Civ7 peoples-- before the starting gun -- NoGo

[FORRREST]

Not just cultural continuity, the Carthaginians were Phoenician, and thought of themselves as such until at least the 5th century and in all probability until they were absorbed by the Arab conquest.


Rome conquered Carthage for the last time a hundred years after the Second Punic War; Hannibal died in exile in Bithynia and the exact cause of his death is unknown.


I think there's enough interesting in history without conspiracy theories.

No conspiracy on my part... just pointing out that North Africa ------> Brazil is the easiest way to get a sailing ship from east to west across the Atlantic. That's why silt from the Amazon gets blasted back onto the shore.

 

[seasnake]

No conspiracy on my part... just pointing out that North Africa ------> Brazil is the easiest way to get a sailing ship from east to west across the Atlantic. That's why silt from the Amazon gets blasted back onto the shore.

That may be true, but you wouldn’t take that path unless you knew there was a landing spot with food shelter etc. For all you know the winds and currents are favorable because you’re draining to the edge of the world.

It may be easier to cross a flat area than to climb a mountain, but if the flat leads to a desert where you’ll all die, and the mountain to a valley with game, water and fertile land, you’ll go mountain climbing.

 

[FORRREST]

That may be true, but you wouldn’t take that path unless you knew there was a landing spot with food shelter etc. For all you know the winds and currents are favorable because you’re draining to the edge of the world.

It may be easier to cross a flat area than to climb a mountain, but if the flat leads to a desert where you’ll all die, and the mountain to a valley with game, water and fertile land, you’ll go mountain climbing.

If the Romans were after you, taking a chance on the unknown west might not seem like a bad alternative.

Regarding Hannibal, the Romans did demand his surrender in some way, and it is said the general took poison and left this note: "Let us relieve the Romans from the anxiety they have so long experienced, since they think it tries their patience too much to wait for an old man's death".

 

[Zaarin]

If the Romans were after you, taking a chance on the unknown west might not seem like a bad alternative.

The Romans were not genocidal maniacs, even in Carthage or Corinth. The relationship between Carthage and Rome was complicated but not always hostile. Rome helped Carthage put down a mercenary rebellion in Sardinia after the First Punic War. Carthaginian trade flourished after both of the first two wars, and their primary customers were the Romans. Romans lived in Carthage, and Carthaginians lived in Romans. Largely we remember the Carthaginians as "implacable enemies of Rome" because it suited later Roman nation-building to portray them that way.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No conspiracy on my part... just pointing out that North Africa ------> Brazil is the easiest way to get a sailing ship from east to west across the Atlantic. That's why silt from the Amazon gets blasted back onto the shore.

The term is "Trade Winds", caused by the coriolis effect of the earth's rotation. In the northern hemisphere in the Atlantic they are primarily northeast to west. What that means in practice is that if you are trying to go down trhe west coast of Africa and stand a little too far out to sea, the wind will take you to Trinidad. In fact, that's one of the reasons Trinidad is where it is: it's a natural landfall for someone 'following the trade winds'.

The trade wind effect was well-known to the Portugeuse by the 15th century. Whether it was known to earlier explorers, like the Classical Greeks or Carthaginians, is simply unknown but might well have been discovered by accident by some trader who took his ship a little too far to the west to avoid some coastal unpleasantness and found himself blown in an unintended direction to a formerly-unknown destination. He also would have been unable to return without sophisticated sailing gear as was developed in the 14th - 15th centuries CE unless he followed the 'westerlies' - the northern trade circle that goes from the Carribbean area northwest to Europe. That would be one loooong and extremely dangerous trip in a Mediterranean-style galley or sailing vessel of the 1st century BCE or earlier.

All of which makes it the sort of thing that Could have happened, but for which we have no credible evidence that it Did happen . . .

 

[Zaarin]

for which we have no credible evidence that it Did happen . . .

And so far all claims of discoveries of Phoenician artifacts or inscriptions in the New World have turned out (quite quickly, in most cases) to be hoaxes and forgeries.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing as Boris: for the most developed of the conspiracy theories (that Phoenicians reached the Americas then kept that knowledge a "state secret") requires a return trip as well.

