The Last of the Civworthy

Hapsburg? (is that already in the game?)
Florence?
Prussia? (is that already in the game?)
Austria-Hungary? (is that already in the game?)
South Africa?

Good call with Assyrians.

Thanks. :)

The Habsburgs/Austro-Hungarians are covered by the Holy Roman Empire, and Prussia by Germany. Really all of those different groups belong simply under the overall head of "German Civilization."

Florence will be in Civ5 as an independent city-state. It couldn't be a Civ on its own, as it is just one city.

South Africa is covered by the Zulus.
 
Hapsburg? (is that already in the game?)
Florence?
Prussia? (is that already in the game?)
Austria-Hungary? (is that already in the game?)
South Africa?

Florence is already in as a city state, and why do you have the Hapsburgs and Austria-Hungary as separate civs?
 
I'm a bit leery of covering *all* south-asian civs with "India" or east-asian with "China". Those weren't unified entities for most of their history. It would be a bit like saying no need for Spain, France, Portugal or England, because hey, we have Rome.

I would say that the Muslim Mughals were pretty different to the various Hindu Kings (and to modern India).
 
I'm a bit leery of covering *all* south-asian civs with "India" or east-asian with "China". Those weren't unified entities for most of their history. It would be a bit like saying no need for Spain, France, Portugal or England, because hey, we have Rome.

I would say that the Muslim Mughals were pretty different to the various Hindu Kings (and to modern India).

I was not suggesting such a thing. Again, I'd prefer to differentiate between "dynasties" (which is a never-ending list) and "civilizations" (which represent the various dynasties to rule a particular area).

Thus we have China instead of separate Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, Sung, Yuan, Ming, and Qing civilizations. Many of these dynasties were very different from each other, but all are covered under "China."

However, the term "China" does not cover "Malaysia," "Thailand" or "Vietnam," all of which could potentially have their own Civs.
 
I'd like to see one of the West Coast North American native tribes make it in. The most well known is probably the Haida. North America is largely under-represented, with only the Americans to sweep through that whole area. Having a civ on the far west coast of an earth map would prevent them from just taking over a huge land mass. Maybe also have the Apache or Soiux in the Southwest. The Haida are quite famous for their artwork and culture, and also lived in more or less stable communities. They weren't the usual hunter-gatherers that many of the other Native American tribes were. Their society was quite advanced.
 
I was not suggesting such a thing. Again, I'd prefer to differentiate between "dynasties" (which is a never-ending list) and "civilizations" (which represent the various dynasties to rule a particular area).

I can see your distinction of dynasties, it is a reasonable reason to reject a lot of cases. But I think Mughal Empire vs Hindu India in particular is a much larger difference than just

Not every south-asian civilization fits nicely under a single "India".
Eg: the Ganges and Indus civs arose separately.

It feels odd to be willing to separate France from Celts from England from Vikings from Germans (recalling in particular celtic tribes, normal conquest, viking conquests, saxon migration), but declare south asia to be a single entity.

Otherwise you may as well just have a "Europe" civ. The way those guys intermarried, they were all basically just different dynasties.
 
Good info. :b: I still wonder if there isn't a more suitable demonym available for the Civ. After all, Srivijaya and Majapahit were different dynasties that ruled the same region. In other cases we have simply China (instead of Qin, Han, Tang, etc.) or India (instead of Maurya, Gupta, Mughal, etc.).

What would be the most suitable and recognizable demonym for this Civ?

Well unfortunately for that time period and that cultural line, the Majapahit is the top of the line. They represent the height of civilisation, culture, literature, government and society for the South-East Asian area. They were the largest South-East Asian Empire too, with "much respect" from Zheng He of China.

If you want me to say Indonesia, it does not represent this culture well. Indonesia represent the Muslim and European influences which flowed into the area from the 16th C. If anything, a "Euro-centric" name could be Javanese, but that's only the core tribe of Majapahit. ;)
 
Well unfortunately for that time period and that cultural line, the Majapahit is the top of the line. They represent the height of civilisation, culture, literature, government and society for the South-East Asian area. They were the largest South-East Asian Empire too, with "much respect" from Zheng He of China.

If you want me to say Indonesia, it does not represent this culture well. Indonesia represent the Muslim and European influences which flowed into the area from the 16th C. If anything, a "Euro-centric" name could be Javanese, but that's only the core tribe of Majapahit. ;)
Firaxis did "Native American" and "Viking". I hardly think "Indonesian" is that much a stretch.
 
