[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Subsaharan Africa civ led by Shaka?

I mean that's basically what happens on a TSL map unless Kongo can survive.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

don't know if you are being serious...
but just in case Shaka only less Zulus

nah i’m joking, continuing your indochina civ joke

 

[Zaarin]

I would still call them The Celts, why:
1. They call themselves The Celts. Why should we change this? Especially if we seem to like the original naming in the Game (Inca cities)
2. As I said the term Gauls was popularised by French to isolate them as a distinct tribe and include them into their national identity in XVIII, XIX Century. We neglect The Celts because of their pop culture connotation, but we are ok with Asterix Gauls?
3. The fact The Celts are stereotyped as tree lovers don't mean we should not tell the truth about them and show them as they are. Native Indians are also stereotyped. I think it's better to show them as they were and put it straight rather than silent.
4. As for Boudica. Again this is the problem of bad design, not the name. The fact I would like Celts to be back doesn't mean I want The Celt design from Civ V I don't.

You make some good points, but I think you have more confidence in Firaxis' abilities to resist stereotyping the Celts again than I do. (Also, I'm aware that Gaul and Gallos are not cognate, but they do sound similar and they did call themselves Galloi as well.) Also, "the Celts" refers to a number of different people--the Celtiberians were Celts, the Galatoi were Celts, the Britons were Celts, the Primitive Irish were Celts--but "the Gauls" or "the Galloi" only refer to a single people, the Celtic inhabitants of what we now call France.

just stop avoiding and answer the question- were celts EVER united in any time in their history. ANY time. And if so WHEN? Maoris have a time usually when Maori king movement started and first Maori king was crowned in 1858.
Did celts ever had a leader like this?

To be honest, I don't think that's relevant. The Maya were never unified. The Greeks were only unified by force after being invaded by outsiders--they certainly weren't unified at the times off Pericles or Gorgo. For that matter, India was rarely unified. I don't think a civ has to be politically unified, but it should be culturally unified. This is my objection to "the Celts." There were common features to all Classical-era Celtic peoples, yes: the construction of hillforts, wearing of torcs, certain common gods, and so on. However, they weren't really one culture--they spoke different languages, they had different customs, they worshiped different local gods. This is why I'm in favor of picking one, and I don't think any of the other options can compete with the Gauls.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

nah i’m joking, continuing your indochina civ joke

ah, K

To be honest, I don't think that's relevant. The Maya were never unified. The Greeks were only unified by force after being invaded by outsiders--they certainly weren't unified at the times off Pericles or Gorgo. For that matter, India was rarely unified. I don't think a civ has to be politically unified, but it should be culturally unified. This is my objection to "the Celts." There were common features to all Classical-era Celtic peoples, yes: the construction of hillforts, wearing of torcs, certain common gods, and so on. However, they weren't really one culture--they spoke different languages, they had different customs, they worshiped different local gods. This is why I'm in favor of picking one, and I don't think any of the other options can compete with the Gauls.

For me they need to have a single form of a leader- president or a king.
Celts never had a single leader. That is the problem.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To be honest, I don't think that's relevant. The Maya were never unified. The Greeks were only unified by force after being invaded by outsiders--they certainly weren't unified at the times off Pericles or Gorgo. For that matter, India was rarely unified. I don't think a civ has to be politically unified, but it should be culturally unified.

this. Exactly this. Hence why i support de blobbing india because culture unification im for most of India’s history was nonexistent

 

[Zaarin]

For me they need to have a single form of a leader- president or a king.
Celts never had a single leader. That is the problem.

