Firaxis and the Gross Misrepresentation of Non-Western History?

[Roxlimn]

Of course not.

Apart from the leader choices, which I've never given any serious thought to anyway, the entire flow of the tech chart and which technologies belong to which "ages," indeed the separation of "ages" themselves signify a firm and consistent bias for Western history.

In fact, you can do a very simple and indcative excercise. Bisect the Eurasian landmass at Vienna. Then count all the leaders east of it and all the leaders west of it. If that doesn't tell you that there's a disproportionate focus being made on the west side of that line, then I don't know what will.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Um, I've heard negative opinions about empress Wu, and I haven't heard about her great contributions to society. Being sexy and politically savvy doesn't make you a great leader. For Koreans, the choice for leader is King Saejong, hands down.

Empress Wu, despite being ruthless to her detractors, did actually listen to her advisors and the empire was relatively prosperous under her reign. She was responsible for reforming the civil service examination, which effected the development of Chinese literature. Also, incidentally, her exiling of certain Confucian scholars actually indirectly caused several of them to become renowned poets.

Korea has several different options aside from Sejong. If Firaxis wanted to include another female leader, Seondeok is one choice. Other choices could be Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo or Bak Hyeokgeose of Shilla.

Anyways, the debate is relatively trivial. The current choices of East Asian leaders are nowhere near as being as absurd as all-encompassing generic "Native American" civ. But then again, this is just a game. Previous civ games were full of absurdities as well: Amaterasu as female leader of Japan in Civ 2, the Zulus have been in since Civ 1 instead of other great African civs like Mali or Nubia, Joan of Arc as leader of France in Civ 1 - 3, etc.

 

[vicawoo]

Ok, with warlords I got 18 west, 17 "east". I included Aztecs, Incans, Mali as east, since they're not western european/USA, as I take it. Russia East, Egypt West, Persians East. Greece is West, All of Germany is West, Ragnar is West.
So western leaders do not greatly outnumber everyone else combined. They are on equal levels, so could considering european history to be equal to everyone else combined be biased?

To discover the answer, I searched for population statistics. Here's some of what I found:
World population stats as of 1750 were 20% europe (163 million), 63% asia (500 million), 13% africa.
another site has 25 million to 30 million in europe at charlemagne's time.
1250-1350, 70-100 million, then it dropped. roman empire was 55 million. world population at 1 CE is estimated at 200 million. world population at 1000 CE is estimated at 310 million. China was 60 million at 1 CE, had a local peak of over 100 million at 1100, then started growing dramatically at 1500. 1750 population is 177 million.
So what can I conclude? Certainly African history is under-represented. You could argue China should have like 10 leaders. The rest of Asia might be under-represented, or India+korea+japan+the ottomans + "arabs" + russia might be enough

My guess is that the fertile crescent is under-represented. That and Africa.
The techs, I agree the medieval age and renaissance are clearly biased. classical a little less so when i think about the techs. Industrialism, no, because the entire world feels the need to become industrialized, same with modern.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Trying to learn history from Civ is like thinking that "300" is historically accurate. They're both fun, but they're not to be taken as seriously as some here obviously do.

thats not a fair comparison. 300 is about 90% inaccurate in historical "aesethicism", but Civ does a decent job of that - the Phalanx unit isn't some half-naked buff Spartan/Hercules. Civ does have its historical quirks, but its much better than 300.

 

[akinkhoo]

Mao did not drive the japanese out, the japanese surrendered. in fact the reason why CCP would end up with the advantage is because they captured an impressive amount of the japanese gear AFTER japan surrendered, they even got surrendered japanese troop to teach and train them how to fight with japanese gear. the advantage was short, due to poor maintance, but it was enough to decisive kill off the KMT =)

KMT lose big time in the war, believing the world will rally quickly against the axis; they committed the core forces into the early weeks of the war, making the hardest fight against japanese marines. by the time the US fought back, most of KMT officer and veterans were dead with largely conscript left.

KMT could had survive if they had helped the surrendering warlord hold back the CCP instead of just watch them get destroyed, it cause them their trust with the people to end the chaos. and then on, KMT no longer have the army or popularity to win.

imo, Sun zhongshan is the most important figure in modern china, he is held positively by all chinese.

btw, i don't think china was ever "communist", it is maoist until deng xiaoping came and turn it into an authoritarian market socialist... or something... =)

 

[RERomine]

Whether it's gross misrepresentation or not is not a matter of intent but a matter of magnitude.

Actually, I believe it is a matter of intent and magnitude. In your next quote, I like the reference to grossly inaccurate much better as it doesn't imply Firaxis intended to be wrong; just that they are. In that context, you were referring to western books, however.

Any number of Western books on history are grossly inaccurate and that's where the problem lies. If a young Westerner sees a disconnect between CivIV and the history his own professors teach him, then guess whose side he's going to take?