True, except Indonesia doesn't really represent the pre-Muslim and European period that Srivijaya and Majapahit are from. Native American represents the pre-Columbian populations of the Americas, and Viking is actually the pre-Christian Norse tribes of Scandinavia. So those two terms refer to the Civs they are representing, whereas Indonesian refers to after the Srivijaya/Majapahit period and is therefore unsuitable.
 
More mesoamerican civillizations, maybe? the Tarascans and Zapotec, or Teotihuacan might be good choices (although we don't know any teotihuacan leaders. the Toltecs would be a decent candidate, but whatever we know of their history is really mythologized at this point.)

More Andean civillizations. Chimor! Tiwanaku! the only issue agian, is the scarcity of historical infromation beyond archealogical remains.

I don't think its fair to lump all civillizations of the Indian subcontinent into one civ. Same goes for the lumping of different muslim civillizations into one. and more african civs would be cool. How about Great Zimbabwe or the Kongo?
 
I rather like the idea of Vietnam, though if they were in, I would say their leader would have to be the Trung sisters.

I think the Minoans would be good, as they were supposedly very advanced for their time.

I like the Polynesians because they crossed vast amounts of water long before the European (or Asian for that matter) countries did.

How about the kingdom of Sheba? Covered parts or all of modern day Ethiopia, Yemen, and maybe more. Had interactions with Egypt and Israel. Very little is known about it though... I'm just throwing it out there. I don't actually think it should be a civ.
 
That is a very nice list.

If we're just thinking of deserving but unused civs in general, Minoans are excellent, but if we're thinking for Civ5 specifically it would be somewhat of an impossibility due to the whole leaders speaking own language thing. A couple of the others may have the same issue.

As for additions to it, I would go with Maori. Though 'Polynesians', they're much more distinct than that to the point they could have their own civ.

1. Firstly, not astoundingly important in terms of global history, but not without merits. The Treaty of Waitangi was perhaps the first to be conducted with a native peoples on an (ostendably) equal basis, the fact that there was a treaty in its own right at all was telling.

2. About 600-700 years of independance, mostly due to geographical isolation. While linguistically/culturally/religiously similar to other Polynesian groups, they're distinct with their own mythical heroes and legends (i.e, Maui).

The culture and religion is perhaps especially different due to the nature of the land, compared to the rest of Polynesia, New Zealand (or Aotearoa/Te Wai Ponamu) is massive, far more capable of housing a population, enabling material developments, etc.

Even with official British settlement c.1840, 'Maoridom' was still effectively independant for most of the century. In modern times Maori is still culturally distinct.

3. This one is quite easy, if you just go for historical figures:

Hongi Hika - . While in England he helped codify into dictionary form the Maori Language along with the missionary Samuel Lee, as well as studying agricultural techniques among other things that could be useful. He also brought back a large supply of muskets, and then set out to conquer most of the upper North Island.

Te Rauparaha - Effectively a Maori Warlord, similar to the above he acquired muskets and conquered the lower North Island and Upper South. From Kapiti Island he ran a sort of Maori-English trade hub. Later on (again similar to the above) he repulsed various attempts by the settlers to assert sovereignty over the Maori.

King Potatau te Wherowhero or King Tawhiao - Basically as British settlers continued to...settle, a 'pan-tribal' movement gained momentum in order to provide a combined ability to negotiate with the English Crown/Settler government rather than allow them to divide and conquer. Te Wherowhero was elected King based upon his 'mana' (sort of like the latin auctoritas). His successor Tawhiao had to contend with a literal invasion of 14000 British soldiers (British Army + Colonial volunteers).

- City List, yes, easy

- UB - Pa - Varies from a hiltop fortified village, to a more defensive fortress orientated around guns. The later could be erected extremely quickly and caused the British Army no small amount of grief.

- UU - More difficult to give a name, maybe 'Toa' (Warrior). Depending on historical perspecitive this could be A: Replacement for Warrior, similar to Aztec Jaguar, or B: A unit that replaces Musketman or Rifleman with a forest/defensive bonus.

4. - Relatively 'famous'. Most people in the Western World would have at least a dim conception of what a Maori is (Tattoo's like Robbie Williams, Massive Jade Clubs, Sticks out tongue alot, does Haka, eats you)
- I expect Commonwealth nations would enjoy playing as/playing against Maori, though I somewhat expect Americans/Germans/Non-Westerners might not give a flying :):):):). French might like to play out a historical what-if though (if the British didn't stake a claim to New Zealand, the French most likely would have, they had already had an (unplanned) colony called Akaroa in the South island).
- Definately an underepresented region
- It would definately add something 'out of left field' to the game, would play out a lot of historical 'what-ifs'.