Then we'd better get rid of the Greeks (unless led by Alexander the Macedonian), and we'd better get rid of the Maya, Phoenicia, Maori, Scythia...And we can't have the Iroquois, who were led by councils. In short, this rather arbitrary requirement is going to disqualify a lot of civs that deserve to be included. Civilizations are not equivalent to states; they don't need to have a single leader IMO. The Gauls have plenty of good leader choices: Vercingetorix, Diviciacus, and Dumnorix, to name a few. None of them led all the Gauls, but neither did Pericles lead all the Greeks, Lady Six Sky lead all the Maya, or Dido lead all the Phoenicians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For me they need to have a single form of a leader- president or a king.
Celts never had a single leader. That is the problem.

that would mean the maya couldn’t be a civ, nor the forms of greece or the maori we have in the game, since greece wasn’t unified until the 1800s, and neither were the maori. Scythia and Phoenicia wouldn’t qualify, not would the iroquois or any north american native groups. It’s a poor definition of what a civ should be. I agree with @Zaarin . The bare minimum qualification should be cultural unification.

the difference between those examples and that of a generic celt, native american, or polynesia blob civ is that all of these examples don’t have a large past of unified cultural or political history , and therefore can’t really be justified as a civ in their own right.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Then we'd better get rid of the Greeks (unless led by Alexander the Macedonian), and we'd better get rid of the Maya, Phoenicia, Maori, Scythia...And we can't have the Iroquois, who were led by councils. In short, this rather arbitrary requirement is going to disqualify a lot of civs that deserve to be included. Civilizations are not equivalent to states; they don't need to have a single leader IMO. The Gauls have plenty of good leader choices: Vercingetorix, Diviciacus, and Dumnorix, to name a few. None of them led all the Gauls, but neither did Pericles lead all the Greeks, Lady Six Sky lead all the Maya, or Dido lead all the Phoenicians.

Greeks had a leader- during the time of Pericles
And you didn't read what I said about Maori king
Phoenicia is basically early coverage who had united goverment
Sythia had a queen ( but Scythia itself is really unknown civ )

to clarify what I mean- a civ needs a UNIFIED GOVERNMENT AND CULTURE- A SENSE OF IDENTITY THAT THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE.

Moderator Action: There is no need to yell. Please be civil in your discussion. leif

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Greeks had a leader- during the time of Pericles
And you didn't read what I said about Maori king
Phoenicia is basically early coverage who had united goverment
Sythia had a queen ( but Scythia itself is really unknown civ )

pericles lead athens, not greece, maori weren’t unified until the 1800s (late into their history)

Phoenicia was never unified either— Dido was a princess of Tyre who became queen of Carthage, but Phoenicia was a cultural grouping of city states, not a political entity

and with Scythia, they were never unified, it was just a grouping of Indo-Iranian city states and kingdoms, not a unified empire

Political sense of unity isn’t enough imo, nor is it the end-all-be-all.

Greece, the Maori and India were unified from the 1800s forward, but weren’t for most of their history, so clearly, political unity is not what defines them as ‘civs’

 

[Gedemon]

to clarify what I mean- a civ needs a UNIFIED GOVERNMENT AND CULTURE- A SENSE OF IDENTITY THAT THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE.

Sounds like a nation, not a Civilization.

 

[Zaarin]

Greeks had a leader- during the time of Pericles

No, Athens had a leader during the time of Pericles--and that was Pericles. If Pericles had tried giving orders in Sparta without an army at his back, he might not have gotten back to Athens.

Phoenicia is basically early coverage who had united goverment

Carthage had a united government, yes...except if a Carthaginian sufet tried giving orders in Tyre he would have been laughed at--at best.

Sythia had a queen

No, it didn't. It was dozens and dozens of culturally related tribes. Tomyris, if she existed, only led the Massagetae.

to clarify what I mean- a civ needs a UNIFIED GOVERNMENT AND CULTURE- A SENSE OF IDENTITY THAT THEY ARE ONE PEOPLE.

