[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[InsidiousMage]

I mean Alexander didn't mistreat conquired people like say assyrians

That's a pretty low bar to clear.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

That's a pretty low bar to clear.

... which isn't that common suprisingly in the acient world. In fact Alexander had a high tolerance of conquered culture like Cyrus the great. In fact the reason Alexander is looked favorably is in a way similar reason as Cyrus the great- both conquered a large lands but had high tolerance to local culture and did not suppress them.

 

[InsidiousMage]

... which isn't that common suprisingly in the acient world. In fact Alexander had a high tolerance of conquered culture like Cyrus the great. In fact the reason Alexander is looked favorably is in a way similar reason as Cyrus the great- both conquered a large lands but had high tolerance to local culture and did not suppress them.

But Cyrus left a basically staple empire in his wake and a lot isn't know about him personally. We know a lot about Alexander including the fact that he had a massive ego, his actions we largely drive to satisfy that ego to the point where his own troops revolted against him, and he left an unstable realm behind that quickly broken apart after his death and lead to centuries of conflict. Those are important differences.

 

[Menocchio]

Thanks for the info. I guess I'll supplement my point and trust that noted and respected historian Mary Beard isn't lying when she notes that Pliny the Elder describes Caesar's actions in Gaul as "a crime against humanity."

Which, again, has nothing to do with Alexander as I doubt that was his intent. The intellectual and culture interplay came after him and therefore was the result of the people who lived after him, which is my point. I'm not contesting that there was a great intellectual flourishing in the centuries after his death, that is very obvious, just that he gets credit for it like it was his intention and not a by an unintended product of his massive ego.

I respect Mary Beard, but not so much Pliny the Elder, who I think can respectfully be described as a crackpot weirdo. His definitions of "crimes against humanity" also include the invention of gold rings and the minting of coins - the worst and second-worst crimes against humanity respectively, as per his Natural History.

I contend it was definitely Alexander's intent. He dreamed of building a Hellenistic world-civilisation, and a large part of that was the transplanting of Greek settlers into places Greeks had never lived before. This cracked them out of the social shells that were their poleis and into the wider world, permanently shifting the axes of the Greek world to the east and away from Athens and even Ionia. Certainly his successors did their own work, but keep in mind much of that was more bluntly for their own ego: the Hellenistic kings loved to build giant ships and commission seemingly-magical inventions to show off at court and to other kings. If they actually had some intellectual rigour in themselves, perhaps the Diadochi would have made better use of inventions like those of Ctesibus. Nonetheless, regardless of its material components the Hellenistic intellectual tradition was born in Alexander's time and his successors nurtured what he had planted. In terms of philosophy, though, most of this resulted not from royal commissions but purely out of the situation Alexander created. The eastern Hellenistic world was extremely strange to the quite insular western Greeks, and new philosophical ideas arose as a way to cope with this new reality.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I respect Mary Beard, but not so much Pliny the Elder, who I think can respectfully be described as a crackpot weirdo. His definitions of "crimes against humanity" also include the invention of gold rings and the minting of coins - the worst and second-worst crimes against humanity respectively, as per his Natural History.

Sure, but even a broken clock is right twice a day and there isn't a lot to Caesar's actions in Gaul besides killing a bunch of people and Beard uses the quote in that context.

He dreamed of building a Hellenistic world-civilisation, and a large part of that was the transplanting of Greek settlers into places Greeks had never lived before...Nonetheless, regardless of its material components the Hellenistic intellectual tradition was born in Alexander's time and his successors nurtured what he had planted.

I'm curious if there are any reliable sources as to his intent and it's not just scholars giving him an intention based on what happened afterwards or misunderstanding what he was doing. People can easily read intention where there is none. Transplanting populations was policy for various empires for centuries, including the Persians forcibly setting Greeks in Central Asian centuries before he was born. And, even if it was intentional, it could have been undone by his successors but it wasn't so giving him sole credit is, at best, being way too generous to him and ignoring everyone who came after him. Just because you started something doesn't mean you finished or it was finished in a way you intended.

Certainly his successors did their own work, but keep in mind much of that was more bluntly for their own ego: the Hellenistic kings loved to build giant ships and commission seemingly-magical inventions to show off at court and to other kings.

And what Alexander was doing wasn't about his ego?

The eastern Hellenistic world was extremely strange to the quite insular western Greeks, and new philosophical ideas arose as a way to cope with this new reality.

