Neither Babylon nor Assyria were established as greats until the 2nd mill. BCE (doing a Ph.D. on partly that subject now) with Hammurabi and his immediate predecessors in 1800s-1700s BCE and the Assyrian trading network at the approx. same time, so I would go for Egypt or China there. In fact, the Assyrian empire itself is late 2nd mill., into 1st mill. BCE. Of course, the Sumerian culture would have trumped these.
What are the oldest civilizations in Civ 5?
- Thread starter GirthosaurusFLX
- Start date
What the blazings is this? Clearly the mere ramblings of a conspiracy theorist lacking fundamental historical and geological knowledge. Why don't you just say that Cthulhu was before all?
Crafty Bison
King
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 756
Depends - If you're talking about the civilisations as represented by the game, then just check the dates of the leaders - I guess it would be Babylon, but may Egypt or Assyria.
As for the civilisation itself, it's not always easy to define whether predecessors should be considered part of the same civilisation. In a more inclusive sense, the natural place to start would be the origins of civilisation - if you count agriculture as the start then it would be Mesopotamia, represented here best by Babylon. However, China and Indus Valley also got going very very early.
However, my vote would go to Egypt, which quickly grew adjacent to Mesopotamia, and is the first to have a strong sense of uniformity and continuity to the civilisations represented in the game. In this stricter sense, it was the world's first 'civilisation'. It also lasted for a frikking long time; the great pyramid at giza was already an ancient monument over 1000 years old when Toutankhamon was kickin it.
As for the civilisation itself, it's not always easy to define whether predecessors should be considered part of the same civilisation. In a more inclusive sense, the natural place to start would be the origins of civilisation - if you count agriculture as the start then it would be Mesopotamia, represented here best by Babylon. However, China and Indus Valley also got going very very early.
However, my vote would go to Egypt, which quickly grew adjacent to Mesopotamia, and is the first to have a strong sense of uniformity and continuity to the civilisations represented in the game. In this stricter sense, it was the world's first 'civilisation'. It also lasted for a frikking long time; the great pyramid at giza was already an ancient monument over 1000 years old when Toutankhamon was kickin it.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
I was just saying that for whatever reason I don't really know why. It was very late. Let me try again "Turkey and India etc."
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Should we make a poll haha?
Out of the Civ V civs, Egypt is believed to be the first to emerge from being a culture to becoming a civilization, ahead of the others by several hundred years if not more. Not to say that that's the oldest known civilization (Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization came earlier).
Out of the Civ V civs, Egypt is believed to be the first to emerge from being a culture to becoming a civilization, ahead of the others by several hundred years if not more. Not to say that that's the oldest known civilization (Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization came earlier).
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
What would the most recent leader be? Gandhi?
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Navelgazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 876
Haile Selassie.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
Oh right. I'm not related to him but I'm very very close to it. 
What about the oldest? Who's the oldest leader?
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
What about the oldest? Who's the oldest leader?
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
budweiser
King of the Beers
What about India? Temples have been found there back to 7,000 BC, near the ocean. And Japan?
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
Those don't count though because those are just other people's. for example Turkey isn't until the 1400s because of the Ottomans but you can't say that that they're the earliest civ just because they have Jericho, possibly the oldest human settlement to be found.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
LoneRebel
Emperor
Is there any archaeological evidence that the Xia Dynasty actually existed? My understanding is that the earliest Chinese dynasty for which there is actual evidence is the Shang, and the Xia are relegated to the area of legend for the time being. The Shang is the earliest polity that I'd consider to be "China", although strictly speaking, they weren't really China either.
In any case, as CaterpillarKing's other post on this thread shows, even if we use the Xia as the starting point, Egypt's Old Kingdom still precedes them by far.
I think reddishrecue may simply be making more of his trademark...unusual posts.
You'd be surprised.