So then what is your objection to the Gauls? Because they had that--just as much as the Greeks and far more so than the Scythians.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

So then what is your objection to the Gauls? Because they had that--just as much as the Greeks and far more so than the Scythians.

not to gauls... I LOVE idea of having Gaulish civ
what I have problems with is rubbish idea of Celtic civs. I mean bloody WOT? unified celts?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Gauls have plenty of good leader choices: Vercingetorix, Diviciacus, and Dumnorix, to name a few. None of them led all the Gauls, but neither did Pericles lead all the Greeks, Lady Six Sky lead all the Maya, or Dido lead all the Phoenicians.

I see Vercingetorix like Lautaro. He may have not lead all the Gauls but he did unite them to fight back the Romans just like Lautaro lead all of the different Mapuche tribes against the Spanish.
That's kind of how I see India at least too. Well at least Gandhi's India. I know he might have not actually lead but who knows what would have happened if he wasn't assassinated?

Sythia had a queen ( but Scythia itself is really unknown civ )

To be fair Tomyris was queen of the Massagetae who was a tribe that might have been part of the wider Scythian culture which apparently I got beat to explaining it. It still is basically a "blob" civ but not as crazy in comparison to past iterations of blob civs in my opinion.
It's still better in my opinion than the Huns who were basically playable barbarians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

not to gauls... I LOVE idea of having Gaulish civ
what I have problems with is rubbish idea of Celtic civs. I mean bloody WOT? unified celts?

yes, but the reason why the celts are a ridiculous proposition is because there’s no cultural contiguity, not a lack of a unified political past.

nation != civ.

civ != nation

To be fair Tomyris was queen of the Massagetae who was a tribe that might have been part of the wider Scythian culture which apparently I got beat to explaining it. It still is basically a "blob" civ but not as crazy in comparison to past iterations of blob civs in my opinion.

the scythians at least had a shared culture and religion, so I’ll let Tomyris leading them slide, although I’d say there are leaders who are better attested to, and if they really wanted Tomyris, I would’ve personally had her lead the Massagetae

 

[Zaarin]

not to gauls... I LOVE idea of having Gaulish civ
what I have problems with is rubbish idea of Celtic civs. I mean bloody WOT? unified celts?

Fair, but I think Wielki essentially is arguing for a Gaulish civ called "the Celts," if I'm understanding him correctly. From a historical perspective, he's not wrong; that's just not how the term "Celt" is used in modern academia.

I see Vercingetorix like Lautaro. He may have not lead all the Gauls but he did unite them to fight back the Romans just like Lautaro lead all of the different Mapuche tribes against the Spanish.

I'd still pick Dumnorix, but I grant Vercingetorix has greater name recognition.

To be fair Tomyris was queen of the Massagetae who was a tribe that might have been part of the wider Scythian culture which apparently I got beat to explaining it. It still is basically a "blob" civ but not as crazy in comparison to past iterations of blob civs in my opinion.
It's still better in my opinion than the Huns who were basically playable barbarians.

I'm hoping for the Parthians in Civ7. The Scythians were kind of a "catch-all" for the Greeks essentially meaning "any Iranian horse raiders on the Eurasian steppe." There probably was some culturally continuity there--we're probably talking about the same people, more or less, as whom the Persians called Saka--but it's still not terribly precise.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Fair, but I think Wielki essentially is arguing for a Gaulish civ called "the Celts," if I'm understanding him correctly. From a historical perspective, he's not wrong; that's just not how the term "Celt" is used in modern academia.

didn't he argue for the inclusion of British "celts" and Gauls altogether? That is bloody rubbish!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Fair, but I think Wielki essentially is arguing for a Gaulish civ called "the Celts," if I'm understanding him correctly. From a historical perspective, he's not wrong; that's just not how the term "Celt" is used in modern academia.


I'd still pick Dumnorix, but I grant Vercingetorix has greater name recognition.


I'm hoping for the Parthians in Civ7. The Scythians were kind of a "catch-all" for the Greeks essentially meaning "any Iranian horse raiders on the Eurasian steppe." There probably was some culturally continuity there--we're probably talking about the same people, more or less, as whom the Persians called Saka--but it's still not terribly precise.

parthians would be cool, as would the Kush ites, Bactria, Sogdia or a variety of other Ancient Central Asian peoples.