 

[FORRREST]

The Romans were not genocidal maniacs, even in Carthage or Corinth. The relationship between Carthage and Rome was complicated but not always hostile. Rome helped Carthage put down a mercenary rebellion in Sardinia after the First Punic War. Carthaginian trade flourished after both of the first two wars, and their primary customers were the Romans. Romans lived in Carthage, and Carthaginians lived in Romans. Largely we remember the Carthaginians as "implacable enemies of Rome" because it suited later Roman nation-building to portray them that way.

Yes, the Romans were not maniacs. Like many nations, they used cruelty, sadism, and terror as instruments of statecraft. They could be good friends and allies, but if they regarded you as an enemy, death was usually preferable to what they would do to you.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, the Romans were not maniacs. Like many nations, they used cruelty, sadism, and terror as instruments of statecraft. They could be good friends and allies, but if they regarded you as an enemy, death was usually preferable to what they would do to you.

On the contrary, like the Persians, they managed to hold onto a large empire for a long period of time because they were generous with defeated enemies and offered incentives for cooperation. North Africa was one of the most loyal regions of the empire because of that policy. The Romans did not massacre the Carthaginians. Indeed, the only group that consistently felt the Romans' cruelty was the Jews because of the incompatibility of Jewish religion with Roman society centered on an Imperial Cult (also a problem for nascent Christianity), and the Jewish religion helped the Jews maintain a distinct ethnic identity in cosmopolitan Roman society. (Nevertheless NB that many Jews were also cosmopolitan Romans like Philo of Alexandria and the Apostle Paul prior to his conversion to Christianity. The Zealots assassinated many of the Sadducees for their perceived complicity with Rome.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, the Romans were not maniacs. Like many nations, they used cruelty, sadism, and terror as instruments of statecraft. They could be good friends and allies, but if they regarded you as an enemy, death was usually preferable to what they would do to you.

BUT the other side of that statement is that if you survived the Roman conquest, the benefits were substantial. Rome's 'genius' was Inclusiveness. Unlike the Greek city states or even the Achaemenid Persian Empire, you did not have to be born someplace special or be ethnically specific to become a Roman Citizen, and being a Roman Citizen was a very Good Thing compared to the alternatives in the world at that time. Consequently, Gauls, Thracians, Egyptians and other North Africans - even ex-Carthaginians, Britons and others all became Roman Citizens, and by the end of the Empire were indistinguishable from each other and 'original' Romans - especially compared to those peoples from outside the Empire.

A final note to the Citizenship benefits is that the migrations of German tribal groups that started a couple of centuries before Rome 'fell', were largely due to the attractiveness of living under Roman law with all the benefits and opportunities that Roman Trade and industry gave. The initial 'German invasions' now appear to have been largely peaceful, even by invitation, as they moved into lands largely emptied by the effects of the Antonine and Cyprian plagues of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. Rather than removing population by war, they re-populated large parts of the Empire that plagues had devastated.

 

[FORRREST]

On the contrary, like the Persians, they managed to hold onto a large empire for a long period of time because they were generous with defeated enemies and offered incentives for cooperation. North Africa was one of the most loyal regions of the empire because of that policy. The Romans did not massacre the Carthaginians. Indeed, the only group that consistently felt the Romans' cruelty was the Jews because of the incompatibility of Jewish religion with Roman society centered on an Imperial Cult (also a problem for nascent Christianity), and the Jewish religion helped the Jews maintain a distinct ethnic identity in cosmopolitan Roman society. (Nevertheless NB that many Jews were also cosmopolitan Romans like Philo of Alexandria and the Apostle Paul prior to his conversion to Christianity. The Zealots assassinated many of the Sadducees for their perceived complicity with Rome.)

I'll agree that, like the Persians, the Romans were relatively liberal. But both could be very nasty when they wanted to make a point. Look up a Persian execution method called, "the boats". It's too disgusting to describe here.

 

[Gori the Grey]

parcere subiectus et debellare superbos

 

[Zaarin]

I'll agree that, like the Persians, the Romans were relatively liberal. But both could be very nasty when they wanted to make a point. Look up a Persian execution method called, "the boats". It's too disgusting to describe here.

