The Last of the Civworthy

Okay, I have a few moments to post some comments, but I don't have time to answer you all immediately, so please don't be upset if I don't get to you yet. I will answer each comment in the order it was posted.

awesome: Kush is most assuredly not covered by Egypt and Ethiopia. It was its own culture and civilization, located in Sudan. It was (for part of its history) conquered by Egypt and it did (for part of its history) rule Egypt itself. The same can be said of many other civilizations and their neighbors. Ethiopia on the other hand, refers to the civilization of Aksum, which occupied territory in the region currently claimed by, well, the modern nation-state of Ethiopia, which is most assuredly not the same civilization as Sudan.

For a time in the medieval ages, Europeans called all of Subsaharan Africa "Ethiopia," (including Sudan) but that confusion is not reflected in Civ games.

Oda Nobunaga: Gran Colombia grates me a little bit too. I suggested them simply because it was the best example I could think of for an amalgam Latin American civ without resorting to calling it "Latin America." Their region is grossly underrepresented, and that was the best way I could think of to include them. If you can come up with a better, more satisfying way to represent them, then by all means share it with us.

Canada on the other hand would not go over very well because people would view it as yet another iteration of Anglo-Saxon civilization when we already have two (America and England) included. Civ games usually try to represent every region at least a couple of times, and South America is more underrepresented than any other region except Oceania, which has never been represented at all, while North America has four civs.

That being said, the game is "Civilization" and not "Nation-States," so just because Canada has been an important nation for the last century does not qualify them to be a civilization. The USA barely qualifies, IMHO. Latin America as a whole qualifies, IMHO, but not any one particular Latin American nation-state. The goal is to find an iteration that is as inclusive as possible. I hope you at least understand my thinking a little bit better now, even if you don't agree.

Eastwinn: Indeed, you make a very good point. Several "civilizations" in the game do not technically qualify by virtue of their not meeting the definition. That is the paradox of Civ games. Sometimes such groups are included for diversity's sake alone even though they don't merit it under the rather specific definition of a civilization.

Now I must apologize to the rest of you. I'm out of time for now, so I'll return and answer your comments a little bit later. Please be patient with me.

Agreed that the game is "Civilization" and not "Nation-States". Agreed also that there are enough Anglo-Saxon nation states included as is.

On the other hand, if Latin America (as a whole) deserves somebody to represent them, then so do French America as a whole.

Just like Latin America, the problem is then to pick HOW they should be represented. "New France" is probably a bad idea because it has "France" in it. Québec is too modern, and too politically charged a concept with the whole independence movement. Louisiana and Acadia were specific and fairly small (in terms of population and political importance) sub-section of French North America; it would be like naming the Latin American civilization "Paraguay" or "Ecuador".

That leaves Canada, which is at once the name of the most important and largest of the New France colonies; the name of a powerful modern nation-state which includes a large part of French American territory, and most of the French American population. On its own, it definitely doesn't deserve included, but it's the best possible representative of French American civilization.

I did say that Canada would have to be "done right", in game, to avoid being considered a joke: I agree with you that if they pick leaders and units to represent Canada-the-Nation-State (eg, Mountie or Peacekeeper UU, XXth century political leader leader, Maple Leaf Flag), then it's very much NOT worth including, because it comes off as a joke - and yet another Anglo-Saxon nation.

If on the other hand, Canada is presented in the game with clear references to the French part of its history - Samuel de Champlain (the founder of Quebec city, widely seen as the craddle of Canada, whose dream (French) Canada was) or Louis-Joseph Papineau (leader of the 1837-38 Lower Canada rebellion) as leader, 1837-38 Lower Canada rebellion flag for a flag, and Coureur des Bois Unique Unit, then it's quite clear that this Canada represent French American civilization, and is just as worthy of inclusion as Gran Colombia (representing Latin America).

