[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[BuchiTaton]

I think that Temujin and Alexander are the epitome of "the man that build and empire and changed the world forever". Of course are many others great ones but these two would allways be the top.

If the mechanics of barbarians are expanded and more relevant on base CIV7, Temujin could be designed on way that Mongols would growth by incorporate the barbarians.

For other civ from Central Asia a defensive modern Afghans with Zamburak sound great. For Sogdian civ the land trade routes bonus is obvious but what I would love to have for them is something related to the diversity of religions on the region (Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Nestorianism, Manichaeism and Islam) like a big bonus to gain from trade the more religions are on your cities.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think that Temujin and Alexander are the epitome of "the man that build and empire and changed the world forever". Of course are many others great ones but these two would allways be the top.

I agree wholeheartedly. These are men who radically changed not only the world around them but the world after.

 

[Zaarin]

Who's this person that I can neither spell nor pronounce and why would they be fun?

Sorghaghtani Beki was Kublai Khan's powerful Nestorian Christian mother who often ruled the empire on his behalf, given the honorary title empress, and later declared a divinity.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Sorghaghtani Beki was Kublai Khan's powerful Nestorian Christian mother who often ruled the empire on his behalf, given the honorary title empress, and later declared a divinity.

Oh... The niece of Prester John!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think Akbar should be an alternative leader to the Mongol Empire.
Mughal is just an english transliteration, is persic language there is no differential in the name.

the mughals weren’t mongols, weren’t ethnically mongolian and shared little culturally with the mongols. Being the successors to the Timurids, they just called themselves the Mongols since they claimed they were the successors to the Mongol empire due to the fact that Timur married into Genghis Khan’s direct family. They didn’t actually see themselves as Mongols, but rather as Persians (which ironically, they weren’t, since they were Persianized Turks)

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think that Temujin and Alexander are the epitome of "the man that build and empire and changed the world forever". Of course are many others great ones but these two would allways be the top.

For one thing Alexander didn't really building anything, he just conquered what other people had created. For another, Alexander and his successors and then Temujin and his successors killed thousands and millions of people respectively. Alexander and Temujin generally left the world in a worse place than they found it and while some their successors did manage to create some wonderful things and create things that enriched the world maybe those two shouldn't to be in game given, you know, all of the mass murder. And yes, this could be applied other rulers and maybe the game should include fewer people involved in body counts in the thousands or millions.

 

[Zaarin]

For one thing Alexander didn't really building anything, he just conquered what other people had created. For another, Alexander and his successors and then Temujin and his successors killed thousands and millions of people respectively. Alexander and Temujin generally left the world in a worse place than they found it and while some their successors did manage to create some wonderful things and create things that enriched the world maybe those two shouldn't to be in game given, you know, all of the mass murder. And yes, this could be applied other rulers and maybe the game should include fewer people involved in body counts in the thousands or millions.

I think that's a very narrow perspective. For better or worse, Hellenism is the foundation of both the Western and Islamic world, and that's thanks to Alexander. You can't apply modern moral standards to ancient people; in fact, if you apply too nice a standard we're not going to have any leaders or civs at all. I'm not personally a huge fan of Hellenism or of Alexander, but you don't have to like him to recognize he reshaped the world.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For one thing Alexander didn't really building anything, he just conquered what other people had created. For another, Alexander and his successors and then Temujin and his successors killed thousands and millions of people respectively. Alexander and Temujin generally left the world in a worse place than they found it and while some their successors did manage to create some wonderful things and create things that enriched the world maybe those two shouldn't to be in game given, you know, all of the mass murder. And yes, this could be applied other rulers and maybe the game should include fewer people involved in body counts in the thousands or millions.

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.

However, I think it’s disingenuous to make such an anti-historical statement as ‘person XYZ left the world in a worse state than it was in before they came around’. There’s a reason historians don’t make judgements like that—because the results of historical events are too complicated and have too many consequences to judge as ‘leaving the world in a worse place’.

