[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

Celtic fairies and Welsh fairies aren't necessarily the same thing - it does seem that fairies are not traditionally a significant part of Welsh tradition as they are in England, judged by such evidence as landmarks named for them, or regional differences in belief that suggest a long local history of divergence and are all but absent in documented tales from Wales. This of course carries the caveat that this is what we have from documented interviews since folklorists started collecting stories, which is a pretty short period by the standards of folklore. Local fairies with older origins could certainly have been supplanted by English ones if there was no strong cultural attachment to them.

Sure. But I think it's very fair to say that Irish fairies are far older than any recorded Germanic tradition of elves.

That does rather run against the point of creating a mythology for the English - their Christian-era beliefs are relatively well-documented. Snorri Sturluson was a Christian but what we know of Norse mythology, outside some references to practices in the sagas (themselves Christian-era retellings of oral traditions), is almost entirely drawn from his codification and retelling of stories that may have been treated very differently by the people who actually believed them or told them on a day-to-day basis.

I can't say I agree. I will say that the only flaw I can find in Tolkien, whom otherwise I regard as having a sacredness just below Scripture, is that it feels strange that his world is so empty of religion. However, I don't think creating a Christian mythology is in any way strange. He wasn't trying to found a new sect of neo-paganism.

Again, that presumes a continuity to the presentation of these entities that isn't really there in folklore, at least as far back as we can go. 'Sidhe' is just the Irish word for 'fairy' and is understood to include a class of folklore creatures as varied as the English word.

Irish mythology is old. It was written down by monks, yes, but it remarkably retained its pagan nature. Yes, Sidhe is vague; Tuatha De Danann is not.

The Victorian creation of small winged beings with a penchant for flowers has nothing to do with English folklore

Worth noting that Tolkien absolutely detested those.

Do you know of specific sources for this? I always imagined they had an older existence than Tolkien but haven't found anything concrete when I've looked (admittedly not in great detail). There are talking trees, but not perambulating ones that I'm aware of. Treefolk seem to be one of those things that feel as though they should be part of a real, older folklore, along with some other of Tolkien's inventions - I recall when I was younger I imagined that Old Man Willow and the trolls in the cave from The Hobbit were actual stories from folklore adapted by Tolkien, but they seem to have been his creations.

Not off the top of my head--I'm thinking it was a Brythonic source--but if I find it I'll let you know. I think I ran across it when I was doing research for a paper on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

For example, the story of Beowulf, is a pre-christianized english story retold by a christian writer.

If you don't have experience with literary criticism or Anglo-Saxon studies, you have no idea what a bold statement you just made. There are a number of theories about Beowulf: it was an oral story written down by a monk; it was a bit of historical fiction written by a monk; whether original or traditional, it was written by a pagan who had a knowledge of Christianity (if you're familiar with the tortuous history of Christianization in England, that's not so strange); among others. (For what it's worth, I believe you're correct, that it's a traditional story--or more than one--that was recorded by a Christian monk. But I'm not an expert, and the topic is still hotly controversial.)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Sure. But I think it's very fair to say that Irish fairies are far older than any recorded Germanic tradition of elves.


I can't say I agree. I will say that the only flaw I can find in Tolkien, whom otherwise I regard as having a sacredness just below Scripture, is that it feels strange that his world is so empty of religion. However, I don't think creating a Christian mythology is in any way strange. He wasn't trying to found a new sect of neo-paganism.


Irish mythology is old. It was written down by monks, yes, but it remarkably retained its pagan nature. Yes, Sidhe is vague; Tuatha De Danann is not.


Worth noting that Tolkien absolutely detested those.


Not off the top of my head--I'm thinking it was a Brythonic source--but if I find it I'll let you know. I think I ran across it when I was doing research for a paper on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.


