cccpike
Chieftain
Comments such as these have probably been made before, but for some time now I've felt like writing a summary of my thoughts. Feel free to ignore me or post me yours.
I have been a Civ player ever since I got my hands on Civilization I for the Mac. From the start I've felt like the choice of civilizations for the game as well as their leaders and city names was somewhat questionable. The purpose of this post is to give some thoughts as to which civilizations and leaders should be worthy of being included in the game and, as differing views will no doubt arise, to debate on the matter. But now, for a culture group by culture group, civ by civ summary:
EUROPEAN CULTURE:
I've always felt like the game confuses the concept of a civilization with that of a nation and state. In the actual world the West European nations plus the Americas form a more or less uniform Western Civilization which has not formed a single political entity since the downfall of Rome. When you think about it, different areas of China have greater cultural and linguistic differences than modern Spain and France. Yet both Spain and France are considered separate civilizations in the game and China is considered one due to its long history of political unity.
English:
I have very little against the inclusion of the English, as the British Empire was unquestionably the world's greatest power in the 19th century. Neither with Elizabeth being their leader or with the city names on the list. The only historical error I've noticed is Boudicea being one of their great leaders, as she was actually the last leader of the Britons in their rebellion against Rome, while the ancestors of the English still lived in present Germany. But that is little.
Germans:
Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is undoubtedly the most successful politician in German history, as he succeeded in everything he ever did, and I consider him an excellent choice for the Germans' leader. Their city list however I have a problem with. Why so short when there are plenty of old and significant cities in Germany? Why the stupid misspelling of Heidelberg and having the state of Brandenburg, the old heartland of the kingdom of Prussia, as a city name? What ever happened to such important centres of trade like Luebeck and ancient Roman cities like Trier, which was indeed the Roman capital for a short time? And even if we accept some ancient Germanic chiefs as great leaders, why does the "Red Baron" Manfred von Richthofen have to be included with his name vandalized? Inconceivable.
French:
This is ridiculous. Somehow I get the feeling the makers of the game wanted to include female leaders in the game, but France? When truth is that France has never been ruled by a woman, there has always been a male king, emperor or president. And there would have been so many other good candidates like Napoleon or "Le Roi Soleil" Louis XIV. As for the list of cities, the only slight error is that Lyons is also in the Roman city list as Lugdunum, but since these are separated by several centuries and with civilizations overlapping each other's territories it really doesn't matter. Also, I would rather have made Strasbourg a German city which it was until the French conquest of Alsace in the late 17th century.
Russians:
Unlike the other European civilizations, I would qualify the Russians as not being part of the uniform Western civilization. Traditionally Russian culture was very different from the Christian west and remained so until the time of Czar Peter the Great. Personally, I would have included a completely new culture group with Russia and Byzantium as its two members. As for the choice of leader, Catherine is not a bad choice although Czar Peter probably was the more significant ruler of the two. As for the cities, no matter how people may argue about Kiev, Minsk, Grozny and other such cities not being Russian, they were parts of the Russian empire for centuries and I would pass them.
PLAY THE WORLD additions:
Spanish:
The problem I have with the Spanish is the same as with all West European civilizations, it should be a nation and state but not a separate civilization. But since playing something like the European Union as a civilization would not be much fun I accept it as necessary. Isabella is also a fairly good choice for the Spanish leader. The city list I have not seen as I don't have PTW myself.
Vikings:
My goodness. This has got to be the worst collection of historical errors, violations and absurdities in the game. First of all, the inclusion of the Vikings is not such a bad idea, because they had a very distinct culture signified by their own language, art, architecture, religion and social life. The fact that this culture was assimilated to the Christian west and has been extinct for centuries now doesn't change the fact. The problems start with the leader and city list. Who ever heard of Ragnar Lodbrok? I'm from Finland and an amateur historian, and I'd never heard of him. Making an unknown barbarian chieftain the leader of a civilization is what I call pointless, my choice would have been one of the early Danish or Norwegian kings, possibly Knut the Great who ruled an empire consisting of all of Denmark, parts of Norway and Sweden and all of England. Of the city names I have seen only some, but what I've seen didn't please me. Why Trondheim as the capital? It was never a capital of any kind in Scandinavia. One of the oldest city-like settlements was Birka in Sweden, the central site of Denmark has always been Copenhagen, and the site of the Norwegian kings was Bergen. Of the other cities, there are many nonexistent or just plain poor choices. My own home city as a Viking settlement? Idiotic. Almost as bad as the nonexistent Thunderfall.
