Evolving Names

[Francophile]

As you probably know, lately there has been a lot of arguing when it comes to which civilizations should be added. One of the main points being stressed is whether one civilization is to too similiar to another culturally or geographically. Also, some have mentioned the fact that it is unrealistic to have, say, the Americans in 486 AD or the Aztecs in 1965. I found a solution to both issues: Evolving Names! Someone who desperately wants Ireland/Thailand/a nation that has not been added yet, gets to play their prefferred nationality, all while keeping historical accuracy! The names change with each era. Keep in mind that it is optional whether the name changes or not. Sorry if this had been brought up before, I searched for a thread like it here, and didn't find any. Here are some examples of shifting names:

Anglo/Saxony-England-Great Britain/United Kindom
Celts-Irish-Ireland
Gauls-Franks-France
Rome-Naples-Italy
Huns-Mongols-Mongolia
Hittites-Turks-Ottomans-Turkey (I know Hatti is not related to the others, but they were located in the same geographic area)*
Allamani-Holy Roman Empire-Germany
Vikings-Scandinavia-Sweden (or Denmark, take your pick)
Rus-Novgorod-Russia-Soviet Union
Iberians-Spanish
Frisians-Holland-Netherlands
China
Egypt
Inuits-Canada*
Aztecs-Mexico
Iroqouis-The United States*
Aborigines-Australia*
Polynesia
Khmers-Thailand (or Cambodia, but Thailand sounds better)
Indus-India
Persia-Iran
Babylon/Sumeria-Mesopotamia-Iraq
Phoenicia-Hebrews-Israel*
Aksum-Abbysinia-Ethiopia
Ghana-Mali-Songhai-Mali
Berbers-Arabs-Saudi Arabia
Poland
Magyars-Hungary
Japan
Silla-Koryo-Korea
Zulu-Zimbabwe
Swahili-Kenya
Tupi(?)-Brazil*
Mapuche-Argentina*
Lusitania-Portugal

If I have forgotten any from the original games, please correct me.

*These Civs are not related, but one replaced the other as the dominant power in that location.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

This would never be done because history does not evolve linearly. Australia is nothing like the how Aborigines were, the Americans and Iroquois have almost nothing in common, Saudi Arabia has little in common with the early Caliphate (apart from the state religion), etc. Also, it depends upon peoples localisation and so forth to have what each civ would evolve into / from. For example, the Alemanni would make perfect sense for some people in France or so forth as a precursor to Germany (as the Alemanni IIRC are the etymology of the name of Germany in some languages), but in an English country it makes no sense.

It is also actually quite confusing, and it would be difficult for new Civvers to get what is going on with the names of the civs changing every era. It's a nice idea if it could work, but the Firaxis way is just easier for all involved.

 

[Francophile]

I know that some of these are not as related as they should be, but I think that it would work well. The Australians replace the Aborigines in the Industrial Age just as in real life, and the Americans replace the Iroqouis during the Middle Ages (Or whatever you call the age between the Bronze Age and the Industrial Age), just as how they destroyed them in real life.

 

[rhialto]

At least in one of those cases you showed, it is a gross violation of historical accuracy. The Huns were a Germanic people, and completely unrealted to the Mongols.

 

[rhialto]

At least in one of those cases you showed, it is a gross violation of historical accuracy. The Huns were a Germanic people, and completely unrealted to the Mongols.

 

[Immortal]

Ignoring all the gross inaccuracies of the post, the idea is just too linear.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It's good as it is now imo, this wouldn't make it better.

@rhialto: Are you sure the Huns were a germanic people? I thought otherwise...

 

[Xanthippus]

The Huns are NOT Germanic. They migrated from Asia conquered the Scythians to the north of the Black Sea, and then they invaded Europe and sacked Rome. They had absolutely nothing to do with Germanic descent.

I think this is a brilliant idea, and I would love to see it implemented. However, I would reccommend the following changes:

Rome - Sardinia-Piedmont - Italy: Sardinia-Piedmont unified Italy, not Napoli.

Mongols - Mongolia: The Huns were a distinct tribe, and the Mongol tribes were actually around at the same time as the Huns. They remained behind, and the Huns migrated. Hence, no sense in having the Huns as predeccesors.

Goths - Holy Roman Empire - Germany: The Goths were the predeccesors to the Holy Roman Empire.

Nords - Vikings - Scandinavia - Sweden: Vikings didn't exist before the Middle Ages, they were Nords before then. Nords and Vikings are closer to Swedes than to Danes. Also, it was Sweden that conquered Denmark and Norway in the Rennaissance, forming Scandinavia, not Denmark.