Sure, but intent and consequences are different things and giving Alexander credit for things that happened over centuries when he only was king for 12 years and ruled over the east for much less is being way too generous in my opinion. Was he a highly consequential person in world history? Undoubtedly. Should he get credit for all of the positive things that happened after his life and acting like that negates all of the negatives that happened after his life? No.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No. Modern civs get memes. So it gets the Celts' city list from Civ5, Victoria as leader, a Redcoat UU, and a British Pub UB that generates a unique Fish and Chips luxury.

Maybe Ice Hockey Rink instead because apparently that was invented in England.
And the Redcoat obviously comes with Victoria so the Highlander is fine as the civ UU.

Of course the way of each nation understand it self is important. HRE also should be an alternative leader to Rome.
Russia may can be the Third Rome, but they have less apeal to that.

Funny enough the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, or Roman, or an Empire.

i mean they might not have lasted but Alexander created 30 odd cities with the name Alexandria, not to mention a number of landmarks, spreading the satrapy system, organizing multiple new systems which resulted in his empire’s partition.

Honestly the idea that you can found about 20+ cities named after Alexander is my favorite part about Macedon being in the game.

I think there's a base of civs and historical cultures that ought to be in every single game, even if they feel repetitive. China, some form of India, Rome, etc. The challenge is drawing where the line falls, and if designers are "de-blobbing" then striking a balance that feels like proper inclusion. (Is just Chandragupta's Maurya sufficient for an entire game's representation of India? Hard to say). My inclination is that Greece, Mongolia, Egypt, Persia, France, America, England, Maya, and others should always be included in some form, though I suspect some would disagree. I don't mind if it is one or more of Sassanid or Achaemenid Persia, pre or post Alexander Greece, solo England or perhaps a British civ instead, etc., so there are layers to the complexity. I'm curious what most of your essential lists would look like, both in who is to be included and how they ought to be represented for satisfactory participation.

Since you asked:
Tier 1 (at least should be in Vanilla): America, Arabia, China, Egypt, England, France, Japan, Greece, Germany, India (in some form), Rome, Russia

Tier 2 (important enough that most of the time can make it into a Vanilla version): Aztec, Inca, Maya, Mongolia, Persia, Ottomans, Spain

Tier 3 (should be staples in every game but most of the time can come in later DLC/expansion): Assyria/Babylon, Brazil, Byzantium, Carthage/Phoenicia, Dutch, Ethiopia, Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, Khmer, Korea, Mali, Portugal, Sumer, Zulu

Tier 4 (rotating spots): Celtic civ (Gaul, Ireland etc.), Polynesian civ (Maori, Hawaii etc.), Viking civ (Norway, Denmark etc.), Eurasian steppe civ (Huns, Scythia etc.), Maghreb civ (Berbers, Morocco etc.), Italian civ (Italy, Venice, Florence etc.)

After these I'd still want the rest of the gaps in the world filled out, but it's a start.

 

[Menocchio]

Sure, but even a broken clock is right twice a day and there isn't a lot to Caesar's actions in Gaul besides killing a bunch of people and Beard uses the quote in that context

I'm curious if there are any reliable sources as to his intent and it's not just scholars giving him an intention based on what happened afterwards or misunderstanding what he was doing. People can easily read intention where there is none. Transplanting populations was policy for various empires for centuries, including the Persians forcibly setting Greeks in Central Asian centuries before he was born. And, even if it was intentional, it could have been undone by his successors but it wasn't so giving him sole credit is, at best, being way too generous to him and ignoring everyone who came after him. Just because you started something doesn't mean you finished or it was finished in a way you intended.

And what Alexander was doing wasn't about his ego?

Sure, but intent and consequences are different things and giving Alexander credit for things that happened over centuries when he only was king for 12 years and ruled over the east for much less is being way too generous in my opinion. Was he a highly consequential person in world history? Undoubtedly. Should he get credit for all of the positive things that happened after his life and acting like that negates all of the negatives that happened after his life? No.

I am too tired to break up these quotes into individual blocks, so forgive me for making a simply numbered list. I do not mean to come off as brusque.

1. The idea is, Pliny's understanding of what made a "crime against humanity" has nothing to do with our modern conception of the term and is based on his own moral outlook. I do not have Mary Beard's book on hand so I cannot verify the veracity of the quote - not that I doubt her citation - but I do wonder where it comes from. Certainly not Natural History, because he begins his text with a dedication to the Emperor (as was usual practise) and it would not exactly be kosher for him to slander the Divus Iulius. I cannot find anything in his (or Pliny the Younger's) letters either. But also this is not about Julius Caesar. This is a quibble.