Celts:
This was a really bad choice. As if having two overlapping civilizations (France and Rome) was not enough, they had to add a third to really complicate matters. Not to mention the fact that there never was any Celtic empire, nor any unified Celtic nation. There was a group of related languages, a cultural area and some sort of social unity enabling them to amass their forces in the ultimately futile effort to resist Caesar's conquest of Gaul. But they never got as far to have actual cities of their own. I would never have considered including them.
MEDITERRANEAN CULTURE:
Romans:
If they were left out of the game I would not look at such a mockery of world history. The importance of Rome to world history is rivalled only by that of China. Caesar is also a natural choice for a leader, although he was not really an emperor. The title of emperor was first given to Augustus (imperator) and in some languages the word for emperor comes from the name Caesar (Kaiser, keisari). Caesar's actual title was dictator, which was an actual government office, but I can understand why they did not call him that. Of the cities, Lugdunum and Londonium are also present in the game with their modern names of Lyons and London, but as I stated before I think it's okay.
Greeks:
The Greeks never formed a single political entity, but had dozens of small city-states of which Athens and Sparta were most important. Still, Greeks must be included, and Athens is deservedly the capital as the intellectual and cultural capital of ancient Greece. Alexander is somewhat harder to justify as he was not Greek but Macedonian, although firmly within the sphere of Hellenistic culture. And there would be only few choices besides Alexander. Who here has ever heard of Pericles, the ruler of Athens in its war against Sparta?
Egyptians:
The Egyptians are also vital to the game, but I would have rather made them part of the Near Eastern group. Why? The Egyptians only became part of the Mediterranean group after the conquest of Alexander and the advance of Hellenistic culture. There had been more than 3000 years of Egyptian history before that, and this is ignored in favor of the relatively short Ptolemaic period? This may be because they wanted Cleopatra, who was the last Ptolemaic ruler, to be the leader, but just for this I would have favored Ramesses. Also, if they wanted the late Egyptian period in the game, why did they not make Alexandria the capital? Thebes and Memphis were the ancient capitals, more suited for Ramesses. Of the great leaders, I see one strange error of Cheops and Khufu being seperate although they are but two variations of the same name and therefore one person.
PLAY THE WORLD additions:
Carthaginians:
If they must be included Hannibal is the obvious choice for a leader, but why them? Carthage was but one of the many Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean and the center of a large empire, but too short-lived to have been significant. I would have chosen Byzantium in the game any day over Carthage. Also, I would have liked to see elephants as their special unit, if only to commend Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with elephants in his army.
NEAR EASTERN CULTURE:
Babylonians:
Too important to leave out. Hammurabi is also an obvious leader choice. The only trouble I have is that I would have liked to see the Assyrians as an independent civilization rather than as a part of Babylonia, as they were historically two separate nations constantly at war against each other. But, it is a fact that their cultures were similar enough to include only one.
Persians:
As the ancient adversary of the Greeks and a world-class empire the Persians deserve to be included, although I've had problems finding names for my Babylonian cities when the Persians were also in the game. Xerxes is not a bad choice for a ruler either. Really, the only problem left is to decide which cities are Babylonian and which are Persian, since the territories of both were largely the same and many cities belonged to both, including Babylon itself.
Zulus:
Somebody please get rid of these guys. For one thing, they had nothing to do with the Near Eastern culture group. Second, the fortress of Zimbabwe had been in ruins long before Shaka came about. Third, fact is that there were no real civilizations in Africa, and attempting to make up one such as this only gets stupid. Now, there were kingdoms such as Mali, Songhay and Abessinia in Africa. Why could they not be included instead of the Zulus? Of course no one ever heard of any of those, but they still deserve to be called civilizations more than the Zulus. Of the three, Abessinia or Ethiopia would be the best candidate, but perhaps the makers thought that including a Christian state would have been politically incorrect?
PLAY THE WORLD additions:
Arabs:
The greatest violation to history in Civilization I was the absence of Arabs. Islamic culture is today the second most widespread after West European and its historical importance was at least equal to that of Rome. Many of the ancient Greek and Roman works survived only as Arabic translations, and the numbers we use even today are Arabic. I remember wishing many times there were Arabs in the game, with caliph Harun ar-Rashid and Baghdad as their capital. Well, what did I get? Mohammed's nephew and Mecca, which is of course the religious center of the Islamic world, but unlike Baghdad hardly a political one.
Ottomans:
I would have been more than satisfied with just the Arabs, but when they decided to add Islamic cultures one was apparently not enough. Well, I do agree the Ottoman empire was long-lived, vast in size and power and ahead of Europe until the 17th century, but still I would have liked to have Byzantium instead. And we can't have both, since the capital of both was Constantinople. Truly, calling the Ottoman capital Istanbul is stupid, since the city was renamed to Istanbul only after the Ottomans were history.
