Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,033
Aztec Leaders
- Thread starter CaptainReklaw
- Start date
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
Absolutely
If the Maya were going to get a different UU, one of the unusual things they were known for were throwing gourds filled with wasps or bees at opponents.
Sort of. Ideally, I'd like a Greece/Macedon situation.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Of all currently existing civilizations in the game, it has by far the strongest case for splitting, yes. Modern India is an amalgam of a lot of people who speak entirely different languages with vastly different cultural roots, that were only forced into one whole by British colonization basically. It still technically "works" as a civ, because, well, they are in fact a united entity now, but it's a bad choice.
You're a fan of forcibly shoving India back together as it should have never stopped being?
----
Viewing modern states where native descendants of any group only represent a (relatively small) proportion of the population as a continuation of the native civilization is just wrong. But ignoring that those descendants do, in fact, still exist, and often still maintain a coehsive identity separate from the rest of the country is *also* wrong, and part of a general tendency to mythologize the Native people as a thing of the past, no longer relevant today.
You're a fan of forcibly shoving India back together as it should have never stopped being?
----
Caesar - No. The Casta Wars were wars between the Mayans and Mexico. Their culture had changed (just like it had changed between the pre-classic and post-classic Mayans), but one side in the war was still, clearly and unquestionably, the Mayan people - the descendants of the same Mayans who built Chichen Itza and the rest. This war is very much part of the history of the Mayan civilization.
Viewing modern states where native descendants of any group only represent a (relatively small) proportion of the population as a continuation of the native civilization is just wrong. But ignoring that those descendants do, in fact, still exist, and often still maintain a coehsive identity separate from the rest of the country is *also* wrong, and part of a general tendency to mythologize the Native people as a thing of the past, no longer relevant today.
Last edited:
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
Oh, I did not mean it like that, I should have realized what I said, and did not mean to say that.
I don't follow? I only meant if they could make Greece and Macedon separate civilizations in this iteration, then they could do the same with India and another from the Indian Subcontinent.You're a fan of forcibly shoving India back together as it should have never stopped being?
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,033
What would 'India' be representing? The modern state?
Ideally, I'd want a separate Mughal civ from India. From there India could be represented by different leaders. I'd at least like Ashoka.
But if they were going to keep Gandhi around, I'm sure they'd have to keep the name India.
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,033
Who is this?
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,033
Doesn't make a lot of sense to have India be represented through two figures around 2000 years apart chronologically, but remove one part of Indian history from the middle and make it its own civ. There is far greater continuity between the Mughals and modern India than there is between the Mauryans and the Mughals
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Yeah. You *cannot* reasonably have an Indian civ that covers both Maurya and Gandhi but not the Mughal in the middle. That makes no sense whatsoever, it's like having a civ that represents both Gaul and Republican France but making the Frankish Empire and the Kingdom of France separate civs.
I think in an old thread we had split in into something like a Magadha (which as a state includes both the Maurya dynasty, its predecessor Nanda dynasty, and the later Shunga Empire, all of which were successive dynasties ruling the same state and taken more broadly, can cover an even larger number of empires of similiar ethnic and cultural make up based in the eastern Gangetic plain in or near the ancient city of Magadha or Pataliputra), a Dravidian/Tamil civilization covering the various states of Southern India, most notably the Chola Empire, and a northwestern India/Pakistan/Afghanistan civ the name of which we were still debating (Mughal was one option).
I think in an old thread we had split in into something like a Magadha (which as a state includes both the Maurya dynasty, its predecessor Nanda dynasty, and the later Shunga Empire, all of which were successive dynasties ruling the same state and taken more broadly, can cover an even larger number of empires of similiar ethnic and cultural make up based in the eastern Gangetic plain in or near the ancient city of Magadha or Pataliputra), a Dravidian/Tamil civilization covering the various states of Southern India, most notably the Chola Empire, and a northwestern India/Pakistan/Afghanistan civ the name of which we were still debating (Mughal was one option).
