Is the Civ Series telling a wrong (hi)story?

[NukeAJS]

I think Civ6 actually does address this but labels it in a way that might obscure what's really going on: housing.

In addition to actual places to live, housing can also be thought of as sanitation. Yeah, cities were cesspools in many places in the world (some moreso than others) and for a long period of time, but cities truly exploded when people started coming up with ideas on how to accommodate the influx of former-farmers (displaced due to industrialized agriculture) without making them all sick.

Here's the longer way of saying it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

 

[historix69]

The idea with Civ in classroom is not my idea. It seems to be an official project : CivilizationEDU

https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/civilizationedu-takes-the-strategy-franchise-to-school/

It is interesting that historical slavery is considered as kind of social taboo but war (including razing cities, conquering the world with battleships, tanks and marines, using bombers and nuclear weapons to reduce/destroy cities, using military garrisons to supress population in conquered cities) is regarded as socially acceptable and entertaining.
(One of the inspirations for Civ1 was a (classic) pc wargame : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire )

If slavery was the base of ancient (and other, e.g. colonial) empires, it should not be ignored nor concealed. With the Age of Enlightenment, Human Rights and Abolitionism, the international acceptance for slaveholder-societies and -economies should dwindle away. And if score would be based on freedom, happiness and education of population, a slaveholder victory would not grant a desirable score.

 

[historix69]

... cities truly exploded when people started coming up with ideas on how to accommodate the influx of former-farmers (displaced due to industrialized agriculture) without making them all sick.

This required a sufficient Food production.

In pre-industrial societies often 80%-95% of workforce were occupied with inefficient fishing, agriculture and forestry (subsistence economy). Industrial and modern societies usually employ only ca. 2-3% of their workforce for fishing, agriculture and forestry, compensating the reduced manpower in this area by technology (e.g. chemical fertilizer) and machines, raising the efficiency by a factor of up to 50-100 or more. (e.g. 2 farmers today can manage the farm land of a village of 1000 people (subsistence economy) who now are free to work in the city (industry, office, ...).) Global Trade also allows to import food and other products and concentrate on more valuable products.

(The increase in Food Production Efficiency from pre-industrial to modern time is so huge that a modern farmer (1 pop) in Civ would be able to work ca. 4 farm-tiles simultaneously and produce ca. 100 food per turn while each farm-tile had the capacity for ca. 10 pre-industrial farmers.)

 

[Temppu]

It is interesting that historical slavery is considered as kind of social taboo but war (including razing cities, conquering the world with battleships, tanks and marines, using bombers and nuclear weapons to reduce/destroy cities, using military garrisons to supress population in conquered cities) is regarded as socially acceptable and entertaining.

Im pretty sure they consider the political implications of risking simulating wars and genocides with particular nations. For example, Armenian Civ will probably never be a part of a Civ franchise with Ottomans in it. Slavery, however, could make simultaneous inclusion of multiple African Civs and Western Civs very awkward, and would hence restrict the Civ pallette to a more extent.

 

[Karpius]

If we focus on the details of history versus what is represented in Civilization6 we will never be even close to reality. In that way, the game remains a complete fantasy.

However, if we step back and look at it from the abstract, the game follows patterns that are fairly recognizable in the development of human civilization. "Energy capture" being among the most important principles in human development is easily recognizable from the various resources the cities in our game need in order to grow. Early settlements faced the possibility of raids from humans who didn't want to spend their days farming. Or perhaps they were angry over land disputes. Might have even been as simple as getting a new bunch of women. In any case, the 'farmer-settler' had to erect defenses and manage their stores of resources within, which required some level of management. Also, they would look to someone to actively defend them and such people would have been granted (or demanded) certain privileges in exchange for their 'prowess'. The leader/defender would become something of a "stationary bandit", often as greedy as the raider he was defending against, but now with a ready supply of resources all nestled in one place. Of course the leader would continue to defend the people, because they were providing his energy needs. Too, he would make sure they worked together and efficiently and even peacefully because it served his interests and he was becoming the state.

In several parts around the world, and at different times, this process occurred independently...or so we believe so far from available archeological evidence. The process meant more available energy and this often increased the birth rate, which meant more energy needed to be found. The search for more energy spurred innovations in how it was gathered, which spurred further developments in social and political structure. It also spurred growth and growth could often mean competition and competition often led to war and war made the state ever more valuable to the people. But to be able to wage war required even more energy and organization and even discipline. Which meant the state required its people to live and work efficiently.

