1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilisations and leaders you would NOT like to see in game

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Feb 1, 2018.

  1. Equilin

    Equilin Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    112
    Gender:
    Male
    Siam
    Reason: Ramkhamhaeng in V got CiV banned for 6 months in Thailand. I dont want to experience that personally even if i still want king Narai of Ayutthaya.
    Blob civs
    Reason: pretty obvious here. Different cultures will never be correctly represented in civ and seeing bits from different cultures mashing up in one is not good for my historical brain.
    Gandhi
    Reason: let him rest already. Leading India for decades in a few pieces of clothes is tiring.
    (Unimpactful) native americans
    Reason: there are too many of them and with similar stuff. And out of all the blob that had been done they have the special treatment of not getting blobbed (except for once). Until asia&africa are represented more i'll still say no to minor native americans unless they have something interesting game-wise (like RF's cree) or they are Aztec-Maya-Inca.
     
  2. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,417
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    Civ5 got banned temporarily in Thailand? I learned something new today!
    Doesn't Asia have enough representation in the game? :p Why make an exception for Aztec-Maya-Inca (or as I like to call them, Mayaincatec)? Because they are the "greatest" Civilizations of the Americas? :rolleyes:
     
  3. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,083
    Location:
    Abroad
    Why was Civ 5 banned in Thailand? Was it because the leader looked like the controversial prime minister, or the statue in the background? :p
     
  4. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,417
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    Maybe we should ask Sukritact.....
     
  5. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    I soundly support this idea, actually. It would allow a lot of mechanically similar civs to be included without offending the pedants. "Akkadia" could change to "Babylon" or "Syria" depending on the leader. "Greece" could change to "Athens" or "Sparta." "Polynesia" could be "Maori" and "Hawaii." "Celts" could be "Scotland" and "Ireland." I'm not sure how the Massagetae and Huns would be distinguished ("Scythia" and "Xiongnu?" "Kazakh" and "Hungary?").

    Sometimes the difference between civs isn't that substantial, and all you really need is a leader with some slightly different bonuses and agendas.

    Although, as it is I still wouldn't be offended by any of these civs being grouped under "Akkadia," "Polynesia," or "Rome." The game has already done its due diligence when it comes to calling civs by more general names (Nubian Kush, Korean Silla, Chinese Qin, Persian Achaemenid, Greek Sparta/Athens, Indian Maurya, Scythian Massagetae, English United Kingdom, and German HRE are all mentioned in the Civilopedia). Nearly half the civs aren't referred to by their self-stylized name. The game won't break if "Hammurabi of Babylon" leads Akkadia or "Theodora of the Byzantines" leads Rome; and all evidence points toward Firaxis emphasizing which dynasty these leaders ruled over to placate pedants who have an irrational fear of consumer confusion. The argument against it is quite silly, actually, given that no one would blink an eye at a Saffavid leader or Persia or an Umayyad caliph of Arabia.

    Really, Byzantium-fanaticism is just conservatism at its worst, a fear of change--even good, reasonable, constructive change--simply because it is traumatic. So much whining over a single civ. It's not even like one precludes the other; you can still have both Romes in the same game if you want. Ugh, to be thirteen again and thinking Greek mythology and Christianity and Classicism were obscure and fascinating and the only things that ever mattered in the world. It was a simpler time.
     
  6. Lord Lakely

    Lord Lakely Unintentionally a feminist.

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    562
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgium
    The issue with Byzantium is that they weren't really Roman. I mean, they were... but they weren't.. I define them as Romanized Greeks. It's a case not like Sumer => Akkad => Babylon or Seljuks => Ottomans => Turkey, which were pretty linear transitions, all things considered. (btw Akkad is an excellent pick for a debut Civ in the next XPac). This is why nobody minds China or India or Germany, while they're vertical blob civs.

    I'm not saying Byzantium shouldn't be an alt-Civ to something else, but I feel like they're the Middle stage for Greece, not Rome. What I actually want though, is this: The same courtesy offered to Byzantium should be offered to other Civs as well.