If you don't have experience with literary criticism or Anglo-Saxon studies, you have no idea what a bold statement you just made. There are a number of theories about Beowulf: it was an oral story written down by a monk; it was a bit of historical fiction written by a monk; whether original or traditional, it was written by a pagan who had a knowledge of Christianity (if you're familiar with the tortuous history of Christianization in England, that's not so strange); among others. (For what it's worth, I believe you're correct, that it's a traditional story--or more than one--that was recorded by a Christian monk. But I'm not an expert, and the topic is still hotly controversial.)

i did write a literary criticism paper on it, which is why i’m familiar with beowulf and basically only beowulf and I do believe that’s the current accepted theory

 

[Zaarin]

i did write a literary criticism paper on it, which is why i’m familiar with beowulf and basically only beowulf and I do believe that’s the current accepted theory

Currently most popular anyway--I think "accepted" implies a greater degree of consensus than exists. Then again, I graduated eight years ago; maybe they've moved on to a new controversy, the bread and butter of literary criticism.

 

[PhilBowles]

Sure. But I think it's very fair to say that Irish fairies are far older than any recorded Germanic tradition of elves.

I'd agree that it's a fair statement, but I'd also argue that it's likely to be a historical artefact - as you say, the Irish monks wrote down their mythology. The monks in Germanic countries either weren't interested in it or were more deliberate in trying to stamp it out, so they simply didn't leave records.

Irish mythology is old. It was written down by monks, yes, but it remarkably retained its pagan nature.

As far as we can tell - as with Norse mythology we can't be altogether sure how it was coloured by interpretations of Christians who wanted to record the traditions faithfully but simply had a different worldview - and, because Irish traditions have been in writing for so long while those in England were neglected, much of the modern Irish mythology is informed in turn by those written versions to a greater extent than that elsewhere. For instance, the notion in some Irish sources (and shared with some English traditions) that fairies have some association with the dead invites a Christian interpretation that they're souls in the Christian sense of a disembodied consciousness that retains the personality and memories of a once-living individual, which may not have been at all how the Irish saw them.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I can't say I agree. I will say that the only flaw I can find in Tolkien, whom otherwise I regard as having a sacredness just below Scripture, is that it feels strange that his world is so empty of religion. However, I don't think creating a Christian mythology is in any way strange. He wasn't trying to found a new sect of neo-paganism.

I have a friend that had the same concern as yours and we came with this inworld theories about why religion are of so little importance in Middle-Earth:

Explanation 1 : during the Lord of the Rings, the Middle-Earth is some sort in a post-apocalyptic world, but fantasy-wise. Grand Kingdoms have fallen, demons have been unleashed, Sauron is corrupting the Earth... In this atmosphere, it's easy to think that (the) God(s) have forgotten us, so most people would have taken the road of nihilism (most part of Middle-Earth) or existentialism (Hobbits are big existentialists: the world is devoid of meaning except the one we give to him, and we decided to give him the sense of a big, endless party and food gathering).
Explanation 2 : Gods and beings of Over Power are things that exist. For real. We have proof of that. And thus, since they exist, it's stupid to have faith in them. Tables exist, but you don't have faith in them. It's the same with Gods: the moment they prove their existence, there is no need to faith anymore. The work of Pratchett in the Discworld is quite interesting in this idea (a lot of heroes do not believe in Gods; of, they know that Gods exist, and they often interact with them, but that's not a reason to begin to believe in them; after all, we don't believe in tables).

 

[PhilBowles]

agree on city states, agree on kublai, disagree on who makes the civs.

Generally even the ‘bad’ people had some redeeming qualities, or are generally considered heroes by their descendants (Victoria being considered a good monarch despite her terrible policy towards colonies, especially India,

Victoria's main direct contribution to India was in overruling a declaration that would have threatened to remove Indians' freedom of religion. She was a constitutional monarch, albeit not altogether willingly, and direct policy was enacted by her governments.

I think Victoria has a case to be one of the more blameless leaders England could have. She was urged on by a liberalising consort who was in a practical sense king while he was alive, since Victoria deferred to him in everything. Even so, despite her preference for a Conservative Prime Minister and authoritarian instincts, I suspect that at least some of Albert's liberalising attitude was something she shared and that she genuinely believed the empire should exist for the benefit of its subjects as a whole, not just the ones in or from Great Britain. Had she been a monarch with more direct power I suspect she'd still have been a fairly good queen in her own right.

