Australian indigenous civ?

[Patine]

True! But we won't mention the human sacrifice that, oh, most other cultures were party to at some point in their history

Because the Carthaginians and Celts NEVER did such things at all. Absolutely not. Celtic wickermen were burnt alone at Druidic festivals, never with someone actually INSIDE them...

 

[Depravo]

Because the Carthaginians and Celts NEVER did such things at all. Absolutely not. Celtic wickermen were burnt alone at Druidic festivals, never with someone actually INSIDE them...

Nothing uncivilised about human sacrifice, in fact I'd bring it back. Get bums on pews, show all the false religions we mean business.

Moderator Action: In our attempts to be family friendly, the video was removed as it is inappropriate. In addition, this is way off topic, please return to the game discussion. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Zaarin]

Because the Carthaginians and Celts NEVER did such things at all. Absolutely not. Celtic wickermen were burnt alone at Druidic festivals, never with someone actually INSIDE them...

Actually, archaeological evidence of Celtic human sacrifice is pretty much non-existent. If it happened at all, it was a "once in a century" sort of thing. Phoenician/Punic evidence is a little more ambiguous, but since Punic inscriptions mention that they happened I think we can take their word for it--but again it wasn't nearly on the scale that 1) the Romans described them (according to the Romans, everyone but them performed massive human sacrifices ) or 2) the Aztecs performed them (as far as I'm aware, Aztec human sacrifice is just plainly unparalleled anywhere else in the world--even in other Mesoamerican cultures).

Also I think scholars are in pretty much unanimous agreement that the "wicker man" specifically was an invention of Julius Caesar's overactive imagination. If the Celt's did perform human sacrifice, it probably involved slitting the throat and dumping the body in a bog (but bog bodies could also represent executed criminals, so...).

 

[cosmicmangobear]

I like how the conversation somehow moved from the Noongar to Apocalypto in just 3 pages. Only on Civfanatics.

 

[Patine]

Nothing uncivilised about human sacrifice, in fact I'd bring it back. Get bums on pews, show all the false religions we mean business.

"Apocalypto" WAS indeed HIGHLY underresearched and embellished, and strongly focused on aspects of Mayan culture that were completely misread (like the "apocalyptic" tendencies - even the infamous "December 21, 2012 event" that stirred up so much media attention was said by Mayan elders and written records themselves to be a "change of ages," NOT a world-ending apocalyptic event, as the word ending in sudden catastrophe didn't REALLY seem to be a part of the Mayan mythos, despite popular portrayal) and human sacrifice in actual Mayan culture was recorded to be minimal.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate video removed. lief
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They still managed to sneak in Aztec human sacrifice and flower wars.

Let's not forget about every worker that disappears every time Qin builds a new segment of his Great Wall.

 

[dagriggstar]

Just for the record and off the top of my head, in present day Victoria there did exist aboriginal semi-permanent huts and mining. The idea that there was absolutely nothing is false.

 

[pgm123]

was that the legit leaker?

Yep. Assembling Typhoon = Gathering Storm

I believe when they said Assyria/Babylon they meant probably one or the other and wouldn't have decided yet so there would still be two options if they go with eight. Vietnam and Italy would be very likely contenders and would be my preference.

As for an aboriginal Civ I think it will be too hard to implement for various reasons already stated and it would be so much easier to at least incorporate the Inuit into a Civ.

I was thinking seven civs and an alternative leader. And I assumed one of Assyria and Babylon.

Cultures ahead of Australian aborigines in the queue for inclusion as a civ: the ones that adopted agriculture. Maybe after we get the Shan States, the Samoyeds and the Isle of Man as playable civs.

It's actually a myth that the Australian aborigines did not have agriculture. Not all did, but some did. There's a more common and pernacious myth that they did not have fire, which is not even true in the historical period. Agriculture seems to be limited to archaeological finds, as far as I know.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Actually, archaeological evidence of Celtic human sacrifice is pretty much non-existent. If it happened at all, it was a "once in a century" sort of thing. Phoenician/Punic evidence is a little more ambiguous, but since Punic inscriptions mention that they happened I think we can take their word for it--but again it wasn't nearly on the scale that 1) the Romans described them (according to the Romans, everyone but them performed massive human sacrifices ) or 2) the Aztecs performed them (as far as I'm aware, Aztec human sacrifice is just plainly unparalleled anywhere else in the world--even in other Mesoamerican cultures).

Also I think scholars are in pretty much unanimous agreement that the "wicker man" specifically was an invention of Julius Caesar's overactive imagination. If the Celt's did perform human sacrifice, it probably involved slitting the throat and dumping the body in a bog (but bog bodies could also represent executed criminals, so...).

Even the Romans practiced human sacrifice at times, the last case being during the 2nd Punic War when they buried 2 Gauls and 2 Greeks alive to ward off Hannibal

 

[Red_warning]

Even the Romans practiced human sacrifice at times, the last case being during the 2nd Punic War when they buried 2 Gauls and 2 Greeks alive to ward off Hannibal

I think they ritually strangled a few Gallic chieftains during Caesar's time as well.