Personally, I think Central Asia is far more distinguished by Turkic peoples than Indo-Iranic ones, but if we were going with an ancient central asian empire rather than a medieval turkic one like the Ghaznavids, Kazakhs, Timurids, Uzbeks, these ones would be apt.

didn't he argue for the inclusion of British "celts" and Gauls altogether? That is bloody rubbish!

he’s arguing that gauls are a latin exonym for celts, and that they’re different terms for the same people, which is wrong

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Fair, but I think Wielki essentially is arguing for a Gaulish civ called "the Celts," if I'm understanding him correctly. From a historical perspective, he's not wrong; that's just not how the term "Celt" is used in modern academia.

At this point I'm not sure anymore. If that's the case it would make more sense to just call them Gaul instead of making it sound like the group of people that spread all across Europe.

I'm hoping for the Parthians in Civ7. The Scythians were kind of a "catch-all" for the Greeks essentially meaning "any Iranian horse raiders on the Eurasian steppe." There probably was some culturally continuity there--we're probably talking about the same people, more or less, as whom the Persians called Saka--but it's still not terribly precise.

To me Scythia was at least a welcome addition if if meant the Huns weren't going to return at all. At least they were considered some of the most "civilized" of the barbarians by some Greek sources and some did live in cities and permanent settlements.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

At this point I'm not sure anymore. If that's the case it would make more sense to just call them Gaul instead of making it sound like the group of people that spread all across Europe.


To me Scythia was at least a welcome addition if if meant the Huns weren't going to return at all. At least they were considered some of the most "civilized" of the barbarians by some Greek sources and some did live in cities and permanent settlements.

tbh, the huns wouldn’t be a terrible choice in theory since they technically had a unified empire (and culture) for a short period of time, it’s just that we don’t know much about them, their empire didn’t last long, and you’d have a lot of city overlap with Poland, Hungary, Germany, Rome, etc.

Scythia makes a lot of sense, but they went with the worst possible city list organization (not that some other civs are any better—Khmer uses Angkor Thom and Yasodharapura, which are the same place, as well as a couple Champa and Lan Xang cities, and both of those are seperate empires with seperate languages, ethnicities and cultures.)

 

[Zaarin]

didn't he argue for the inclusion of British "celts" and Gauls altogether? That is bloody rubbish!

That's not my understanding of what he's arguing for, though I don't want to put words in his mouth.

parthians would be cool, as would the Kush ites, Bactria, Sogdia or a variety of other Ancient Central Asian peoples.

Indeed. Chiefly I'm saying I'd like Parthia to take Scythia's place as the "ancient Eurasian steppe horse raider civ," but I'd love to see Central Asia get some love.

Personally, I think Central Asia is far more distinguished by Turkic peoples than Indo-Iranic ones

That's a modern development; historically Central Asia was overwhelmingly Iranian. Tajikistan and Afghanistan still are.

he’s arguing that gauls are a latin exonym for celts, and that they’re different terms for the same people, which is wrong

Wrong in that Gaul is Germanic, not Latin, but still not entirely wrong insofar as Gaul is an exonym. Gaul comes from Frankish walha, from the same Germanic root that gives us Welsh; both essentially mean "foreigners" (see also walnut, "foreign nut"). Gaul does not come from Gallia, despite their similar appearance. I'd be fine with calling the civilization Gaul or Gallia, but even though "Celts" is not strictly wrong I wouldn't prefer it because it lacks precision.

To me Scythia was at least a welcome addition if if meant the Huns weren't going to return at all. At least they were considered some of the most "civilized" of the barbarians by some Greek sources and some did live in cities and permanent settlements.

I was excited for Scythia when they were announced, but their city list is such a mess--and the Scythians weren't really a single people. I think their role as "playable barbarians" could be better filled by Parthia, which has a city list as well as better-attested leaders.