7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

I was comparing it to India, not Maurya.
Yes, but often dynasties as civ names is your gripe. Also, as another good example, the Nahuatl-speaking Mexica who rued their tributory empire from the Tenichtitlan Triple Alliance did not call themselves, "Aztecs," - in fact, according to their religion, Huitzlpochtli forbade them to refer to refer to themselves as, "Aztecha," after he led them out them Aztlan, speaking of entrenched names introduced historiographically.
 
How about calling it "Aryavarta"?
Might be a bit dicey given the misuse of the word, "Aryan," by a failed Austrian painter and two Nordic Neo-Pagan reviivalists in the modern consciousness.
 
Yes, dynasties as civ name IS my gripe.

My point with Byzantine was that using the common modern name of a region or polity rather than what it would have been called historically (like using India to refer to the land ruled by Asohka) is fairly common civ practice. Byzantine, Aztecs, Indonesia, etc.

So by that standard having Asohka leads India is within Civ norms, if not strictly accurate. Magadha would be a more accurate name for the state ruled by Asohka, but is more obscure. I'd prefer either over having a Mauryan civ.
 
My point is that if you make an exclusively Mauryan/Magadhan civ called 'India' including any other Indian civ (Chola, Mughals, etc.) would imply that those civs are somehow 'not Indian' but on the other hand if you try representing all of them in a single civ you end up with a clumsy blob lump
So making a France civ with a Medici leader implies that anyone else isn't French? What?
 
So making a France civ with a Medici leader implies that anyone else isn't French? What?
She was only ever Regent. Though she was married to a King, and the mother of another King, she was never Queen Regnant, nor could be. Though, by that marriage, she was as French as the Greek-born Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was British.
 
She was only ever Regent. Though she was married to a King, and the mother of another King, she was never Queen Regnant, nor could be. Though, by that marriage, she was as French as the Greek-born Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was British.
Ok? I can recite historical facts too. I’m using an analogy to try to understand his logic.
 
Last edited:
Ok? I can recite historical facts too. I’m using an analogy to try to understand his logic.
I'm not interested in more of your completely unnecessary, trouble-making static.
 
No, according to the definitive division of continents by international geographers' consensus
There is no "definitive division" of continents, they are divided differently in separate cultures (see: wherever or not to divide America or Eurasia) and there is no formal geographical definition of a continent, and especially not on where the border between Europe and Asia lies which is all over the place depending on who you ask.
 
So the Ottomans become the Turks then?

Sounds good.
Turks, by broadest definition, could refer to many, many nations completely different and unrelated to each other over a very large period of time and a huge span of Eurasia, from a Khaganate on the northeast frontiers of Tang-Dynasty China to the modern Republic created by Ataturk. Yes, the Seljuks and the Ottomans called thamselves Turks, but so did the Rouran, Xiongnu, Yakut, Uigyurs, Uzbeks, Khivans, Khazars, Kipchaks, Avars, Kazakhs, etc. The Huns POSSIBLY may have, too. Some unofficial, histororiographical distinction would have to be made in this case just to avoid very easy confusion, and for sanity's sake.
 
Actually Ocenia is the continent that Australia happens to be in...
Where do you live because I've learned that it varies by location, for whatever reason? I noticed a lot of people in the forums that lives in Europe kept referring to America as one continent, whereas I was taught that North America and South America are two different.
 
Ottoman is perhaps one of those edge cases where I could tolerate the dynasty, because as Patine point out, a Turkish civilization can be taken as a very broad concept, and lead to major confusion, and because Ottomans Turks appears to have been largely adopted as an ethnic and cultural subdivision of western Turks that includes the dynasty.

It’s not an ideal choice, and I would prefer another term if one could be found, but the ethnocultural use and double meaning of Turk does distinguish it from most dynastic names in my opinion. At least enough for me to tolerate the exception if we must.
 
If we really want to go crazy, we could call them 'Rûm', which was the name of the Seljuk sultanate whereof the Ottomans were one of the fragments, and 'Kayser-i Rûm' (Caesar of Rome) was one of the titles of the Ottoman Sultan (though if I recall correctly they only started calling themselves that after the conquest of Constantinople)
 
If we really want to go crazy, we could call them 'Rûm', which was the name of the Seljuk sultanate whereof the Ottomans were one of the fragments, and 'Kayser-i Rûm' (Caesar of Rome) was one of the titles of the Ottoman Sultan (though if I recall correctly they only started calling themselves that after the conquest of Constantinople)
Though, in most historical renditions, the, "Sultanate of Rum," is usually seen as a rump state of the Seljuck Sultanate that survived Tamerlane's Western invasion, but was conquered and absorbed by one of the Anatolian Beyeliks rulled by Osman's son.
 
If we really want to go crazy, we could call them 'Rûm', which was the name of the Seljuk sultanate whereof the Ottomans were one of the fragments, and 'Kayser-i Rûm' (Caesar of Rome) was one of the titles of the Ottoman Sultan (though if I recall correctly they only started calling themselves that after the conquest of Constantinople)
Wouldn't that just translate to them being Rome in Turkish? :crazyeye:
 
As unrealistic as the prospect is, I would really really really like to see a Seljuq civ; the Seljuq mods for both Civ 5 and Civ 6 are bugged... :cry:
 
I think the developers tend to just pick the most recognisable names and civilisations when going through this stuff.
Hence, India over (split) India. Ottomans are a very well known empire, there's a lot of stuff to pull apart for the Civ. But just "Turks" is not as much.
We have Romans and not Italians because Romans are more well known.
They tend to really not care about any kind of consistency besides that
 
Back
Top Bottom