Well, before I ramble on any further about the creation of empires, how "war makes the state and the state makes peace", "caging effects" and "culminating points", let me just summarize by saying I believe Civilization6 offers a fairly decent representation of human development through the ages.

 

[historix69]

Im pretty sure they consider the political implications of risking simulating wars and genocides with particular nations. For example, Armenian Civ will probably never be a part of a Civ franchise with Ottomans in it. Slavery, however, could make simultaneous inclusion of multiple African Civs and Western Civs very awkward, and would hence restrict the Civ pallette to a more extent.

Today we link slavery with enslavement of colored people, but in ancient and medieval times, the color was not important and there were white slaves and colored slaves side by side. When the christian church forbid christians to enslave other christians, the european slave trade shifted to eastern european and african pagans (and other non-christians). After the christianisation of eastern europe, slave trade shifted to european tradeposts and colonies in africa, america and asia, now mostly dealing with colored slaves. African (black) slaves were often sold by other african (black) tribesmen or by arab slavetraders. Slavetrade in Africa was an important part of tribal economy and source of wealth. With the spread of malaria in european colonies, black slaves became more important than indigene slaves.
Muslim slavetraders on the contrary were not restricted to take christian slaves and so for centuries there were numerous raids of muslim pirates from the North African Coast against european ships and coastal settlements until 19th century, taking approximately over a million white europeans as slaves for the muslim empires.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
In present time the history of slavery is usually told as a Black and White story to better fit into Good and Bad categories. (Political Correctness)

Even the members of Civfanatics usually practice slavery in form of Worker/Settler-Stealing.

 

[Depravo]

Today we link slavery with enslavement of colored people

No we don't. From what you wrote, you don't, and nor do I.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

... I read somewhere that ancient horsemen formed wedges and chopped through opposition lines, maybe that where civ hot the horsemen power from. It’s one of my pet peeves.

But it is that, just a pet, it’s a game and mimicking one human is not possible for an AI currently, let alone a world full.

Actually, it was Classical Horsemen, and the Wedge Formation is described in Asclepiodotus, who wrote an entire book on the tactics of Alexander's and the Successors' armies. Alexander's Hetairoi fought in a wedge, the Thessalians fought in a diamond or rhomboid formation, but the other classical light cavalry and the Persian and other Greek cavalry fought in rectangular 'blocks' that, by later standards, would be considered too deep - 6 to 8 ranks instead of 2 - 3 considered enough by the 18th century CE.

My own pet peeve is people thinking that the Stirrup represented a great advance for cavalry or that it had much of anything to do with the development of the mounted lance-wielding Knight, but I've learned to live with it...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No we don't. From what you wrote, you don't, and nor do I.

Unfortunately most of the general public does, at least here in the U.S it seems. But that's a different discussion for somewhere else.

 

[Victoria]

My own pet peeve is people thinking that the Stirrup represented a great advance for cavalry o

For enough, I stand corrected, it’s been a while since I read up on it and things have changed, thanks.

 

[nzcamel]

Im pretty sure they consider the political implications of risking simulating wars and genocides with particular nations. For example, Armenian Civ will probably never be a part of a Civ franchise with Ottomans in it. Slavery, however, could make simultaneous inclusion of multiple African Civs and Western Civs very awkward, and would hence restrict the Civ pallette to a more extent.

That's like saying that Israel will never be in Civ so as to not offend Germans. It's nonsense and it needs to stop being said.
There are other reasons why we may never see Israel but they are not to appease those who committed genocide against them.

Edit: Sorry @Temppu , that wasn't what you actually said. I was rushing, and your comment at a glance shaped up like a few I have seen that said that Armenia will never appear in the game because that will anger Turks.

Well, before I ramble on any further about the creation of empires, how "war makes the state and the state makes peace", "caging effects" and "culminating points", let me just summarize by saying I believe Civilization6 offers a fairly decent representation of human development through the ages.

