How would you design Indian civilization... or civilizations?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Oct 10, 2021.

  1. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I'd consider that as a UU for a separate Mughal civ. I think India proper should at least keep an Ancient/Classical Era Elephant unit.

    Still you can find some like the Iroquois at least fitting all three criteria. At least I view them as urbanized as Gaul was.

    My compromise would be making Akbar's capital Lahore, in modern-day Pakistan, leading a separate Mughal civ. Cities like Agra, which was known as Akbarabad during the Mughal Empire, would allow them to also have a different city list too. I have no idea if this would actually be a problem with people that play Civ in India or not? :dunno:

    Be thankful we've never got the Sepoy. :shifty:
     
    TahamiTsunami, Zaarin and BuchiTaton like this.
  2. Zaarin

    Zaarin Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    9,685
    Location:
    Babylon 5
    Gaul was more urbanized than the Haudenosaunee. The Haudenosaunee were still primarily hunter/gatherers who supplemented their diet with horticulture, they moved their villages every five years or so after they exhausted the local resources, and they dispersed to hunting grounds in the summer. Gaul had a much higher population density, had much more permanent cities, and relied wholly on agriculture. The Haudenosaunee had some degree of labor specialization, but not nearly to the degree the Gauls did.

    I'm obviously not arguing against the inclusion of the Haudenosaunee; I described them as urbanized in my own post. I'm just saying that their social structure and urban development were considerably less sophisticated than those of the Gauls.
     
  3. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I was thinking along the lines of the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee were kind of on the same level comparatively to larger/more urbanized Pre-Colombian societies such as Aztecs and Maya. At the same time Gaul's settlements would be less urbanized than Roman or Greek cities.
     
  4. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,083
    Location:
    Poland
    Pueblo case was due to legitimate cultural clash of depicting their dead leader, Cree however was a sad internalization of a 'noble savage' stereotype and radical left pseudohistory, where some Cree chief protested because "his people never knew wars, violence, exploiting nature" etc, which was even more awkward because you kind of have to gently nod to this even though it's a... very wrong history. Native US Americans are in the unique position of being surrounded by so much positive and negative stereotypes, reinvigorated by the racial essentialism that is currently still present in US ("my ancient ancestors are Irish therefore my personality..."), that it is a particular minefield.

    From what I understand, Mesoamerican civilizations had separate linguistic history, religions, "histories", identities etc, with no single state ever controlling even half of this region before Spaniards. The name "Mexico" being arbitrarily invented by Spaniards after Mexica, one small part.
    Meanwhile India had
    - one founding language, Sanskrit, from which 80% of modern Indian speakers languages derive, remaining 20% very heavily influenced
    - the entire civilization being built on the same holy scriptures, Vedas (even Buddhists contesting them relied on their mentality)
    - many literary, religious and philosopical works being basically universal across all major subgroups (Upanishads, national epics being quickly present everywhere from north to south; Mahabharata and Ramayana referenced and rewritten everywhere)
    - shared popular and intellectual movements from north to south
    - several empires controlling the vast majority of subcontinent for 50 - 100 years each, and the entire titulature existing for 'emperor of India'
    - the name of India by Indians, 'Bharat', was established in 1950 but it is taken straight out of ancient striptures using this word to separate "our land" from "other lands", among other expressions of "us in this region vs Persian/Hunnic/Muslim invaders that don't respect holy rituals"
    - there are actually historians who argue about the emergence of united Hindu proto - nationalism before British, in the era of Islamic domination

    Indian peripheries broke off only because they were Muslim - dominated are therefore very different culturally from bottom to the top (though honestly Pakistan always was peripheral to Indo - Aryan civilization and with much stronger foreign influences). Almost all other princely states had voluntarily decided to join Indian state (Hyderabad was a complicated mess, with its Hindu majority population also willing to join India against the will of Muslim ruler who also violated every possible agreement with India).