Moderator Action: language - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Why is Hungary covered by the HRE? They have a different culture and history and as far as I know, were never in the Holy Roman Empire (please correct me if this is false though!). I vaguely remember being taught that the renaissance started in Hungary, and it had a military and cultural might to be reckoned with! They're also known pretty much anywhere in the West and their region is totally under represented!
I'm confused by your rules though, would Minoa not full under the Greek region? They're in the same time period too, same with Nubia really.
Could we include The Punjab/Sikh Empire considering the modern borders of India don't encompass it? It obviously has religious importance and Sikhs are famed for their skill at arms, it's in an under represented region and has a very famous leader (Ranjit Singh). I had to go on Wikipedia to help me decide the Unique Unit (some UUs aren't that famous anyway, that Mayan spearman for example) and found that they had the best artillery in Asia at the time, we've never had a unique artillery unit to my knowledge.

Despite my name, I have no ancestral ties to India (that I'm aware of!)- this isn't just patriotism speaking. :p

There are probably some nations to the East of India that are well known, I'm just unaware of them. :lol:
 
I'm sorry but I disagree that Mexico and Brazil are already represented by the Aztecs and Portugal. That would be like arguing that the U.S. should be out because England is in or the Natives should be out because the U.S. is in. Or, that many european civs should be out because Rome is in, etc.

However, classifying Mexico and Brazil as civilizations, I don't know. But once again, the U.S. is in it so... why not?
 
Okay, lots of responses. There's a lot to cover, so pardon me if I answer with brevity.

Willem: Those are definitely too obscure, and it would be impossible to procure an adequately famous leader or comprehensive city list.

Ahriman: How are Indus and Ganges not both Indian civilizations? Most westerners would be perfectly fine with having Akbar as one of the Indian leaders rather than a separate civ with a duplicate city list. I do however have two civs on the list that cover parts of Indian territory. The Kushans conquered part of northern India, and the Chola ruled part of southern India as well as parts of SE Asia. The point is that they weren't just Indian dynasties, but civs that spread beyond one region.

Dale: Actually Javanese doesn't sound too bad to my ears. It would definitely be better than "Indonesians," which gives me the CtP shudders. You do makes some good points about the Majapahit, though.

Minoan: I actually considered all of those briefly. They all had considerable accomplishments, but none could pass the test of having a "great" or noteworthy leader, a decent city list, fame in the west (needed to sell games), etc. etc.

Wideyedwanderer: Agreed on all counts (especially the Trung Sisters). Sab'a would be interesting but very hard to implement. Having a simple "Queen of Sheba" leader would not be adequate either. :p

CMKMStephens: Thank you for your compliment. :) I'll have to take the Maoris under advisement. I think they would be interesting to play with, but I don't know if they're major enough to make the Top 50. "Polynesians" is already pushing it, and we want it to be "Civilization," not "Tribes."

Pakhawaj: It is true that Hungary was not part of the HRE, however for a period of about 300 years or so the Holy Roman Emperors also happened to be Kings of Hungary. Moreover, after the dissolution of the HRE, its former Emperors the Hapsburgs became rulers of a united Austria-Hungary. It might be a good Civ to try, but I'd have to push them past the top 50.

The Minoans would not qualify as Greeks. They were a different culture with a different language, and actually dominated the Greeks for a while. However after the volcano exploded at Thera in c. 1500 BC, the Minoans were devastated and ultimately conquered by the Greeks. They had ruled for hundreds of years, to be swept aside instantly. They're often given short shrift because we don't know as much about them, but from what we can tell, they were pretty MAJOR.

As for India, see my remarks above to Ahriman.

alex9988: You make a good point about Mexico and Brazil being diverse from the Aztecs and Portugal, but again: we're talking "civilizations" not "countries." Italy gets left out because Rome is in, after all. A "civilization" is more a cultural movement, whereas a "country" is a political entity, and a "nation-state" a political entity focused on a single ethnic group.

Their independence alone, though commendable, does not qualify them for the top 50 civs. The USA itself barely qualifies. Were it not for the meteoric American rise as global hegemon, they wouldn't qualify. Mexico and Brazil are so young as countries that they would need to do the same in order to be Civworthy. After all, they've got to be able to stand up to the heavy hitters like Rome and China, with their millenia-long histories.
 
