Civ V Civilizations Roster

[say1988]

Um... I know size isn't everything (at least that's what my GF tells me) but Spain is the 4th largest empire ever. The Ottoman Empire is 24th. That's a huge gap.

Huge portions of which were virtually uninhabited (such as all the territories eventually acquired by the US), except for natives that did not submit to Spain.

The Ottoman Empire was a major power from the 15th century through to the 20th century. Sure it wasn't near its former power, but it was far from insignificant like Spain had largely become.

As for being like the Arabs, they are at least as different from the Arabs as the Spanish, French, and other European powers are from each other.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Actually I'll have to vouch for the Spanish here - they basically were responsible (along with disease, of course) for wiping out and dominating the most advanced societies of the Americas (i.e. the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas). In my view, they are slightly higher than the Ottomans, because of the pivotal role they played in colonization - sure, it was the Portuguese who started it all, but it was really the Spanish who got it good, so to speak.

Not that the Ottomans shouldn't be a vanilla civ (personally I prefer the Arabs and pErsians first, however). They also have their importance and merits too.

But remember, civs aren't in necessarily because of their importance or size (look at the Zulus, for example) in Civilization - it's only one of many factors.

 

[say1988]

My problem with that is that:
a) I expect anybody would have done the same, there was no reason for the French or British to do so in North America since they were so poor and they were excellent voluntary labour for the fur trade.
b) Much of that was done without authorization of the Spanish crown (Cortes was specifically violating his orders).

They are both very much worthy, but I would take the Turks first.

 

[Verily]

^They would never in their right mind take out Greece. In my opinion, it's one of those top three/five/whatever civs that they will NEVER EVER remove no matter what.

Agreed. There's a fairly substantial group of civilizations that will never, ever be taken out of any Civ game, and Greece is one of them.

Ancient
Greece
Rome
Persia
Egypt

Asian
China
India
Japan

European
England
France
Germany
Russia
America


This doesn't actually say anything about the significance of these nations against others, but we can be certain that they will be in any Civ game ever created for various reasons.

Everyone else is on the bubble at any given time, although obviously there are a huge number of deserving civilizations out there. The problem for Firaxis is that they "have" to include the above 12 civilizations, so they only have a few open spots if they want to have a fairly limited scope of initial civilizations.

 

[bonafide11]

Agreed. There's a fairly substantial group of civilizations that will never, ever be taken out of any Civ game, and Greece is one of them.

Ancient
Greece
Rome
Persia
Egypt

Asian
China
India
Japan

European
England
France
Germany
Russia
America


This doesn't actually say anything about the significance of these nations against others, but we can be certain that they will be in any Civ game ever created for various reasons.

Everyone else is on the bubble at any given time, although obviously there are a huge number of deserving civilizations out there. The problem for Firaxis is that they "have" to include the above 12 civilizations, so they only have a few open spots if they want to have a fairly limited scope of initial civilizations.

Persia actually wasn't in Civilization Revolution.

 

[LegioCorvus]

Agreed. There's a fairly substantial group of civilizations that will never, ever be taken out of any Civ game, and Greece is one of them.

Ancient
Greece
Rome
Persia
Egypt

Asian
China
India
Japan

European
England
France
Germany
Russia
America


This doesn't actually say anything about the significance of these nations against others, but we can be certain that they will be in any Civ game ever created for various reasons.

Everyone else is on the bubble at any given time, although obviously there are a huge number of deserving civilizations out there. The problem for Firaxis is that they "have" to include the above 12 civilizations, so they only have a few open spots if they want to have a fairly limited scope of initial civilizations.

Persia wasn't in Civ1 or CivRev. Not being in Civ1 isn't a big deal, as neither was Japan and I can't see them being removed at this point, but the no show in CivRev really takes them out of the untouchable 11 or top 15.

The one Civ you forgot that's been in every game is the Aztecs, who have never missed a showing. I also take fault with listing the United States with Europe, but I can see why you would make that grouping.

Anyway, the untouchable 11:
*United States
*Aztecs
*China
*Egypt
*England
*France
*Germany
*Greece
*India
*Rome
*Russia

And, for fun, the 1 game exceptions:
*Japan
*Mongolia
*Zulu
*Spain

By all accounts, all these Civs except Spain are in Civ5. (Zulu isn't a given - yet - but I'd bet money on it). Filling that in with the other confirmed Civs, Arabia & Inca, that gives us 16/18. Put Spain back in as a place holder (until proven otherwise) and we have 17.