    I have no idea what does Maya - Tamil comparision actually entail, I mean you could say the same for Hausa and Kurds among others, that doesn't mean that Nigeria and Niger are comparable to India and Central America (also, "Tamil being split between two countries" has slightly different connotation than "96% of South Asian Tamils are in India while 4% in Sri Lanka" ;)
     
    TahamiTsunami, Zaarin and Yudhisthira like this.
  5. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Gender:
    Male
    - What I know is that Pueblos was because their language is sacred, and Australian Aboriginals are about their deaths.
    - The isue in AoE3 was also about mining, for two of the best and more popular options Haudenosaune and Lakota.
    - Spanish do not invented the name of Mexico they extended it to a bigger area like Sindhu was also extended to a bigger region. I mean the use of Bharat also point to the foreing use of India.
    Historical records say us that everybody used Mexico as the easy direct name for the "Aztecs" the use of "Triple Alliance of ....." was a formalism that we dont use for the other civs (neither on their native languages).
    - The point of Tamils and Maya is that both are state less with significative identitarian movements. Maya can be represented on game, while Tamils are likely forbiden by the politics of India and Sri Lanka.
    - By the way Maya is a umbrella term for cultures that diverged as long ago as Polynesians or Slavs from others groups. The only proper Maya are from Yucatan and a little on the frontier with Guatemala and Belize.
     
  6. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,083
    Location:
    Poland
    I don't understand that point. A ton of countries across history were named very different names by rest of the world, including such major players as Hellenoi, Iran and Zhongguo, many of which retained dual use of those names in official global channels due to their familiarity. And India, unlike Indonesia or Philippines or African countries, actually renamed itself for the domestic use to refer to its ancient precolonial vision of unity, not brought by British.

    "The name [Bharat] is derived from the ancient Hindu Puranas, which refer to the land that comprises India as Bhāratavarṣa and uses this term to distinguish it from other varṣas or continents. For example, the Vayu Purana says "he who conquers the whole of Bhāratavarṣa is celebrated as a samrāt."

    This country is known as Bharatavarsha since the times the father entrusted the kingdom to the son Bharata and he himself went to the forest for ascetic practices. - Vishnu Purana

    "The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata." - Vishnu Purana, this is especially important because it thinks of a sort of pan - ethnic genesis based on blood

    200 BC, Arthashastra (Mauryan empire work on statecraft) used an alternate native name, Jambudvipa, which was popularized by Jains who flourished in that era
    "This (Brahmaputra) is the eastern boundary of Jambudvipa, its western boundary being the mouths of the Indus and its southern boundary being the Indian Ocean or Rama Sethu." - so basically the modern area of India; it also dealt within the framework of "Jambudvipa is a precious land that should be united and protected from outsiders"

    So basically you have India being defined by ancient Indians themselves as a separate 'country', 'land' where Stuff Really Matters, defined in terms that are generally applicable today, contrasted with 'mleccha' outsiders, with nomenclature for real of hypothetical rulers of the entire land, and largely confined linguistic, religious and cultural area. Compare with Indonesia, Philippines, most of modern Subsaharan countries who didn't have any name for "that our area" separated from others (no Nusantara didn't have the same kind of connotation, it was used either as 'an archipelago' or by Majapahit rulers as 'those outsider islands not - Java') and any sort of identity "there are differences between us, but there is a far greater difference between us and aliens" until the colonial period. Also compare with 'Europe' which (in its vague entirety, not small part) has never been considered as 'a country of descendants of one common ancestor', divided between many linguistic groups and scripts with no single common ancestor, and within which all unitary attempts even between very close neighbors failing utterly (not to mention ultimate unification) even if multiple nations were held together for even longer than British India (Austrian and Ottoman Balkans for centuries).