But at the end of the day, both French American and Latin American civilization are fairly young, and nowhere near important enough; and more importantly, neither has a single nation that truly embody them, and for that reason, I feel it's best to leave both out rather than to struggle to include one or the other.

Cheers for your response, especially regarding Minoa. It's always nice to learn new things.
I still think I have a case for Punjab though! And you've yet to respond to Ahriman's most recent post in which I think he has a decent point. I bet you'll eventually get around to sticking Hungary in.

Well, here's my second attempt!
Nepal had had independence for many years, has religious importance to both Buddhists and Hindus, has a well known Unique Unit (the Gurkas), has a unique culture not covered by any other civilisation and honestly I couldn't tell you any leader's names but one used to hear tales of the Nepalese monarchy from time to time. I think if the civilisation is well known enough the leader doesn't matter so much e.g. Pacal II, Huayna Capac, Hatshepsut, Asoka etc. There are probably many leaders one could choose from really.

Okay, I've got another few minutes free to respond.

Ahriman: Please don't think I'm trying in any way to discount the importance of Mughal accomplishments. I just want to show you that their implementation is difficult when it comes down to including such a faction in the game. Their capital would likely be Delhi (which is also the Indian Civ's capital), or perhaps Agra, which IIRC is on their city list too. Yes, they were the dominant power in the subcontinent for 200-300 years, but that is the extent of their legacy. I don't want to see their accomplishments forgotten any more than you do, but how can Firaxis possibly implement them other than say, an Akbar leaderhead?

The Mughals certainly left a big mark on Indian civilization, but it is Indian civilization as a whole that has persisted. Since you have persisted in using Rome as an example, I will do the same: The civilization "Rome" appears to be the Republic and Empire with which so many people are familiar. However it also represents the Etruscans, the Samnites, the Italians, the Sicilians, and many other smaller factions throughout history. Each of those groups made worthy contributions to humanity, but Rome is their only representative, because they were all subsumed into the greater whole of Roman civilization. The Samnites didn't ever make a name for themselves to make them worthy of inclusion, for example. This is how I view the Indian civilization.

This point is correct: the Byzantines and Ottomans were just different dynasties ruling the same area. They have nearly identical city lists (the Ottomans just have the Byzantine city list in Turkish). Personally I consider the Byzantines' inclusion to be just a little bit questionable due to their similarities with Greece and Rome. I think a major reason for their inclusion is their popularity in the west. As for the Ottomans, they are meant to represent all Turkish civilization, which would likely be a more appropriate term; "Ottoman" is just very recognizable.

Next point: Going back to your Rome analogy. I still find your argument regarding western Europe to be fallacious. Rome dominated a lot of regions that grew into powerful and distinct civilizations hundreds of years later. Yes, western Europe is overrepresented. However, by virtue of their imperialism and/or colonialism, the nation-states of England, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Russia all spread their culture to various other regions around the globe and have each created distinct and powerful civilizations in that respect, which have lasted to the modern day. Can the same be said for the different factions that have ruled various parts of India throughout its history? Hardly.

Europe receives more than its fair share because of this, but also largely because the game is marketed largely to individuals that are members of each of those different Civs. They like to be diverse in their selection of Civs, but they also like to please as many people playing the game as possible. That's how America made it in, really.

Finally, regarding this quote from you: "England and France and Germany and China and Spain and.... are political entities. Therefore they cannot be Civilizations? Your logic seems inconsistent." I feel as though you are trying to bait me here, and I don't particularly appreciate it. I am sure that you know what I actually mean, and by trying to break this down into an argument about semantics I feel you are doing me a disservice. Yes, England, France, China, etc. are political entities as well as being more specifically nation-states. However, they have also promulgated their own English, French, and Chinese civilizations, which are long lasting cultural entities that have spread around the world. But you know this already. If I have misjudged your intent then please say so.

I do not want to see this thread get railroaded or sidetracked into discussion about why any particular civ that is already in the game is or is not worthy to be there. For example, if you are absolutely convinced that the Mughals should be in the game, then build them up some more. Explain how you would do it, instead of resorting to comparisons with Civs that are always going to be included no matter what anybody says.