    > Fully separate Athens and Laconia. Fully separate the Republic of India from Maurya. Like, actually different civs, with distinct lists, icons, abilities and UUs.
    > If there's no reason to split, keep the merged name (no need to rename China to "Qin" or Persia to "Achaemenid Empire" if there's no alt from another time period.)
    > Maybe keep the UI/UD as something they can share to signify the historical link between parallell or successive empires (Byzantium getting Baths OR the Acropolis would work imo)
    > And while we're add it, add more Leaders altogether with every Xpac. 10 at least. ^__^
     
  7. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,214
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Well this interesting. Is this for this game or in future titles as well?
    Blob Civs- Native America, Polynesia, Celts, Holy Roman Empire, Vikings etc. because of blobiness and I'm sure there not doing this anymore anyway.
    Huns- playable nomadic barbarians no thanks
    Venice- Nothing against Venice except I'd just rather a playable Italy and not play as a city-state. I don't necessarily think of it as much of a blob over the others partly because Italy is unified today but others will disagree.
    Songhai- So we can just have Mali. :mischief:
    Siam: If it keeps out the Khmer all the time. :p
    Not wanting to overrun the game with post colonial nations: Gran Colombia would be preferable if we got one more. Canada or Argentina would be my limit. No Mexico, South Africa or Cuba.
    As for leaders I don't want them too modern, gameplay wise and to avoid controversy. I think they've done fine so far, no leaders after say Wilhelmina's life which might even be a stretch since she died in the 60s.
     
  8. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,117
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    For me it is simple.
    Civilizations I don't want:
    1. Too short-lived ones (people were requesting Palmyra, for instance)
    2. Too obscure (if we do not know any leader names, cannot come up with a real unique unit and/or building - it does not belong in Civ. Period. So stop requesting the Inuits or the Australian Aborigines)
    3. Not a civ (HRE, Timurids come to mind, I also don't want the Mughals as a separate civ, not to mention the Soviets)
    4. Civs that are there simply because they have an awesome leader, but nothing beyond that
    5. Civs that have no city names (Huns, Mapuche, Shoshone, for instance. Having said that, I am OK with the Iroquois or even the Cree, because we have at least names of places and villages)
    6. Blob civs that are too much of a blob (I'm OK with India and Indonesia, not to mention Greece and Maya, I also think it is fine to make Mali and Songhai one civ, but I am not OK with Celtia, Polynesia, Scythia and the like)
    7. Vikings (I want Norway, Denmark, and Sweden separately with Norway being Viking-Medieval, Denmark being more Medieval-Renaissance with a touch of Viking, and Sweden focusing on post-Viking stuff)
    8. A city-state civ (I'm OK with Venice being a regular civ with a city list and an ability to build settlers and build cities like, say, Verona)

    Leaders I don't want:
    1. Female leaders who are there just so there will be a female leader (Catherine 'de Medici, Maria of Portugal)
    2. Celebs (Cleopatra)
    3. Leaders leading civs they did not actually lead (Maria Theresa for Germany, Ana Nzinga for Kongo)
    4. Gandhi
    5. People who did not actually hold a leadership position, such as various generals, explorers, statesmen who were not heads of government, spiritual leaders (Gandhi)
    6. Controversial and simply bad and horrible leaders (no Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, Mussolinis, Francos and the like, and I also don't want leaders like Maria of Portugal or Ivan the Terrible)
    7. Leaders without a civ (sorry, Charlemagne, Tamerlane)
     
  9. Basileus Rhomaion

    Basileus Rhomaion Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages:
    76
    Gender:
    Male
    Byzantium was a multi-ethnic empire. Greeks weren't even the ethnic majority for much of the empire's existence. Just because the lingua franca was Greek that doesn't mean the Byzantines were all Greeks.

    You are absolutely right, Rome => Byzantium is unlike the ones you mentioned because Byzantium is the direct continuation of the Roman empire in the East without any abrupt changes. The eastern portion of the empire from the time of its reinstitution post-Constantine went on without ever fully dissolving until 1453.

    By contrast, Akkadians were Semitic invaders taking over Sumer and installing their own polities in the place of the previously independent Sumerian city-states. The Ottomans were effectively dissolved due to the desire for reform that sparked the birth of the modern Turkish nation.

    Those are not mutually exclusive. Byzantium is an intermediary step of Greece because the latter belonged to the former. That doesn't nullify their legitimacy as Romans. Similarly, Byzantium is one intermediary step of Egypt or Armenia.

    This can easily spiral out of control though. There would be no discernible requirement to be qualified as a civ other than "they are/were a state that exists/-ed". I see no reason not to follow down that path with a Provence, Dauphine, Lorraine, Aquitaine and Burgundy civ so we can completely balkanize France as well.
     