According to that article, the fertile artificial soil known as terra preta that covers parts of the Amazon basin was first laid down around 450 BC. That means that the natives of that area had pretty advanced agricultural techniques by that time - which wouldn't have been too long after they first arrived in South America to begin with. This also potentially challenges the prevailing idea that civilization only developed in eastern South America, and the western half of that continent was only filled with hunter-gatherer tribes. There is some evidence that advanced agricultural societies existed in the Amazon basin at the same time as the Inca to the west. Just like the Mississippian culture in North America, the Amazonian culture could have collapsed due to Old World diseases brought by the Europeans, and the descendants of the few scattered survivors would not have remembered that they once had an urban society.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
There is enough evidence to at least make an argument that the Xia existed but not enough to make it a hard fact. Like you said though, my research shows that regardless Egypt is the earliest.
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
If you look in the civilization 5 bnw civilopedia you will see that the la venta city state has tribes going way back to the pangea era. Archeological evidence has proven similar olmec artifacts in Africa and North America. The aztecs and Mayans are descendants of the olmecs maybe the egyptians were also descendants since Egypt is also in Africa.
Syailendra
Prince
the 'gossip' starts because some people says that olmecs giant faces always have flat nose and thick lips, two features that shown in some african tribe.
What i can't understand is how can somebody relate it to pangaea, if they do take an african model at pangaea, then the face statue should be more hominid-like.
By the time period of the ruler, I believe the answer is Egypt.
Otherwise, I think it's still Egypt. Even if there was agriculture in Brazil since way back, the Brazilian civilization is clearly based on the rather recent Imperial Brazil.
you can't always judge this based on when the UUs/UBs come into play, however. The Aztec Jaguars were contemporary with the Conquistadors.
Otherwise, I think it's still Egypt. Even if there was agriculture in Brazil since way back, the Brazilian civilization is clearly based on the rather recent Imperial Brazil.
you can't always judge this based on when the UUs/UBs come into play, however. The Aztec Jaguars were contemporary with the Conquistadors.
King Coltrane
King
Of the civs involved, Egypt takes it hands down.
The earliest other candidates are China, Assyria, Babylon, India, and Greece, and none of them come close in any way.
In terms of archaeologically attested cultures (@reddishrecue), Egypt's Naqada culture [which isnt the earliest, but its perhaps the most substantial pre-dynastic culture] dates from 4200ish BCE, China does seem to extend earlier and earlier with successive excavations (that do try and verify the Xia dynasty), but at best it is no earlier than 2700 BCE so far, Babylon was pretty much founded out of nothing by Hammurrabi's dynasty in the early second millennia BCE, Assyria (when it traded with southern anatolia) really doesnt extend earlier than the 2nd millennium BCE, India has the IVC (Indus Valley Culture) around 3300 BCE (even though that is clearly not the same as modern India), and Greece has Mycenae and Knossos before the 2nd millennium BCE.
Even if you ONLY go by the founding of a unified state, Egypt comes in around 3100 BCE, China *officially* comes in at 221 BCE, though i will concede that some sort of state existed as early as the Shang period (1600-1046 BCE) , Babylon comes about around 1800 BCE, Assyria comes in in the early 2nd millennium as the Mitanni collapsed, India comes in during the 4th/3rd centuries BCE (Mauryans), and Greece comes in (arguably) at 338 BCE (Chaeronea).
If you want to go by ruler, again, Egypt takes it. Ramesses II (1279-1213), while late by Egyptian standards, is still 2000 years before Wu, 700 years before Nebuchadrezzar II, 600 years before Assurbanipal, 3100 years before Gandhi, and 900 years before Alexander III.
As others have said, Sumeria would have predated egypt (and every other potential candidate) in these regards, but its not in Civ5.
And as for reddishrecue, if we look at all mammalian existence (including the Olmecs) as a single "culture", then yes, he is correct that the Olmecs were on Pangaea. However, if not, we can only hope that a Tardis is found and throws any sense of chronology out the window.
The earliest other candidates are China, Assyria, Babylon, India, and Greece, and none of them come close in any way.