The problem here is the Western books are all we've got. Chances are, history books from the region where the history took place and presumably accurate, are going to be in the language of that region. Translations from one language to another often lose something and learning to read a different language is more difficult than learning to speak one.

 

[gettingfat]

Mao did not drive the japanese out, the japanese surrendered. in fact the reason why CCP would end up with the advantage is because they captured an impressive amount of the japanese gear AFTER japan surrendered, they even got surrendered japanese troop to teach and train them how to fight with japanese gear. the advantage was short, due to poor maintance, but it was enough to decisive kill off the KMT =)

KMT lose big time in the war, believing the world will rally quickly against the axis; they committed the core forces into the early weeks of the war, making the hardest fight against japanese marines. by the time the US fought back, most of KMT officer and veterans were dead with largely conscript left.

KMT could had survive if they had helped the surrendering warlord hold back the CCP instead of just watch them get destroyed, it cause them their trust with the people to end the chaos. and then on, KMT no longer have the army or popularity to win.

imo, Sun zhongshan is the most important figure in modern china, he is held positively by all chinese.

btw, i don't think china was ever "communist", it is maoist until deng xiaoping came and turn it into an authoritarian market socialist... or something... =)

I agree Mao's army never did "drive the Japanese out". In fact the Japanese saved the Chinese communist army from annihilation. According to some recent revealed record Mao explicitly told the generals not to get serious fighting the Japanese. All the anti-japanese activities of the Chinese Red army have been glorified today.

KMT did not hold back the CCP, to some extent it's the opposite. KMT lost popularity because of their messy politics and economy. If their leaders knew slightly more about how to rule the country CCP had no chance at all.

But give KMT credit. They were the main guy who fought the Japanese, not the CCP who magnified how much they "harrassed the Japanese from their back" by their "smart guerilla warfare". The reality is, the CCP used this image to recruit more members.

CCP gained the Japanese weapons because the Russian Red Army at that point beat the crxp out of Japanese, and transferred a substantial portion of their weaponry to their dear communist brother. CCP did not truly beat the Japanese.

You know why Japanese never hold a high regard of the CCP even they are supposed the loser? It's because deep inside they don't think CCP was the winner. And Japanese only worship the stronger, like American, not pretender like CCP.

History is written by the winner. Anyway.

About Mao and Communism, that I agree.

 

[cybrxkhan]

^CCP also took much of the mainland's more rural territories, if i can remember, during the Japanese invaison, but the KMT couldn't do anything because they were also fighting the Japanese.

 

[Roxlimn]

vicawoo:

Ok, with warlords I got 18 west, 17 "east". I included Aztecs, Incans, Mali as east, since they're not western european/USA, as I take it. Russia East, Egypt West, Persians East. Greece is West, All of Germany is West, Ragnar is West.
So western leaders do not greatly outnumber everyone else combined. They are on equal levels, so could considering european history to be equal to everyone else combined be biased?

The fact that you had to combine the Asian and American leaders into "East" and STILL got a number less than a tiny section of the map must surely indicate something, don't you think?

Is the history of a small section of the world equivalent to the history of all the rest? Is this NOT biased?

The techs, I agree the medieval age and renaissance are clearly biased. classical a little less so when i think about the techs. Industrialism, no, because the entire world feels the need to become industrialized, same with modern.

The very demarcation of historical periods into those times is biased in and of itself.

cybrxkhan:

thats not a fair comparison. 300 is about 90% inaccurate in historical "aesethicism", but Civ does a decent job of that - the Phalanx unit isn't some half-naked buff Spartan/Hercules. Civ does have its historical quirks, but its much better than 300.

Actually, it is a rather fair comparison. The fact that I consider it a fair comparison ought to give you some notice.

RERomine:

The problem here is the Western books are all we've got. Chances are, history books from the region where the history took place and presumably accurate, are going to be in the language of that region. Translations from one language to another often lose something and learning to read a different language is more difficult than learning to speak one.

English is possibly the most difficult language on the planet to learn, easily on par with Mandarin. I had no qualms about learning it in order to read about Western history, as well as other Western books and sources.

If you want to have the benefit of unbiased view of history, you're going to have to learn to judge and procure your sources. There are now many books in English about Chinese and Indian history, and I'm sure learning Russian from English isn't nearly as hard as learning English from Chinese, to which it bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever.

You can't allow language to be a barrier to understanding, or all you'll understand or know is going to be from a limited pool.

 

[RERomine]

English is possibly the most difficult language on the planet to learn, easily on par with Mandarin. I had no qualms about learning it in order to read about Western history, as well as other Western books and sources.