I hope I have not offended you by speaking frankly; it is not my intent to give any offense. I am glad that you are so passionate about the subject and that you want to participate and don't want to give you the idea that I don't respect you. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

Doviello: Brazil the nation-state is most assuredly not represented by Portugal the nation-state. But again, this game is not "Nation-States." Brazilian civilization is most definitely a part of the larger Portuguese civilization. The fact that Portugal spread its culture to so many other places is why they even have a civilization instead of just being a footnote in some other civilization's history, like Spain's for example.

Regarding your warning: I am trusting that people will be able to comport themselves in a manner that is worthy of participating in intelligent conversation. Flaming about nation-states in this thread serves absolutely no purpose, but neither does walking on eggshells to try to avoid people who seek to behave in such an immature manner.

Again I must apologize to the rest of you for not being able to get to your responses yet. Please forgive me for my lack of time, I will get to your responses soon.

The 3 deserving "Empires" that I have felt were missing are:

1) Assyrian Empre (you already listed them). They were probably the first "Empire" in history, in the way that we have come to know empires.

2) Timurid Empire (Timer)
Their land is somewhat unique. they would cover Afghanistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Iran/etc..
Their culture was a melting pot of Turkish/Persian/Mongol/Indian
One major con, is their fact that one could argue they are represented by any of those civs. I would say, the Ottomans came around after them, the Persians in Civ are the Ancient Zoroastrian Persians, (Timurids were Islamic), The Indians are either the Maurya's Indian Empire (Asoka) or Modern India (Gandhi).
The best argument would be that they are represented by the Mongols, but looking at their culture one can see they are both entirely different entities.

3) Kamen Empire/Bornu Empire (Dunama Dabbalemi)
Sub-saharan Africa, in a land not represented by Mali, Songhai, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nubia or Congo. They had an empire that lasted 1100 years (Kamen 700ad to 1376 ad, Bornu 1398ad to 1898ad)

Ahriman said:

I think the idea of Maori is neat, but problematic. First, they didn't live in cities, they lived in relatively small villages, and migrated seasonally to different sites for food sources.

Second, they didn't really have any technological development to speak of. The one great polynesian technology (sailing/navigation - truly amazing) was really lost by the time that Maori in New Zealand became their own established separate culture - they didn't keep trading with the islands, and lost their inter-continental navigation skills. They didn't have a written language, they had no tools beyond wood and stone.

Maori certainly qualify as having a rich culture, but were really not much past hunter-gatherer before European intervention.

[Also, are we sure that there weren't some fairly treatment-as-equals treaties between the French and indigenous peoples in Canada that predate Waitangi?]

Click to expand...

I think the argument of 'all Civs in Civ start in the stone age' is useful here; but up until European's show up, they pretty much were stone age. In any case, they adapted European technology and institutions to their own purposes very quickly.

However they did have fixed settlements as well as the more seasonal semi-permanent ones, fixed and known holy sites, burial grounds, etc. For example, what is now One Tree Hill in Auckland was a pre-European Maori settlement with an estimated population of around 5000. By ancient qualifcations, even Classical qualifications that's a city.

Your first part is a bit of a simplification, it can't really be used a blanket term; the further north you went, the hotter the climate, and the easier to grow agricultural crops, which Maori did, and thus settle in a specific area or specific site. The further south, the more huntable animals like Seals or Penguins. In any case, the bulk of Maori population was concentrated in the North.
Similarly, the further through time you go the more permanent settlements there were. One reason being general 'development', another being that the easiest supply of meat for Hunter Gatherer's, the Giant Moa went extinct.

If you were to construct a city list for Maori you could simply name them after tribes or after the locations of known major settlements. Alternatively, you could use the village/city names known from the 1800s onwards.

i.e., Parihaka in the mid 1800s had gas lamps in the street before most of the European settlements. The King's 'seat' at Ngaruawhia had courthouses and a small bureaucracy, and so on.