Of course, you can take that with the caveat that I'm from a society that routinely portrays Victoria as an individual as being worthy - but whatever perspective you come from it's certainly the case that she had little direct control over Indian policy and her most important recorded contribution was to promote the rights of Indians. She might also have had a point in saying that - at the time - state control was preferable to control by the East India Company, since most British atrocities in India occurred either under Company rule or after 1914.

Wikipedia handily has a page entitled "List of massacres in India" (it was a more common theme than I realised, and the British were by no means solely responsible), the only one during Victoria's rule of India was in 1872 - 65 people died as a result of a decision taken by a local British colonial official.

By far the most brutal period of British rule was long after Victoria's time, the systematic brutality and mismanagement of India between the First and Second World Wars.

 

[Morningcalm]

That is a bit unfair, what Kublai set out to do, and what really mattered to him, was conquering China, and that he did. Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, these were all less important to him. Note that he also conquered Korea and Burma, and won a civil war against the most powerful force in the world of the time, the Mongols themselves. Laughing at Kublai for not conquering Japan is like laughing at Caesar for not conquering Britain, after he conquered Gaul and Pontus, won the Civil War and put Cleopatra on throne in Egypt.

No, he set out to win them all, and all of it mattered to him. Else why did he spend enormous amounts of money, resources, and time on wars he lost—including trying a second time to invade Japan and making similar mistakes? (These failed invasions caused inflation, by the way.) Kublai took Japan’s responses to his demands for tribute as insolence, so the matter was no doubt at least partly personal to him (along the same lines, Genghis was enraged when the Khwarazm shah executed several of his envoys, so he wiped out the Khwarazm in retaliation).

What is clear regardless of Kublai’s motivation is that Kublai rushed to build a navy in one year that normally should have taken much longer, so ships unsuited to sea travel were also used—foolish beyond measure. I’m not laughing at Kublai. I’m pointing out his flaws as a Mongol khan.

Julius Caesar was far more successful in combat, including beating Pompey when outnumbered. Kublai lacked such resourcefulness.

Still, I guess Kublai is better than Ogedei (a drunkard who instituted rape against the Oirat). Fingers crossed the new (likely Mongol) leader in NFP is NOT Ogedei.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes, and Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, and Philip II were known for their progressive social reforms and were not warmongering tyrants at all...
I would be against having Stalin in the game for obvious reasons, but this is a bad comparison. Acting like Napoleon didn't permanently alter the shape of European History and increase the spread of liberal reforms throughout the continent, regardless of how he himself might've betrayed those ideals through actions in other ways. But you could point to almost any leader within Civilization, and you'll find stains on their legacy.
For what it's worth, I personally would rather see someone like Louis XIV represent France, but Napoleon would certainly be more representative of France's history than Catherine de Medici or Eleanor. And to be fair, I do like having Catherine in the game but I find her inclusion more dubious considering that the only other French leader we have isn't a very good choice for representing them in my opinion.

Actually, the Mongols were known for their progressive social reforms. As long as you submitted, they were fairly benevolent rulers. No different than other rulers of his age.

Napolean is an acceptable choice but absolutely not to Stalin.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Actually, the Mongols were known for their progressive social reforms. As long as you submitted, they were fairly benevolent rulers. No different than other rulers of his age.

Napolean is an acceptable choice but absolutely not to Stalin.

Exactly. Genghis and the mongols were no worse than other contemporary leaders, they were just much further villified

 

[Thormodr]

Sorghaghtani Beki (Firaxis would have my undying affection for this one). Mandukhai. Ögedei Khan.

A very good choice, as well. While never the regent, she was the power behind the throne. A truly remarkable woman.