    PhoenicianGold likes this.
  10. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    I would also like to point out that Rome was a multi-ethnic empire as well.

    And that Hindi derives from a completely different language and culture than the Magadhi language which was actually spoken by the Mauryans, despite Chandragupta speaking Sanskrit in game. Just because Byzantines spoke Greek doesn't mean they actually were Greek, at least not while Romans retained control.
     
  11. Greywulf

    Greywulf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    Although I think that Palmyra is pretty cool, and Queen Zenobia makes an interesting leader choice, I have to say that you have a point here about too short-lived civ. I do prefer civs that have been around for a while, and really stood the test of time. Perhaps Palmyra should be a CS after all ~ which would actually suit it quite well.
     
    IgorS likes this.
  12. Krajzen

    Krajzen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,090
    Location:
    Poland
    While "Palmyrean empire" was extremely short-lived, Palmyra itself was important city for centuries. My personal favourite is suggestion of some people to make Zenobia not just represent the city itself but Aram - civililisation of Arameans, which was major Middle Eastern culture for a very long time. By the way, Zenobia herself is viewed as local hero in Syria, so she has recognition beyond Westerners and Rome.

    I fully agree. I never did and never will support adding archeological cultures or hunter-gatherers - there need to be historical records, well documented culture, history, achievements of some sort, interaction with the world.

    Soviets would be ridiculous and we are safe from them. Personally I support Mughals as separate civ because of:
    - their separate identity from India and Hinduism
    - their Central Asian-Timurid-Turkic-Persianized origins, thus being significantly different from Indians
    - their abundance of achievements, potential gameplay elements, interesting leaders, personality in general

    One problem I can admit is Mughal city name list which would be similar to Indian one. But I think this could be resolved, and Mughals are too different from India to be reduced to alternate leader.

    To this day I shudder at the memory of civ5 Hunnic "city names"... Huns were a perfect definition of barbarians, I hope they never return as major playable "civ".

    Ooh, somebody sees Scandinavia the same way as me! Although all three in the same game are too much for me :p

    I am still salty over the fact de Medici is French ruler.

    Would you support Ana Nzinga leading civ called "Angola" for simplification and name recognition? Well, technically her realm was in Angola and she is revered here as heroic figure of Angolan history...
    And Maria Theresa for Germany in civ2 was one of the stupidest things civ series ever did.

    Personally I could make one exception for this: Cardinal Richelieu, because he is often considered more powerful than the king he "served", and because he would be incredibly badass.

    I fully agree.

    Well, Charlemagne did have a civ - Kingdom of the Franks, which existed long before he got the throne (and was powerful enough to repulse Islamic invasion, and had other charismatic rulers such as Charles Martel). But I have entirely other problem with him - Franks and France as separate civs in the same game sounds weird, even moreso when the same game also has Roman Empire and Germany under Holy Roman Emperor.

    I have mixed feelings regarding "civ" character of Tamerlane's realm. I think it could pass for a civ, just barely, as Central Asian empire with center in modern-day Uzbekistan (Samarkand, Bukhara). It collapsed relatively quickly, but not immediately - and Macedon of Alexander and Mongolia of Temujin are in game anyway because of their scale and impact (Timurids have one additional overlooked aspect, they produced Mughals). IMO Timurids could be the civ if "Ottomans" are the civ, I have personal issues with Tamerlan and personal distaste towards his evilness :p
     
    IgorS likes this.
  13. Havendish

    Havendish Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    Messages:
    80
    Gender:
    Male

    I must disagree with you again, first you call the father of history, Herodotus, a liar in the other thread, and now denounce Macedon. Let me try and enlighten your closed-mind...

    Moderator Action: Please make your points without trolling. Personal insults are not tolerated here. leif
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    Macedon was a separate country from the city states of Greece until it conquered much of Greece. Macedon was a centralized kingdom, not a city state, look it up first, read about its history before you make your statements. Alexander had to prove his Greek heritage when he arrived to compete at the Olympic games. Why? Because they Greeks didn't consider him Greek! - aka: one of the Hellenes, one of them.