That leaves, in theory, 1 civilization.

At this point I'm going back to my original theory that the Vikings & the Ottomans were purely for show in the teaser trailer. If I was betting on the last Civ, I would say Persia, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was some random Civ. So far every version of Civilization has had 1-3 random Civs in the original version.

Then again Spain could be removed and the Vikings & Ottomans in... gah! Guessing games!

 

[kivanc]

So, my suggestion is EMT's list, minus Ottomans (too close to Arabia) and plus Spain (too influential to be overlooked).

No Spain? Surely Spain trumps Ottoman and Ethiopia. Don't get me wrong those were great Civs, but... Spain!

Take out Vatican and make Ottoman a City-State.

I'm not even remotely Spanish, but still... Spain!

please reconsider at least once before writing sth. If you don't know about history, this is not a shame. Not every guy has to know about it. But at least don't make such weird comments.

Just write who you would like to see as a civ. When someone makes such weird comments, such threads easily get out of topic and becomes a history discussion place.

nobody says ottoman MUST be in the game. we just want it to be. And we are making guesses here about which civs are more likely to be IN.

ottoman culture is too different than arabs. you just confuse this because of the state religion but you should know that ottoman had christian citizens as much as muslims and plus many jews so ottoman was very different than arabs.

 

[LegioCorvus]

please reconsider at least once before writing sth. If you don't know about history, this is not a shame. Not every guy has to know about it. But at least don't make such weird comments.

Just write who you would like to see as a civ. When someone makes such weird comments, such threads easily get out of topic and becomes a history discussion place.

nobody says ottoman MUST be in the game. we just want it to be. And we are making guesses here about which civs are more likely to be IN.

ottoman culture is too different than arabs. you just confuse this because of the state religion but you should know that ottoman had christian citizens as much as muslims and plus many jews so ottoman was very different than arabs.

I really want no part in this argument, which is a shame as I'm about to get involved, but calling someone out on whether or not they know about a specific part of history will only throw fuel on the fire. It comes across as condescending, and is likely to provoke, despite being under the guise of wanting to be amicable.

I understand where you are coming from with respects to Ottomans being important, historically. And, perhaps, feeling Spain is more important than the Ottomans is a western bias. It can be argued ad infinitum whether one is more deserving than the other, as "importance" historically is often subject to bias and argument. Personally, I feel Spain should be in the game for their ability to represent many Spanish speaking cultures, which form the third largest linguistic group in the world. However, I also feel the Ottomans would be a good fit for the starting 18, or at least more than the Vikings.

Interestingly, this may be pertinent to the starting 18, as at this point it seems that either the Vikings & Ottomans will be in (based on teaser trailer footage) or the Spanish & another Civ (based on what we now know - see my previous post above).

Another small note is that "sth" is generally not understood by native English speakers. I am an American who now lives in Switzerland myself, and I find many of my European friends prefer to type "sth" rather than "something" when writing. It took me quite a few times of seeing it in context before I understood it. This is a term people pick up from dictionaries, is it not?

 

[Danielos]

I think it is about time to have Sweden in a Civilization game. Yes, that cold northern European country. Sure, we have the Vikings, but Sweden was actually a major power in Europe during the 16th to 18th centuries and we have still been ignored four times. Enough, bring us in!!

 

[kivanc]

I really want no part in this argument, which is a shame as I'm about to get involved, but calling someone out on whether or not they know about a specific part of history will only throw fuel on the fire. It comes across as condescending, and is likely to provoke, despite being under the guise of wanting to be amicable.

I understand where you are coming from with respects to Ottomans being important, historically. And, perhaps, feeling Spain is more important than the Ottomans is a western bias. It can be argued ad infinitum whether one is more deserving than the other, as "importance" historically is often subject to bias and argument. Personally, I feel Spain should be in the game for their ability to represent many Spanish speaking cultures, which form the third largest linguistic group in the world. However, I also feel the Ottomans would be a good fit for the starting 18, or at least more than the Vikings.

no, i am not comparing the importance of any countries/cultures. i would like to have spain and ottomans both in the game and i will buy the game even if ottomans are OUT.

the issue is; i just had to reply for his weird comments.

ottomans (too close to arabia)
ottomans--> city state.

it is impossible not to reply these comments.