Married to Tolui, Genghis' youngest son, Sorghaghtani Beki became one of the most powerful and competent people in the Mongol Empire. She made policy decisions at a pivotal moment that led to the transition of the Mongol Empire towards a more cosmopolitan and sophisticated style of administration. She raised her sons to be leaders, and maneuvered the family politics so that all four of her sons, Möngke Khan, Hulagu Khan, Ariq Böke, and Kublai Khan, went on to inherit the legacy of their grandfather.

Sorghaghtani
Empress (Khatun)

The Christian queen Sorghaghtani with her husband, Tolui. Rashid al-Din, early 14th century.
Reign 1204–1252
Predecessor Börte
Successor Chabi
Nambui
Born c. 1190
Mongolia
Died 1252 (Aged around 62)
Ulaanbaatar
Burial
Gansu (at church)
Spouse Tolui
Full name
Sorghaghtani
House Keraite
Father Jakha Gambhu, brother of Ong Khan
Mother Wasai
Religion Church of the East Nestorian Church
Given her enormous impact at such a critical point of the mighty Mongol Empire, she is likely one of the most influential and powerful women in history.[1] Sorghaghtani Beki was a Christian, specifically a member of the Church of the East (often referred to as "Nestorian Christianity"). As a moving spirit behind the Mongol Empire, Sorghaghtani is responsible for much of the trade openings and intellectual exchange of the largest contiguous empire in world history.[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghaghtani_Beki

 

[Jewelrunna]

Actually, the Mongols were known for their progressive social reforms. As long as you submitted, they were fairly benevolent rulers. No different than other rulers of his age.

Napolean is an acceptable choice but absolutely not to Stalin.

Genghis Khan can be held accountable for about 40 million deaths during his campaign. They weren't terrible overlords if you submitted but, come on now.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Genghis Khan can be held accountable for about 40 million deaths during his campaign. They weren't terrible overlords if you submitted but, come on now.

he was able to conquer a ton of land in a short period of time, also not all of those deaths were directly his. If all roman conquest had occurred during one leader’s life time and the cities and towns they conquered were the same size that they were during genghis’s time, i’d bet they would’ve killed more.

 

[Thormodr]

Genghis Khan can be held accountable for about 40 million deaths during his campaign. They weren't terrible overlords if you submitted but, come on now.

The numbers were recorded by their enemies who were biased, to say the least. They were greatly exaggerated. Study the original sources and you'll see that.

Here is an excellent article on the subject:

Looking at the lexicon used by contemporaries indicates how they fabricated their narratives. For example, Islamic scholars continually used the numbers four and seven when describing Mongol incursions. It was estimated that 400 troops remained in the city of Nishapur to finish off the mass executions, 70,000 people were slaughtered in Sabzivar and Nisa etc. Contemporaries claimed that two million people were killed in Herat but it has now been proven that this is not possible as it wasn’t big enough to hold that many people.


https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2014/11/17/the-mongols-not-the-barbarians-we-were-told/

However, this is straying off topic. So, I am going to leave it at that.

 

[Jewelrunna]

he was able to conquer a ton of land in a short period of time, also not all of those deaths were directly his. If all roman conquest had occurred during one leader’s life time and the cities and towns they conquered were the same size that they were during genghis’s time, i’d bet they would’ve killed more.

The numbers were recorded by their enemies who were biased, to say the least. They were greatly exaggerated. Study the original sources and you'll see that.

Here is an excellent article on the subject:

Looking at the lexicon used by contemporaries indicates how they fabricated their narratives. For example, Islamic scholars continually used the numbers four and seven when describing Mongol incursions. It was estimated that 400 troops remained in the city of Nishapur to finish off the mass executions, 70,000 people were slaughtered in Sabzivar and Nisa etc. Contemporaries claimed that two million people were killed in Herat but it has now been proven that this is not possible as it wasn’t big enough to hold that many people.


https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2014/11/17/the-mongols-not-the-barbarians-we-were-told/

However, this is straying off topic. So, I am going to leave it at that.