As for them being bad people, nearly every leader on this list has directly or indirectly caused hundreds of thousands, if not million of deaths.

Historians again don’t ascribe labels on any leader who didn’t actively and intentionally commit genocide for a reason. Yes, Genghis and Alexander undoubtedly caused much death but Genghis was one of the first medieval central asian rulers to ascribe a policy of religious tolerance. You also have to consider the fact that his conquering was motivated by lack of resources in Mongolia at the time which were making it hard to live.

Alexander, on the other hand, literally built the framework for the Islamic Golden Age, as well as the Western Enlightenment and Renaissance by bringing Greek Thought to the east and bringing Indian thought to the west.

 

[Henri Christophe]

the mughals weren’t mongols, weren’t ethnically mongolian and shared little culturally with the mongols. Being the successors to the Timurids, they just called themselves the Mongols since they claimed they were the successors to the Mongol empire due to the fact that Timur married into Genghis Khan’s direct family. They didn’t actually see themselves as Mongols, but rather as Persians (which ironically, they weren’t, since they were Persianized Turks)

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.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

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.

I'd appreciate a video in a language I understand.

 

[DWilson]

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.

While sometimes I think things like "I don't need Austria if we have Hungary" or "Khmer and Siam can rotate", and I'm sure a balance is to be considered on which Mesopotamian and nearby middle eastern civs are essential versus nice bonuses,, I'm significantly less satisified with something like a Central Asian steppe civ being an alternative rather than an addition to the Mongols or someone like Ireland or only Scotland replacing England.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'd appreciate a video in a language I understand.

I also don't understand persic language, but I found this video searching for مغول
who means at same time Mongol and Mughals

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

While sometimes I think things like "I don't need Austria if we have Hungary" or "Khmer and Siam can rotate", and I'm sure a balance is to be considered on which Mesopotamian and nearby middle eastern civs are essential versus nice bonuses,, I'm significantly less satisified with something like a Central Asian steppe civ being an alternative rather than an addition to the Mongols or someone like Ireland or only Scotland replacing England.

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

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, a game of Civ without the Mongols and Chingiz Khan to me makes as much sense as a game of Civ without the Pyramids or nuclear weapons.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Yeah, a game of Civ without the Mongols and Chingiz Khan to me makes as much sense as a game of Civ without the Pyramids or nuclear weapons.

Or a pyramid that opens up and inside there is a nuclear weapon <SCRIBBLES NOTES>

 

[InsidiousMage]

For better or worse, Hellenism is the foundation of both the Western and Islamic world, and that's thanks to Alexander.

Alexander, on the other hand, literally built the framework for the Islamic Golden Age, as well as the Western Enlightenment and Renaissance by bringing Greek Thought to the east and bringing Indian thought to the west.

I would put that down more to his successors since they were the ones who ruled over the kingdoms that actually allowed the intellectual flourishing by patronizing scholars and founding libraries, not Alexander. If they didn't have successful dynasties there wouldn't be a Hellenistic Age. Alexander had very little to actually do with that given the fact he had been dead for quite awhile. If his successors hadn't stuck around and collapsed within a generation or two then no one would probably be talking about him at all other than the fact that he destroyed the Persian Empire. This of course assumes it wouldn't have happened anyway due to other influences or events.

You can't apply modern moral standards to ancient people

"They make a desert and call it peace" is not a modern saying, it was a Roman criticizing the actions of the emperors. Cicero would call the occasional expulsion of non-citizens from Rome during the late Republic "contrary to laws of humanity." People in the ancient world were capable of judging each other on what we would consider modern standards and therefore we should too.

you don't have to like him to recognize he reshaped the world.

Just because you reshaped the world doesn't mean you did it intentionally, for anything other than your own self aggrandizement, or even left the world better off than it was before your death. And none that has anything to do with depicting someone who was so addicted to war and conquest that his own troops revolted against him as a heroic and dashing figure.

