Ah, the inevitable debate over the worthiness of including this or that "group" in a Civ game as a new civilization...
The Polynesians were important, no question. But were they a "civilization"? I guess that depends on your definition of "civilization" -- an issue on which the Civ franchise has been increasingly less focused in recent years.
On the one hand, I agree with "WTH?" as a response. On the other, I can't help but shrug. So many of the other civs included in these games are conglomerations of ethnic and political entities. I mean, take the English. Are the English a civ? Well....yeah, but I guess it depends heavily on where you start counting. The English are not the pre-Roman British (which is closer to the Celts), nor are they the Roman British, nor the Anglo-Saxons (who were themselves germanic tribes) who later took over, nor the Vikings (the Scandinavian/Danish northmen) who raided, built settlements, intermarried, and took over much of eastern England. Nor are they the Normans (who were yet another group of norse descent) who took over the nobility from the Anglo-Saxons, but not the population, but from whose conquest in 1066 we kind of "begin" the concept of a truly unified England (well, depending on one's view of the latter days of the kingdom of Wessex).
So, where's "England" show up, and what makes it "England?" Is it an ethnic group? Well, clearly not in the sense of "these people have always lived here and are an homogeneous ethnic group." Ethnically, the "English" are a bizarre mix of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxon germanic barbarians, Vikings, and Normans (and the distinctions between those two are a bit fuzzy, too).
Politically, England was, arguably, "unified" a few times prior to 1066, but as I said we sort of start "counting" in 1066 with William I's conquest. That said, even after William I, we have fuzzy succession throughout the ages, leading to no small amount of political unrest. And even William's claim to the throne was based on some tenuous connection to the kingdom of Wessex.
And that's just the English! You want to get REALLY confusing, try the French! Are they the pre-Roman Gauls? The Gallo-Romans? The Franks (who were themselves -- surprise! -- germanic barbarians), the Normans (who later roll in and beat up on the Franks, eventually setting themselves up as Dukes in -- surprise! -- Normandy)? Well, arguably, it's the "Franks" who start "France" with the Merovingian and eventually the Carolingian dynasties...but how do you distinguish them from the Germans?
and so on, and so forth....
The Polynesians were important, no question. But were they a "civilization"? I guess that depends on your definition of "civilization" -- an issue on which the Civ franchise has been increasingly less focused in recent years.
On the one hand, I agree with "WTH?" as a response. On the other, I can't help but shrug. So many of the other civs included in these games are conglomerations of ethnic and political entities. I mean, take the English. Are the English a civ? Well....yeah, but I guess it depends heavily on where you start counting. The English are not the pre-Roman British (which is closer to the Celts), nor are they the Roman British, nor the Anglo-Saxons (who were themselves germanic tribes) who later took over, nor the Vikings (the Scandinavian/Danish northmen) who raided, built settlements, intermarried, and took over much of eastern England. Nor are they the Normans (who were yet another group of norse descent) who took over the nobility from the Anglo-Saxons, but not the population, but from whose conquest in 1066 we kind of "begin" the concept of a truly unified England (well, depending on one's view of the latter days of the kingdom of Wessex).
So, where's "England" show up, and what makes it "England?" Is it an ethnic group? Well, clearly not in the sense of "these people have always lived here and are an homogeneous ethnic group." Ethnically, the "English" are a bizarre mix of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxon germanic barbarians, Vikings, and Normans (and the distinctions between those two are a bit fuzzy, too).
Politically, England was, arguably, "unified" a few times prior to 1066, but as I said we sort of start "counting" in 1066 with William I's conquest. That said, even after William I, we have fuzzy succession throughout the ages, leading to no small amount of political unrest. And even William's claim to the throne was based on some tenuous connection to the kingdom of Wessex.
And that's just the English! You want to get REALLY confusing, try the French! Are they the pre-Roman Gauls? The Gallo-Romans? The Franks (who were themselves -- surprise! -- germanic barbarians), the Normans (who later roll in and beat up on the Franks, eventually setting themselves up as Dukes in -- surprise! -- Normandy)? Well, arguably, it's the "Franks" who start "France" with the Merovingian and eventually the Carolingian dynasties...but how do you distinguish them from the Germans?
and so on, and so forth....
)