As a reference for those who may not have delved as deeply into the past of the franchise as I have, here is the list of the 36 Civs that have been in at least one Civ game between Civ1 and Civ5:

Americans
Arabs
Aztecs
Babylonians
Byzantines
Carthaginians
Celts
Chinese
Dutch
Egyptians
English
Ethiopians
French
Germans/Austrians/Holy Roman Empire
Greeks
Hittites
Incans
Indians
Japanese
Khmer
Koreans
Malinese
Mayans
Mongols
Native Americans/Iroquois/Sioux
Ottoman Turks
Persians
Portuguese
Romans
Russians
Siamese
Spanish
Songhai
Sumerians
Vikings
Zulus

Allow me also to direct your attention here.
 
I have a feeling you are merging the HRR/Austrian/German/Prussian Civ to much. They have a lot of shared history, true, but the people in these countries don't feel that way. Recent history is always more important. I allow myself to judge, since I'm from Croatian origin and not born as Austrian.

The HRR is hard to grab, it is nothing that is mentioned much in around here and definitively doesn't appeal to Croatians or other non-german-speaking people in the area. It might represent the self-conception of the Habsburg rulers best, but nowadays no one cares about it except history experts.

IMO, there were two big entities: The vienna-centered Habsburg-reigned Austria-Hungary as direct sucessor to the HRR, also including much of mid-eastern Europe (Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, partly Rumenia and Bulgaria)
and
the more recent Prussia/Germany, as direct predecessor for modern Germany.

I'm not sure about other nations, but at least the Croatians have a positive feeling for the old Vienese emperors and could identify better with them than with any other option. Especially the late Austria-Hungary was quite multicultural.

Karl V. was the mightiest Habsburg, but he was a shared leader of Austria/HRR, Spain and the Netherlands, where Spain and the Netherlands have their own civs already.
The stereotypical leader for Austria is Maria Theresia, and one of the few real female leaders in history, too.


About the other Civs: Poland and the Hebrews should defininitively be in. I know too little about history to judge the others, but I get a feeling that 50 civs already means including some rather obscure candidates (minoan? they were quite regional in their importance. And phonicians seperate from Carthago? I don't think that's necessary)
 
Thanks. :)

The Habsburgs/Austro-Hungarians are covered by the Holy Roman Empire, and Prussia by Germany. Really all of those different groups belong simply under the overall head of "German Civilization."

You have already counted HRE to be the same as Germany and now lumping Habsburgian as the same too?? Thats nearly as fitting as lumping USA, England and India into one civ :lol:

If we take Habsburgian for example under Charles V then would include HRE, Spain, (parts of)South-america, (parts of)Hungaria,Bohemia, Moawia, Slowkia, parts of poland etc looks to me to be quite alot more than simple Germany.

If you take Austria/Hungary (with say Franz Josef I) than you don't have any HRE (didn't exist any longer) no part of Germany (was its own state) but Austria, Hungary, Czech,Slowakia, parts of Italy, Slowenia, Croatia etc etc so your lumping them all together is quite strange
 
For this discussion it might be fruitful to discuss what exactly constitutes a civilization in the context of civ. It seems (to me) to be a somewhat abstract concept. Civs, are not nation states nor are they geographical locations. They are very much a game abstraction that does not necessarily rhyme with exact ethno-historical background.

IMHO the core of a civilization is a cultural group that identifies themselves as members of that civilization and/or is indentified by others as being such a group. This group does not need to form any political union, per se. (Although to be notable and civworthy it probably does.)

In this sense the americans very much form a civilization. There is a large group of people that first and foremost identify themselves as american. This group has strong cultural identity (they have their own foods and sports, etc), which they like to spread across the globe.

Similarly, the Germans form a civilization. From classical times there have been various tribes living in the northern regions of Europe, that have collectively identified themselves as "German" and were collectively known to others (the Romans in particular) as German. Throughout most of history, they have only been very loosely bound as a political entity, achieving political unification only from the 19th century. But they where a civ long before that. Prussia, for example, was simply an aspect of this civ.

The Hapsburg empire on the other hand is not a civ. It was a political union created through intermarriage. There never was a cultural group that identified themselves as Hapsburgers (other than the family themselves). There were large cultural difference between the different parts of the empire.

Similarly, the HRE should probably not make an appearance as a civ. This was much more a political rather than a cultural entity. If Charlemagne needs a vessel, there is a better case to include the Franks.

I think there probably a good case for the Hungarians as a civ. They have been around for a while as a cultural entity, as such they've quite a bit of influence on European culture. As for political influence, they have been part of larger political entities which have had a big influence (HRE, Austria-Hungary), but these are better represented as alliances in the game. In the big what if game they should appear independently.
 
Top Bottom