Even if the exact number is disputed, it's pretty much unquestionable that a huge death toll resulted from the Mongolian invasion, a large part of which is attributable to Genghis Khan. Anyways, to bring this back on topic is that there's nonetheless unsavory aspects of Genghis Khan's history, yet he's clearly not unfit for Civ. My point is that it's weird to hold Napoleon to a different standard than the rest of Civ VI's cast.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Even if the exact number is disputed, it's pretty much unquestionable that a huge death toll resulted from the Mongolian invasion, a large part of which is attributable to Genghis Khan. Anyways, to bring this back on topic is that there's nonetheless unsavory aspects of Genghis Khan's history, yet he's clearly not unfit for Civ. My point is that it's weird to hold Napoleon to a different standard than the rest of Civ VI's cast.

napoleon isn’t unworthy, but he is boring

 

[Morningcalm]

napoleon isn’t unworthy, but he is boring

Agreed. I think if they really have him more of a personality in Civ games then he would be less boring (for example, the arrogant personality of the Napoleon AI and voice actor in Age of Empires III )

 

[Inhalaattori]

French ability is pretty much totally useless from domination point of view. Also Unique improvement doesnt really help domination too much and even the UU has combat bonus only in their capitals continent. This is the reason why Napoleon wouldnt really make much sense.

- I think China would make most sense for a second leader. Their Civ ability is general bonus to both science and culture so it doesnt really restrict too much.
- Also America, Japan, Germany and Rome have pretty general Civ bonuses that would help any victory condition. I dont think this is coincidence. It seems they gave the big civilizations very general bonuses, which would make it easier to add new leaders with different focus for these civs later.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Agreed. I think if they really have him more of a personality in Civ games then he would be less boring (for example, the arrogant personality of the Napoleon AI and voice actor in Age of Empires III )

and now that niche seems to be taken by a far more interesting character from a different part of the world. If you asked me who I’d rather have return to Civ 7, it’d be bolivar.

French ability is pretty much totally useless from domination point of view. Also Unique improvement doesnt really help domination too much and even the UU has combat bonus only in their capitals continent. This is the reason why Napoleon wouldnt really make much sense.

- I think China would make most sense for a second leader. Their Civ ability is general bonus to both science and culture so it doesnt really restrict too much.
- Also America, Japan, Egypt and Rome have pretty general Civ bonuses that would help any victory condition. I dont think this is coincidence. It seems they gave the big civilizations very general bonuses, which would make it easier to add new leaders for these civs later.

It seems like China probably will be the ones to get a second leader. I still think the most likely scenario is Kublai and he leads both China and Mongolia

 

[cosmicmangobear]

China is begging for an alt-leader, closely followed by Egypt led by an actual Egyptian.

 

[Navelgazer]

So thinking about it, if the idea is that each pack will cover a region/continent, then Central/South America is covered by two civs tonight, Africa by one new civ in July, leaving two regions/continents with one new civ, one with two, and one with one new civ and one new leader (specifically an alt-leader for one of the R+F civs.)

I think it makes more sense for "Middle East" to be one of the regions than for "Austral-Oceana" to be. If Austral-Oceana, the only options that make sense to me are Malaysia or Aborigines. Making Aborigines monolithic would be akin to the "blob" civs that Civ VI has been trying to avoid. I doubt Malaysia will be included (though it could be interesting if well-designed) and so believe that the seventh region is Middle East.

I think that the alt-leader is either Kublai or William, leaving one more Asian or European civ (most likely) or else two Middle Eastern ones, leaving one of Asia or Europe with only one.

I think Byzantium and Babylon are both highly likely, being mainstays of the series who haven't shown up yet.

I think Portugal is the most likely European civ we haven't seen yet.

I think Vietnam is by far the most likely Asian civ. (Come on, Trung sisters!)

Leaving one North American civ, presumably a Native American nation (but maybe not, as prior iterations of this haven't been well-received by members of those peoples.)

So I'm thinking maybe North America isn't getting one in New Frontier. My Guesses...

Maya - [confirmed]
Gran Colombia - [confirmed]
Ethiopia - [confirmed]
Byzantium
Babylon
Portugal
Vietnam
Florentine Italy
Kublai as alt-leader.