2. On this I trust Robin Lane Fox's sober account of Alexander's ambitions: to wit, that the reality is hidden behind their use as a political tool by his successors. In other words, nothing is more revealing about the spirit of Alexander's unrealised plans than by the way his successors interpreted them to their own ends. Fox asserts that Alexander did sincerely believe that a Hellenistic empire from the Mediterranean to Bangladesh. The idea that he wanted to make a Greco-Persian fusion culture was likely an exaggeration by his successors in order to justify cancelling his broader plans. He intended to retain Persian forms of government and a Persian nobility, and one united with Macedonian nobles, but definitely Hellenised. Fox further notes that despite the chaos of Alexander's conquests and the aftermath of his death, in that period there were no serious uprisings by native populations against Macedonian rule (pp. 476-479).

To the best of my knowledge, while the Achaemenids did practise population transfer, they never settled Greeks in Central Asia, let alone en masse, only somewhere around the Tigris, and they would have largely been farmers or craftsmen (https://iranicaonline.org/articles/deportations). Greeks did have eastern contacts and travels before Alexander - Xenophon alone proves this point - but never in large numbers and never as part of a greater, interconnected Greek community.

3. Alexander certainly had an ego and wished to glorify himself. But that does not preclude him from being at the same time a very good and sensible judge. He was above all good with people: at least one cultural constant true then as now is that people despise narcissists. Any biography of him - Robin Lane Fox's being the "definitive" one still - emphasises his honest dealings with people. You can rebut that, certainly, he was violent: but this was also an era of violence. From that there was no escape, and there would be no definitive social shift away from physical violence in European society at least until the late Enlightenment (Foucault writes on this as part of Discipline and Punish).

4. Alexander certainly should not receive all the credit. But undoubtedly he laid the foundations, and most importantly he actually moved people around and created the Hellenistic era. His successors did as much to squander that legacy as they did to progress it; or perhaps their greatest contribution was simply to preserve in some way or another the spirit which Alexander had brought into being. He started the wheels of social and intellectual change to turning, so much of which he had no direct role in, but nonetheless facilitated through the creation of his empire. However, what I truly argue against is your blanket assertion that he left "the world" (for whatever definition of it) worse off than when he entered it. I think any solid look at scholarship on Alexander would show you this was not the case. I will quote Robin Lane Fox's conclusion to his excellent biography of Alexander, and again exhort you to read him instead of debating here:

"A romantic must not be romanticised, for he is seldom compassionate, always distant, but in Alexander it is tempting to see the romantic's complex nature for the first time in Greek history. There are the small details, his sudden response to a show of nobility, his respect for women, his appreciation of eastern customs, his extreme fondness for his dog and especially his horse; deliberately his court artists created a romantic style for his portrait and it was perhaps characteristic that from the sack of Thebes the one painting which he took for himself was of a captive woman, painted in the intensely emotional style which only a romantic would have appreciated. He had the romantic's sharpness and cruel indifference to life; he was also a man of passionate ambitions, who saw the intense adventure of the unknown. He did not believe in impossibility; man could do anything, and he nearly proved it. Born in a half-world between Greece and Europe, he lived above all for the ideal of a distant past, striving to realise an age which he had been too late to share;
'My friend, if by deserting from the war before us
You and I would be destined to live for ever, knowing no old age,
We would do it; I would not fight among the first,
I would not send you to the battle which brings glory to men.
But now as things are, when the ministers of death stand by us
In their thousands, which no man born to die can escape or even evade,
Let us go.'"
(p. 497, and quoting from the Iliad.)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I do think we’re maybe straying a bit here with these unnecessary arguments about morals of people who died hundreds of years ago and are far removed from the impacts of their actions and are safe to depict in civ, so why don’t we return to something more tangential??

If we got the Philippines, who would be your leader choice

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I do think we’re maybe straying a bit here with these unnecessary arguments about morals of people who died hundreds of years ago and are far removed from the impacts of their actions and are safe to depict in civ, so why don’t we return to something more tangential??

If we got the Philippines, who would be your leader choice

Ramon Magsaysay

probably most beloved President of Philippines ever.

 

[Yudhisthira]

If Civ 6 make Byzantium a thing, despite this be rome. Of course will make Mughals different of Mughals. But if we look in Persian language. Mongols and Mughals are translated as مغول. Just one world for both empire.

