Zenon_pt
Civing on the real world
This is too much widespread. Each civ have there unique caracteristics to give to the game, if you oversimplify you gan none.
Civilizations in Civ 5: Asia
- Thread starter Optimizer
- Start date
This is too much widespread. Each civ have there unique caracteristics to give to the game, if you oversimplify you gan none.
True. While they had some level of importance in ancient Near Eastern politics, they are probably one of the most overrated civs.
Sumer, Greece and the Maya definitely should be in, I'm not disputing that. I was just pointing out that some of the civs in the game are not single states, rather, they are groups of states.
Greece was made up of multiple states: Athens, Sparta, Corinth, and more controversially, Macedonia.
Sumer was made up of Ur, Uruk, etc. while the Maya where made up of Mayapan, Chichen Itza, etc.
I'd go with 3 minimum myself, and they would be:
The Cholas
-Representation for the southern end of the subcontinent
-Only Indian state that conquered any part of the world other than the Indian subcontinent, Middle East or Central Asia
Magadha
-First great Indian empire
-Controlled nearly all of India except for the southern tip, as well as parts of Central Asia (although this can also be seen as part of the subcontinent, depends on your definition).
-Under Ashoka one of the main forces that spread Buddhism
-Created the Edicts of Ashoka
-Had multiple great dynasties
(Nanda dynasty)
(Maurya dynasty)
(Sunga dynasty)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/IndiaGuptaEmpire.jpg
(Gupta dynasty)
The Mughals
-Greatest Indo-Islamic state
-Their influence made Urdu an official language in Pakistan and India
-During their reign some of the most syncretism between Hinduism and Islam happened
-Built the Taj Mahal
-The main Indian state for nearly 200 years, existed for even longer
[img]http://sun.menloschool.org/~sportman/westernstudies/first/1718/2000/gblock/mughal/mughal.gif
1. You mean they where the Jewish god that the Jewish people where the only people to write about until the rise of Christianity in Rome and Islam in Arabia?
2. The Crusade makes no sense - thats like saying that Australia should be in because the Japanese bombed Darwin! It was the Byzantines that began the crusade, and the Papal States, Holy Roman Empire, English and Venetians that continued it (I think I might be forgetting some too).
3. The Arab-Israeli war makes some sense - but do modern and ancient Israel really have any continuity? I guess they have some in that they are both Jewish states, meaning that Judah could be added as well in an "Israelite Empire".
4. Yeah, only a colony that managed to create its own empire and nearly defeat the Romans.
That was my point. I was responding to someone suggesting that the Turkic peoples should be one civ.
Really?
Carthage:
This map also doesn't include parts of Hispania that Carthage controlled.
Israel:
And that's according to the Israelites themselves, while the above Carthaginian empire is verified by the Romans.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
True. While they had some level of importance in ancient Near Eastern politics, they are probably one of the most overrated civs.
Sumer, Greece and the Maya definitely should be in, I'm not disputing that. I was just pointing out that some of the civs in the game are not single states, rather, they are groups of states.
Greece was made up of multiple states: Athens, Sparta, Corinth, and more controversially, Macedonia.
Sumer was made up of Ur, Uruk, etc. while the Maya where made up of Mayapan, Chichen Itza, etc.
I'd go with 3 minimum myself, and they would be:
The Cholas
-Representation for the southern end of the subcontinent
-Only Indian state that conquered any part of the world other than the Indian subcontinent, Middle East or Central Asia
Magadha
-First great Indian empire
-Controlled nearly all of India except for the southern tip, as well as parts of Central Asia (although this can also be seen as part of the subcontinent, depends on your definition).
-Under Ashoka one of the main forces that spread Buddhism
-Created the Edicts of Ashoka
-Had multiple great dynasties
(Nanda dynasty)
(Maurya dynasty)
(Sunga dynasty)
(Gupta dynasty)
The Mughals
-Greatest Indo-Islamic state
-Their influence made Urdu an official language in Pakistan and India
-During their reign some of the most syncretism between Hinduism and Islam happened
-Built the Taj Mahal
-The main Indian state for nearly 200 years, existed for even longer
1. You mean they where the Jewish god that the Jewish people where the only people to write about until the rise of Christianity in Rome and Islam in Arabia?
2. The Crusade makes no sense - thats like saying that Australia should be in because the Japanese bombed Darwin! It was the Byzantines that began the crusade, and the Papal States, Holy Roman Empire, English and Venetians that continued it (I think I might be forgetting some too).
3. The Arab-Israeli war makes some sense - but do modern and ancient Israel really have any continuity? I guess they have some in that they are both Jewish states, meaning that Judah could be added as well in an "Israelite Empire".
4. Yeah, only a colony that managed to create its own empire and nearly defeat the Romans.
I think 3 might be to much for the first edition. For me i think it should be 2, with a third in an expansion.
I agree with this idea that smaller civilizations would become vassal states to master state of a larger civilzation. Just say the technology of regional blocs is attained by 3 of more smaller states and they all build their respective institutions such as European Union, African Union, the Arab League, ASEAN +3, NAFTA and so forth. Combat, zone of control, culture, unit movement, diplomacy would all be reduced from say 18 civs at 4000BC to say 6 civs in 1900AD. vassals can influence the master and vice versa.
India would probably go with Pakistan, Afgahnistan and perhaps Iran.
That's what many Pakistani revisionists would argue, but I think its somewhat silly. It is currently the largest Indo-Islamic state, which the Mughals where for a time, so they share that similarity.
Once again, this is confusing civilizations with states.
India (region), if it where to create a confederation at all, would include India (republic), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and perhaps Bhutan. I seriously doubt that it would include Iran. What I would like though is a single Indian confederation with each ethno-linguistic group getting its own state within it, modelled after the European Union.
I don't hate you, I just don't agree with you.
I'm just saying just because Iran is in proximity of the "Indian Region". It's like Turkey ought to be a part of the EU due to it's close proximity but it's not in today's real world.
Nerowannabe
Warlord
Does anyone know when the final rounds are going on?
Civ Person
BEAST
How about the mamlukes?
Well actually modern day north Indians are close descendants of Iran; they are known as Aryans - If such a confederation were to be formed Bhutan will no doubt be a part of it, Tibet, Iran and Afghanistan will HAVE to be invited because of their significance; also, places like Singapore and Malaysia with significant south Indian minorities who have been native there for >1000 yrs should also get invitations. Ofcourse, practically speaking, none of these countries will submit their autonomy.
But Pak., Bang., Ind., SL., Nep., and Bhutan are inegral parts of the Indosphere as you have said.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Wow, you necro'ed a thread from 2008.....
Jarlaxe Baenre
Emperor
Egypt is not in Asia, Einstein.
Similar threads