Having learned English because of where I live, I can't argue this point, nor would I. I've heard it before and am willing to accept it as fact from people who have learned English as a second, third or whatever language. We do have some really bizarre stuff in the English language.

If you want to have the benefit of unbiased view of history, you're going to have to learn to judge and procure your sources. There are now many books in English about Chinese and Indian history, and I'm sure learning Russian from English isn't nearly as hard as learning English from Chinese, to which it bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever.

But how do you tell if the books in English are good books on history of another country? Obviously, merely being English isn't any qualification. There are English books on American history that aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

You can't allow language to be a barrier to understanding, or all you'll understand or know is going to be from a limited pool.

Quite true, but need is also a qualification. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the history of any nation, civilization or culture, not even my own. I have no need to be. Also, I wouldn't even presume to argue the history of another nation, civilization or culture with someone from that area. They would be the ones I would ask the questions.

One thing about Americans is we seem to be an overly arrogant people. It fascinates me on how many people from other countries speak English and how many Americans expect that, even if we are in that person's country. I find it truly sad and have commented on that at work. Even though I live in work in the United States, most of my coworkers are from other countries.

 

[vicawoo]

If you looked at some data, europe often had 1/3 the population of the world, so a correct proportion would be 12/35. I included egypt in the west, so it would have been 16/35. If they included 10 more chinese leaders (kind of boring), it would have been 16/45, which is correct by population.
There are arguments for western bias, but your simple criteria isn't very convincing.

In terms of land, here's the list of the largest empires:
# British Empire - 36.6 million km²[1] (under King George V in 1921) (excludes Antarctic territorial claims)
# Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km²[1] (under Khublai Khan in 1279) (excludes Northern Siberia)
# Russian Empire - 22.8 million km²[2][3]) (under Nicholas II in 1895)
# Ottoman Empire - 19.9 million km² - (under Sokollu Mehmet Paşa in 1595)
# Spanish Empire - 19 million km²[1] (under King Charles III)
# Arab Empire - 13.2 million km²[1] (under the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I)
# Qing Empire - 12 million km²[4] (under Emperor Qianlong)
# French Empire - 11.2 million km²[5] (during World War I)
# Portuguese Empire - 10.4 million km²[1]
# American Empire - 10 million km² [6] (1898-1902 and 1906-1908)
# Brazilian Empire - 8.1 million km²[1] (under Dom Pedro II)
# Macedonian Empire - 7.61 million km² (under Alexander the Great)
# Achaemenid Persian Empire - 7.5 million km²[7] (under Darius)
# Sassanid Persian Empire - 7.47 million km²[2] (under Khosrau II)
# Japanese Empire - 7.4 million km²[1] (during World War II)
# Roman Empire - 6.5 million km²[1] (under Emperor Trajan)
# Ming Empire - 6.5 million km²[2]
# Han Empire - 6 million km²[2]
# Tang Empire - 5.4 million km²[2] (under Emperor Xuanzong of Tang)
# Maurya Empire - 5 million km²[2] (under Ashoka the Great)
All of them are in Civilization, except brazil (???) Chinese could use a few more emperors. And europe/america/brazil has 9/20 of them. china has 4.

Of the next twenty, there are some interesting ones left out: #21, Mexican empire. #22 byzantine (BTS), #23 Timurid Empire , #25 Hunnic Empire, #26 Seljuq Empire, #27 Seleucid Empire, #28 Italian Empire (Western bias), #29 Dutch Empire (BTS), #30 Nazi German Empire (germany), #33 Ghaznavid Empire, around Afghanistan, #36 Khazar Empire, Turkic, #37 Median Empire, ancient iranian, #39 Belgian Empire (western bias), #40 Inca Empire,

There were a ton of Indian empires, by the way, in there. Khmer does come later

By % of world population
1. Qing Empire - 36.6% (381 million out of 1041 million in 1820)[15]
2. Maurya Empire - 33.3% (50 million out of 150 million[25] in the 2nd century BC)
3. Arab Empire - 29.5% (62 million out of 210 million[25] in the 7th century)
4. Mughal Empire - 29.2% (175 million out of 600 million[26] in 1700)
5. Ming Empire - 28.8% (160 million out of 556.2 million in 1600)[15]
6. Achaemenid Persian Empire - 27.6% (42 million out of 152 million in the 4th century BC)[16]
7. Han Empire - 26.5% (59.6 million out of 226 million[15] in 2 AD)
8. Roman Empire - 26.5% (60 million out of 226 million[15] in the 1st century AD)
9. British Empire - 25.6% (458 million[27] out of 1,791 million[15] in 1913)
10. Mongol Empire - 25.6% (110 million out of 429 million[16] in the 13th century)
11. Song Empire - 22% (59 million out of 268 million in 1000)[15]
12. Spanish Empire - 12.3% (68.2 million out of 556 million[15] in the 17th century)
13. Russian Empire - 9.8% (176.4 million out of 1,791 million[15] in 1913)
14. Ottoman Empire - 7.1% (39 million out of 556 million[15] in the 17th century)
15. American Empire - 6.4% (146.4 million out of 2,295 million in 1938)
16. Japanese Empire - 5.9% (134.8 million out of 2,295 million[15] in 1938)
17. Vijayanagara Empire - 5.7% (25 million out of 438 million[15] in the 16th century)
18. French Empire - 4.9% (112.9 million out of 2,295 million in 1938)
19. Nazi German Empire - 3.3% (75.4 million out of 2,295 million in 1938)
20. Austro-Hungarian Empire - 2.8% (50.6 million out of 1,791 million in 1913)
21. Italian Empire - 2.3% (51.9 million out of 2,295 million in 1938)
22. Portuguese Empire - 0.8% (14.7 million out of 1,791 million in 1913)