    The official language of Macedon was Greek but they didn't speak clear Greek but a dialect of it. True, Alexander considered himself a Greek but the Greeks didn't see him as one, no matter his love of their culture, religion and traditions.They called him a barbarian, because Greeks considered Macedonia a barbarian country, not a Greek one. Not until he, and his MACEDONIAN, armies, conquered Persia, soon after that incredible accomplishment Greeks immediately embraced Alexander as one of them, saying: "of course he's a Greek!"

    Macedonian armies were different from Greek ones, they didn't consist of hoplites, like the Greek ones, look at the differences in military approaches, the types of army units they used, compare and come to the right conclusions. Greekness was instilled in Alexander in his youth by Aristotle, brought over from Greece by Phillip to tutor his son.

    Macedonians were a mixture of Greek, Illyrian and Thracian cultures (and a few other minor Balkan tribes), they borrowed from each culture, although the greek one was the most influential, so it dominated. The whole country was carved out of Illyrian and Thracian lands. True, Macedonians had a lot of Greek in them and for the most part identified themselves as part of Hellenistic world, however, Greeks didn't consider Macedonians Greek!

    Let me assure you that Macedon wasn't voted in because of "fan support". Those who deny the existence of Macedon as a separate entity, namely Greeks and ones like you, whomever you are, outnumber those who try and persuade others of the real facts about Macedon (we're not talking about the modern day country here) at least 10 to 1.

    You are just another of the scores of Greeks and pro-Greeks, those who will deny the truth about Macedon because they demand and insist that the greatest General of all time was Greek, that's all.

    I'm grateful for Firaxis for adding Macedon, when I realized they were going to with it I was shocked and very glad. It took balls to do it (against the will of the Greeks and their supporters) and Firaxis did it, kudos to Firaxis! Great job you guys!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2018
    PhoenicianGold likes this.
  14. Havendish

    Havendish Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    Messages:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Discussions about whom you don't want in the game are kind of off point, really.
    Most deserve a place in the game, some civs and tribes more, because of cultural and military accomplishments, others less, but none should be dumped on.
    Just because we don't know much about a great ancient civ, doesn't mean this should exclude them from the game forever.

    Although I agree about Timur from the original post in this thread, he was a terrible human being and he and the state he created shouldn't be part of the game.
     
  15. altayrneto

    altayrneto Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Terra Brasilis
    This actualy would make him a good villain to the game! (Better than Cyrus...) By the way, I would prefer Vlad Tepes or Ivan, the Terrible as psycho leaders.

    The civs I don't want:
    Zulu (I know they are almost confirmated...), Morroco, Assyria, Siam, the Huns, Austria and Sweden. Reason: They already had their chance to shine. Some did it well, others not, and for the sake of the same variety that bring then to civ, I thing they should be left behind.
    Canada, Gran Colombia, Argentina, Mexico and other former colonies. Reason: I know most of the former colonies have a rich history and a proud culture, but by personal opinion, I think they are too modern for Civilization. They may deserve, but I would be happier with more ancient civs.
    Blob Celts. Reason: I don't have so much problem with blob civs (the multiple leaders system can make they more aceptable), but I would like to see they as a full ancient civ. (the medieval part could be split into other civs like Scotland.) In civ 5, I always thought that was wrong to see a Celtic civ with Edimburg as capital, and being the founders of Christianity.
    Leaders I would not like to see:
    Hannibal Barca (Carthage) - He was a really good tactician, of course, but not as good as we usually think, most of his fame is thanks to Scipio Africannus biographers, who made this to make Scipio's victories even more impressive, due to his enemy's skills. Hannibal, even after several victories in roman territorie, didn't manage to forge alliance with local unsatisfied leaders, nor to siege Rome itself. And he actualy lost half of his army crossing the Alps. Why a general who killed half of his army just in the way to the war is considered so good? There are other good leaders for Cartage, who can focus on trade, exploration or naval projetion.
    Winston Churchill (England) - Too modern for my taste, and for obvious reasons there wouldn't be Hitler for him to fight. And, as England, there will be no problem to find other good leader.
    Other leader for Rome, Spain, Aztecs, Japan or Greece - Theese are civs that already have leaders that can, alone, represent very well their nations (in matter of gameplay, of course). Other civs urge much more for other leaders: Russia, for a leader who don't need of disvantages to receive bonus, Egypt, for a non-ptolomaic leader, Germany, for a leader with Berlin as capital, and France for a non-Catherine leader.
    At the end, sorry by the grammar mistakes (I'm trying my best), and most of this that I wrote is about personal oppinion, is not what I claim to be the Truth.
     
