[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Republic of San Montuoso]

The 'myth' of the Dark Ages is purely a result of confusion over the meaning of the word 'Dark'. The term was coined to refer to the period for which little written documentation is available - they were 'dark' in the sense of being poorly-known. Pop culture associations of 'darkness' with primitiveness or ignorance led to the myth that the period was particularly primitive, which was neither the original intent of the term nor in many respects accurate - although it's equally untrue that there was no social decline at all in the post-Roman period.

I might have started like this (even though I doubt it) but look now how the Middle-Ages are seen by the population (at least people who don't have an interest in this time period). How the period following the Middle-Ages is seen as the "Renaissance" and the "Enlightment". How medieval kingdoms are just seen are warring barbarians pillaging and plundering everything without any respect for anything, while the Church is just a bureaucratic monster buring every old alone woman they can get.

 

[krmarci]

I see many people advocating for Renaissance Italy, as well as the Byzantine Empire. While they are certainly important to history, it is important to note that currently, no two civs share a TSL.

In my opinion, one of the European civs will be Portugal. They were really important, and their TSL does not have any overlap.

I have 3+ ideas for the Eastern European civ:

1. Ostrogoths: their capital is Ravenna (thus they would be in a less crowded place between Germany, Hungary and Rome), while they match the time period of the height of the Byzantine Empire. At the height of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, they also controlled the whole of Italy.
2. Bulgaria: it could be a regional substitute for the Byzantine Empire while not colliding with the Ottoman TSL, and they were historically significant. The problem is the already crowded southern Balkans. (Wallachia could be a similar option in a less crowded place, but they were also less significant historically.)
3. Lithuania: one of the largest empires in European history, undeniably historically significant. They would fill in a hole in the map between Poland and Russia. A problem could be that Poland, Hungary and Lithuania are basically civs with similar playstyles with the (potential) real-life leaders living within a century of each other. (A similar option could be the Kievan Rus, filling in the same gap, but less significant historically.)

My pick would probably be Lithuania.

P.S. Sorry for the overuse of the term 'historically significant'.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Some random British dude on the internet does not count as a Source.

There is SOME merit to your cynicism regarding Histories, but you're going in an entirely weird way about it.

1. For instance, Portuguese historians until recently weren't too keen to address the more jarring aspects of colonisation. Speaking of slavery and conquest in the abstract is much easier than to engage and quote the more visceral accounts written by the people who lived during that time. Portuguese Historians did not need to lie, just omit, and choose to focus on more agreeable things. Historians, like everyone else, are still bound to be affected by the emotions and issues of their time.

2. Access to sources in 2020 is way more democratised compared to 1920 or 1820. A government, and certainly a democratic one, is much less likely to be able to hide sources away in some library, to be accessed only by a handful of Historians with the right connections and the right frame of mind.

3. "Philia" is not uncommon among Historians. Meaning that often it can be the emotional attachment to a particular person, events or culture that leads a Historian to want to focus their research on that aspect in the first place. That a person prefers to focus on things that interest them is hardly surprising, we all do it, but this can be troublesome. The 19th century Philhellenes, for instance, were too emotionally connected to their own perceptions of classic Greece to be reliable History-tellers. They gave us very Greek-centred account of European history and attempted to interpret later developments in Europe as developing linearly from Ancient Greece.

So, although there's room for scepticism and it's perfectly natural to ask "who wrote this" and wish to read a few different accounts on the same subject by people from different backgrounds to ensure you're well-informed, your casual dismissal of all Historians of European descent on matters outside Europe is plainly immature. It's made worse since you seem willing to just grab on any "source" (aka dude on the internet) that seems to corroborate the point you're trying to make.

Before you say this kind of thing. I would suggest you try to search African history.
It wasn't just one British guy who said that. It was the TRUE History of Africa in XX century. The fact was, African don't have a Written Language so it don't have history.

About Portuguese, I read the Lusíadas, the book about the Vasco da Game voyage to India where he went to a lot of places of Africa.
I read as it should be readed, I take information of all kingdoms they went but never forgot how a Portuguese mind can say wrong thing about African-Muslim. Just because a Portuguese never will full understand how is a Afro-Muslim.

