Yep, is a good option also (AoE2 used it). Still I like Gurkani as an option to add some Timurid elements and leaders, even could be a way to avoid some bothersome nationalist from India and Pakistan, since Gurkani would point to the foreign element outside that specific region divided between these contemporary countries.
I don't know about linguistic diversity. Although I can't speak accurately for the Dravidian languagues, and the Turkic, Iranian, and Sino-Tibetan languages on the fringes of, and invading, South Asia, the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European family (which has the majority of languages and speakers in South Asia, including the lingua francas of Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan), which, as a linguistic branch, are all derved from Ancient Sanskrit in Vedic times, as I understand it, from reading, and hearing from people from India, are much closer related to each other, by far, than the collective Indo-European languages of Europe, even if not to the point of mutual intelligibility. Cultural variation is, as it is always has been, a subjective judgement call at the end of the day.
I believe it was him saying something like, "Poliand and Switzerland must survive," that sounded like the scripted views he was known for,
Also, why is there a gap in the Indo-Pakistanii border in this image? Though they've fought quite a few vicious wars since the end of the Raj, and have developed a culture of hate and emnity for each other, and have a bunch of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, they have no, "Demilitarized or Neiutral Zone," in their border areas.
I think what he was trying to say was that states like Poland and Switzerland should be able to survive, giving an example of a situation rather than a definite insistence on the Polish and Swiss civs surviving
No, I was only commenting on how most people tend to perceive the world, from a Eurocentric viewpoint, which is why the idea of South Asia having as many civs as Europe would be contentious.
I don't get that either. If you look closely, in this image Pakistan's borders are more detailed whereas India's are relatively simpler, but they should be the same because they're the same borders! And when I tried putting them together, their territories overlapped, which is why I had to leave a little space (which is okay, becuase the European area they are covering also has spaces (sea)). You can try this yourself at https://thetruesize.com.
I think the word, "Eurocentric," has become a toxic word on the Civ6 subforums, certainly in it's application and usage - and the accusatory tones it's being used in. I am respectfully asking the community to drop the term from it's irresponsible and all-to-too common usage, for speciifc terms that address specific issues more accurately.
I don't recall seeing that word used in a toxic manner (outside, perhaps, of the Ukraine War thread). There is nothing accusatory about my use of the term – I was only commenting on a bias, and it is not anyone's fault for labouring under one. No one is superior to bias – certainly not myself, for one – and there should be nothing contentious about addressing those biases so long as it is done civilly.
Maybe Gandhi could be a Great Person strongly tied to South Asian civ's, instead.
Well, Arabic is a lingua franca for the Arab world, and there is a significant amount of intelligibility between Arabic dialects in countries and regions as varied as Morocco, Somalia, the Levant, etc. As for being united for a very long time, I'm not so sure of that. Most of the now Arab world wasn't Arab at the time of the Islamic conquests, and was split at the time of the Abbasid usurpation of the Caliphate, and gradually disintegrated into interfighting realms by the time the Crusaders showed up.
But China, unlike India, Europe, or the Islamic World, has a long history of an inertia toward unity, even in periods of sharp division. The Mandate of Heaven from 221 BC to AD 1911 has always gravitated the nation back toward unity - a unity that became politically and cultrually natural, and was a cornerstone of Classical Confucianism. Even when Puyi, the Last Emperor of China, abdicated in 1911, and Sun Yat-sen, Li Anhui, and Yuan Shikai declared the Republic of China in 1912, and formally abolished the Mandate of Heaven (though Yuan declared his own putative Imperial dynasty for eight months between 1915-1916, and Puyi and was made a puppet Emperor of the Japanese proxy state of Manchukuo from 1931-1945, and also declared the revival of the Mandate of Heaven, but these two, what are called in Monarchial circles, acts of pretense). The Republic of China, under Sun, Li, Yuan, and later Chiang Kai-shek, declared, nonetheless, even without a Mandate, all of China as a unity, singular, and indivisible nation - and even though none of those leaders ever de facto controlled Tibet, Xinjiang, or Mongolia, (or Tuva, which is now part of Russia), which had been vassals to the Qing Dynasty of China, they viewed them as integrall parts of the new Republic, and planned on, "subduing," them when wars with Warlords, Japanese, and Communists. However, in the end, the Communsits won, on the mainland, in 1949, and Chiang's party and government, the Kuomintang (or Nationalists), fled to Taiwan, where there descendents, and the same government (even if it's become democratized from a former brutal military dictatorship) still remain to this day. Mao Zedong also viewed China as united, singular, and indivisible, also even without a Mandate. And, both Beijing and Taipei (though the latter a LOT less vocally, today, but it's still OFFICALLY there, ON PAPER), claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, as a unified, singular, and indivisible whole. Thus, the gravitating theme of unity is much stronger in Chinese history than in European, Indian, or Islamic history.
And the Ummayyad and Abbasid Caliphates were managed by Iranian buraeucrats.
Because @Bonyduck Campersang put those countries in the overlay, and he is rather a dunce in these matters.
They were administered as part of the broader Raj colonial system at it's height, along with Burma (now called Myanmar), the Maldives, Singapore and the other Staits Settlements, Bhutan, the City of Aden WAY over in Modern Yemen, and briefly Afghanistan. But, yes, none of those nations joined the Indian Independence Movement - they all became independent under other circumstances, and do regard themselves as part of the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh complex.