    Krajzen likes this.
  16. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    311
    I agree to some point with the fact that these civ already have their representing leaders already, especially for Spain ( for I dont think Isabel can have a really different niche than Philip II).

    But it is always fun to see another leader that can diverge the playstyle.
     
    altayrneto likes this.
  17. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    I disagree. Isabella unified the Spanish currency and was extremely fiscally responsible. Philip defaulted on Spain's loans and mostly just made things worse. Just give Isabella some governor bonuses and golden age bonuses to make her an economic powerhouse.

    I don't disagree about whether Spain needs an alternate leader, though. France needs one far worse. And for several reasons I think Bismarck, Wu Zetian, Himiko, and Theodora are clear frontrunners for inclusion as alternates. And probably Elizabeth because she turns mustard yellow into gold.
     
  18. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    311
    Very clearly established as I like the bullet point form that divides your ideas into structures.

    Let me reply you in the same way :p
    for civs that you dont like:
    1, Palmyrene may be a 3 year empire separated from 3rd century Rome, but it was a kingdom long before absorbed into Roman territory.
    2, Sort of agree, but look at Scythia...
    3, agree, but considering how much they diverge from the mother civ (like Russia vs soviet), it is not really that fit to put them as alt leaders. e.g. the religious russian CUA certainly doesn't fit the Soviet.
    4, debatable. Civs will go dull when they lack an awesome leader and the other way round. And how interesting their civ looks is a matter of debate.
    5, it is kind of difficult to put civs without cities into the game, but not all civilizations build cities (considering a lot of normadic people).
    6, Its kind of personal view here, but I agree that we all have different tolerance to blob civs.
    7. To me they are a blob civ lol, but Sweden is somehow more outstanding among the three.

    To leaders you don't like:
    1, It is really quite annoying to see forced female leaders for the gender balance... CdM is an example of those, but she is certianly qualified as a leader.
    2, I dont really mind celebs when they are rightful leaders of the civs. But Cleo is controversial.
    3, agree.
    4&5, I also wonder why Gandhi is here since Civ I...Spiritual leaders leading a civ is quite inappropriate, for politics is a dirty matter.
    6, agree, they will blow up the world's mind.
    7, debatable
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
  19. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    311
    Of course if you can find a niche for her. But I heard dear Isabella was more memorised in her success of reconquesta, discovery of America (althoigh Columbus did all the thing) and inquisition, which are already covered in current civ ability. Excpet for the exploration bonus, but as I have mentioned, it was Colimbus's work.

    Sure, for suggesting alt leaders, lets get back to the thread discussing this matter.
     
  20. Basileus Rhomaion

    Basileus Rhomaion Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2017
    Messages:
    76
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm afraid the whole "historical discussion" part of the thread will get a bit out of control, so a mod can actually move my post here and a few other relevant ones to the appropriate section. That being said:

    So were all Greek city-states. All Greek city-states were independent polities with completely different governments, political life etc.

    So was Epirus and to a certain degree Sparta. Not sure how being a city-state rules out being a kingdom at all, frankly. Kingdom in ancient Greek parlour means simply a state led by a king, that doesn't necessitate not being centered around a city nor does it exclude possible expansion. Was the Roman kingdom not a kingdom because it was centered around Rome?

    This is incorrect. The "proof of Greekness" was a standard test taken by virtually all Olympic athletes. This was done mostly to rule out the possibility of Greek states bringing barbarian competitors that could out-do their Greek counterparts in some practices. The first Macedonian king to prove his "Greekness" was Alexander I, so there was a very clear consensus on whether the Macedonians (or at least their nobility) were Greek.

    This is very misleading. Yes, Macedonians did speak a dialect of Greek, but a) their dialect was consistent on the dialect continuum i.e. it was similar to their neighbours; Epirus, Thessaly and the Aeolian Greeks and b) there was no "Greek language", every part of the Greek world had a distinct dialect. Athens and Sparta also spoke very different Greek from each other.

    Of course the implication of your statement is kind of baffling. So because they spoke a dialect of Greek and not "Greek proper" (which didn't exist), that made them less Greek by extension? Are English people from Liverpool not English because they speak differently from the people from London? That would be quite absurd.