After I read the Lusíadas, I know more about of Portgueses then I know about the cities they saw and described.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I see many people advocating for Renaissance Italy, as well as the Byzantine Empire. While they are certainly important to history, it is important to note that currently, no two civs share a TSL.

In my opinion, one of the European civs will be Portugal. They were really important, and their TSL does not have any overlap.

I have 3+ ideas for the Eastern European civ:

1. Ostrogoths: their capital is Ravenna (thus they would be in a less crowded place between Germany, Hungary and Rome), while they match the time period of the height of the Byzantine Empire. At the height of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, they also controlled the whole of Italy.
2. Bulgaria: it could be a regional substitute for the Byzantine Empire while not colliding with the Ottoman TSL, and they were historically significant. The problem is the already crowded southern Balkans. (Wallachia could be a similar option in a less crowded place, but they were also less significant historically.)
3. Lithuania: one of the largest empires in European history, undeniably historically significant. They would fill in a hole in the map between Poland and Russia. A problem could be that Poland, Hungary and Lithuania are basically civs with similar playstyles with the (potential) real-life leaders living within a century of each other. (A similar option could be the Kievan Rus, filling in the same gap, but less significant historically.)

My pick would probably be Lithuania.

P.S. Sorry for the overuse of the term 'historically significant'.

Lithuania is mashed into Poland right now (see: Lithuanian Union as the LA for Jadwiga)

The ostrogoths are an appealing pick, as is bulgaria. I lean towards Bulgaria bcs it can fulfill the hole left by the currently missing Byzantines, by being a culture and science focused eastern orthodox kingdom with a religious slant, while being new and interesting avoiding overlapping TSL

curious about the ostragoths though. Wikipedia says that a large minority of ostrogoths were manichaeist zoroastrians. How and why were there that many manichaeists in what is now modern day italy/switzerland/germany/slovenia

 

[Henri Christophe]

As a Floridian, I can confirm that the Seminole are Native Americans. They did harbor some runaway slaves, but very few have black ancestry--certainly not enough to call them "mixed race" as a whole, and certainly no more than among tribes who kept slaves like the Cherokee.

How many intermix person is needed to a people become a mix race?

If these people born at a Seminole community, have the Seminole heritage.
Why you, as a White-Florida-Man don't allow they call they self Seminole?

For me it look like the Macedonia-Greek Issue.

Macedonia can't call they self Macedonia because it don't fit in Greek understanding of History.
Macedonians don't have a name for they self, because Greek don't allow any name.

I really can't understand why have people who understand the world as that.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

How many intermix person is needed to a people become a mix race?

If these people born at a Seminole community, have the Seminole heritage.
Why you, as a White-Florida-Man don't allow they call they self Seminole?

he never said they couldn’t call themselves seminole. he also never said he was white. Don’t put words into his mouth. Don’t make assumptions

 

[Henri Christophe]

he never said they couldn’t call themselves seminole. Don’t put words into his mouth.

He didn't.
Let's back to Seminole Issue.

Can Negro Abraham be leader of Seminole people?

 

[AntSou]

Fantastic! Australian law forbid speak about Aborigens>
I'm Astonished!!!!!

It make me think even more how White Empire still going. It is so sad.
None here think how our Status Quo can still killing lifes abroad. The Status Quo make the White-Empire survive and alive.

Ok, I take this as a final farewell to this whole discussion. You're not even trying.

As a French, I lived (and we all lived) for a long time with the myth that "the Gauls were our ancestors" (there is mythical phrase "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois...")

This is a related but different problem. The issue here is regarding the persistence of incorrect notions among non-historians even after the incorrect versions have been dismissed among Historians. I don't know but I suspect this idea may have been dismissed by many French Historians fairly on.