That's not in dispute. The Persians also probably invented crucifixion. But the point is there's no evidence they massacred the Carthaginians. In fact, the conquest of North Africa was pretty uneventful as most of Carthage's allies--even Utica--defected to Rome.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'll agree that, like the Persians, the Romans were relatively liberal. But both could be very nasty when they wanted to make a point. Look up a Persian execution method called, "the boats". It's too disgusting to describe here.

Mongols, Romans, Chinese, Persians, Germans, British, Greeks and Macedonians - nobody ever conquered far and wide with Kindness and Compassion.

BUT the 'Empires' that lasted longest did so by giving the conquered good reasons to stay conquered and part of the empire. Simple Terror and repression simply does not work in the long run, historically.

 

[Willie5000]

Amina is confirmed. Silly having to google who it is. Alexander the Great or Boudicca would be more respected when coming to warrior status.

You insinuate a European bias. Not at all: Then Mao over Himiko if civ7 should have any credibility to carry the legacy of the civilisation series.

Also ditching Portugal when it comes to age of exploration, is incomprehensible.

Portugal has always been added later. Hell, you couldn't even play as them until Civ III.

 

[Xandinho]

Portugal has always been added later. Hell, you couldn't even play as them until Civ III.

A significant number of civilizations now considered staples in the Civilization series were not playable until Civ III: the Dutch, Koreans, Incas, Mayans, Ottomans, Byzantines... Even the Arabs, despite their immense historical significance, could not officially be played until Civ III.

Portugal is always included later for a simple reason: to avoid overlap with Spain and the Netherlands. Only when they decide that the other regions of the globe are reasonably represented, then they decide to include Portugal. This is understandable, as having Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands included too early might have felt disproportionate while other regions still lacked representation. However, I’m unsure if this rule will apply to Civ VII. The Mayans, for example, have also traditionally been introduced quite late—always after the Aztecs and Incas. Now, we see the Mayans in the base game because they are the most fitting choice for representing antiquity Latin America. Similarly, Portugal's inclusion could be anticipated for a comparable reason: their gameplay aligns seamlessly with the Age of Exploration. After all, which country initiated the era of maritime discoveries?

 

[Zaarin]

After all, which country initiated the era of maritime discoveries?

Norway! (I jest. The Norse discovery of Vinland was an impressive accomplishment in itself, but it had no lasting significance.)

 

[AD1730]

A significant number of civilizations now considered staples in the Civilization series were not playable until Civ III: the Dutch, Koreans, Incas, Mayans, Ottomans, Byzantines... Even the Arabs, despite their immense historical significance, could not officially be played until Civ III.

Portugal is always included later for a simple reason: to avoid overlap with Spain and the Netherlands. Only when they decide that the other regions of the globe are reasonably represented, then they decide to include Portugal. This is understandable, as having Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands included too early might have felt disproportionate while other regions still lacked representation. However, I’m unsure if this rule will apply to Civ VII. The Mayans, for example, have also traditionally been introduced quite late—always after the Aztecs and Incas. Now, we see the Mayans in the base game because they are the most fitting choice for representing antiquity Latin America. Similarly, Portugal's inclusion could be anticipated for a comparable reason: their gameplay aligns seamlessly with the Age of Exploration. After all, which country initiated the era of maritime discoveries?

It is very odd to not include a Civ that is synonymous with the Age of Exploration in a game that has a dedicated Age of Exploration with specially designed mechanics for it.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

It is very odd to not include a Civ that is synonymous with the Age of Exploration in a game that has a dedicated Age of Exploration with specially designed mechanics for it.

Spain and Portugal is too much overlap for launch... I much prefer our current variety. I would not give up any of the current roster for a second Iberian civ focused on trade and settling.

 

[gdr_willter]

It is very odd to not include a Civ that is synonymous with the Age of Exploration in a game that has a dedicated Age of Exploration with specially designed mechanics for it.

If you're saying "we need Portugal instead of Spain", it makes sense.