Does Any Other Civ Have a Issue/Problem Similar to one Egypt Has?

[InsidiousMage]

I was going to put in the issue in the title but that would make it unnecessarily long. In another thread some suggested Muhammad Ali Pasha a leader for Egypt, who would be a perfectly fine leader, but he's ethnically Albanian which got me thinking about how long Egypt was ruled by non-Egyptian dynasties. You start with Pharaonic dynasties, which still included some non-Egyptian dynasties, then you have Persian domination, the Ptolemies (Greco-Macedonian), Roman domination, Arab domination under the Caliphate, the Tulunids (a Mamluk dynasty), the Ikhshidids (Mamluks ruling in the name of the Abbasids), the Fatimids, then Saladin and the Ayyubids (Kurdish in origin), The Mamluks, then Ottoman and finally British domination until independence in the 1920s. Outside of the Pharaohs, you don't get a native Egyptian ruler until the modern period which means that any native Egyptian ruler in the game is going to have to be a Pharaoh, given Firaxis's preference against using modern leaders. Obviously, the Pharaohs ruled for a long time, almost 3,000 years, but they feel of a kind in way that, say, the Achaemenids, Parthians, and Sasanids don't feel. I can't really think of any other possible Civ that would have a similar dynamic but I'll admit to my own limited knowledge in the matter.

As a bit of a side note, although Firaxis prefers the obvious, well-known choices for civs and leaders, I wonder how much the lack of post-Pharaonic "native" rulers would be a limiting factor for them if they wanted to do someone other than a Pharaoh.

 

[Zaarin]

It's not even the same civilization IMO, any more than Iraq is Babylon. Sure, they're genetically the same people, but their culture got essentially rewritten from the ground up by the Arab conquest (which was less significant genetically than some like to claim--studies have shown Copts and Muslim Egyptians to be virtually identical to each other and to Pharoanic Egyptians--but the cultural consequences were radical). Even Christianization and Hellenization took a pretty hefty toll on Egyptian culture. So I'd object to Muhammad Ali Pasha less for being Albanian and more for being entirely the wrong civilization--like having George Washington lead the Powhatan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't personally see it as an issue in that Egypt in Civ, and most historical games, is always portrayed as Pharaonic Egypt. I'd still consider modern Egypt part of the broader Arabian civilization, which we have in the game as well.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It's not even the same civilization IMO, any more than Iraq is Babylon. Sure, they're genetically the same people, but their culture got essentially rewritten from the ground up by the Arab conquest (which was less significant genetically than some like to claim--studies have shown Copts and Muslim Egyptians to be virtually identical to each other and to Pharoanic Egyptians--but the cultural consequences were radical). Even Christianization and Hellenization took a pretty hefty toll on Egyptian culture. So I'd object to Muhammad Ali Pasha less for being Albanian and more for being entirely the wrong civilization--like having George Washington lead the Powhatan.

Sure, you're not wrong, but by your definition Cyrus and Nader Shah and then Gandhi and Chandragupta should lead different civs but they don't because, for now, Firaxis has a tendency towards combining two civs into where they feel like they can. I'm speaking to the issue in that context but, for the record, I'm 100% in favor of breaking up civs instead of trying to represent hundreds, or thousands, of years of history with only one civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Sure, you're not wrong, but by your definition Cyrus and Nader Shah and then Gandhi and Chandragupta should lead different civs but they don't because, for now, Firaxis has a tendency towards combining two civs into where they feel like they can. I'm speaking to the issue in that context but, for the record, I'm 100% in favor of breaking up civs instead of trying to represent hundreds, or thousands, of years of history with only one civ.

I agree about Gandhi/Chandragupta, but there's a case to be made for Persian continuity. I wouldn't necessarily be the one to make it, but the case is there. At any rate, the situation is not comparable: Egyptian identity was subsumed by Arab identity except in a small, poor minority population until 20th century Egyptian nationalists decided they wanted to be pharaohs again; on the other hand, there have been people who considered themselves "Persians" (or more technically Aryans/Iranians) from at least 3,000 years ago until the present (narrowing "Aryan" to mean Old Persian speakers since some variation thereof was used as an endonym by Indo-Iranian speakers probably going back 5,000 years). So where I'd at least hear out an argument on Persian continuity, even if I might prefer to be a splitter myself, there's not even an argument to be made on Egyptian continuity (since the Copts were far from the halls of power and were, at any rate, more heirs of Hellenic culture than Pharaonic).