Alexandre Herculano, a Portuguese Historian of renown writing in the 19th century, immediately dismissed any ideas of historical continuity between the Lusitans and Modern Portugal. It's essentially the same thing you have in France regarding the Gauls. Yet it persisted in the popular imagination. In fact it still is the common assumption, despite being dismissed by Historians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

In terms of european civs I’d still like to see Ireland more than any other civ from that region. I know scotland is supposed to be the ‘celtic’ civ but Robert the Bruce speaks scots, which is a germanic language, not a celtic one, like Scottish or Irish Gaelic. Ireland would also be interesting as basically the only colonized european state.

 

[Henri Christophe]

3. "Philia" is not uncommon among Historians. Meaning that often it can be the emotional attachment to a particular person, events or culture that leads a Historian to want to focus their research on that aspect in the first place. That a person prefers to focus on things that interest them is hardly surprising, we all do it, but this can be troublesome. The 19th century Philhellenes, for instance, were too emotionally connected to their own perceptions of classic Greece to be reliable History-tellers. They gave us very Greek-centred account of European history and attempted to interpret later developments in Europe as developing linearly from Ancient Greece.

Sorry to don't also say which part of your text I agree.

I agree with the 3rd topic.

So, although there's room for scepticism and it's perfectly natural to ask "who wrote this" and wish to read a few different accounts on the same subject by people from different backgrounds to ensure you're well-informed, your casual dismissal of all Historians of European descent on matters outside Europe is plainly immature. It's made worse since you seem willing to just grab on any "source" (aka dude on the internet) that seems to corroborate the point you're trying to make.

That I parcial agree. I always will prefer the interpretion a nation had about it self.
I can read other persons, but if I find a native speak about it self, I will believe in the native.

 

[PhilBowles]

I might have started like this (even though I doubt it) but look now how the Middle-Ages are seen by the population (at least people who don't have an interest in this time period). How the period following the Middle-Ages is seen as the "Renaissance" and the "Enlightment". How medieval kingdoms are just seen are warring barbarians pillaging and plundering everything without any respect for anything, while the Church is just a bureaucratic monster buring every old alone woman they can get.

At least in Britain, "the Dark Ages" doesn't refer to the Middle Ages as a whole - only to the early Middle Ages, the centuries between Roman withdrawal and - at latest - the Norman Conquest, which occurred around three hundred years before the Renaissance.

Robert the Bruce speaks scots, which is a germanic language,

Zaarin will no doubt rush to point this out, but he speaks English - specifically (as Zaarin corrected me a while back) Middle English. The point stands, though - it's still a Germanic language.

Ireland would also be interesting as basically the only colonized european state.

Well, many of them have been either colonised or occupied by someone at some stage. What I presume you mean is that Ireland was the model Britain followed in later colonial adventures, and it treated the Irish very similarly to its treatment of native peoples elsewhere.

 

[AntSou]

About Portuguese, I read the Lusíadas, the book about the Vasco da Game voyage to India where he went to a lot of places of Africa.
I read as it should be readed, I take information of all kingdoms they went but never forgot how a Portuguese mind can say wrong thing about African-Muslim. Just because a Portuguese never will full understand how is a Afro-Muslim.

After I read the Lusíadas, I know more about of Portgueses then I know about the cities they saw and described.

Yes, you did well to not take as historical fact a poem which includes descriptions of Giants, Nymphs, Greek Gods, the Fates and Heroes.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, you did well to not take as historical fact a poem which includes descriptions of Giants, Nymphs, Greek Gods, the Fates and Heroes.

lol

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

That I parcial agree. I always will prefer the interpretion a nation had about it self.
I can read other persons, but if I find a native speak about it self, I will believe in the native.

Now I understand the Rome thing. In Russia/HRE/Fascist Italy the people didn’t think themselves romans, just the leader

 

[Thenewwwguy]

also, to be clear, in the mughal thing, no one thought they were a mongol

 

[Henri Christophe]

2. Access to sources in 2020 is way more democratised compared to 1920 or 1820. A government, and certainly a democratic one, is much less likely to be able to hide sources away in some library, to be accessed only by a handful of Historians with the right connections and the right frame of mind.