And the 'no written language' thing is slightly contentious. Though nothing beyond possible pictographs prior to the 1800s, there were literate Maori by the 1820s. If you are to say that once Europeans show up, Maori accomplishments are no longer 'Maori' accomplishments, that is a sort of 'fatal impact' argument that simply doesn't work; cross-cultural transmission happens everywhere else. Missionaries attempted to convert Maori through literacy (enabling them to read the bible). They sort of succeeded, but also reinforced Maori culture in that they became literate in Maori as opposed to English (to the ire of said missionaries). An obvious comparison is that the Mycenaeans ran off with the Minoan alphabet (Linear A), but wrote it in Greek (Linear B); the Maori took Latin letters and used them to write in Maori.

And the last bit is out of my area of expertise, I didn't say 'definitly the first', there's always a precedent more or less.

Tomice said:

I admit, middle european history is more complicated than in western europe. But there was a big empire on the maps of all those years that cannot be counted into germany!

Click to expand...

It was called "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" from the 16th century onward. That's strong evidence that the HRE was, and considered itself to be, German for centuries.

This point is correct: the Byzantines and Ottomans were just different dynasties ruling the same area.

Click to expand...

If you truly view the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires as just being "different dynasties" then I will give you some points for consistency. I will say though that I find the idea very very strange, since the cultural makeup of the civs are entirely different. I do not think you would find many supporters with the idea that the Byzantines and Ottomans are really the same civilization, anymore than you would by saying that Vikings and Russians are the same civilization, or Carthaginians and Spain are the same civilization. Occupying the same territory does not make them culturally equivalent.

However it also represents the Etruscans, the Samnites, the Italians, the Sicilians, and many other smaller factions throughout history

Click to expand...

Here is my problem; the various Indian Kingdoms had vastly larger areas and populations than the Samnites vs the Etruscans. The comparison seems very unfair to me. The European ones were in small areas with low populations, whereas many of the Indian Kingdoms were much larger with 10x or 100x as many people.
Consider for example the Kingdom of Mysore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Mysore
Or the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_empire (Population estimate in 1700: 150 million).

Comparing 150 million Marathis to the Samnites or the Etruscans does not seem fair. 150 million was larger than the population of western Europe in 1700.

However, by virtue of their imperialism and/or colonialism, the nation-states of England, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Russia all spread their culture to various other regions around the globe and have each created distinct and powerful civilizations in that respect, which have lasted to the modern day.

Click to expand...

I find it strange that colonization and imperialism is your distinction of whether or not an entity is a civilization or merely a dynasty, as does their political survival into the present day.
[The Mughals certainly qualify on the Imperial front.]
Do you suggest that if France had failed to colonize Quebec, Vietnam, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire and Madagascar, that they would longer qualify as a Civilization (but instead, merely a Celtic or Roman dynasty?) Or if France had been defeated in WW2 more completely, and either annexed by Germany or united with the UK that it would again no longer qualify as a Civilization?

I do not know enough about the present-day cultural influences of the various ruling factions in Indian history to make intelligent comment on this front. But I would be wary of assuming that because we have a primarily western perspective that no such influences exist.

If I have misjudged your intent then please say so

Click to expand...

I hope I have not offended you by speaking frankly; it is not my intent to give any offense. I am glad that you are so passionate about the subject and that you want to participate and don't want to give you the idea that I don't respect you. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

Click to expand...

This seems a perfectly civil discussion to me, I am not at all offended. I also do not feel I am being disrespectful.
My intent is not to troll, but to ask you to examine your assumptions hard, and ask if perhaps they are inconsistent, or based on a lack of experience of South Asian powers. (I am certainly no expert myself.) Or on too much of a bias to 20th/21st century nation-states, rather than power structures of the past.

