Civ7: Successors civilizations to Egypt

I would second the Ayyubids. I'm okay with the Abbasids though.

Historically, the best choice would be the Copts. They had no empire of their own, but they are the successor culture of the ancient Egyptians. So, if a completely fictional idea such as Egypt into Songhai can be a reality in Civ 7, I don't see how simulating a Coptic medieval continuation would be any worse.
Copts had been subjects of various empires, in the Middle Ages (Age II) one of their overlords were Mamelukes. and Saladin's seat of power is Cairo. they did resist as Christians (a different Christian though, not what Nicaens and Chalcedonian Churches will like, and also the same 'bad' christians that burned down The Great Library of Alexandria.)
Would Saladin return as Age II leader?
And what did the copts preserve from the Old Egypt? how did they resist Islamization and Arabianizations? did Coptics had their own 'Shariah' law and did they use the law against any muslim that offended them individually?
 
If nothing else, it would be to satisfy your curiosity of "What if the Phoenicians/Carthaginians continued on after Rome?" :p

I mean technically we did get the Fatimids in Civ 6, in the form of Vizier Saladin. :mischief:
And he leads Arabs.
though the more regional bound leader would be Aaron (Civ5).
 
also the same 'bad' christians that burned down The Great Library of Alexandria.
What? The Great Library was destroyed in the various Roman civil wars, not by Christians.

a different Christian though, not what Nicaens and Chalcedonian Churches will like
Miaphysitism was never declared heretical, even though Miaphysites rejected all church councils from Chalcedon on; Eastern Orthodox Christians had to live alongside Miaphysites from the beginning (and Theodora may have been a Miaphysite--certainly many in the Byzantine court were Miaphysite sympathizers at the least). And in recent years the rift between Miaphysites and Chalcedonians has largely been healed, with both sides acknowledging their Christological differences largely amounted to semantics.
 
^ But Copts didn't bother rebuilding The Great Library. (and also not even Muslim masters of the Middle Ages either, i'm not sure if any of Fatimids known the existence of the said Library? yet they did make uses of The Great Lighthouse of Alexandria).
History books often said they are an anathema to Hypathia. and they HATE her.

Did Catholics say a thing good or foul about Miaphysites?
and what are they actually?
 
Did Catholics say a thing good or foul about Miaphysites?
Catholics basically issued the traditional Christology as dogma and acted like that resolved the issue, making things more complicated for the Byzantines. They also mistreated the Miaphysite Christians in Outremer. However, Miaphysites were never quite as execrated as Nestorians--though it's no longer clear why as Nestorian theology seems to be perfectly orthodox. Many modern scholars believe that Nestorius was just a convenient scapegoat during the Chalcedonian controversy.

and what are they actually?
It's about Christ's nature. The Chalcedonian version is that Jesus is one person with two natures, God and Man; the Miaphysite version is that Jesus has one nature that is fully God and fully human. If it sounds like those add up to the same thing...the modern Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches have acknowledged that. Really, it comes down to linguistics: Greek loves to make fine distinctions to things, while Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian were much more concrete. Things got lost in translation.
 
Modern Egypt could still technically be represented by using the Alawiyyas (Muhammad Ali’s Dynasty) as the Khedivate was extremely powerful

Egypt’s successor for exploration age being the Abbasids is fine but the Fatimids also work
 
Top Bottom