'Mughal' is Persian corruption of word Mongol, It is something like Turan (you identify a direction with someone & u use it for everyone from that direction even if they r different people). Another example is word 'Yavana' used by Indians for many different invaders.
Mughal were not Mongols, neither culturally nor ethnically. Neither they identified themselves as such.
Infact if one goes in a Mughal court & call emperor 'mughal' repeatedly, there r great chances he might loose his head as they didn't like this term since it was associated with mongol massacre of "Persian world"of which they considered themselves part of.

The more historically attested & widely recognized term for a mughal emperor is
Shahenshah of Hindustan.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

How about England?
I think it would be cool if we had an Anglo-Saxon leader, Tudor England leader and British Empire leader in the same game.

Personally, I would consider that civs worthy of having three leaders would be civs that had leaders that do not spawn in the same thousand years.
For example, I'd find three leaders for France more "important" than for England, because the France they would represent would be drastically different: one Ancien Régime leader, one Revolution leader, and a IIIrd Republic leader (or, instead of the republican leader, two Ancien Régime, a Merovingian/Carolingian and a Capet (Valois or Bourbons)).
Even for Germany: two HRE Emperors (one from the beginnings, one from for the Reform era) and a 2nd Reich emperor (Prussia/Austria).
But even before England or France or Germany, China (more than 2000 years) and Persia (2500 IIRC) and even Egypt (more millenias that I can count for) would be more "worthy" of more leaders.

I’m inclined to make a similar judgment

in an ideal world, China, Rome, England, France, Spain, Maurya, Egypt, Greece, Ottomans, Byzantines, Persia, Arabia, Mongolia, Russia, Maya, Inca, Babylon, Assyria, Japan and Chola would be series-staples.

In the tier below them (must-haves which aren’t key to the series), I would put Ethiopia, Aztecs, Haudenosaunee, Korea, America, Germany, Portugal

The tier below that (options) would be: A celtic civ, a nordic civ, a central european civ, an eastern european civ, a caucasian civ, 2-3 west african civ, a southern african civ (probsbly usually zulu), an east african civ, 3-5 indigenous american civs from across the continent, 2-3 indigenous civs from across south and central america, a caribbean civ, a portuguese post colonial civ (probably Brazil), a french post colonial civ, a spanish post colonial civ, 1-2 polynesian civs, an additional indian subcontinent civ, 2-3 central asian civs, 3-4 southeast asian civs

that gets you around 56 civs, which is a good improvement over Civ 6, but with far more regional diversity

I wholeheartidly disagree with Byzantines as a staple for me Byzantium should be represented as an alt leader for Rome. We already have the Greeks (same region), the Ottomans (same capital), Rome (same continuity), the relevancy of the Byzantines is clearly beyond my understanding... Especially if we consider China still as one single entity.

Funny enough the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, or Roman, or an Empire.

To be fair, the "Roman" part initially referred to the fact that the Empire was Christian (as in the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church), so, yeah, they were indeed Romans ("roman" was for a long time a synonym for "catholic").
And ther HRE was indeed an Empire. "Empire" never meant a strong unified entity. It was a distinction that made the monarch "above" everyone else. And the Holy Roman Emperor was definitely above the others, in the way that pretty much any king in Europe could become Emperor. It was an empire because, politically, they called it this way and treated it this way.
And for the Holy part, the Emperor (technically) took his power from the Pope, who decided what was Holy or not. Personally, if I had to determine if something is Holy, I'd trust more the Pope than some random perveted French
Voltaire was just a salty nationalist^^

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I do think we’re maybe straying a bit here with these unnecessary arguments about morals of people who died hundreds of years ago and are far removed from the impacts of their actions and are safe to depict in civ, so why don’t we return to something more tangential??

If we got the Philippines, who would be your leader choice

Jose Rizal, Emilio Aguinaldo, or Lapu-Lapu.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, I would consider that civs worthy of having three leaders would be civs that had leaders that do not spawn in the same thousand years.
For example, I'd find three leaders for France more "important" than for England, because the France they would represent would be drastically different: one Ancien Régime leader, one Revolution leader, and a IIIrd Republic leader (or, instead of the republican leader, two Ancien Régime, a Merovingian/Carolingian and a Capet (Valois or Bourbons)).
Even for Germany: two HRE Emperors (one from the beginnings, one from for the Reform era) and a 2nd Reich emperor (Prussia/Austria).
But even before England or France or Germany, China (more than 2000 years) and Persia (2500 IIRC) and even Egypt (more millenias that I can count for) would be more "worthy" of more leaders.