Rus - Muscovy - Russia - Soviet Union: Muscovy conquered Novgorod. It was the Grand Duchy of Muscovy (Moscow) that expanded and became Russia.

Iberians - Castile & Aragon - Spain: Castile & Aragon founded Spain.

Frisians - Netherlands - Holland: It was the Netherlands before the Civil War. Afterwards the Netherlands was divided into two: Belgium and Holland.

Indus - Mughal Empire - India: The Mughal Empire was the largest, wealthiest and most powerful Indic kingdom before the British conquest.

Persia - Parthia - Safavid Persia - Iran: Persia was overthrown by the Parthians. Safavid Persia was the Muslim Persia of the Middle Ages, right through the Renaissance until its partition between Iran and Iraq.

Arabs - Saudi Arabia: Berbers have nothing to do with the original Arabs; they are a bi-product of the Caliphate. Saudi Arabia actually has a LOT to do with the Caliphate. The original Arab tribes spread and conquered such a vast area that what is Arab is often confusing. Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman are the closest modern day states to the original tribes that formed the Caliphate.

Vandals/Alans - Poles - Poland-Lithuania - Poland: The Vandals & Alans were Germanic tribes that lived in poland until driven out by the Huns. Their descendants were the Poles. Poland-Lithuania was one of the largest Empires in the Middle Ages until its partition by Russia, Prussia and Austria.

Huns - Magyars - Hungary: The Huns settled in Hungary after their newly forged European Empire collapsed. They were conquered by the Magyars. The combination of these two people created the Hungyars, which became known as Hungary.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

@Xanthippus:
Mongols - Mongolia? It should be Mongolia - Mongolia

It was the Franks, not the Goths (the Ostrogoths went to Italy, the Visigoths went to Spain, and the Taurasian Goths stayed in the Crimea), which formed the Holy Roman Empire, and despite the HREs existance, the kingdom of Germany still existed.

It was Denmark which united Scandinavia under their rule in the Union of Kalmar.

The name 'Rus' is confusing, but I'll be terse and say only that Moscow was a Rus city, and that the title 'Duke of the Rus' (or something similar) past from the prince of one city to the next; Novogorod - Kiev - Vladimir - Moscow in the simplest, shortest way.

IIRC Holland is the name of only one region in the Netherlands, and the Dutch hate the name 'Holland' being used to name the whole country.

Persia actually has been a succession of one dynasty to another. Rather than say that each dynasty was its own kingdom (even though they were, it just gets hard to manage and to chronologically progress this way), historians tend to say each kingdom was its' own dynasty replacing the last, much like China. It should be 'Persia' the whole way through the ages, or 'Iran' the whole way through the ages since the names in English are largely synonymous.

As for Saudi Arabia, yes that is true. But there has never been any progression from the Caliphate to Saudi Arabia. The closest you can ever get is to Hejaz, the region around Mecca and Medina but most people would never have heard of that now non-existant kingdom (and it was the last Caliphate).

And the link between the Huns and the Magyars has gone unproven. It is just a theory. An equally accepted theory is that the Magyars broke off from the On-Okh tribal confederacy. Another theory has that they were a tribe which hung around the Urals, and waited for the collapse of Atilla's empire to move west.

It's not to say I like the idea though.

 

[rhialto]

ok, I made a mistake in saying the Huns were Germanic, but it is certainly true they weren't Mongols. I could be picky and point out all the other mistakes (The descendants of the Germanic Vandals become the Slavic Poles?), but I just feel the whole idea is flawed somehow. If you want something approaching real history, play a scenario. The epic game is more akin to a comic book. I like that fact.

 

[Xanthippus]

It was the Franks, not the Goths (the Ostrogoths went to Italy, the Visigoths went to Spain, and the Taurasian Goths stayed in the Crimea), which formed the Holy Roman Empire, and despite the HREs existance, the kingdom of Germany still existed.

Not quite. The Visigothic Kingdom stretched across southern France as well as spain, and the Ostrogothic Kingdom only held the north of Italy (the Byzantines were still in the south), the rest of their territory included a large portion of Germany. The Franks conquered them and established the Holy Roman Empire, but it was the Gothic (Germanic) Kingdom that retained the crown when the Carolingian (Frankish) Empire collapsed. Point is, the Franks aren't where the HRE gets its culture from, it's the Goths. Gothic architecture, Gothic dialect and society were all hallmarks of the early HRE. Frankish culture was retained in the Western Kingdom after the fall of the Carolingian Empire, which became France.

It was Denmark which united Scandinavia under their rule in the Union of Kalmar.

