Yesterday I was rereading Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is my favorite book after the Bible :p, and in the prologue it said of Study of History, by Arnold Toynbee, "Toynbee was especially interested in the internal dynamics of 23 advanced civilizations, of which 22 were literate and 19 were Eurasian." Then I looked at the CivRev civ list. Of the 16 civs presented, 12 of them are Eurasian, 1 of them is a "Eurasianized" (America) civilization, and 1 of them (Egypt) is in North Africa, which Jared Diamond frequently includes in his description of Eurasian food production, inventions, etc. Thus, only two of the CivRev civs can be described as fully Non-Eurasian. I was wondering whether people could come up with a list 16 civs with at least less Eurasian civs. (I was doing it earlier and it's somewhat hard) Thank you.

Inca
Atzec
Maya
Iroquios
Sioux
Zulus
Mali
Ethiopia

Pushing it to dubious waters:

Olmec
Toltec
Polynesian
Songhai
Benin
Maasai

What remaining 8 civs would there be after your first 8?

Zulu
Bantu
Mali
Assyrian
Babylonian
Persian
Ethiopian
Carthaginian
Aztec
Incan
Mayan
Iroquois
Indus(Indian)
China
Japan
Mughal Empire(Tamerlane's empire, lasted 500 years)
Mongol
Olmec
Khmer

I don't mean put all Non-Eurasian civs. I simply mean put more of them. If you made all the CivRev civs Non-Eurasian, it would be unfair to Eurasia. I simply would like more balance, not unbalance the other way.

Zulu
Bantu
Mali
Assyrian
Babylonian
Persian
Ethiopian
Carthaginian
Aztec
Incan
Mayan
Iroquois
Indus(Indian)
China
Japan
Mughal Empire(Tamerlane's empire, lasted 500 years)
Mongol
Olmec
Khmer

quit a lot of the civs you mentioned in there are from the eurasian continent (europe and asia), you know china and mongolia for example.

Since they haven't really made regular PC Civ games fair yet, I doubt that Civ Rev will be any fairer. The target market won't really care about how accurate the game is, judging by the content.

quit a lot of the civs you mentioned in there are from the eurasian continent (europe and asia), you know china and mongolia for example.

he said less eurasian civs, not no eurasian civs....but if you want no eurasian civs, here you go:
Zulu
Bantu
Mali
Ethiopian
Carthaginian
Aztec
Incan
Mayan
Iroquois
Olmec
Polynesian

oh right, yeh my bad

he said less eurasian civs, not no eurasian civs....but if you want no eurasian civs, here you go:
Zulu
Bantu
Mali
Ethiopian
Carthaginian
Aztec
Incan
Mayan
Iroquois
Olmec
Polynesian


Carthaginian is basically Eurasian for the same reason Egypt is (Mediterranean-part of the same 'connectivity group')

the only real 'non eurasian' ones are Sub-saharan africans, Polynesians, and Natives of the Americas

(which get represented by Zulus.. and Aztecs... Polynesians get left out)

Zulus decent choice in probably having the least contact with Eurasia as they were the farthest to reach by water, and were somewhat inland, and were not part of the trans-sahara trade route).. but they still were annoying enough to the Eurasians to make it into the popular historical imagination

Aztecs.. Well all of the natives of the Americas were equally cut off, and the Incans or Mayans would probably have done as well, but Aztecs got a few more point in the popular imagination.

egypt is not in eurasia.

But Diamond frquently adds N. Africa to Eurasia because of its similarities and historical ties.

egypt is not in eurasia.

It might as well be. North African cultures were often very similar to those on the other sides of the Mediterranean sea, e.g. Carthage and Rome. Its only a very small strip of land though, most of North Africa is desert inhabited by nomadic tribesmen.

eurasia isn't a culture or a ideology anyone can claim to belong too, eurasia is the continents of europe and asia, fact and africa is not part of it. :scan:

eurasia isn't a culture or a ideology anyone can claim to belong too, eurasia is the continents of europe and asia, fact and africa is not part of it. :scan:
Suppose so, but they are very close, the sahara is much more of a barrier than the Mediterranean.

Eurasia is more than just a continent is is also a biogeographical region (Paleartic) which DOES include North Africa

and that is far more significant for something like civ because those regions consider barriers that are significant to the movement of living organisms (ie people), not plate boundaries.

For almost all non-geologic purposes, N.Africa is part of Eurasia (at least as much as India is if not more)

niogeograhpical region, thats not even a real word, stop making things up.

They really should have more diverse civilizations though. Actually more civilizations altogether. I think the biggest mistake is leaving out the Ottoman Empire. Hopefully they release extra civilizations as downloadable content.

Biogeography refers to biospheres, not to human population and culture.

Human populations are (bio) living things
humans 10,000.. even 2,000 years ago moved about with similar limitations as other animals... just more adaptable... and particular human cultures were part of particular environments (they didn't do as well outside of their environment unless they adapted.)
Movement across deserts was rare and across, rather than around, oceans was basically impossible.
Yes it happened I'm well aware of Sahara trade routes... but those were trade routes rather than continuous movements of large numbers of people.

The Sahara separates Carthage from Mali more than the Mediterranean separates Carthage from Rome.

Overall, SubSaharan Africa is more distinct from North Africa than North Africa is from Eurasia (particularly Middle East)


@Schuesseled
ignoring your misspelling, it IS a real word, and while it is based on non-human organisms.. see above.

Human populations are (bio) living things
humans 10,000.. even 2,000 years ago moved about with similar limitations as other animals... just more adaptable... and particular human cultures were part of particular environments (they didn't do as well outside of their environment unless they adapted.)
Movement across deserts was rare and across, rather than around, oceans was basically impossible.
Yes it happened I'm well aware of Sahara trade routes... but those were trade routes rather than continuous movements of large numbers of people.

The Sahara separates Carthage from Mali more than the Mediterranean separates Carthage from Rome.

Overall, SubSaharan Africa is more distinct from North Africa than North Africa is from Eurasia (particularly Middle East)


@Schuesseled
ignoring your misspelling, it IS a real word, and while it is based on non-human organisms.. see above.

north africa may be similar to eurasia, but so is america, jsut because its similar doesn't mean it should be called it.

eurasia is the prehidtoric landmass of europe and asia, before thye became more seperated, and africa wasn't part of it.

America was separated from significant contact with Eurasia (and africa and australia) until 500 years ago

Contact between North Africa and Eurasia has Always been higher than contact between North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa

This is not a world history forum! This is a CivRev forum! More of what I originally asked or the mods will move us to the WH forum :(

This is not a world history forum! This is a CivRev forum! More of what I originally asked or the mods will move us to the WH forum :(

QFT! ;)