Sure I agree about China, Egypt, and even Persia. But I'm not sure the difference between a Tudor England leader and a British Empire leader as being less worthy than an Ancien Regime leader like Louis XIV, and someone like Napoleon. It seems to me that time period gap would be similar.

I wholeheartidly disagree with Byzantines as a staple for me Byzantium should be represented as an alt leader for Rome. We already have the Greeks (same region), the Ottomans (same capital), Rome (same continuity), the relevancy of the Byzantines is clearly beyond my understanding... Especially if we consider China still as one single entity.

It was usually the most powerful European empire in the Middle Ages. That being said someone like Basil II is probably too far removed from being considered an alternate leader for Rome. I wouldn't consider any one after Justinian or Theodora.

To be fair, the "Roman" part initially referred to the fact that the Empire was Christian (as in the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church), so, yeah, they were indeed Romans ("roman" was for a long time a synonym for "catholic").
And ther HRE was indeed an Empire. "Empire" never meant a strong unified entity. It was a distinction that made the monarch "above" everyone else. And the Holy Roman Emperor was definitely above the others, in the way that pretty much any king in Europe could become Emperor. It was an empire because, politically, they called it this way and treated it this way.
And for the Holy part, the Emperor (technically) took his power from the Pope, who decided what was Holy or not. Personally, if I had to determine if something is Holy, I'd trust more the Pope than some random perveted French
Voltaire was just a salty nationalist^^

Fair enough. I consider it a multitude of separate kingdoms, and it felt more like it was run that way usually then one single emperor, or even they used king interchangeably with emperor.
And if you want to call the popes holy be my guest.
That still doesn't make a HRE leader a viable option to lead Rome, which is what I was trying to explain.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Jose Rizal, Emilio Aguinaldo, or Lapu-Lapu.

I’d be inclined to go Rízal or Lapu Lapu as well

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . And ther HRE was indeed an Empire. "Empire" never meant a strong unified entity. It was a distinction that made the monarch "above" everyone else. And the Holy Roman Emperor was definitely above the others, in the way that pretty much any king in Europe could become Emperor. It was an empire because, politically, they called it this way and treated it this way.
And for the Holy part, the Emperor (technically) took his power from the Pope, who decided what was Holy or not. Personally, if I had to determine if something is Holy, I'd trust more the Pope than some random perveted French
Voltaire was just a salty nationalist^^

In what way was the HRE "Monarch" above everybody else? Because he could give orders and be obeyed - not always: in fact, practically never if he tried to give orders about the internal workings of the individual states, many of which weren't even Roman or Catholic (look up Brandenburg, the Rheinland-Pfalz, the Hessian states and city-states for example). Because he controlled the military forces of the 'empire'? No again. In fact, during the War of the Spanish Succession (1702 - 1714 CE) Bavaria was allied against him, with France, and the Dutch and English had to pay to hire troops to fight in the HRE armies from his own constituent states (Saxony, Rheinland, Brandenburg) because they would NOT fight for the HRE without being paid - in cash and up front.

It was an Empire only because they called it such, but calling a pig a duck does not make it Quack: in practice, the HRE was Holy by Papal fiat, Roman by tortured definition, and Empire in name only.

And Voltaire was such a nationalist he had to live outside of France to avoid arrest: I would say he was more of a man too much in love with a good phrase to realize the probable consequences of using it.

 

[Abaxial]

Grandma Riding an Alligator who will hit you with her walker or cause an accident with her reckless driving

Or as Dave Barry would say, "A Florida driving license is in the post".

 

[Zaarin]

We know a lot about Alexander

You'd be surprised. Most of what we know about Alexander comes from flattering poets or from historians a few centuries later. We know a lot about the myth of Alexander.

 

[InsidiousMage]

You'd be surprised. Most of what we know about Alexander comes from flattering poets or from historians a few centuries later. We know a lot about the myth of Alexander.

Yes I know. None of the works Arrian(?) referenced in his work survived and I think there are something like 10 to 20 contemporary works that are known but didn't survive. But that's a gold mine compared to what's survived about Cyrus, for example.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes I know. None of the works Arrian(?) referenced in his work survived and I think there are something like 10 to 20 contemporary works that are known but didn't survive. But that's a gold mine compared to what's survived about Cyrus, for example.

Indeed. What we know of both Alexander and Cyrus largely comes down to propaganda, essentially.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Indeed. What we know of both Alexander and Cyrus largely comes down to propaganda, essentially.

I mean, that's probably true for most of our understanding of history, trying to pick out facts from works of propaganda 100s or 1000s of years old.