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

As for all conundrums, it's always better to see it through comparison.

Would a modern leader alongside an ancient leader would fit for Egypt, because they share the same name and some sort of continuity? I don't know. Would civ fans would accept Basil II or Theodora as a leader for the Roman Empire, and not having the Byzantine Empire? I think the obvious answer is: no. Byzantine and Roman empires are considered distinct entities, despite them having -or, at least, claiming- a continuity. The Byzantine Emperors still called themselves Rome. Yet, the cultural shift between Rome and Byzantium is clear enough to guarantee distinct civilizations in the game.

Thus, the cultural shift between Ancient Egypt and Modern Egypt is big enough to guarantee distinct civilizations. Putting a modern leader leading Egypt would feel as wrong as putting Justinian as the leader for Rome.

As for the China/India problem, I think we go through another problem taking its source to tradition. Firaxis tradition, to be more precise. The favourite leader for China was Mao Zedong for a long time, but yet, starting at Civ II, the feminine leader was Wu Zhao, a classical leader. So, from very early on, the Chinese were supposed to represent both modern and ancient China. Knowing that China is, like Egypt, a game staple, changing things from it is risky. Starting to split the Chinese might be seen as a bad move, that's why -in my opinion- Firaxis decided to go the route of giving 4 leaders to China (if we count the two Qin as one): Qin, Yongle, Wu Zetian and Kublai each represent different periods for a polity that, in the eyes of Firaxis, appears as continuous (and, here, the argument can be made just like @Zaarin made it for Persia: there was some sort of cultural, political and "ideal" continuity of the entity. Dynasties could change, but it was the same people who decided to give or take the Mandate of Heaven). Same thing for India: Firaxis made it a single polity from the beginning, mixing modern and ancient leaders, and we might be stuck with this tradition.

However, Egypt never had this tradition of mixing Ancient and Modern. Egypt, in the Civ Franchise, always represented Ancient Egypt. The most modern leader was Cleopatra, the two others being Hatchepsut and Ramesses. The tradition is having Egypt as an ancient civ, so they will probably stick to it.

However, we also had the tradition of having Alexander leading the Greeks, tradition that stopped with this iteration. Perhaps it will change for Egypt in the future? Maybe. However, seeing how Firaxis is going through the particularist road (dividing the English and the Scots while both representing the British era of their countries, having the Gauls alongside the French, separating Norway and Sweden, adding Gran Columbia...), I think that if ever we have a modern Egyptian leader, it won't lead the Egyptians as we know it.

Because, at the end of the line, when we look at it, the collective consciousness of Egypt is not of the modern country, but of the Ancient Pharaos, of Pyramids and Cleopatra, of this disgusting blob spanning three to five thousands years, venerating Ra and Thot, And, while it has been an effort from Firaxis of the past years to lean more on the historical accuracy, they still deal heavily in what we, as a society, consider a culture. Germany is industrial and militarist, France is cultural, Rome is expansionnist, Byzantium is religious, Babylon is scientific, and Egypt is Ancient.

 

[nzcamel]

As for all conundrums, it's always better to see it through comparison.

Would a modern leader alongside an ancient leader would fit for Egypt, because they share the same name and some sort of continuity? I don't know. Would civ fans would accept Basil II or Theodora as a leader for the Roman Empire, and not having the Byzantine Empire? I think the obvious answer is: no. Byzantine and Roman empires are considered distinct entities, despite them having -or, at least, claiming- a continuity. The Byzantine Emperors still called themselves Rome. Yet, the cultural shift between Rome and Byzantium is clear enough to guarantee distinct civilizations in the game.

I diasgree
I'm all for the view that Rome's split into east and west, and the survival of the east long after the west is still well represented in the one Civ. I'm not going to get into the details of the arguments for or against, but there are plenty of us who would have no problem if Byzantium (a country/empire/civilization that never existed till we decided it did (sorry, couldn't help myself but to put one jab in lol!)) never appeared in Civ again.

To the OP, the reality is that this issue you raise has affected pretty much all of the civilizations in game, though I'd agree Egypt is one of the more obvious examples as there is a cultural continuity over multiple millenia, even when the region was completely dominated. England/Great Britain is another good example, but as her height was not thousands of years ago, it's easier to ignore that during less prominent parts of her history, the people's living where the English, Scots, or British do now, were Celts, and Britians, and Welsh, and Picts and German tribes other than the Angles, and Danes etc etc etc. Of course they mostly all feed into the ethnicity of English/British of today; but then so do all people's, almost everywhere, feed into the modern ethnicity of their states too, including the ancient Egyptians.