I have been a Civ player ever since I got my hands on Civilization I for the Mac. From the start I've felt like the choice of civilizations for the game as well as their leaders and city names was somewhat questionable. The purpose of this post is to give some thoughts as to which civilizations and leaders should be worthy of being included in the game and, as differing views will no doubt arise, to debate on the matter. But now, for a culture group by culture group, civ by civ summary:
EUROPEAN CULTURE:
I've always felt like the game confuses the concept of a civilization with that of a nation and state. In the actual world the West European nations plus the Americas form a more or less uniform Western Civilization which has not formed a single political entity since the downfall of Rome. When you think about it, different areas of China have greater cultural and linguistic differences than modern Spain and France. Yet both Spain and France are considered separate civilizations in the game and China is considered one due to its long history of political unity.
English:
I have very little against the inclusion of the English, as the British Empire was unquestionably the world's greatest power in the 19th century. Neither with Elizabeth being their leader or with the city names on the list. The only historical error I've noticed is Boudicea being one of their great leaders, as she was actually the last leader of the Britons in their rebellion against Rome, while the ancestors of the English still lived in present Germany. But that is little.
Germans:
Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is undoubtedly the most successful politician in German history, as he succeeded in everything he ever did, and I consider him an excellent choice for the Germans' leader. Their city list however I have a problem with. Why so short when there are plenty of old and significant cities in Germany? Why the stupid misspelling of Heidelberg and having the state of Brandenburg, the old heartland of the kingdom of Prussia, as a city name? What ever happened to such important centres of trade like Luebeck and ancient Roman cities like Trier, which was indeed the Roman capital for a short time? And even if we accept some ancient Germanic chiefs as great leaders, why does the "Red Baron" Manfred von Richthofen have to be included with his name vandalized? Inconceivable.
French:
This is ridiculous. Somehow I get the feeling the makers of the game wanted to include female leaders in the game, but France? When truth is that France has never been ruled by a woman, there has always been a male king, emperor or president. And there would have been so many other good candidates like Napoleon or "Le Roi Soleil" Louis XIV. As for the list of cities, the only slight error is that Lyons is also in the Roman city list as Lugdunum, but since these are separated by several centuries and with civilizations overlapping each other's territories it really doesn't matter. Also, I would rather have made Strasbourg a German city which it was until the French conquest of Alsace in the late 17th century.
Russians:
Unlike the other European civilizations, I would qualify the Russians as not being part of the uniform Western civilization. Traditionally Russian culture was very different from the Christian west and remained so until the time of Czar Peter the Great. Personally, I would have included a completely new culture group with Russia and Byzantium as its two members. As for the choice of leader, Catherine is not a bad choice although Czar Peter probably was the more significant ruler of the two. As for the cities, no matter how people may argue about Kiev, Minsk, Grozny and other such cities not being Russian, they were parts of the Russian empire for centuries and I would pass them.
PLAY THE WORLD additions:
Spanish:
The problem I have with the Spanish is the same as with all West European civilizations, it should be a nation and state but not a separate civilization. But since playing something like the European Union as a civilization would not be much fun I accept it as necessary. Isabella is also a fairly good choice for the Spanish leader. The city list I have not seen as I don't have PTW myself.
Vikings:
My goodness. This has got to be the worst collection of historical errors, violations and absurdities in the game. First of all, the inclusion of the Vikings is not such a bad idea, because they had a very distinct culture signified by their own language, art, architecture, religion and social life. The fact that this culture was assimilated to the Christian west and has been extinct for centuries now doesn't change the fact. The problems start with the leader and city list. Who ever heard of Ragnar Lodbrok? I'm from Finland and an amateur historian, and I'd never heard of him. Making an unknown barbarian chieftain the leader of a civilization is what I call pointless, my choice would have been one of the early Danish or Norwegian kings, possibly Knut the Great who ruled an empire consisting of all of Denmark, parts of Norway and Sweden and all of England. Of the city names I have seen only some, but what I've seen didn't please me. Why Trondheim as the capital? It was never a capital of any kind in Scandinavia. One of the oldest city-like settlements was Birka in Sweden, the central site of Denmark has always been Copenhagen, and the site of the Norwegian kings was Bergen. Of the other cities, there are many nonexistent or just plain poor choices. My own home city as a Viking settlement? Idiotic. Almost as bad as the nonexistent Thunderfall.