    You are confusing Alexander with his father Philip. Also, the general attitude towards Philip was skewed in states like Athens due to wartime propaganda. The guy behind the popular "Philip is a barbarian" comments is Demosthenes, a rhetor (practitioner of rhetoric) and very literal demagogue (as in the original meaning of the word). The claim came from various misconceptions and biases that said a lot more about Athens than Macedon itself. For example, what was deemed "barbaric" by Athens and states akin to it was not the state of monarchy of Macedon, but the fact it was an absolute monarchy. Other Greek monarchies were heavily controlled by aristocrats and semi-elected bodies of rich, powerful men. Macedon was instead a heavily dynastic, absolutist monarchy that was similar to the style of monarchy Illyrians, Thracians, Persians etc (a.k.a. actual barbarians) had.

    Also, you are making sweeping generalizations here. As I've said, this disdain and negative attitude came from Greeks that directly opposed Macedonian supremacy. There many Greek city-states that were keen to having Macedon lead them rather than Athens, Sparta or Thebes that had ruined the Greek peninsula with constant warring.

    Alexander's army was heavily consisted of non-Macedonian Greeks. Why do you think Philip wanted to subdue the rest of Greece first? Greece's collective manpower and troops were crucial to the war effort. Also, who told you that there weren't people still rambling about Macedonians post-Alexander? Greek city-states were very fiercely independent and kept a disloyal attitude towards Macedon, rejecting any notion of panhellenism. In fact, Greek city-states supported Rome during their incursion in Macedon before Rome turned against them as well.

    This is completely wrong. For starters, "hoplite" simply means "man-at-arms". Unless you are disputing Macedonian units weren't armoured, then they were hoplites. Secondly, if you mean the traditional Greek hoplite with heavy armour spear and shield, then Macedon had those too. Their fighting style was identical; fighting in solid phalanx formation forming a shield wall. The only difference was the length of their spears with the sarissa, but that was Philip's personal military innovation. Macedonians never used them before him, it's not a "traditional" diffference between Macedon and other Greek armies. Not only that, but the hypaspists were identical to other Greek hoplites due to the fact they had no sarissas, so Macedonian armies did in fact have those type of units too.

    The primary difference in Macedonian armies was the tactics invented by Philip and the usage of cavalry as a shock unit (Greek cavalry were mostly for scouting/harassing enemies). If those differences make them an entirely new civ to you, then republican Roman armies are apparently not the same civilization as imperial Romans because their tactics and units changed.

    Except that Aristotle was born in Chalkidike which was part of the kingdom of Macedon before and was reconquered by Philip.

    That's a bold claim, given how little we know about either Illyrian or Thracian cultures. Based on what historical evidence would you deduce a cultural link between Macedon and those 2?

    Illyria and Thrace as regions have very clear boundaries outside of Macedon. What makes you think their lands were "carved out" from Illyria and Thrace? Because they are adjacent? So is Thessaly.

    "Hellenistic world" is anachronistic here. "Hellenistic" defines the post-Alexander era and states that were either Greek or infused with Greek culture and administration. The Macedonians considered themselves part of the Greek/Hellenic world, not unlike Syracuse, Rhegium, Tarantas, Byzantium (the actual one) etc.

    No one denies the existence of Macedon as a separate entity, I'm pretty sure everyone knows ancient Macedon was an independent kingdom. The supposed debate is around the identity of the ancient Macedonians which is a post-modern nationalist brouhaha infused by toxicity and political agendas. Modern discourse around Macedon has become so politically heated that all sorts of misnomers and false facts fly all over the place without sufficient scrutiny.

    I also like how you conveniently ignore that one reason why this alleged 10 to 1 ratio exists is the historical and academic consensus on the matter. Reputable historians that have dedicated their careers to the ancient Greek world and Macedon have very clear evidence and subsequent conclusions about the latter. It really isn't that hard to verify either, you can choose any reputable book on the matter and have a go at it. One which I highly recommend is "A companion to Ancient Macedonia" by Joseph Roisman and Ian Worthington.

    "People disagree with me, therefore they are biased and pro-[insert relevant thing for bashing]".

    This is a very unhelpful attitude and completely kills any chance at having rational, scientific discourse. I mean, I'm trying to give you some facts here, but what would be the point if you have a preconceived notion that anyone with a different opinion on the matter than you is biased? Your view on the matter relies on an a priori falseness on my part, regardless of what my arguments are.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    halfhalfharp likes this.

Share This Page