 

[Zaarin]

and Britians

Britons. And the Britons were Celtic, though they probably would not have described themselves as such, and they were the ancestors of the Welsh and Cornish and Bretons--and probably cousins of the Picts, who increasingly appear to have been P-Celtic-speakers*.

*There is no consensus on the genealogical division of the Celtic languages, but two common schemes are Continental vs. Insular Celtic or P-Celtic vs. Q-Celtic. In all likelihood, neither is genetic. At any rate, P-Celtic vs. Q-Celtic refers to the outcome of Proto-Indo-European /kʷ/: /p/ in P-Celtic (Brythonic, Gaulish) or /kʷ/ > /k/ in Q-Celtic (Celtiberian, Goidelic, perhaps some dialects of Gaulish). Some more extreme scholars propose there is no Celtic language family, but IMO the evidence does not support that conclusion. Instead, I'd suggest the conservative view is that Celtiberian, Goidelic, Brythonic, and Gaulish-Lepontic all represent basal subfamilies within Celtic--though the jury is still out on a closer relationship between Gaulish and Brythonic--and that P-Celtic was an areal feature rather than a genetic one, much like satemization. If your eyes are glazed over at this point, I'm completely used to it.

I'm all for the view that Rome's split into east and west, and the survival of the east long after the west is still well represented in the one Civ. I'm not going to get into the details of the arguments for or against, but there are plenty of us who would have no problem if Byzantium (a country/empire/civilization that never existed till we decided it did (sorry, couldn't help myself but to put one jab in lol!)) never appeared in Civ again.

Ignoring whether they were different from a historical perspective, simply from a game perspective, I strongly disagree for two reasons: Rome is fundamentally going to be a utilitarian expansionist infrastructure civ (and I think it's actually hilarious that Rome is a decent culture civ in Civ6), while Byzantium is going to be a turtling religion-and-culture civ (Civ6's domination-focused Byzantium being a strange anomaly). I think having Byzantium as the center of Orthodoxy and as a religion-focused culture civ is desirable, and if I had to sacrifice one I'd actually sacrifice Rome over Byzantium--mostly because I think utilitarian expansionism is boring and that the actual Roman Empire was boring. But since we're not going to lose Rome, I'd prefer to continue to have Byzantium as a separate civ, ideally consistently portrayed with Medieval leaders (Alexios I Komnenos, please and thank you, but Irene of Athens would be a welcome substitute for Theodora if necessary).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

However, seeing how Firaxis is going through the particularist road (dividing the English and the British

Where did they divide English and the British? England in Civ 6 was basically British until GS.

Germany is industrial and militarist

Except for the Swan King, hopefully.

Ignoring whether they were different from a historical perspective, simply from a game perspective, I strongly disagree for two reasons: Rome is fundamentally going to be a utilitarian expansionist infrastructure civ (and I think it's actually hilarious that Rome is a decent culture civ in Civ6), while Byzantium is going to be a turtling religion-and-culture civ (Civ6's domination-focused Byzantium being a strange anomaly).

Watch Theodora turn Byzantium into an expansionist infrastructure civ.

 

[nzcamel]

Britons. And the Britons were Celtic, though they probably would not have described themselves as such, and they were the ancestors of the Welsh and Cornish and Bretons--and probably cousins of the Picts, who increasingly appear to have been P-Celtic-speakers*.

*There is no consensus on the genealogical division of the Celtic languages, but two common schemes are Continental vs. Insular Celtic or P-Celtic vs. Q-Celtic. In all likelihood, neither is genetic. At any rate, P-Celtic vs. Q-Celtic refers to the outcome of Proto-Indo-European /kʷ/: /p/ in P-Celtic (Brythonic, Gaulish) or /kʷ/ > /k/ in Q-Celtic (Celtiberian, Goidelic, perhaps some dialects of Gaulish). Some more extreme scholars propose there is no Celtic language family, but IMO the evidence does not support that conclusion. Instead, I'd suggest the conservative view is that Celtiberian, Goidelic, Brythonic, and Gaulish-Lepontic all represent basal subfamilies within Celtic--though the jury is still out on a closer relationship between Gaulish and Brythonic--and that P-Celtic was an areal feature rather than a genetic one, much like satemization. If your eyes are glazed over at this point, I'm completely used to it.