The Union of Kalmar was not Scandinavia. It was called the Union of Kalmar and nothing else, and it only held its sway by diplomatic force. Sweden-Finland and Norway were still seperate and distinct countries, simply vassals to the King of Denmark. It was not long after this that Denmark did end the vassalization of Norway and formally include it as a kingdom of Denmark, but Sweden-Finland still remained seperate, and gained its independence in the 1600s. Norway soon got its independence as well, and the three countries feuded constantly throughout the Renaissance. Slowly, Sweden-Finland got the upper hand, and in fact became one of the most advanced and strongest European powers. In the 1800s Sweden-Finland surpassed its rivals, and through military force conquered Norway and Denmark, forging the Kingdom of Scandinavian. There was no weak diplomatic ties or vassalization, they held power with an iron fist.

The name 'Rus' is confusing, but I'll be terse and say only that Moscow was a Rus city, and that the title 'Duke of the Rus' (or something similar) past from the prince of one city to the next; Novogorod - Kiev - Vladimir - Moscow in the simplest, shortest way.

There were Kievan-Rus, Novgorod-Rus, Muscovic-Rus... they were in all the major cities. The Rus were Viking invaders that arrived in the 10th Century and became prominent in Russia. They influenced the culture of some places more than others, namely Kiev and Muscovy. Seeing as Muscovy forged Russia, the Rus are their predescesors. Whatever natives were around before is pretty irregardless, because they didn't have much cultural signifcance, and the concept of Russia, or even Russian city-states, didn't exist before the Rus culture was dominant. Were do you think the name Russia comes from?

Persia actually has been a succession of one dynasty to another. Rather than say that each dynasty was its own kingdom (even though they were, it just gets hard to manage and to chronologically progress this way), historians tend to say each kingdom was its' own dynasty replacing the last, much like China. It should be 'Persia' the whole way through the ages, or 'Iran' the whole way through the ages since the names in English are largely synonymous.

Some historians, perhaps. I am a historian, and I don't like to do that. What you said is somewhat true, but not entirely. The Persians were very different from the Parthians, and the Safavids were worlds apart with their strict Shiite Muslim ways. Modern Iran is also different, namely due to the fact that it is one section of the Empire, each modern day section having its own culture (Safavid Persia broke up into Iran, Iraq and the area that is now Pakistan).

I just feel the whole idea is flawed somehow. If you want something approaching real history, play a scenario. The epic game is more akin to a comic book. I like that fact.

If I could play a scenario that went from 6000 BC through to AD 2050, with historical accuracy (at least to a degree) throughout, I would. I can't though, and I don't like the "comic book" feel as you describe. It feels stupid to have an America around in archaic times, though I definitely want it around in modern, for example. Playing a scenario cuts me off at a certain date, but I like to watch my nation grow, thrive and develop. I'd like to do that with more historical accuracy.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Not quite. The Visigothic Kingdom stretched across southern France as well as spain, and the Ostrogothic Kingdom only held the north of Italy (the Byzantines were still in the south), the rest of their territory included a large portion of Germany. The Franks conquered them and established the Holy Roman Empire, but it was the Gothic (Germanic) Kingdom that retained the crown when the Carolingian (Frankish) Empire collapsed. Point is, the Franks aren't where the HRE gets its culture from, it's the Goths. Gothic architecture, Gothic dialect and society were all hallmarks of the early HRE. Frankish culture was retained in the Western Kingdom after the fall of the Carolingian Empire, which became France.

The Visigoths were never included in the Carolingian or Holy Roman empires. The Goths were already conquered by the Eastern Romans, and then northern Italy fell to the Lombards. IIRC the Ostrogoths had ceased to be a recognisable ethnic group by this time. The Taurasian Goths had nothing to do with the HRE. It is a big, ugly stretch.

The Union of Kalmar was not Scandinavia. It was called the Union of Kalmar and nothing else, and it only held its sway by diplomatic force. Sweden-Finland and Norway were still seperate and distinct countries, simply vassals to the King of Denmark. It was not long after this that Denmark did end the vassalization of Norway and formally include it as a kingdom of Denmark, but Sweden-Finland still remained seperate, and gained its independence in the 1600s. Norway soon got its independence as well, and the three countries feuded constantly throughout the Renaissance. Slowly, Sweden-Finland got the upper hand, and in fact became one of the most advanced and strongest European powers. In the 1800s Sweden-Finland surpassed its rivals, and through military force conquered Norway and Denmark, forging the Kingdom of Scandinavian. There was no weak diplomatic ties or vassalization, they held power with an iron fist.