Celts:
This was a really bad choice. As if having two overlapping civilizations (France and Rome) was not enough, they had to add a third to really complicate matters. Not to mention the fact that there never was any Celtic empire, nor any unified Celtic nation. There was a group of related languages, a cultural area and some sort of social unity enabling them to amass their forces in the ultimately futile effort to resist Caesar's conquest of Gaul. But they never got as far to have actual cities of their own. I would never have considered including them.
MEDITERRANEAN CULTURE:
Romans:
If they were left out of the game I would not look at such a mockery of world history. The importance of Rome to world history is rivalled only by that of China. Caesar is also a natural choice for a leader, although he was not really an emperor. The title of emperor was first given to Augustus (imperator) and in some languages the word for emperor comes from the name Caesar (Kaiser, keisari). Caesar's actual title was dictator, which was an actual government office, but I can understand why they did not call him that. Of the cities, Lugdunum and Londonium are also present in the game with their modern names of Lyons and London, but as I stated before I think it's okay.
Greeks:
The Greeks never formed a single political entity, but had dozens of small city-states of which Athens and Sparta were most important. Still, Greeks must be included, and Athens is deservedly the capital as the intellectual and cultural capital of ancient Greece. Alexander is somewhat harder to justify as he was not Greek but Macedonian, although firmly within the sphere of Hellenistic culture. And there would be only few choices besides Alexander. Who here has ever heard of Pericles, the ruler of Athens in its war against Sparta?
Egyptians:
The Egyptians are also vital to the game, but I would have rather made them part of the Near Eastern group. Why? The Egyptians only became part of the Mediterranean group after the conquest of Alexander and the advance of Hellenistic culture. There had been more than 3000 years of Egyptian history before that, and this is ignored in favor of the relatively short Ptolemaic period? This may be because they wanted Cleopatra, who was the last Ptolemaic ruler, to be the leader, but just for this I would have favored Ramesses. Also, if they wanted the late Egyptian period in the game, why did they not make Alexandria the capital? Thebes and Memphis were the ancient capitals, more suited for Ramesses. Of the great leaders, I see one strange error of Cheops and Khufu being seperate although they are but two variations of the same name and therefore one person.
PLAY THE WORLD additions:
Carthaginians:
If they must be included Hannibal is the obvious choice for a leader, but why them? Carthage was but one of the many Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean and the center of a large empire, but too short-lived to have been significant. I would have chosen Byzantium in the game any day over Carthage. Also, I would have liked to see elephants as their special unit, if only to commend Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with elephants in his army.
NEAR EASTERN CULTURE:
Babylonians:
Too important to leave out. Hammurabi is also an obvious leader choice. The only trouble I have is that I would have liked to see the Assyrians as an independent civilization rather than as a part of Babylonia, as they were historically two separate nations constantly at war against each other. But, it is a fact that their cultures were similar enough to include only one.
Persians:
As the ancient adversary of the Greeks and a world-class empire the Persians deserve to be included, although I've had problems finding names for my Babylonian cities when the Persians were also in the game. Xerxes is not a bad choice for a ruler either. Really, the only problem left is to decide which cities are Babylonian and which are Persian, since the territories of both were largely the same and many cities belonged to both, including Babylon itself.
Zulus:
Somebody please get rid of these guys. For one thing, they had nothing to do with the Near Eastern culture group. Second, the fortress of Zimbabwe had been in ruins long before Shaka came about. Third, fact is that there were no real civilizations in Africa, and attempting to make up one such as this only gets stupid. Now, there were kingdoms such as Mali, Songhay and Abessinia in Africa. Why could they not be included instead of the Zulus? Of course no one ever heard of any of those, but they still deserve to be called civilizations more than the Zulus. Of the three, Abessinia or Ethiopia would be the best candidate, but perhaps the makers thought that including a Christian state would have been politically incorrect?
PLAY THE WORLD additions:
Arabs:
The greatest violation to history in Civilization I was the absence of Arabs. Islamic culture is today the second most widespread after West European and its historical importance was at least equal to that of Rome. Many of the ancient Greek and Roman works survived only as Arabic translations, and the numbers we use even today are Arabic. I remember wishing many times there were Arabs in the game, with caliph Harun ar-Rashid and Baghdad as their capital. Well, what did I get? Mohammed's nephew and Mecca, which is of course the religious center of the Islamic world, but unlike Baghdad hardly a political one.
Ottomans:
I would have been more than satisfied with just the Arabs, but when they decided to add Islamic cultures one was apparently not enough. Well, I do agree the Ottoman empire was long-lived, vast in size and power and ahead of Europe until the 17th century, but still I would have liked to have Byzantium instead. And we can't have both, since the capital of both was Constantinople. Truly, calling the Ottoman capital Istanbul is stupid, since the city was renamed to Istanbul only after the Ottomans were history.
