I'm glad somebody else agrees with me.
it’s just a fact that europe is over represented in civ and the native americans are underrepresented.
I’d high key be down with this, although I’d prefer to see a native american civ
Byzantium to me isn't European; or at least it's just as European as Macedon and the Ottomans were; but that's my personal feeling. If anything I could count them as Middle-Eastern like you seem to have along with Assyria.
And may I ask who appointed you as the arbiter of what "we" need?
Perhaps speak for yourself in the future instead of assuming the role of speaker for the community? If you have no interest in Native American history, that's fine, but many people here do. We currently have one, which makes Native North America by far the most underrepresented place on the map. It's not unreasonable to ask for another.First they'll have to definitively prove the Picts were Celts. Then they'll have to reconstruct their barely attested language...
Well Byzantines are to me definitely European as having both Roman and Greek influences, same as Macedon. I only paired them with Assyria in the hopes of getting a Mediterranean/Near East Map in Pack 3.
I am with you. Unfortunately I'm sure Ethiopia will have more modern influences like in previous iterations. I just would rather not Halie Selassie again if they go that route and have an earlier UU and Rock Hewn Church infrastructure.
Are there any Pictish leaders that come to mind or are well known? It sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure how doable it would be.
The fact that previous versions were awful doesn't mean they have to continue to be awful.
Also, there was a singular Celtic civilization once, but a La Tène civilization would look even worse than Scythia. As for Celt being a waste bin category, I can't say I agree. There are scholars who have suggested that either Goidelic, Brythonic, Gaulish, and Hispano-Celtic are separate nodes of Indo-European or that either Insular Celtic or P-Celtic represents a valid clade and the others are unrelated, but those views aren't mainstream. Though there's no agreement about what the Celtic tree looks like, there is general agreement that Celtic is a valid node, and conservatively one might posit four distinct branches of Goidelic, Brythonic, Gaulish, and Hispano-Celtic. (Regarding the tree, what is clear is that Hispano-Celtic is neither closely related to Goidelic--which means Q-Celtic is not a valid clade--nor Gaulish--which means that Continental Celtic is not a valid clade. The question then is whether Goidelic and Brythonic are more closely related in an Insular Celtic clade, whether Brythonic and Gaulish are more closely related in a P-Celtic clade, or whether they're all equidistant from each other. Coincidentally, the P-Celtic theory is hurt by the fact that there are Q-Celtic dialects of Gaulish.)I'm still crossing my fingers for Medieval Ethiopia--Zar'a Ya'qob is generally considered the greatest emperor of Ethiopia, after all--but at the very least Menelik II would be an improvement over Selassie.
There's a king list, but none is well known. The king list suggests that the Picts were much like the Mitanni: where the Mitanni were Hurrian people governed by Indo-Aryans, the Picts seem to have been Pictish people (whatever they were) either governed by Britons. (And while I quibble, the evidence is gradually leaning towards the Picts being Celts--but it's still far from settled.)
The fact that previous versions were awful doesn't mean they have to continue to be awful.
I wouldn't mind, and might actually appreciate, if they did a split focus which touched heavily on their much older history (avoiding Haile Selassie), but also with at least one unique focused on their history from the colonial era to today of independence and cultural strength.
