia build big pointless structures? No! Therefore they don't deserve any merit whatsoever.

Well, they did actually!

Yes they did. Why did we have an entire science called "Egyptology"? It's because Egypt had influenced world history more than most other cultures.

Egyptology is just the study of Egypt, though (and what else would you call it?) - that simply means that Egypt is a worthy subject of study, not that it's so influential on other civilisations.

Ancient Egyptian religion, architecture and mathematics influenced the "Western" world a lot (the concept of monotheism as far as we know began in Egypt, and the 365 days of the year comes from Ancient Egypt), and Egypt was also a major economic power from the times of the New Kingdom onwards.

I agree that Egypt was an important economic power. I suppose by monotheism starting there you mean the religious reforms of Akhenaten, which do indeed apparently predate the emergence of monotheism in Judaism - but which also, apparently, were completely distinct and had no influence upon it. By which I mean, Akhenaten may have been the first monotheist, but there's no evidence that he had any influence upon the emergence of monotheism elsewhere.

The fact that the year has 365 days comes not from Egypt but from the unalterable astronomical fact that that's how long the earth takes to revolve around the sun. Perhaps the Egyptians were the first to measure this, but they hardly invented it.

During Roman times it was important in supplying grain (and the occasional plague) to Rome, and remained an important centre of trade during the Muslim period. Muslim Egyptian scientists were also important (Ibn al-Haytham for example revolutionised optics). After AD1000 onwards the power in the Muslim world centred on Egypt, whether it was the Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mohammad Ali's era, right to the modern era.

This is all true, but I don't really see it as relevant, because we're no longer talking about the Egyptian civilisation - we're talking about the achievements of later civilisations that existed in the same location. If we were talking about the achievements of the Romans, we wouldn't list all the achievements of later European countries too.

Did Ethopia build big pointless structures? No! Therefore they don't deserve any merit whatsoever.
BAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_church). How's that for big, pointless structures? ;)

Still, I'd probably say Egypt. The only Egyptian civilisations to be truly significant on the world stage were Egypt and Morocco, and it's arguable that Moroccan civilisation is more of an outgrowth of Mesopotamian/Mediterranean civilisation, rather than a true African civilisation.

BAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_church). How's that for big, pointless structures? ;)

Still, I'd probably say Egypt. The only Egyptian civilisations to be truly significant on the world stage were Egypt and Morocco, and it's arguable that Moroccan civilisation is more of an outgrowth of Mesopotamian/Mediterranean civilisation, rather than a true African civilisation.

Morocco is much more influenced by the Berbers than the Arabs.

Morocco is much more influenced by the Berbers than the Arabs.
True, but in terms of civilisation both the Arabs and the Berbers- both groups started off (and some remain) primarily nomadic, remember- were primarily influenced by Mesopotamia.

Egypt, because this nation exists since the dawn of civilization.

Egypt, because this nation exists since the dawn of civilization.

Egypt essentially changed so much even from its beginning to the pre-Islam period. China wins that award as it has essentially remained true to its beginnings.

China wins that award as it has essentially remained true to its beginnings.

except with a slight little quirk for the last half century or so we call "Mao". ALthuogh even so that hasn't changed everything either.

Althuogh, Egypt actually was a very traditional civilization until the Greeks came c. 300 BC - and even then, some things remained the same, even when the Romans came. But it was only really until the Romans and Christians came when Egypt started to go into the history books. If so, their record stretches. c.3000 BCE - c. 0, an impressive 3000 years (thuogh that is only a little smaller than China, and excluding the Pre-dynastic cultures).

except with a slight little quirk for the last half century or so we call "Mao". ALthuogh even so that hasn't changed everything either.

Althuogh, Egypt actually was a very traditional civilization until the Greeks came c. 300 BC - and even then, some things remained the same, even when the Romans came. But it was only really until the Romans and Christians came when Egypt started to go into the history books. If so, their record stretches. c.3000 BCE - c. 0, an impressive 3000 years (thuogh that is only a little smaller than China, and excluding the Pre-dynastic cultures).