I am uncomfortable about dismissing the cultural and political significance of groups of hundreds of millions of people, merely because they were a couple of centuries late to industrialize and were eventually amalgamated into an even large power. It doesn't feel right that you're willing to separate Babylon from Assyria from Arabia from Persia from Greek from Byzantine from Ottoman, and Egyptian from Kush from Sudanese from Ethiopian, but insist on merging the entirety of South Asia into a single entity, even though the subcontinent has spent most of its history in separate entities.

* * *

was a pre-European Maori settlement with an estimated population of around 5000. By ancient qualifcations

Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know that there were permanent settlements that large.

Also a fair point about discounting Maori achievements post-contact, though it does become increasingly difficult over time to keep things separate from the settler population after the mid 19th century.

Congratulations, Alex, you got me! Your definition of the "German" Civ is compelling. I'll stop opposing your position, since I start to get the feeling national pride got the better of me.
Austria and Germany can be seen as one Civ.

But you have to admit, the Civ implementation of the German Civ with Bismarck as leader and city names that are entirely in modern Germany contradict your viewpoint. If they implemented a German civ with Vienna as second or third city and maybe a leader that represents all German countries better, it would be as you said. But as it was in Civ4, I don't feel Austria or the HRR are included in the "German" Civ.

I would suggest making this a seperate thread and adding a poll what other Civvers think, but then someone would have to hit me!

Tomice said:

The whole idea of having a German unified nation was the idea of him and his followers.

Click to expand...

This isn't true. For example:

-As I mentioned before, the Hapsburg dominated HRE referred to itself as "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" for centuries

-The Austrians were included in the 1848 Frankfurt Parliament. The German National Assembly wanted to pursue a unified Germany, and that naturally, to them, incorporated the German speaking Austrian territories.

-After WW1, the German speaking Austrians overwhelmingly wanted to become part of Germany rather than become and independent state. The Entente refused to allow this. After that refusal, the Austrians decided to call their newly-independent state "German Austria." Once again, the Entente, in the Treaty of Saint Germain, refused to allow them to do so.

-After WW2, the Allies conditioned the end of their occupation of Austria on the Austrians renouncing their Germanness. Austria did so in the State Treaty of 1955

German-speaking Austrians considered themselves to be ethnically German from the time that concept originated up until 1955, when they were forced at gun point to abandon that belief. Nowadays many Austrians find it convenient to argue that they were never German and were actually "Hitler's first victims" (you raise that specter yourself). However, I find that argument to be historically untenable.

Austria-Hungary is not only about the Austrians, hence the name.

Click to expand...

That's why it's a poor choice as a Civilization, IMO. There was never a sense of "Austrianness." Austria-Hungary was just a collection of nations that happened to be ruled over by one family, didn't really want to be joined together, and split apart as soon as the opportunity presented itself. They might as well include Belgium as a civilization.

Tomice said:

But you have to admit, the Civ implementation of the German Civ with Bismarck as leader and city names that are entirely in modern Germany contradict your viewpoint.

Click to expand...

The older Civilzations used to include Austrian cities, as well as cities that are no longer German. For example, the default German city list in Civ 3 included Salzburg and Königsberg.

If they implemented a German civ with Vienna as second or third city and maybe a leader that represents all German countries better, it would be as you said. But as it was in Civ4, I don't feel Austria or the HRR are included in the "German" Civ.

Click to expand...

They should. They could have Bismarck, Maria Theresa, and, say Frederick Barbarossa or Otto the Great- thus a Prussian, an Austrian, and a general German. You could also through in Maximillian or some other HRE from the 15th or 16th century if you wanted to bridge the gap.

Ahriman said:

Also a fair point about discounting Maori achievements post-contact, though it does become increasingly difficult over time to keep things separate from the settler population after the mid 19th century.

Click to expand...