Ignoring whether they were different from a historical perspective, simply from a game perspective, I strongly disagree for two reasons: Rome is fundamentally going to be a utilitarian expansionist infrastructure civ (and I think it's actually hilarious that Rome is a decent culture civ in Civ6), while Byzantium is going to be a turtling religion-and-culture civ (Civ6's domination-focused Byzantium being a strange anomaly). I think having Byzantium as the center of Orthodoxy and as a religion-focused culture civ is desirable, and if I had to sacrifice one I'd actually sacrifice Rome over Byzantium--mostly because I think utilitarian expansionism is boring and that the actual Roman Empire was boring. But since we're not going to lose Rome, I'd prefer to continue to have Byzantium as a separate civ, ideally consistently portrayed with Medieval leaders (Alexios I Komnenos, please and thank you, but Irene of Athens would be a welcome substitute for Theodora if necessary).

I, as always have a deep abiding respect for your opinions...and still disagree where it comes to Rome and that sub culture of Rome known to modern scholars etc as Byzantium even though I get that splitting out the latter is nice for playing with more asymmetrical civ abilities.
Just as I'd rather see long lasting "civilisations" like India, Egypt, and China kept together with different leaders highlighting different shifts in their history; so too the same with Rome.

Certainly our nationalistic way of viewing the world oversimplifies it's ethnic and racial complexity.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think Egypt's issue is basically that it spent much of the past two millennia under the rule of other empires, and was culturally indoctrinated by them, first hellenized then Arabized. I'm not keen on seeing any civ be led by a ruler imposed on the native population by a foreign conqueror. While China has had this experience, they also culturally assimilated their conquerors. Egypt did not.

Also a post-colonnial leader for Egypt would feel weird paired with Sphinxes (as presented currently), and would do better with an archeology theme. I feel Firaxis would be better off having a fully different civ for ancient Egypt vs modern Egypt, if they were to do such a thing.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'm all for the view that Rome's split into east and west, and the survival of the east long after the west is still well represented in the one Civ. I'm not going to get into the details of the arguments for or against, but there are plenty of us who would have no problem if Byzantium (a country/empire/civilization that never existed till we decided it did (sorry, couldn't help myself but to put one jab in lol!)) never appeared in Civ again.

I think it's very important to make a distinction between what people on CivFanatics forum think it's best, and what the other players might want. We have to face it: we are a small community of highly fanatic people with a keen interest in History, therefore our opinions might be too expert-y. We have to keep in mind that what a lot of people want will be based upon a cultural representation of a civ rather than a historical representation (like the Maoris represented as environmentalist while historically they did some pretty heavy ecological damage to the islands). We have too many Byzaboos to live without them (unfortunately or not...).

Where did they divide English and the British? England in Civ 6 was basically British until GS.

It was 3 in the morning, I was tired, and I wanted to say (obviously) dividing the British Isles between English and Scots, while both representing their British eras (except for Robert Bruce).

Except for the Swan King, hopefully.

Even if Luwig II is cultural, he would still get the Hansa, arguably one of the best unique district in the game, and a gigantic boost to industry and productivity. Moreover, since Ludwig II is part of the "Great Builders" pack, he might even have a bonus to industry. In a sort. For wonders or anything. But, nonetheless, even under Ludwig II, Germany will have a heavy industrial component.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It was 3 in the morning, I was tired, and I wanted to say (obviously) dividing the British Isles between English and Scots, while both representing their British eras (except for Robert Bruce).

I've always lumped Scotland together with Gaul as the two "Celtic" civs. Whenever they announced Scotland, I figured that the Celtic blob, at least from Civ 5 because of their inclusion of Scottish cities, would be broken up. Because they were portrayed as too modern, they then rectified it by giving us Gaul too.

Even if Luwig II is cultural, he would still get the Hansa, arguably one of the best unique district in the game, and a gigantic boost to industry and productivity. Moreover, since Ludwig II is part of the "Great Builders" pack, he might even have a bonus to industry. In a sort. For wonders or anything. But, nonetheless, even under Ludwig II, Germany will have a heavy industrial component.