What you can conclude is that Koreans, Aztecs, Mayans, Vikings, and Mali, are perhaps unfairly included to the detraction of Italian empires, austro-hungarian empire, and various Turkish and Indian and Chinese empires.

I had no presupposition initially whether your claim was true or not; I just realized there might be a critical flaw in it.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Actually, it is a rather fair comparison. The fact that I consider it a fair comparison ought to give you some notice.

i mean its fairer than comparing Herodotus to 300, but Civ still pertains a decent amount of more realism than 300. if Civ was truly a completely pop culturized thingymajug, then the Arabic UU would be the terrorist (as someone said earlier in this thread), the English leader would be King Arthur, and the Aztecs would be speaking in Mexican accents.

sure, there are historical weirdies - Ragnar as a stereotypical Viking as leader, Samaurais not being mounted horse archers, Saladin as leader before Harun al-Rashid... but these aren't that serious as 300.

 

[Breunor]

Cybrxkhan,

Actually, Samurai did usually fight on horseback with bows in real wars. That was their most effective use. This is a case of Firaxis being more realistic than popular press.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[cybrxkhan]

Cybrxkhan,

Actually, Samurai did usually fight on horseback with bows in real wars. That was their most effective use. This is a case of Firaxis being more realistic than popular press.

Best wishes,

Breunor

er... i guess you midunderstood my statement. i meant that they did not put those kinda guys in which was not right, and instead they put in the katan wielding golden-armoured (not even grey colored) guys.

 

[Phlegmak]

Just curious. Is this a reasonable representation of a nonWestern monarch in a history simulation game?

 

[Breunor]

er... i guess you midunderstood my statement. i meant that they did not put those kinda guys in which was not right, and instead they put in the katan wielding golden-armoured (not even grey colored) guys.

Oops, soory about that!

Breunor

 

[vicawoo]

er... i guess you midunderstood my statement. i meant that they did not put those kinda guys in which was not right, and instead they put in the katan wielding golden-armoured (not even grey colored) guys.

But Japanese media tends to depict samurai as swordsmen. I think this is a romantic problem more than anything else. And most of their historical fiction tends to be geared towards samurai.
And Chinese historical fiction depicts these martial arts masters, sometimes with supernatural abilities, who destroy thousands of people in battle. I had a chinese roommate who watched some of the more popular chinese television series, and it got so repetitive. It was martial arts master (not jackie chan, but some story about the good old days) or woman/eunuch screwing over the empire.

It's kind of like in the west, where they have more stories about knights and relatively few about the 30 years war.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

But Japanese media tends to depict samurai as swordsmen. I think this is a romantic problem more than anything else. And most of their historical fiction tends to be geared towards samurai.
And Chinese historical fiction depicts these martial arts masters, sometimes with supernatural abilities, who destroy thousands of people in battle. I had a chinese roommate who watched some of the more popular chinese television series, and it got so repetitive. It was martial arts master (not jackie chan, but some story about the good old days) or woman/eunuch screwing over the empire.

That is because those Japanese media are set in the Edo period when the samurai with the sword was romanticized.

Also, those Chinese fiction are not meant to be true "historical fiction"; they're classified as wuxia fiction, which greatly uses fantastical elements or the typical martial arts master characters. Real Chinese "historical fiction" would be movies like "The Emperor's Shadow" or the "Emperor and the Asssassin," which focus more on the historical background and figures and leave out exaggerated martial arts or romanticized knight-errant ideals.

 

[dh_epic]

I think a lot of people should read the "History of Civilization" article on the front page. Sid basically admits that the game was originally written for a Western audience, with a Cold War flavor.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5700471&postcount=5

 

[RERomine]

Just curious. Is this a reasonable representation of a nonWestern monarch in a history simulation game?

Seems to me the same question came up in reference to Xerxes in the movie '300'. Strikes me more of a Hollywood image than a real one.