In terms of archaeologically attested cultures (@reddishrecue), Egypt's Naqada culture [which isnt the earliest, but its perhaps the most substantial pre-dynastic culture] dates from 4200ish BCE, China does seem to extend earlier and earlier with successive excavations (that do try and verify the Xia dynasty), but at best it is no earlier than 2700 BCE so far, Babylon was pretty much founded out of nothing by Hammurrabi's dynasty in the early second millennia BCE, Assyria (when it traded with southern anatolia) really doesnt extend earlier than the 2nd millennium BCE, India has the IVC (Indus Valley Culture) around 3300 BCE (even though that is clearly not the same as modern India), and Greece has Mycenae and Knossos before the 2nd millennium BCE.
Even if you ONLY go by the founding of a unified state, Egypt comes in around 3100 BCE, China *officially* comes in at 221 BCE, though i will concede that some sort of state existed as early as the Shang period (1600-1046 BCE) , Babylon comes about around 1800 BCE, Assyria comes in in the early 2nd millennium as the Mitanni collapsed, India comes in during the 4th/3rd centuries BCE (Mauryans), and Greece comes in (arguably) at 338 BCE (Chaeronea).
If you want to go by ruler, again, Egypt takes it. Ramesses II (1279-1213), while late by Egyptian standards, is still 2000 years before Wu, 700 years before Nebuchadrezzar II, 600 years before Assurbanipal, 3100 years before Gandhi, and 900 years before Alexander III.
As others have said, Sumeria would have predated egypt (and every other potential candidate) in these regards, but its not in Civ5.
And as for reddishrecue, if we look at all mammalian existence (including the Olmecs) as a single "culture", then yes, he is correct that the Olmecs were on Pangaea. However, if not, we can only hope that a Tardis is found and throws any sense of chronology out the window.
LoneRebel
Emperor
Like I said, reddishrecue was probably just sharing with us more of his trademark unusual insight. A lot of the things that guy says are so far out in left field that what is this I don't even.
Something he said before leads me to believe that he is from El Salvador, which would help explain his fixation on the Olmecs.
Anyway, just to be sure (yeah, I had to be sure that whoever wrote the Civilopedia didn't somehow actually put that in), I checked the Civilopedia, and it, naturally, has no mention of La Venta or the Olmecs being around during Pangaea.
When Pangaea began to break up around 100 million years ago, there weren't even hominids in existence, let alone human beings. So of course, to say that the Olmecs were around at that time is off not just by a few thousand years, but by around eight orders of magnitude.
As for Olmec artifacts being found in Africa and the Egyptians being descended from the Olmecs, well, somebody once theorized that both Egypt and the Mesoamerican civilizations were descended from Atlantis because they both built pyramids. So obviously Atlantis is the oldest civilization. Too bad they aren't in Civ 5 though.
Something he said before leads me to believe that he is from El Salvador, which would help explain his fixation on the Olmecs.
Anyway, just to be sure (yeah, I had to be sure that whoever wrote the Civilopedia didn't somehow actually put that in), I checked the Civilopedia, and it, naturally, has no mention of La Venta or the Olmecs being around during Pangaea.
When Pangaea began to break up around 100 million years ago, there weren't even hominids in existence, let alone human beings. So of course, to say that the Olmecs were around at that time is off not just by a few thousand years, but by around eight orders of magnitude.
As for Olmec artifacts being found in Africa and the Egyptians being descended from the Olmecs, well, somebody once theorized that both Egypt and the Mesoamerican civilizations were descended from Atlantis because they both built pyramids. So obviously Atlantis is the oldest civilization. Too bad they aren't in Civ 5 though.
Espartafilardo
Chieftain
That's been my approach when making games involving the oldest civs. Per the wiki:
Ashurbanipal = 685-627? BC
Nebuchadnezzar II = 634?-562 BC
Dido = circa 800? BC
Ramesses II = 1303?-1213 BC
Darius I = 550-486 BC
If I recall, these five also form a rough bloc that's quite distinct from civ leaders that follow, i.e. the next clump is around the birth of Christ, and it's smaller (not gonna verify, but I've noted all this stuff before).
I have found that this list makes for an interesting, flavorful game, whichever of the five you choose.
Similar threads