However, I think it’s disingenuous to make such an anti-historical statement as ‘person XYZ left the world in a worse state than it was in before they came around’. There’s a reason historians don’t make judgements like that—because the results of historical events are too complicated and have too many consequences to judge as ‘leaving the world in a worse place’.

I mean, the Persian Empire wasn't perfect by any means but it certainly wasn't characterized the endemic warfare like the Hellenistic Age was and that's a pretty clear cut example of something being worse than it was before. As for the Mongols, their wars killed people on a scale not seen until World War I and nothing is going to change that fact. Killing millions of people by definition made the world a worse place.

As for them being bad people, nearly every leader on this list has directly or indirectly caused hundreds of thousands, if not million of deaths.

Sure, but there are better and worse people that you can include.

...but Genghis was one of the first medieval central asian rulers to ascribe a policy of religious tolerance...You also have to consider the fact that his conquering was motivated by lack of resources in Mongolia at the time which were making it hard to live.

Not really an excuse for murdering everyone in a town just because they didn't surrender the moment you showed up outside the city walls.

 

[Menocchio]

"They make a desert and call it peace" is not a modern saying, it was a Roman criticizing the actions of the emperors. Cicero would call the occasional expulsion of non-citizens from Rome during the late Republic "contrary to laws of humanity." People in the ancient world were capable of judging each other on what we would consider modern standards and therefore we should too..

Actually, it is a modern saying: the use of desert in the more famous version of the quote is an English flourish. The original Latin from Tacitus is solitudinem, literally meaning a lonely or solitary place, as one is camping alone in the wilderness (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...bi&d=Perseus:text:1999.02.0084:chapter=30&i=1), not in the sense of literal transformation of a place into desert. The idea that the ancients felt the Romans were burning places and paving them over is a modernising notion. Furthermore, this is a quote not precisely by Tacitus (a Roman, obviously) himself giving his opinion on Rome, but Tacitus was in essence putting words in the mouth of a Celtic chief, Calgacus. In this passage Tacitus was creating a sort of noble, principled warrior whose resistance to Rome was brave and noble, thereby enhancing Rome's glory in having defeated him. Calgacus probably never gave such a speech or had such motivations.

The conquests of Alexander quite literally created the philosophical idea of individualism. Being so forcibly thrust into a broader world was such a massive culture shock to the Greeks that they had to entirely reconstruct their own worldview. For more detail on this, I recommend reading Robin Waterfield's Dividing the Spoils (probably the best history on Hellenism in the aftermath of Alexander's death) and Frank M. Snowden, Jr.'s peerless Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience for a great portrait of the incredibly rich and diverse cultural interplay enabled by Hellenism and later the Roman Empire. I assure you, there was much more going on than people dying.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Actually, it is a modern saying: the use of desert in the more famous version of the quote is an English flourish. The original Latin from Tacitus is solitudinem, literally meaning a lonely or solitary place, as one is camping alone in the wilderness (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...bi&d=Perseus:text:1999.02.0084:chapter=30&i=1), not in the sense of literal transformation of a place into desert. The idea that the ancients felt the Romans were burning places and paving them over is a modernising notion. Furthermore, this is a quote not precisely by Tacitus (a Roman, obviously) himself giving his opinion on Rome, but Tacitus was in essence putting words in the mouth of a Celtic chief, Calgacus. In this passage Tacitus was creating a sort of noble, principled warrior whose resistance to Rome was brave and noble, thereby enhancing Rome's glory in having defeated him. Calgacus probably never gave such a speech or had such motivations.

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."

I assure you, there was much more going on than people dying.

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.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I also don't understand persic language, but I found this video searching for مغول
who means at same time Mongol and Mughals

keep saying that. That will happen when Fraxis makes Sumerian an OP civ with all of civ powers.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

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 mean Alexander didn't mistreat conquired people like say assyrians