Mustn't have lasted long or well though

There were Kievan-Rus, Novgorod-Rus, Muscovic-Rus... they were in all the major cities. The Rus were Viking invaders that arrived in the 10th Century and became prominent in Russia. They influenced the culture of some places more than others, namely Kiev and Muscovy. Seeing as Muscovy forged Russia, the Rus are their predescesors. Whatever natives were around before is pretty irregardless, because they didn't have much cultural signifcance, and the concept of Russia, or even Russian city-states, didn't exist before the Rus culture was dominant. Were do you think the name Russia comes from?

That doesn't change the fact that it went from 'Duke of the Rus' (or whatever that title was) to 'Tsar of all Russias'. One Rus state was granted domination over all the others. That is what I'm saying.

Some historians, perhaps. I am a historian, and I don't like to do that. What you said is somewhat true, but not entirely. The Persians were very different from the Parthians, and the Safavids were worlds apart with their strict Shiite Muslim ways. Modern Iran is also different, namely due to the fact that it is one section of the Empire, each modern day section having its own culture (Safavid Persia broke up into Iran, Iraq and the area that is now Pakistan).

I treat all the dynasties as separate kingdoms too. But for most people it is a confusing blob in which it can all be called 'Persia' or 'Iran'.

If I could play a scenario that went from 6000 BC through to AD 2050, with historical accuracy (at least to a degree) throughout, I would. I can't though, and I don't like the "comic book" feel as you describe. It feels stupid to have an America around in archaic times, though I definitely want it around in modern, for example. Playing a scenario cuts me off at a certain date, but I like to watch my nation grow, thrive and develop. I'd like to do that with more historical accuracy.

Yeah, but a lot of people don't want that. Besides, more people would stop playing Civ 4 with that system of changing names than those which would start playing Civ 4 because of the name changing.

 

[Mr. Do]

I think it's a nice basis of an idea, but it should not be implemented in a linear fashion. Perhaps instead the names could change when certain events happen, such as certain wonders being built, regions being conquered etc. One thing that'd be neat is if you could invade with settlers, add these immigrants to your neighbours' cities and have their entire country change as a result, as with Britain

 

[Jon Shafer]

The problem with this idea is triggering.

The reasons the names of regions/countries/kingdoms changed is because something changed it. The Turks conquered Anatolia and the Balkans and the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. Rome "fell" under internal pressure and invading barbarians and ceased to exist, being replaced by the mixing of "barbarian" blood with the natives into what is today Italy. Ancient Egyptians were diluted and for the most part replaced by Arabs after the Muslim conquest.

What would cause a name change in Civ? A random change? A change at a certain date?

It doesn't make any sense. Why should all of the sudden in 476 AD "Rome" become "The Ostrogoth Kingdom" over the course of a normal Civilization game? Like rhialto said, good for scenarios, not so good for the default game...

 

[mitsho]

@Trip as I understand the idea, the trigger would be the changing of ages. Saying ancient rome becomes Venice when you begin researching monotheism (for example), then afterwards, when Venice researched Theorie of Gravity, it becomes Sardinia-Piedmont, etc.

I don't totally agree with this system. What's the benefit of it. I don't see any that does not raise complexity and confusion of the players!

mfG mitsho

 

[ferenginar]

It is an interesting concept, however IMO it detracts from the game itself, rasining questions about linearity, triggers, and historical inaccuracies, none of which are important.

I would prefer a bigger selection of tribes to pick from, then the game develops from the tribe you have chosen, eg if you select Americans you would not expect them to start in 4000bc, Tech tree, improvements, wonders, turn periods etc would all have to be adjusted to fit the era of the tribe selected.

In choosing an ancient tribe the game would not come to an end when that tribe vanished historically, but allow for development through to modern era as before. If restarts are on then the restarting Civ should reflect the era.

 

[Abrie JF Kilian]

Greetings.

Original indeed and great potential. I just want to coorect you on the evolvement of the Zulu’s into Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a country and a nation and not a civilization. The people in Zimbabwe consist out of numerous ethnic groups with different origins.

The only connection Zimbabwe has with the Zulu’s is in 1837 the Shona were conquered by the Ndebele, led by king Mzilikazi who was fleeing Shaka and his Zulu during the Mfecane, who forced them to pay tribute.

The Zulu civilization which forms part of the Greater Nguni civilization is still very alive today. My mother tongue is Afrikaans but my first language is Zulu.

 

[Jon Shafer]

@Trip as I understand the idea, the trigger would be the changing of ages. Saying ancient rome becomes Venice when you begin researching monotheism (for example), then afterwards, when Venice researched Theorie of Gravity, it becomes Sardinia-Piedmont, etc.

Assuming there are ages at all in CIV.

 

[Princeps]

Huns are chinese descent.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

No, they are believed to have been descended from the Xiong-Nu.