    I agree this is not the same as French, Japanese or Chinese identity, but this isn't 'arbitrary peoples who were never strongly connected before colonialism' either, it's something strange inbetween. That's why it's such a weird dilemma for me, to choose one India or many Indias.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2021
    TahamiTsunami, Zaarin and Yudhisthira like this.
  7. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Gender:
    Male
    Tamils like others dravidans are pre-aryan, are not from the same language family, were independent most of the last 3000 years, being the tip of India independent from all the empires from the Indus and the Ganges.
    There are a significative Tamil nationalist movement after modern India for a reason, at the point is PC to portrait it. Chola empie expanded beyond India with a naval empire.
    Dont you think that say us about significative unique identity beyond the european inspired nation-state constitutional modern India?
    Dont we have things like England+Scotland on game? Both part of modern UK.
    And about Europe, with EU being a thing dont we could imaginate a history where an Islamic power conquered most of Europe and then an Asiatic colonial empire take their place for some time, to get an European nation. Foreign powers did catalized the unification of what by the way is an nation of foreing invasors (yes the Indoaryan invasors) not for nothing so many politics on India want to push the "native indoaryan" idea.
     
  8. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    It's interesting because from the very beginning England has mostly been portrayed as just England with very few British designs, barring maybe Civ 4 and Civ 6, while India has always been the opposite. Of course because of that reasoning Scotland was separate, even it's cities fell under the Celts blob of Civ 5.

    Based on past games it's safe to say that we would still get maybe one India civ but who knows? The devs did listen at least and gave us Chandragupta this time around, along with Gandhi. Not to mention we also got Macedon alongside a non-Alexander lead Greece, Phoenicia instead of Carthage, Gaul and Maori instead of blob Celts and Polynesia etc.

    Maybe for Civ 7 Mughals or Chola could even come alongside India?
     
    TahamiTsunami, Zaarin and BuchiTaton like this.
  9. Yudhisthira

    Yudhisthira Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2021
    Messages:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    इन्द्रप्रस्थ
    I m sorry but calling Tamils as state-less is wrong on so many level. They have/don't have State as much as any other Indian group telugu,gujrati,Bengalietc.

    The Dravidian/Tamil nationalism was a modern moment with it's origin in caste based issues like other such moments of 19/20 th century like in Maharashtra. & ofcourse British played their role in it. It never gained currency outside of state of Tamil Nadu(I mean in other 'dravidian speaking states) & even in Tamil Nadu it remained limited to few political outfits. If it had gone little out of control, Indian government was very weak at that time ( 2 front wars with Pakistan/China & hostility with US) to hold over it. Just like other such moments it remained only a matter of politics & anti-brahamin actions by certain faction. It was a colonial/modern movement & now have lost any support even in Tamil Nadu itself.
    I personally would like to see some sort of Tamil civ & for that matter civs from other parts of India also but let's not create incorrect assumptions for that.
     
  10. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Gender:
    Male
    My point is that Tamils (like other southern dravidians) have historical reasons to be more independent and unique that others parts of modern India, and also not forget the Tamils on Sri Lanka, they were more a movement than others groups on the region.

    For example Zapotec people and Maya people are both states less in Mexico, but Maya have way more that independence element even now.

    Well I think that the use of the word "independence" could be problematic for the actual politics, so lets clear this:

    Tamil (also very close are Kannada) are the best option for a civ from the subcontinent that do not have an independent state right now.
    I point this because Bangadesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan are always options but:
    > PAKISTAN is the more usefull to have a Gukani (Mughal) with capital at Lahore.
    > BANGLADESH the Pala empire would be kind of similar to Maurya and the islamic Bengal to a posible Gurkani.
    > NEPAL and SRI LANKA have more potential as a city states.

    Meanwhile CHOLA empire is a historical naval + trade imperial power that expanded to SEA, representing the dravidian tip of India that was beyond the rule of the great empires from the north. Literal thousand of years of independence plus influence beyond India.

    We can look at what Tamils made by themselves before being part of modern India but are not on game while civs like Scotland that are way weaker example are in.
     
    TahamiTsunami and Zaarin like this.
  11. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    As I said above I believe Scotland was designed to primarily be the "Celtic" civ for this game, considering the Celts in Civ 5 even had Edinburgh as their capital. Of course people complained about their design being overly British so they gave us Gaul as well.