Yes, that's true. My main point is that he'll at least get Germany away from being militaristic. I expect he'll use the Hansas to build those wonders of his easier.

 

[pokiehl]

I think Egypt's issue is basically that it spent much of the past two millennia under the rule of other empires, and was culturally indoctrinated by them, first hellenized then Arabized. I'm not keen on seeing any civ be led by a ruler imposed on the native population by a foreign conqueror. While China has had this experience, they also culturally assimilated their conquerors. Egypt did not.

Also a post-colonnial leader for Egypt would feel weird paired with Sphinxes (as presented currently), and would do better with an archeology theme. I feel Firaxis would be better off having a fully different civ for ancient Egypt vs modern Egypt, if they were to do such a thing.

China is maybe the only civ that I think having leaders separated by such different eras just "works."

However, Persia and India really didn't work for me in Civ 6. For India, I wish they would just eschew Gandhi altogether, but if he must be in the game, then design a modern India, and then give us a fully separate civ for the Mughals or something.

For Persia, Achaemenid Persia should be as much of a mainstay in the series as ancient Rome for example. I also think later Persian dynasties are warranted for inclusion, but they really need their own civ too.

I really wish both Nader Shah and Chandragupta had been fully separate civs.

 

[Zaarin]

While China has had this experience, they also culturally assimilated their conquerors. Egypt did not.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that Egypt did assimilate their conquerors repeatedly, but the Hellenes and Romans were not interested in being assimilated (though Alexander was very interested in their concept of god-kings).

I've always lumped Scotland together with Gaul as the two "Celtic" civs. Whenever they announced Scotland, I figured that the Celtic blob, at least from Civ 5 because of their inclusion of Scottish cities, would be broken up. Because they were portrayed as too modern, they then rectified it by giving us Gaul too.

There was nothing Celtic about them, though, and their abilities explicitly reference British Scotland. I saw them as 10% Norman and 90% the-other-Great-Britain.

For Persia, Achaemenid Persia should be as much of a mainstay in the series as ancient Rome for example. I also think later Persian dynasties are warranted for inclusion, but they really need their own civ too.

I would accept Achaemenid and Sassanian Persia as the same civ, and I would dearly love to see a Sassanian leader. I agree that Islamic Persia, with its recursive Perso-Turkic influences, is better treated as its own civilization. That being said, I'm too excited to see a non-Achaemenid to be too nonplussed about what civ he's attached to.

 

[Evie]

Balkanizing India I tend to agree with (though the focus should be on adding representation to other parts of India and/or the Mughal, not so much on having different Gangetic plains empires at different points in history).

But for Persia/Iran there is more than enough continuity to warrant using a single civilization.

The idea that the civilization should represent a specific point in time corresponding to the leader has simply never been true of civ. A Valois queen lead Napoleonic UUs, and a Napoleonic leader with Bourbon UUs, and a Hohenstaufen emperor leading Hoenzollern U-Boats (and before that, a Hoenzollern king and a Hoenzollern-era prime minister leading Third Reich tanks). This is a civ: a History's greatest (or most interesting) hits of a given culture/identity across the ages, not a narrow attempt at capturing one exact time period.

It also makes for better game design as it allows some civs to have their strength spread out across multiple game eras rather than putting all their eggs in the basket of one specific era.

 

[DeutschDachs]

It's funny because I think we haven't even explored the Pharoahs well enough for Egypt. Ramses II is a great leader for Egypt (I don't want to get into Cleopatra) but there are so many others worth exploring.

For example, we've never had a representative from the Old Kingdom such as Sneferu, Djoser, or Khufu. Which is kind of funny considering how the Pyramids are always shown as one of the great icons of Egypt but the leaders that constructed the most well-known pyramids are absent.

Even the Middle Kingdom, while perhaps not as iconic as the Old or New Kingdoms has its own interesting history that is unexplored.Such as Mentuhotep II reuniting Upper and Lower Egypt and beginning to centralize governmental power.

In the New Kingdom we haven't seen Thutmose III (although we did have Hapshepsut who should return. His attempted erasure of her records might preclude his own inclusion in the game) or Amenhotep III, who both ruled at the height of ancient Egyptian power. Even Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten would be an interesting one since he tried to remodel the whole of Egyptian society and religion around a monotheistic religion (although without much popularity).

I confess I am far too interested in ancient Egyptian history but it feels like we've barely scratched the surface of it beyond a very superficial level in Civ. Hapshepsut is the oldest representative we've had but there's over 1000 years of impressive Ancient Egyptian history prior to her that we haven't explored.