No disagreements there. By the end of the 19th century most of the major Maori initiatives had ceased. From there it's more of a story of some Maori becoming entirely marginalised, others (i.e. the politician James Carrol) being thoroughly integrated into the NZ political system (though still working for Maori)

Very nice summary of the Germany/Austria question, Alezander. Some people believe that German can only mean kleindeutsch, post-1871 (or post 1945) Germany.

Okay, time for a few more responses.

Oda Nobunaga: I think we've talked around the Canada vs. Latin America a fair bit. I agree that the French colonials are also important, given I don't think either are really all that civworthy. My main motivation in suggesting Latin America as some sort of civ is that South America is currently only represented by the Incas, and there are around 570 million Latin Americans out there, many of whom could potentially play Civ.

In Quebec there are only around 8 million. Even if you add Haiti's 9 million for more French colonials, that's just 17 million. I am aware that there are other smaller groups that could also go into a French colonial civ, but they're just not going to equal the huge number of Latin Americans.

In Civ we have to be very choosy about who goes in, and regional diversity is a big plus.

Pakhawaj: Thanks. Regarding Nepal, not to discount their achievements, but I think they're just too darned small for Civ.

Edgecrusher: I don't really have anything against the Timurids, it's just difficult to squeeze them in when they covered so many different bits and pieces, and they try to avoid too much overlapping in Civ. I'd like to see a Tamerlane leaderhead at least. I would be interested in seeing in somebody could whip up a Timurid civ that was different enough from other civs to be viable while still remaining true to itself.

I'm not sure on Kanem and Bornu. They don't have a lot of name recognition, and as far as I can tell they were a fairly minor power. I'll have to look into it a bit further before I form a proper opinion on them.

CMKMStephens: I think I've decided for myself that the Maori are too small on their own and should be a part of a greater Polynesian civ.

Roundman: Indeed. The HRE should not be made into something it's not.

That's all the time I've got right now, folks. I'll respond again later.

Alezander01 said:

Roundman: Indeed. The HRE should not be made into something it's not.

Click to expand...

The fact that the HRE was an independent Civ irritated me enough to make me not buy Civ 4: Beyond the Sword. It is as stupid as including both a Russian and a Soviet Civ.

Roundman said:

Very nice summary of the Germany/Austria question, Alezander. Some people believe that German can only mean kleindeutsch, post-1871 (or post 1945) Germany.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are getting to an agreement, and I see your points. The recent suggestions with a "German" Civ that visibly includes Austria is a good solution.

The Austria-was the-first-victim-thing: I never wanted to state that, I hate this excuse, it's so cheap. Maybe I was careless with my words in the beginning of this thread. I know our share in the comitted cruelties, it's very significant.

Alezander01 said:

CMKMStephens: I think I've decided for myself that the Maori are too small on their own and should be a part of a greater Polynesian civ.

Click to expand...

Right-o. Perhaps the Polynesian Civ would have one Hawaiian leader, one Maori Leader, and one Tahitian leader (though I don't actually know any). Silly Civ 5 with it's one leader thing =/

Right-o. Perhaps the Polynesian Civ would have one Hawaiian leader, one Maori Leader, and one Tahitian leader (though I don't actually know any). Silly Civ 5 with it's one leader thing =/

Click to expand...

Or Tonga; AFAIK the only Polynesian civ to actually have something approaching an Empire (Samoans were vassals for some time as I understand it).

Good point. I said Tahiti simply because I'm familiar with the wild ravings (Historical/Art Historical) by the French about how amazing it was.

Alezander01 said:

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

Click to expand...

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida#Villages

A little further down is a list of notable Haida people, with a couple of chiefs listed. One of them is noted for massacaring the crew of the USS Resolution.

This list has more than enough settlements be viable for a Civ game:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/canada/haidatowns.htm

The bottom line is that the Americas are underrepresented whne compared to the amount of land that's available there. Adding something like the Haida would help greatly to balance things out. They would start in a postion far from the Aztecs and Americans and prevent either one of those civs from just sweeping through North America.