    Considering the civ is called England and not Britain/U.K. I think that's why a distinction is easier to make considering calling a civ England doesn't give us attributes of Scotland. On the other hand the Tamils/Dravidians are at least primarily located in modern-day India, so it's harder to make a clear distinction at least the way the civs are designed.

    I do think calling them the Chola, and basing it off of the historical empire, instead of calling them Tamils might make it easier for them to be a separate civ.
     
    TahamiTsunami, Zaarin and BuchiTaton like this.
  12. Yudhisthira

    Yudhisthira Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2021
    Messages:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    इन्द्रप्रस्थ
    This actually is very difficult to assess. I mean how can one measure which place has more of a particular culture after thousands of year of any cultural process.
    Sanskritic cultural reached Tamil region in 1st millennium B.C most probably with NBPW culture. The earliest age of Tamil history i.e sangam age(300 B.C-300 C.E) already have heavy Sanskrit elements & thou one can find peculiar practices most probably remnant of local neolithic period but overall the society later developed in what scholar calls Brahmnical order along with heavy presence of Buddhism & Jainism.
    In this light Tamils looks more Sanskritic then let say northern Indian tribes(around Aravalli & Vindhayas) who weren't still part of mainstream & at constant conflict with states. I mean it will be erroneous to say that a Chola/Vijaynagar King who has sanskrit name/tittle & proclaims himself as protector of Brahmins, Caste system isn't part of the Vedic tradition
    but a Bhill chief who is outside of mainstream,caste system & is constantly at war with north Indian state societies is part of it just because he is in North & speak IE language?

    Let's not confuse ourselves with modern nation states including India & China(if I may dare). This approach make things more controversial,unnecessary political. In fact I once proposed here to get rid of India & China as names for the civs as
    1) They r modern English names not self identifiers.
    2) As long as these name exist with giant nation state connotations, it will be very difficult to come up with genuine civs which exist/existed in these regions.

    I want Tamil Civ probably as merchant/naval power but not as representation for dravidian languages. It doesn't make sense. Language isn't culture. I mean we don't have Indo-European civilization,Sino-Tibetan,Afro-Asiatic civs etc.
     
  13. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Gender:
    Male
    Talking about texts, being the SEA scripts derived from tamil brahmic, that say us about the link to the rest of India but also about their impact beyond India.
    Language famiy is just one part of what it make it interesting, but also there are the foreing impact and the long independent history. We must look at the sume of the parts.

    Other question, for the game what would you chose Bhill of Chola?

    I agree it was propossed before, but sadly most people are not of the same idea or think the devs will not do it.

    We actually have like on the "Maya" civ, or used/have on "Celts", "Polynesians" and their "representatives" like Gauls and Maori.

    Again talk about language add to others reasons why I would pick Chola civ over Bhill civ any time. I mean is not like devs chose european civs just from which have less common european institutions and traditions.
     
  14. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    7,432
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I agree that Chola/Tamils might be harder to implement alongside an Indian civ but what is your opinion about a separate Mughal civ? I see it as more along the line of Macedon and Greece where if they could exist together, surely a Mughal civ and India civ could?
     
  15. Yudhisthira

    Yudhisthira Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2021
    Messages:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    इन्द्रप्रस्थ
    Sure, I think this can happen & may even avoid all the nationalists drama. Though I personally would very much like a Tamil civ & for that matter more regionals civ along that line like
    Gandhara- a true culture melting pot, India,Greece,Iranian,Sino influences.
    Sindh- exist since mahajanpada era & even today has distinct identity.
    Kashmir- relatively geographically isolated.
    Kalinga- Asoka's war & quite distinct for long time.
    Assam (Kamarupa)
    Anuradhapur(Lanka)
    Ladakh
    These region remained distinct for very long time & have strong historical narrative around them unlike modern nation states in subcontinent.

    But ofcourse I m fine with having mughals & other empires. Though it sound historically less correct to me but if I get more representation in the games this way, it will do.
     

Share This Page