 

[ko3ak]

no, i am not comparing the importance of any countries/cultures. i would like to have spain and ottomans both in the game and i will buy the game even if ottomans are OUT.

the issue is; i just had to reply for his weird comments.

ottomans (too close to arabia)
ottomans--> city state.

it is impossible not to reply these comments.

I don't understand what is weird about that?

The Islamic Caliphates had 4 dynasties. They were:
1. Umayyad
2. Abbasid
3. Fatimid
4. Ottoman

Having an Arabic Civilization and an Ottoman Civilization doesn't make sense because they are essentially the same civilization just different dynasties and during different time periods.

That would be like having a Qing Empire and a Han Empire. They are both China.

Why put 2 Civs in the game that are territorially and culturally very similar, when there are other larger Civs (Spain) that could be included instead?

You may not agree with me, but my argument is a reasonable one and it is not weird.

 

[Niptium]

They should just take out the Zulus. I've never seen anyone liking them or taking them. I would love it if they'd add the Dutch.

France, Netherlands, England, Spain, Germany. European combo.

 

[say1988]

Having an Arabic Civilization and an Ottoman Civilization doesn't make sense because they are essentially the same civilization just different dynasties and during different time periods.

And entnically, culturally, militarily very different.
Based on that argument the Ottomans and Russians should be excluded because they both claimed to be successors to the Roman Empire.

Ans why include France? We have Germany and England. Culturally (western European, Christian, strong Roman influence, etc...) and geographically (much of modern France was ruled by one of them at some point) very similar?

 

[EMT]

I don't understand what is weird about that?

The Islamic Caliphates had 4 dynasties. They were:
1. Umayyad
2. Abbasid
3. Fatimid
4. Ottoman

Having an Arabic Civilization and an Ottoman Civilization doesn't make sense because they are essentially the same civilization just different dynasties and during different time periods.

That would be like having a Qing Empire and a Han Empire. They are both China.

Why put 2 Civs in the game that are territorially and culturally very similar, when there are other larger Civs (Spain) that could be included instead?

You may not agree with me, but my argument is a reasonable one and it is not weird.

I had a nice big post that I lost to poke holes in your last post about the Ottomans, but I feel I must correct you, except this time I don't have to bring up the 'Politically Correct Inclusion of Sub-Saharan Africans' to the debate. The Ottomans/Turks came from Central Asia. They traveled north and south of the Caspian Sea, devastating Persia and other states that had existed along the north of the sea such as Kiev, Gothic Ukraine, Byzantium, and other states. The Ottomans arose out of Central Asian Turks, that at one point where CHRISTIANS, but eventually converted to Islam. They take Constantinople, and the Sultans live lives as luxurious as the Kings of Paris, London, or Madrid. The Sultans lived in a world European in nature that was influenced by Islam. Their most important holdings where their Balkan holdings and Egypt, both areas that where not considered 'Arabic' at that point, and the Balkans are still 'European'. They put the most effort into wars in Europe when on the offensive, or they could have destroyed or annexed Persia, or more of Sub-Saharan Africa, had they wanted to. The people that served the Ottoman Sultans where Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and Slavs. Arabs and Kurds where used provincially as political servants. The Sultans themselves where the sons of European mothers. The Ottomans assumed the title of Caliph simply because they where the biggest dog on the Islamic block for centuries and controlled Mecca. Arabs spoke Arabic, Ottomans spoke Turkish and Greek. Arabs where religious and at times unilaterally killed Christians, arguably, some of the Sultans where right down irreligious, and always practiced religious tolerance. I say it's weird when you argue a subject you do not know.

 

[seasnake]

Ottomans do not equal Arabs. It's different. Granted, I think Spain is a good choice, I just prefer Ottoman and Ethiopian Empires.

 

[Turquoiside]

I don't understand what is weird about that?