About this second topic, I really think you should search African history before say it.
Maybe try to do a Afro-Centric perfil in a world forum and try to speak about African Heritage.

You will see how Afro-Ideas can be not well accept for most of persons who like the Status Quo of the World.

Because any Idea I give from my "exotic" sources I found in the Internet is just considered craziness for all.
And I always give a source for my ideas, none ideia here I think of my self.

also, to be clear, in the mughal thing, no one thought they were a mongol

No one in this forum think it. I really want to see a Indian source about it.
I just can agree with you if have a good source about that.

Now I understand the Rome thing. In Russia/HRE/Fascist Italy the people didn’t think themselves romans, just the leader

That is, at least, a good answer.
I will try found source about Imperial Russia, if the Czar of the Romanov family think about they self as Slavic-Romans or not.

 

[PhilBowles]

Now I understand the Rome thing. In Russia/HRE/Fascist Italy the people didn’t think themselves romans, just the leader

The pitfall seems to be that what we mean by 'Romans' is not what the people who used the word meant throughout the Middle Ages and later. In the Holy Roman Imperial period, claiming to be Roman was to claim religious and monarchic legitimacy, it wasn't claiming literal succession from the Roman Empire. This was an era where history was seen as a tool for legitimising rulership, it wasn't intended to be factual - which is why there are so many "Histories" from this period (such as Monmouth's) which are basically complete fantasy. Not because people didn't know any better, but because their values were very different from the Enlightenment focus on whether something was factually accurate.

In short, the "Holy Roman Emperors" weren't under any illusions that they traced descent from the Romans - they were claiming to be their natural political successors, and hence the inheritors of both their mandate to rule and their religion (i.e. the Catholic Church). Similarly, Russia's 'Third Rome', as I understand it, is essentially a claim that the Russian Orthodox Church - via Byzantium - is the true successor to Rome's religious authority. Nothing to do with imagining themselves as being descended from Italian rulers.

 

[Henri Christophe]

In short, the "Holy Roman Emperors" weren't under any illusions that they traced descent from the Romans - they were claiming to be their natural political successors, and hence the inheritors of both their mandate to rule and their religion (i.e. the Catholic Church). Similarly, Russia's 'Third Rome', as I understand it, is essentially a claim that the Russian Orthodox Church - via Byzantium - is the true successor to Rome's religious authority. Nothing to do with imagining themselves as being descended from Italian rulers.

I really don't understand why the personal believe of itself can be considered as ilusion for us, who isn't there.

I don't want somenone in the year 4500 saying it was an ilusion I'm Brazilian.
I would want to be Brazilian forever, even after my death. If I'm saying today I'm Brazilian, I should be Brazilian even if Brazil fall some day.


If the Romanov Czares and Habsburgo Kaisers said they are the Roman Empire, and act as Empire, why should we say they living in ilusion?

I found a video about this issue.
Who can claim nowadays the Roman Empire?
Because history is also don't over, the Roman Empire can raise again. (I just hope it not)

 

[onepurpose]

Well ... I have read the recent post

HRE pretended to be Rome SPIRITUAL succesor, as well as Principality of Moscow as "Third Rome" ... trying to state a continuity Rome-Bizantium-Moscova

It was a matter of pretended legitimacy, not a literal account.

Obviously, the Third Reich was not the "Fifth Rome"

 

[AntSou]

Maybe try to do a Afro-Centric perfil in a world forum and try to speak about African Heritage.

You will see how Afro-Ideas can be not well accept for most of persons who like the Status Quo of the World.

Have you considered that it's YOUR "Afro-Ideas" that are not being well accepted in online forums?

I mean, I can go on an online forum for Cat lovers and write a piece on "How to get more intimate with your Cat" only to be vilified as some kind of sexual weirdo by supposedly lovers of Cats. I mean, can you imagine? What a bunch of reactionary pricks.

I really don't understand why the personal believe of itself can be considered as ilusion for us, who isn't there.

I think I'm Roman, therefore I'm Roman.

So, am I Roman?