Favorite Dark Horse Civs

[phaethon16]

So, the other day I was trying to come up with a list of 9 civs that would theoretically work in a third expansion, and I fell short one civ. I've thought about a lot of options, and I couldn't pick one. So, my question to people is what are your favorite dark horse civs? I tried to add as many options as I could think of for theoretical dark horse civs, but if you don't see your favorite tell me and I will keep a running tally on page one of "other" options. Keep in mind, I don't consider civs like Kongo and Hungary dark horses, which is why a lot of options aren't there. Additionally, I excluded NA civs because there are so many, and that's a whole other discussion, but feel free to post your favorie and I will tally it. If this poll gets 100 votes, I will make a new poll that condenses the choices to 5, so as to see which dark horse civ really is people's favorite.

Jamaica: 1
Cuba: 1
Haiti: 1
Jerusalem: 1
Cossack Hetmanate: 1
Gaels: 2
Mexico: 3
Cherokee: 1
Inuits: 2
Franks: 2
Nepal: 1
Muisca: 2

 

[Arachnofiend]

Going by my own personal definition of a "dark horse" being a civ that was never really a true power player on the international stage but still an interesting culture nonetheless, my vote goes to the Cherokee. They went from having to invent a new syllabary to match their American neighbors to being the most literate population on the continent in an extraordinary pace. They could probably get a UA related to science bleed out.

 

[Haig]

Charlemagne is such a boss man so I'd like to have Franks in the game.

 

[kaspergm]

I didn't see Inuit on the list, but Minoa, Australia, Canada and Madagascar all are interesting picks to me.

 

[phaethon16]

Quick thing, if you choose "other", please post what you have in mind. Some people already have, thank you for that.

 

[Viregel]

Canada and Australia don't seem like Dark Horse civs to me, but I had to go with them anyway. Normandy seems like an interesting choice (at one point they held Normandy, England, South Italy, Sicily, a strip of North Africa and a bit of Syria around Aleppo) and they could have some interesting features (they were very involved in the Crusades).

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Charlemagne is such a boss man so I'd like to have Franks in the game.

I think that having both the Franks and France in a game would be redundant.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

No it wouldn't. France is Rennaissance centered while the Franks would be Medieval/Classical. The only problem would be city names.

Normandy would be interesting regardless though while Norman knights invaded England, South Italy, Sicily, a strip of North Africa and a bit of Syria around Aleppo, the Italian/Sicilian Normans were a different nation as soon as they had a city. Then again, the Aztecs represent all three of the Triple Alliance...

If Carthage's UA was changed then Nepal would be a nice mountain civ.

 

[johnny139]

There's SO much that can be done with an Aboriginal Australian Civ. A completely unique culture in a region that's completely unrepresented thus far. I'd settle for an Australian Civ with some Aboriginal flavor at this point, honestly.

 

[Galgus]

The Muiscan Confederation could be an interesting addition.

They were the origin of the El Dorado myths and had a strong economy among their pre-Spaniard conquest piers, if wikipedia is to be believed.

 

[mitsho]

Yeah, Dark Horse per se isn't as clear a category, does it include all "exotic" civs with low chances, to which Poland btw. would have counted before this expansion? Or does it mainly refer to "nonsensical","ahistorical" or amalgation/representative civs like the Holy Roman Empire or the Huns?

My other vote would have gone to the Inuit as well.

 

[phaethon16]

I classify dark horses simply as cigs that aren't obvious choices. Portugal and Brazil, for example, were not dark horses, because people expected them. A more current example would be how at this point, if there was another expansion or DLC run, Vietnam would not be a dark horse. On the other hand, a civ like Serbia which is a possibility but not a strong one, would be considered a dark horse in my eyes.

 

[MasterGeese]

Would like to see Mexico in some form, though not too keen on my Mexican history, so no idea what the UA/UU/UB would be.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I vote for Franks, Gallics and Normans.

EDIT : I missed the Normandy entry when voting, now I can't go back, so please count another vote for Normandy.

 

[phaethon16]

What would be the difference between those three? I ask because I'm actually unsure, not to be snarky.

 

[Viregel]

What would be the difference between those three? I ask because I'm actually unsure, not to be snarky.

The difference would be that the Normans were Vikings who settled in Northern France (their name literally means "Men from the North"), the Franks were the original inhabitants of France, the original Holy Roman Empire, and the Gallics were the people of Ireland and Southern Scotland. The Gallics seem to be summed up by the Celts though, seeing as their capital is Edinbrugh and their second city is Dublin.

 

[True_Candyman]

The Muiscan Confederation could be an interesting addition.

They were the origin of the El Dorado myths and had had a strong economy among their pre-Spaniard conquest piers, if wikipedia is to be believed.

Wikipedia is to be believed.

They had huge gold mines and salt mines. They had trade networks through the amazon and andes to the polynesian islands. They had a distinct culture that expanded through a large area of what is now colombia and venezuela. And they have one of the most iconic leaders yet to feature in civ: El Dorado, their leader who covered himself in gold dust.

They would be a fantastic civ, they could have mechanics relating to generating culture from a strong economy since they used to use gold to fashion a huge deal of art and religious pieces.

 

[Guandao]

The difference would be that the Normans were Vikings who settled in Northern France (their name literally means "Men from the North"), the Franks were the original inhabitants of France, the original Holy Roman Empire, and the Gallics were the people of Ireland and Southern Scotland. The Gallics seem to be summed up by the Celts though, seeing as their capital is Edinbrugh and their second city is Dublin.

Umm....aren't Gallics the Gauls, the pre-Roman Celtic inhabitants of France? The Franks came later and are Germanic speaking.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The difference would be that the Normans were Vikings who settled in Northern France (their name literally means "Men from the North")

Yes, they settled in what is still now called Normandy because the King was bored of Viking invasions and decided to give them a land to establish and be quiet.

the Franks were the original inhabitants of France, the original Holy Roman Empire

Actually I would say Gallics are original inhabitants of France. (if the term is used to call the Gauls inhabitants) Indeed, a more wide appelation is Celts which includes great britain inhabitants and other tribes.

Franks came from north east of France, and conquered more and more territory of what is now called France, at the expense of other great tribes that shared the Western Roman Empire. They ended up to conquer the majority of Western Europe, but at the death of the king, the empire was divided by three parts which were the soil for France, Holy Roman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Charlemagne (which is his french appelation) is considered German in german History books, etc.

 

[Viregel]

Umm....aren't Gallics the Gauls, the pre-Roman Celtic inhabitants of France? The Franks came later and are Germanic speaking.

Yes, they settled in what is still now called Normandy because the King was bored of Viking invasions and decided to give them a land to establish and be quiet.



Actually I would say Gallics are original inhabitants of France. (if the term is used to call the Gauls inhabitants) Indeed, a more wide appelation is Celts which includes great britain inhabitants and other tribes.

Franks came from north east of France, and conquered more and more territory of what is now called France, at the expense of other great tribes that shared the Western Roman Empire. They ended up to conquer the majority of Western Europe, but at the death of the king, the empire was divided by three parts which were the soil for France, Holy Roman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Charlemagne (which is his french appelation) is considered German in german History books, etc.

I was mistaken about the meaning of "Gallic". I'd assumed that it was the same as the Gaels, but seems that I forgot to do my research.

I also meant that the Franks were the "original" inhabitants of France compared to the Normans, so I really badly clarified that. Thank you for informing me on this, seems that I don't know the difference either.