 

[Zaarin]

It's funny because I think we haven't even explored the Pharoahs well enough for Egypt. Ramses II is a great leader for Egypt (I don't want to get into Cleopatra) but there are so many others worth exploring.

For example, we've never had a representative from the Old Kingdom such as Sneferu, Djoser, or Khufu. Which is kind of funny considering how the Pyramids are always shown as one of the great icons of Egypt but the leaders that constructed the most well-known pyramids are absent.

Even the Middle Kingdom, while perhaps not as iconic as the Old or New Kingdoms has its own interesting history that is unexplored.Such as Mentuhotep II reuniting Upper and Lower Egypt and beginning to centralize governmental power.

In the New Kingdom we haven't seen Thutmose III (although we did have Hapshepsut who should return. His attempted erasure of her records might preclude his own inclusion in the game) or Amenhotep III, who both ruled at the height of ancient Egyptian power. Even Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten would be an interesting one since he tried to remodel the whole of Egyptian society and religion around a monotheistic religion (although without much popularity).

I confess I am far too interested in ancient Egyptian history but it feels like we've barely scratched the surface of it beyond a very superficial level in Civ. Hapshepsut is the oldest representative we've had but there's over 1000 years of impressive Ancient Egyptian history prior to her that we haven't explored.

I'd love to see more pharaohs, but not from the Old or Middle Kingdom. Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt were so caught up in gazing at their own navel they were scarcely aware there was anything but sand and water beyond their borders, while New Kingdom Egypt was a major power (sometimes the preeminent power) in the entire region. The one exception I would make would be Sobekneferu, who would be an interesting alternative to Hatshepsut (not that she needs an alternative) and who ruled just as the Middle Kingdom was starting to become aware that Egypt was not, in fact, the entire universe (...right before it collapsed), but overall I think there are lots of interesting options that haven't been explored in the New Kingdom: Ramesses III, Thutmose III, Akhenaten--even some powerful queens-consort like Nefertary, Tiye, or Nefertiti, though Egypt has enough female pharaohs that I don't think this is absolutely necessary.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There was nothing Celtic about them, though, and their abilities explicitly reference British Scotland. I saw them as 10% Norman and 90% the-other-Great-Britain.

I realize there was nothing Celtic about them which is why I also stated that then they added Gaul. Scotland, in my opinion, was just the starting point of deblobbing the Celts because in Civ 5 they had Edinburgh as their capital, despite their overwhelmingly British abilities and uniques.

Balkanizing India I tend to agree with (though the focus should be on adding representation to other parts of India and/or the Mughal, not so much on having different Gangetic plains empires at different points in history).

I'm of the opinion that I wouldn't mind India having different leaders throughout their history. At the same time there's an argument to be made that the Mughals could be their own separate civ so that's what I would champion. Either way I don't think we need any more than maybe two civs per game, whether it be India/Mughals or Maurya/Mughals.

 

[Prester John 2]

I'm surprised noone yet has brought Mesopotamia/Iraq up. It's been represented by ancient empires only, and different too - Sumerian, Babylonian, in earlier iterations Assyrians, too - and lacks medieval and modern leaders. Ironically, two actua leaders from that region head a different civ: Saladin, originally from Northern Mesopotamia, and Harun al-Rashid who represent the Arabs. The Arabs, instead have had their capitals in Mecca and Cairo. So Egypt actually has a medieval representation, just as the central region in the time of Saladin. Mesopotamia, similarly to Egypt, has been mostly ruled by foreigners: Persians, Macedonians, Arabs, Turkish, until the 20.c. You could argue that after a while the Abbasids can no longer be viewed as foreigners. But think about having an Abbasid caliph as a medieval leader for the, say, Babylonians. Nasir li-Din Allah leads the Babylonians in 1225!
As for the Indians I also don't like them being a too inclusive blob civs. Why not have a gangetic plain-Sanskritian-Hindostani India and a Dekkani-Tamil-Maritime India? Headed by an appropriate Chola-Vijayanagara-Bahmani civ that is more focused on trade and naval domination?
EDiT: If you think about the world map, India also has too much space compared to other civs. Cue to the mercator projection of many maps this has not always been represented on the map, but in IR India has a whole subcontinent to itself. This is only rivalled by Australia.