The Islamic Caliphates had 4 dynasties. They were:
1. Umayyad
2. Abbasid
3. Fatimid
4. Ottoman

Having an Arabic Civilization and an Ottoman Civilization doesn't make sense because they are essentially the same civilization just different dynasties and during different time periods.

That would be like having a Qing Empire and a Han Empire. They are both China.

Why put 2 Civs in the game that are territorially and culturally very similar, when there are other larger Civs (Spain) that could be included instead?

You may not agree with me, but my argument is a reasonable one and it is not weird.

I think you are thinking of the Ayyubid and Mamluks instead of the Ottomans (Who told you there were only 4 though?). As others have pointed out, the Ottomans do not equal Arabia. For one the Ottomans were Turks (migrated from Central Asia) and the 'Arabs' were Middle Eastern.

You also mention they were territorially and culturally similar. For territroy, It's fair to say that the Ottomans owned many lands the Caliphate did. But Rome owned the same lands we have France, Spain, and Portugal in. With Rome, it is perfectly clear they were distinct from the past of the lands they conquered. Rome was obviously a quite large empire, making it easier to assess them on where they based their power. So, with the other Arabic Sultan/Caliphates, it's more reasonable to look at where these empires based their power. The Caliphates had their power-base in the Levant, Iraq and especially after 1258, Egypt. Ottoman power was based in Greece and the Balkans. The Ottomans were already a stable state long before Selim I annexed the Egyptian Mamluks. Only in their late history will you find the Ottomans territorially similar to the past Caliphates, but never were they equivalent. As for culture, that depends on what you define as a distinct culture. Language could be a major part of that, and the Ottomans obviously spoke Turkish(or "Ottoman" if you WANT to be confusing) not Arabic.

Spain is a very important empire, no doubt. No one can really definitively say that the Ottomans is more important than Spain, or that Spain is more important than the Ottomans. But saying Ottoman Turkey is the same as Arabia is like saying Japan is the same thing as China.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Although the Ottoman sultans claimed to be the religious heirs of the Caliphates, they were NOT the Arabs. Confusing them and the Arabs is like confusing the Chinese and Mongols. They did share a few similarities here and there, but this was just really in religion (and even then there were differences).

Spain is still important, of course; and the Ottomans are still important, too. You know, what, I think there should be 20 civs in the vanilla game. That way both Spain and the Ottomans can be in.

 

[seasnake]

Although the Ottoman sultans claimed to be the religious heirs of the Caliphates, they were NOT the Arabs. Confusing them and the Arabs is like confusing the Chinese and Mongols. They did share a few similarities here and there, but this was just really in religion (and even then there were differences).

Spain is still important, of course; and the Ottomans are still important, too. You know, what, I think there should be 20 civs in the vanilla game. That way both Spain and the Ottomans can be in.

Cybrxkhan saves the day with the best suggestion on the thread. One problem: what civs will be in the Xpack if we put all the good ones in today to accompany espionage and religion when they return!

 

[ko3ak]

I'm not saying Arabs are the same thing as Ottomans. I'm just saying that they are all part of the Islamic Empire. Which is already in the game. That's all.

Having Ottomans and Arabs is like having Sparta and Athens. Why put both in when they are both Greek. I know they were quite different, but the bottom line is that Greece is already in the game, so you don't need Sparta or Athens.

Or Qing and Han. Why put either of those, when China represents them both?

The USSR is represented by Russia. They're not going to put both, even though they are different.

There are many examples of nations which are represented in the game by other empires.

 

[EMT]

Okay, based on that nice interview by IGN, I have a new list-with leaders!

England-Elizabeth
France-Napoleon
Germany-Bismark
Rome-Julius Caesar
Egypt-Ramses II
Arabia-Harun al-Rashid
Songhai-Askiya/Askia
Aztec-Montezuma
Inca-?
Russia-Catherine
India-Gandhi
Ottomans-Suleiman(eat that Otto-doubters )
America-Washington
Japan-Oda Nabunaga
China-That Asian lady?(my bad) Wu?

Possible civs that are my guesses: Greece(this one could be left out and added along with Babylon in ancient themed exp.?), Persia, Spain, Ethiopia, Scandinavians, Zulu

Of these, my bets are on Persia and Spain, with Ethiopia as a runner up. Greece can kick the bucket until the next expansion pack for all I care.