I'm not talking about the broad political changes but things such as family life and the culture and structure of society and its tendencies.

I'm not talking about the broad political changes but things such as family life and the culture and structure of society and its tendencies.

Lemme think a bit... :D

Okay, from what I know, althuogh details did change, general concepts still remained -

1. Pyramids and Valley of the Kings. Look different, but still same concept - funky little tombs for people.

2. Writing System - changes as much as Chinese charaters did in 3000 year span, finally culmulating with the shorthand or cursize form, i think.

3. Structure of Society - pharaoh, everyone else.

4. The most important gods may have changed from time to time, but not too much essentially. Amun-Ra of the New Kingdom was essentially a new "hipper" Ra for the "newer" generation of Egyptians.

5. Women - kind of equal to men all the time until the Greeks and Romans came.

6. Clothing - not too much of a difference, eh? Cleopatra probably could've worn the same kind of skimpy clothing Hatshephut was wearing, same with Ramses II and the 1000 year earlier Khufu.

7. Raids - always having fun raiding gold from Nubia and other goodies from the Levant, always.


Althuogh yes the administration style did change quite a bit from "Kingdom" to "Kingdom", I do admit.

Lemme think a bit... :D

.

Though what you say is correct China remains the same even through outside domination and even converting the outsiders into Chinese, look at the Yuan and Kublai Khan. However the first major conquerors of Egypt excluding the minors like the Hyksos essentially changed Egypt: the Greeks and then the Romans and then the Byzantines and then Islam completely and totally changed the area around only leaving Byzantine remnants behind.

Though what you say is correct China remains the same even through outside domination and even converting the outsiders into Chinese, look at the Yuan and Kublai Khan. However the first major conquerors of Egypt excluding the minors like the Hyksos essentially changed Egypt: the Greeks and then the Romans and then the Byzantines and then Islam completely and totally changed the area around only leaving Byzantine remnants behind.

The Hyksos admittedly introduced the Chariot and better Archery and military revolution and such, but essentially Egyptian lifestyles remained very much the same until the Greeks came along. Of course, perhaps I confused your original meaning.

And I think now we can't say that China has remained 100% the same either, of course. At the least, we can say thanks to Mao, not too many people worship Buddha or Confucius or Lao-Tzu as they did, but Asian kids still obey their parents... often to fault. :D

True, but in terms of civilisation both the Arabs and the Berbers- both groups started off (and some remain) primarily nomadic, remember- were primarily influenced by Mesopotamia.

Actually, the Berbers have developed their own largely indigenous civilisation by the time of the Romans eg Garamantes, Numidia, Mauretania

Actually, the Berbers have developed their own largely indigenous civilisation by the time of the Romans eg Garamantes, Numidia, Mauretania
Well, those nations were highly influenced by the Carthaginians, remember, and event then they didn't exactly compare to the height of Andalusian culture.
It's basically a fact that, regardless of what pre-Islamic Beber culture existed, Moroccan cultural as it is commonly understood is, for the most part, an off-shoot of Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilisation.

BAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_church). How's that for big, pointless structures? ;)It's a building, you can go inside and putz around, definitely not pointless.

It's a building, you can go inside and putz around, definitely not pointless.
Well... Yeah, I guess, but they didn't need to carve it out of solid rock.

Egypt. What else is there to say.

Well... Yeah, I guess, but they didn't need to carve it out of solid rock.Well it was a rock just sitting there, they didn't have to drag out other rocks or do all kinds of advanced masonry and stuff.

Egypt, Mali, Carthage, Ethiopia.

ZULU FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ZULU FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


While I like the Zulus, they were only like 100 years. The Ethiopia were (and are) 3000 years old. Also, they were some of the first Christians, may have been visited by Mary, Jospeh, and Jesus during their flight from Herod, and may have the Ark of the Covenant. They also built 2 big, rock structures! The Stele in Axum and the churches in Lalibela. The Zulus weren't famous for their Christianity or stone monuments, or longevity.

Yeah, You're right. The only reason I didn't pick the Ethiopians was because I've never played as them in Civ:cry: :cry: