Create a good vanilla line-up for Civilization

[Zaarin]

Tibet

Won't happen: China is a major market for Civ.

its like recommending Yuan or Mongol emperors as leaders of China.

Which is perfectly in keeping with Chinese historiography; one does not have to be Han to be Chinese, even by Chinese reckoning. As far as the Chinese are concerned, the Wei, Jin, Liao, Xia, Yuan, and Qing were Chinese, even if they weren't Han. For another perspective, the overwhelming majority of Roman emperors were not ethnically Roman; one was even an ethnic Carthaginian, traditional enemy of Rome. Modern peoples place a lot more emphasis on ethnicity than many of our forebears did.

Mughals speak turkic language at home and Persian at court

Considering how many ethnicities and religions call India home and how many languages are spoken there, I don't think language is a compelling argument. However, I do think it's a shame that as the Civ franchise moves away from blobs, we're still stuck with an Indian blob civ. I think India ought to be divided into two or three civs; there's no reason one of them couldn't or shouldn't be the Mughals led by Shah Jahan or Akbar.

I'd like to have Teddy Roosevelt lead America again but after seeing a bit of a tv series about John Adams I definitely wouldn't mind seeing him lead either!

I've enjoyed having Teddy, but either Adams or Silent Cal would be someone new.

 

[SagarRathore]

Won't happen: China is a major market for Civ.


Which is perfectly in keeping with Chinese historiography; one does not have to be Han to be Chinese, even by Chinese reckoning. As far as the Chinese are concerned, the Wei, Jin, Liao, Xia, Yuan, and Qing were Chinese, even if they weren't Han. For another perspective, the overwhelming majority of Roman emperors were not ethnically Roman; one was even an ethnic Carthaginian, traditional enemy of Rome. Modern peoples place a lot more emphasis on ethnicity than many of our forebears did.


Considering how many ethnicities and religions call India home and how many languages are spoken there, I don't think language is a compelling argument. However, I do think it's a shame that as the Civ franchise moves away from blobs, we're still stuck with an Indian blob civ. I think India ought to be divided into two or three civs; there's no reason one of them couldn't or shouldn't be the Mughals led by Shah Jahan or Akbar.


I've enjoyed having Teddy, but either Adams or Silent Cal would be someone new.

I wish Tibet to be there buy yeah Chinese rule now
Even Chinese see Qing as more Chinese then they see Yuan or Mongol for that Matter Why? Simple Qing adopted majority Chinese civilization may be Han civilization and build on that they formed large empire.
On which PRC claim large amount of land they have taken land from almost all their neighbours on the basis of Qing empire.So in the end it prooved beneficiary to them to build 9.6 milliom sq.km large country.
Quite contrast to earlier mongols who slaughter half of China's population.
In the same way many ethnic people came to India and formed large empire Indo greeks,indo parthians,sythians,kushans etc but one thing was common with them they got indianized .They got assimilated to local culture.
But later invaders like Mughals were already Turkish-Persianized they never got mix with the society and formed a class (including converted locals) who saw themselves distinct and superior to locals and hence it lead to partion of India.
Modern India controls only 3.1 million sq km.
Though India have many languages but most of them belong to Indo aryan or dravida language and Turkish belong to entirely different language family.
By your logic even a Korean speaking guy can rule India.

 

[Zaarin]

By your logic even a Korean speaking guy can rule India.

I highly doubt India has a large Korean population (China, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan do); I know for a fact that no one whose native language is Korean has ever ruled any portion of India. I also know that Iranian-speakers have ruled portions of India and that Iranian and Turkic speakers still form important minorities in India. Also NB that I never argued for a Mughal leader of India; I argued for a separate Mughal civ. I don't think India should be a single civ but at least two or three, of which the Mughal Empire should be one--but so should the Tamil or Chola Empire and the Maurya Empire.

 

[SagarRathore]

I highly doubt India has a large Korean population (China, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan do); I know for a fact that no one whose native language is Korean has ever ruled any portion of India. I also know that Iranian-speakers have ruled portions of India and that Iranian and Turkic speakers still form important minorities in India. Also NB that I never argued for a Mughal leader of India; I argued for a separate Mughal civ. I don't think India should be a single civ but at least two or three, of which the Mughal Empire should be one--but so should the Tamil or Chola Empire and the Maurya Empire.

There are no Turkish speakers in India Persian loan words are there in Hindi just like sanskrit loan words are in English a normal phenomenon.
By the way there have been no prime minister of India who cannot speak Hindi.Despite all the diverse language Hindi is commonly used all over the country except deep south.So public can never accept ruler who cannot speak their language moreover seek to replace their mother tongue with alien language.
You are getting confused between civilization and nation.
Let me quote Gandhi for you "India is not a nation but Civilization".Just because European cannot keep themselves together one cannot conclude they all are different civilization,They can be different nations.
India is one civilization there can be different nations inside it.Similar argument goes for China.
So India(and China) should be one civ with more than one leader.
In this perspective majority Indians don't see Mughals as representative of their Civilization.

 

[Zaarin]

Persian loan words are there in Hindi just like sanskrit loan words are in English a normal phenomenon.

There are also the Iranis, some of whom continue to speak Dari, though I can't seem to find much information on their numbers; Parsis are also Iranian though they no longer speak Iranian languages. Between the two there are more Zoroastrians in India than there are in Greater Persia. There are over 3,000,000 Pashtuns in India proper, and ten times that number if you consider Pakistan as historically part of India. In a similar vein, Balochi people make up a significant portion of the population of Pakistan. I'm not saying this to argue for an Iranian leader of India, but I wouldn't call the Iranian-speaking presence in India (especially Greater India) insignificant.

By the way there have been no prime minister of India who cannot speak Hindi.Despite all the diverse language Hindi is commonly used all over the country except deep south.So public can never accept ruler who cannot speak their language moreover seek to replace their mother tongue with alien language.

I don't personally believe the politics or demographics of the modern nation should be influential in picking a leader for a civilization. Again, I don't mean this as an argument for a Mughal leader of India--as I've stated I'd rather see a separate Mughal civ--but I don't think modern preferences need to influence the leader choice. I would point out that one of the current leaders of England in the game speaks Occitan, as would virtually any Medieval English monarch, even though Occitan is no longer spoken in England (and is dwindling even in Provence).

You are getting confused between civilization and nation.
Let me quote Gandhi for you "India is not a nation but Civilization".Just because European cannot keep themselves together one cannot conclude they all are different civilization,They can be different nations.

Actually on the contrary I'm a strong advocate for looking at civilizations over nations (which is why I have zero problems with having a Holy Roman Emperor lead Germany). I think there's a good argument to be made for splitting India into multiple civilizations, the modern nation of India being a (rather forceful) merging of many different peoples. I will freely acknowledge that I am not an expert on Indian history, but this is the viewpoint I've gotten from more than one Indian acquaintance and from what I do know of Indian history.

In this perspective majority Indians don't see Mughals as representative of their Civilization.

Which is perfectly fair. Again, I'm in favor of seeing them as their own civilization, separate from India, whether India is split or kept as one civilization.

 

[SagarRathore]

There are also the Iranis, some of whom continue to speak Dari, though I can't seem to find much information on their numbers; Parsis are also Iranian though they no longer speak Iranian languages. Between the two there are more Zoroastrians in India than there are in Greater Persia. There are over 3,000,000 Pashtuns in India proper, and ten times that number if you consider Pakistan as historically part of India. In a similar vein, Balochi people make up a significant portion of the population of Pakistan. I'm not saying this to argue for an Iranian leader of India, but I wouldn't call the Iranian-speaking presence in India (especially Greater India) insignificant.


I don't personally believe the politics or demographics of the modern nation should be influential in picking a leader for a civilization. Again, I don't mean this as an argument for a Mughal leader of India--as I've stated I'd rather see a separate Mughal civ--but I don't think modern preferences need to influence the leader choice. I would point out that one of the current leaders of England in the game speaks Occitan, as would virtually any Medieval English monarch, even though Occitan is no longer spoken in England (and is dwindling even in Provence).


Actually on the contrary I'm a strong advocate for looking at civilizations over nations (which is why I have zero problems with having a Holy Roman Emperor lead Germany). I think there's a good argument to be made for splitting India into multiple civilizations, the modern nation of India being a (rather forceful) merging of many different peoples. I will freely acknowledge that I am not an expert on Indian history, but this is the viewpoint I've gotten from more than one Indian acquaintance and from what I do know of Indian history.


Which is perfectly fair. Again, I'm in favor of seeing them as their own civilization, separate from India, whether India is split or kept as one civilization.

I am not going to debate on Iranic people presence in India but they never crossed Indus river.By the way if indo aryan story is true we are related.Parsis migrated to India to avoid persecution not to rule.Pastun had their day but it was too short and I dont call them proper Iranic but Indo-Iranian and their origin is still not clear.
No Persian ruler ruled India instead it was Persianized Central Asians who got success.Before them due Indianized Central Asian,Buddhism was spreading.
But the Important debate is to call India a forcefull amalgum of different people.I never hear this argument for China as British never ruled them.When I saw civilopedia I thought it was written by ex-east India company officer who hate India.
That's why I quoted Gandhiji ,I don't think anyone of modern time had better grasp of Indology than him.India is one civilization with its core values and way of life.Dharmic concepts cut across ethnicity,regions and even religion.
I don't know about your source of Indology.But I will ask if you are interested to read Gandhi ji concept of India and how he stop similar propaganda by British to see India as different civilizations.
I agree there can be many states,nation etc in India.May be your concept of civilization is different to mine.

 

[Zaarin]

I am not going to debate on Iranic people presence in India but they never crossed Indus river.By the way if indo aryan story is true we are related.Parsis migrated to India to avoid persecution not to rule.Pastun had their day but it was too short and I dont call them proper Iranic but Indo-Iranian and their origin is still not clear.
No Persian ruler ruled India

Yes, Iranians are related to the Indo-Aryans (Indo-Iranian refers collectively to the Iranians and Indo-Aryans). Pashtuns are Eastern Iranian, most likely close relatives (but not descendants) of the people who wrote the Avesta. Again I'm not arguing for a Persian or Persianized ruler of India; I was objecting to the notion that there are no Iranian-speakers in India.

May be your concept of civilization is different to mine.

Yes, definitions are helpful, and I think we're miscommunicating based on different definitions. I would define a civilization as a group of urbanized, agrarian people who practice a distinct culture, speak the same language, and in most cases practice the same religion (but there's wiggle room here--I wouldn't call Austria and Prussia separate civilizations just because the former is Catholic and the latter is Protestant). In most cases a civilization will represent a single ethnicity, but multiethnic civilizations are possible. A civilization does not have to be contained in a single polity, and a single polity can encompass more than one civilization (for example, at its height Rome contained dozens of civilizations, especially in Asia where Romanization was less thorough).

I'm not expert enough on India to support my argument that India should not be a single civilization, but I do feel that splitting it into multiple civilizations would allow for a more nuanced portrayal of a very ancient civilization. I also know that many Indians I've spoken to feel that modern India is an artificial construct and don't think of themselves as Indian but Punjabi or Marathi or Tamil or Hindi.

 

[SagarRathore]

Yes, Iranians are related to the Indo-Aryans (Indo-Iranian refers collectively to the Iranians and Indo-Aryans). Pashtuns are Eastern Iranian, most likely close relatives (but not descendants) of the people who wrote the Avesta. Again I'm not arguing for a Persian or Persianized ruler of India; I was objecting to the notion that there are no Iranian-speakers in India.


Yes, definitions are helpful, and I think we're miscommunicating based on different definitions. I would define a civilization as a group of urbanized, agrarian people who practice a distinct culture, speak the same language, and in most cases practice the same religion (but there's wiggle room here--I wouldn't call Austria and Prussia separate civilizations just because the former is Catholic and the latter is Protestant). In most cases a civilization will represent a single ethnicity, but multiethnic civilizations are possible. A civilization does not have to be contained in a single polity, and a single polity can encompass more than one civilization (for example, at its height Rome contained dozens of civilizations, especially in Asia where Romanization was less thorough).

I'm not expert enough on India to support my argument that India should not be a single civilization, but I do feel that splitting it into multiple civilizations would allow for a more nuanced portrayal of a very ancient civilization. I also know that many Indians I've spoken to feel that modern India is an artificial construct and don't think of themselves as Indian but Punjabi or Marathi or Tamil or Hindi.

I will like to ask your Indian friend who is Punjabi why can't he managed to live with Punjabi Muslim who is more closer to him than say someone from Hindi Heartland.
From Marathi why Maratha rulers were so obsessed to restore Kashi Vishwanath temple in Varanasi.Why there is much problem between Tamil Brahmins and low caste in Tamil Nadu.There are villages where groups have lived side by side for two thousands years without intermarriages.
I will love to meet someone who call himself Hindi.As far as I have seen there is no ethnicity who is Hindi.I am a Hindi Speaker of khadi boli dialect but when I go to my own village I have tough time to understand their dialect of Hindi.Hindi is umbrella term for many dialects of north India.By your logic even my city and village can be in different civilization.
There is famous saying here,if you move 20 km dialect will change and move 40 km taste of water change.
Civilization is society which has it own highly developed culture and way of life.This society can have multiple language,ethinicties,religious traditions etc.
Even foreign people can assimilate into it and can give it freshness without changing it's core values.Even Gandhiji supported this idea.A civilization which is open and have multiple ways to manifest itself without compromising it's core values will never fall for ex China,India,Europe etc.

 

[Jkchart]

There were 18 civs + a pre-order bonus in vanilla Civ6, so I went with that. It's still Europe-heavy, but not nearly as Europe-heavy as vanilla Civ6. I kept quite a few of the dev's interesting leader choices, but I changed some of them as well. I also had the gall to cut all three of Civ's mascots (Gandhi, Alexander, Montezuma); I make no apologies.

America (Calvin Coolidge)
England (Elizabeth I)
France (Louis XIV)
Germany (Frederick Barbarossa)
Greece (Pericles)
Rome (Trajan)
Russia (Catherine the Great)

Egypt (Hatshepsut)
Ethiopia (Zar'a Ya'qob)

Arabia (Harun al-Rashid)
Persia (Cyrus II + Shappur II)
Sumer (Gudea)

China (Taizong)
India (Shah Jehan)
Japan (Hojo Tokimune)
Khmer (Jayavarman VII)
Mongolia (Kublai Khan)

Powhatan (Powhatan)
Maya (Lady Six Sky)

+

Spain (Philip II) as a pre-order bonus.

I...I could live with this list easily