There is a common complaint among the Civ community about the globbing-together of diverse, never unified peoples into singular Civilizations. Polynesia and the Celts are the most recent examples; Polynesia is represented by a Hawaiian leader, a Maori UU and a Rapa Nui UI, none of which having anything to with each other beyond the base Polynesia link. The Celts are a large ethnic group, led by a character (Boudicca) who was never a true political leader to begin with. Before that, it was the mess that was the Native Americans in Civ IV, a civ which represented the whole of aboriginal North America under a Lakota/Sioux leader and UU, and a northwetern Totem Pole UB. There is a common and justified sentiment against these strange hybrid civilizations that undersell the importance and individuality of the various peoples which they represent. Why, then, do the vast majority of Civ players accept the existence of a single India?
This is not meant to marginalize the group of people who don't accept this: they definitely do exist. But they aren't horribly prevalent. Perhaps this is because India as we know it well consists of the entire Indian subcontinent, and its leader, Gandhi, led an independence movement within those geographic parameters. However, to slap together the ancient and complex history of the Indian subcontinent into one entity is robbing us of all kinds of cool possibilities.
India in Civ V is led by a modern independence leader who represents the transition of British colonial rule over modern-day India, as well as Bangladesh and Pakistan. However, India has rarely existed unified in such a way, in this case because the British cut out their chunk in that way. The War Elephant UU represents the Mauryan Empire of antiquity, which is acceptably Indian. The UB, however, comes from the Muslim and Mongolian Mughal dynasty. The way I see, we could easily derive three unique Civilizations from our current India.
The first is the classic and standard India. This entity could keep Gandhi as leader, and represent not only the modern state but also the Mauryan Empire of Chandragupta and Asoka. This India is most recognizable, as it is not only contemporary, but also includes the other empire traditionally considered "India". This civilization could keep War Elehpants, but it would have to lose the UB, as well as certain cities, such as Lahore, from its city list.
The next civilization would be the Tamils, representing a series of Tamil dynasties that primarily focuses on the might Chola dynasty of late antiquity. For reference, here's a map of their territories, circa 1030 ce:
That's a pretty damn big empire, if I do say so myself, representing the south of India, Sri Lanka, and a number of holdings in Malaysia and Indonesia. Their leader would likely be Rajendra Chola, the emperor who conquered the most territory:
Their unique unit and ability would likely be a representation of the naval prowess of the Chola dynasty at its height. The Chola navy was a fearsome force, and naval trade with China was a lucrative enterprise for the empire.
The third empire to be pulled from India would be the Mughals. The Mughals were Turkic conquerors of the Indian subcontinent, but currently India covers them by way of their truly awful UB, the Mughal Fort. The Mughals, however, are a distinct entity that dominated the subcontinent from the 1500s to their defeat at the hands of the British in the 1850s. They would likely be represented by the founder , Babur, who was descended from both Tamerlane and Genghis Khan, or Akbar the Great.
What do you think about the nature of India?
This is not meant to marginalize the group of people who don't accept this: they definitely do exist. But they aren't horribly prevalent. Perhaps this is because India as we know it well consists of the entire Indian subcontinent, and its leader, Gandhi, led an independence movement within those geographic parameters. However, to slap together the ancient and complex history of the Indian subcontinent into one entity is robbing us of all kinds of cool possibilities.
India in Civ V is led by a modern independence leader who represents the transition of British colonial rule over modern-day India, as well as Bangladesh and Pakistan. However, India has rarely existed unified in such a way, in this case because the British cut out their chunk in that way. The War Elephant UU represents the Mauryan Empire of antiquity, which is acceptably Indian. The UB, however, comes from the Muslim and Mongolian Mughal dynasty. The way I see, we could easily derive three unique Civilizations from our current India.
The first is the classic and standard India. This entity could keep Gandhi as leader, and represent not only the modern state but also the Mauryan Empire of Chandragupta and Asoka. This India is most recognizable, as it is not only contemporary, but also includes the other empire traditionally considered "India". This civilization could keep War Elehpants, but it would have to lose the UB, as well as certain cities, such as Lahore, from its city list.
The next civilization would be the Tamils, representing a series of Tamil dynasties that primarily focuses on the might Chola dynasty of late antiquity. For reference, here's a map of their territories, circa 1030 ce:
Spoiler :
That's a pretty damn big empire, if I do say so myself, representing the south of India, Sri Lanka, and a number of holdings in Malaysia and Indonesia. Their leader would likely be Rajendra Chola, the emperor who conquered the most territory:
Spoiler :
Their unique unit and ability would likely be a representation of the naval prowess of the Chola dynasty at its height. The Chola navy was a fearsome force, and naval trade with China was a lucrative enterprise for the empire.
The third empire to be pulled from India would be the Mughals. The Mughals were Turkic conquerors of the Indian subcontinent, but currently India covers them by way of their truly awful UB, the Mughal Fort. The Mughals, however, are a distinct entity that dominated the subcontinent from the 1500s to their defeat at the hands of the British in the 1850s. They would likely be represented by the founder , Babur, who was descended from both Tamerlane and Genghis Khan, or Akbar the Great.
What do you think about the nature of India?