 

[Victoria]

Sacrifice is a pretty specific thing and does not exactly foster good relations.
Many races killed unwanted newborns and is viewed a little different now by us that those races at the time and situation.... look at the one child rules in place now, what they cause and the feelings they invoke. Life is a slippery sucker at the best of times.

 

[nzcamel]

I think they ritually strangled a few Gallic chieftains during Caesar's time as well.

That actually was pretty consistent throughout the Republic and Empire. Technically the Roman's would argue it wasn't a sacrifice to the god's; but there is some debate that seeing as the Temple of Mars or Jupiter (?) wasn't far away...they were at least covering bases.

 

[Ferocitus]

Depends on how you define "sacrifice".

Myriads of soldiers have been sent to almost certain deaths by their commanders/overlords in the name of ideology, religion, power, and money, and often based on half-truths, outright lies, or prevarications. There have also been countless numbers of "collateral damage" sacrificed on the altars of war pigs.

 

[Patine]

Depends on how you define "sacrifice".

Myriads of soldiers have been sent to almost certain deaths by their commanders/overlords in the name of ideology, religion, power, and money, and often based on half-truths, outright lies, or prevarications. There have also been countless numbers of "collateral damage" sacrificed on the altars of war pigs.

I believe sacrifice involving ceremony and ritualism and participation personally by religious figures is the key definition being used to delineate here. That's my understanding, at least.

 

[Ferocitus]

I believe sacrifice involving ceremony and ritualism and participation personally by religious figures is the key definition being used to delineate here. That's my understanding, at least.

Maybe the Children's Crusade overlaps both of our sides of the definition.

 

[PhilBowles]

I've raised this before, but am only working from the limited amount I learned while living in Queensland: at least some Aboriginal groups have a taboo about depictions of dead people, which results in TV warnings for their benefit in advance of news reports and historical documentaries. I don't know whether this is limited to specific groups in that region or in other areas where the programmes may be broadcast, or if it is universal. My understanding was the latter.

If that's the case, it seems unlikely Firaxis would get permission to use an Aboriginal leader - although it may not be an insurmountable difficulty, as Australian programmes are able to now-depict dead indigenous Australians so long as the warning is in place. However, the major point of adding an Australian native civ would be to recognise their culture (since as has been pointed out they had no developed society or permanent structures that could serve as obvious inspiration for unique units or builidngs, they aren't an interesting prospect as a civ in gameplay terms), and it seems to fly in the face of that to use a civ that would necessarily violate their cultural taboos.

 

[Ziad]

Because the Carthaginians and Celts NEVER did such things at all.

I mean people did things considered sketchy back then. You can call Spartan baby mountain tossing variations of "human sacrifice", yet you don't see people clutching their pearls over their portrayals in media.

Even then the accounts on both the Carthaginians and Celts are pretty much as biased as it gets.

 

[PhilBowles]

I mean people did things considered sketchy back then. You can call Spartan baby mountain tossing variations of "human sacrifice", yet you don't see people clutching their pearls over their portrayals in media.

Even then the accounts on both the Carthaginians and Celts are pretty much as biased as it gets.

The issue looking back from our perspective is that we have a biology-focused view of the world. The property "being human" is treated as a virtue in and of itself.

This is not how most historical cultures saw the world. They travelled to new places and saw different lands, different animals, and different humans, all there as resources available to exploit. Within their own communities societies have rarely - in any pragmatic sense - placed a high value on human life per se - individuals can be executed for arbitrary reasons, used as expendable soldiers, or accepted as inevitable casualties of innovations that foster social cohesion, such as currency systems (that necessarily leave some without). Sacrifices and slavery were just other uses as humans as available resources.

It's a modern conceit that historical societies that practiced forms of human-as-resource use like this 'didn't see them as human' - they knew full well they were human, rather, they just didn't see biological species identity as an important distinction between things you care about and things you exploit, just as most of us would find it alien to assign equal rights to all chordates by virtue of being members of the same phylum.

 

[Patine]

I mean people did things considered sketchy back then. You can call Spartan baby mountain tossing variations of "human sacrifice", yet you don't see people clutching their pearls over their portrayals in media.

Even then the accounts on both the Carthaginians and Celts are pretty much as biased as it gets.

That's not my point at all. Quite the opposite. The Aztecs have developed a very notable ingrained acceptance of human sacrifice as a major part of their culture, while many, many other (and not just in Civ, but in a lot media), it gets ignored or brushed under the carpet. In a lot of common, mainstream media, the Aztecs effectively "tank" (to use an MMO term) almost the entire historical and cultural institution of human sacrifice for virtually the whole world. THAT'S what I mean.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: It is probably best that we get back on topic with this thread