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,033
Yes, I think that was @BuchiTaton's idea, which was arguably the best one so far. What I think @Alexander's Hetaroi was going for was due to his idea that the series would never let go of Gandhi. If that would be the case, I'd rather India stay as one entity and different polities be represented by alternative leaders. (As I've said before, Civ6 really missed a trick by not having at least three more Indian leaders besides Chandragupta and Gandhi.)
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
We would get Chola as a seperate civ right?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Chola is one of the kingdom of the Tamil/Dravidian (Tamil are a subgroup of Dravidian) people, so they would be a (major) part of that civilization.
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,033
According to my One-India-Many-Leader idea? No, they'd be represented by an alternative leader. Like this.
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
Then we should divide India, I’d highly suggest that it would be Mayura, Chola, Mughals, and maybe Modern India or Bengal.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,569
But, would the Casta Rebellion, or even the modern Zapatistas, while definitely etnnically Maya, be a civ? Would any organized group that never (or hasn't yet) gotten beyond the rebellion, self-proclaimed-but-unrecognized state, or non-state actor level) really bbe workable as a, "civ,?" If one reads about these groups, irregardless of their broad range of views of claims of legitimacy, goals, and level of conduct, they are EXTREMELY hamstrung to perform many of the common actions and achievements most civ's do as a matter of course in a Civilization iteration.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,569
I'd rather see the Sikh Confederacy before a return of Modern India, and Bengal, as we know it in that light, was a vassal of the Mughals, and thus the Marathas can be put there.
Are you talking about calling them Gurkani instead? Because of their origins, that was my original reason for having them be a separate civ from India. Similar to Macedon originally occupying a different geographic state from the rest of the Greek city-states.
I just used the term Mughal because that would be more familiar. But sure, having a Mughal leader for India would work too. It's better than nothing.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Well, for one thing, I've expressed many times that I do not subscribe to the political interpretation of a civilization. But that aside.
Whether or not the Mayans of the Casta Rebellion have sufficient activity to be a civ, no one is suggesting that the Mayan civ be based on the Casta Rebellion alone. The suggestion is that the Casta Rebellion is part of a broader Mayan civilization, and a legitimate part of their history that can be drawn upon for game features of the Mayan civ. Separating the Casta rebellion from the earlier Mayan civilization circles back to the idea (and myth) that the Mayan people and their civilization ceased to exist with conquest, which I remain strongly in objection to.
As for India, I'm deeply against the granular political approach. Tamil (Dravidian may have to be used due to sensitivities, I'm not sure how sensitive the term Tamil is in India these days) is a better civilization than Chola (one out of many Tamil polities) ; and Maurya (only one of the ruling dynasties of Magadha, not even an actual country) a worse civilization than Magadha. The tendency to latch on to cool states and decide they are civilization tend to result in the erasure of other people and other parts of the history of cultures that do not, in fact, begin or end with that polity.
Whether or not the Mayans of the Casta Rebellion have sufficient activity to be a civ, no one is suggesting that the Mayan civ be based on the Casta Rebellion alone. The suggestion is that the Casta Rebellion is part of a broader Mayan civilization, and a legitimate part of their history that can be drawn upon for game features of the Mayan civ. Separating the Casta rebellion from the earlier Mayan civilization circles back to the idea (and myth) that the Mayan people and their civilization ceased to exist with conquest, which I remain strongly in objection to.
As for India, I'm deeply against the granular political approach. Tamil (Dravidian may have to be used due to sensitivities, I'm not sure how sensitive the term Tamil is in India these days) is a better civilization than Chola (one out of many Tamil polities) ; and Maurya (only one of the ruling dynasties of Magadha, not even an actual country) a worse civilization than Magadha. The tendency to latch on to cool states and decide they are civilization tend to result in the erasure of other people and other parts of the history of cultures that do not, in fact, begin or end with that polity.
Similar threads