In the broader context that you and I are looking at, I think the main thing they leave out is the fall part of any Civilization. Of course you can't work that into a game -other than difficulty level- as most people do not want to see all their hard work come to nought often. The Dark ages in R&F being a well thought out way to incorporate a worse time period; but it really is a light touch still.

Exactly. Even a game as basic as Diplomacy can get people thinking along lines like 'better not get into a war with France and Russia at the same time' or 'if Turkey collapses, I'm screwed' or 'what can I promise Italy to get them to switch sides'. In short, the foundations of geopolitics. It's not remotely accurate in any historical sense, but you have to start somewhere.

Yep.

And the choice of whether or not to go to war in Civ is huge. It's easy in our (mostly) easy 21st century lives to judge the past and find humanity wanting...when we're never put in the same confines of less than desirable outcomes. It is good that we have progressive views; yet they are worth little if we cannot see how people in the past justified to themselves what they did. Without that, we cannot see our own flaws, which others in centuries to come will look back at us distastefully over.

 

[PeterChu]

The very starting date of civ, 4000BC, is controversial. From what I understood, by 4000 BC there was no civilization anywhere yet (but rare tiny proto-cities could happen, mainly in the Middle East), Egypt united and Sumer definitely emerged only about 3000 BC.

The longest surviving civilizations of history would be:
China, if we count since Shang dynasty (the first one supported by archeology) till today (...such continuity is also controversial!) - roughly 3600 years
India, if we count since Vedic period (Indus valley was IMO self contained, separate entity - after all its language is so isolate it is completely undeciphered!) - roughly 3500 years
Israelites/Hebrews/Jews - roughly 3000 years, although obviously in this case we are talking about culture/peoples/diaspora rather than state
ancient Egypt - I mean, it's completely dead culture for a long time (Arabic Islamic Egypt has goddamn almost nothing in common with ancient one) but it still survived 3000 years in some form before going extinct
Iran, if we count since Media or Achaemenids - roughly 2600 years

The first government form in Civ 6 is chiefdom, which emerges before the invention of writing system. By definition, the civs appearing in the ancient era do not know anything we know as 'history'. With at most oral traditions, the ancient world could be at best imagined as the age of mythology or epic.

In terms of the history in the East Asia continent, archeological researches have confirmed that before the Shang dynasty, there were various proto-states that are just chiefdoms without writing system. But only the Shang empire, with its writing system invented to record the practices and results of sacrificial rituals, could leave a lasting impact on the writing of the cosmological-imperial history formed in the Han dynasty.

Check again the Civilopedia entry:

According to anthropologists, a chiefdom is “an autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages … under the permanent control of a paramount chief.” So much for anthropological definitions. In point of fact, a chiefdom is a rigid hierarchy based on kinship, rule gained by ascribed status rather than achieved status, marked by centralized authority and pervasive inequalities. Influence, prestige and power is granted by the chief to an elite – thus making them, obviously, the elite, and his strongest supporters against all those lesser folk within and without the villages. Complaints against the status quo tend to be dealt with … harshly.​

If so, starting a civ game from 4000 BC is not so inaccurate or misleading as it seems. The point might be rather hardly any pre-historic chiefdom survives in an explicit way as the same civ entity as in a civ game. The period described in the Civ 6 as 'early empires' erased most of the traces of these chiefdoms, just as these early empires in the Civ 6 games would destroy any 'barbarian camp' they find.

 

[historix69]

In Civ 6 we have the major civs founding cities and empires, the minor civs founding city states, the tribal villages (goody huts) and the barbarian camps.

I think that the tribal villages should have a bigger part in the early game, not only as a one-time donator for military units, population or eurekas, but as a possible long time partner for the player, allowing trade and maybe population transfer, etc. Tribal villages could grow into cities which later join the player's empire by force or by free decision. In OP I mentioned that 70-80% (or more) of mankind did not live in cities in pre-industrial times. So each early city should be surrounded by a group of tribal villages and the empty map should also contain many more villages from start. It would be up to the player if he tries to subdue or befriend the villages.

I remember that in Civ1 the Goody Huts were also spawning barbarians, so stepping on a Goody Hut in one of the first turns could end your game very quickly by spawning a group of 5 barbarian cavalry units.

That's like saying that Israel will never be in Civ so as to not offend Germans. It's nonsense and it needs to stop being said.
There are other reasons why we may never see Israel but they are not to appease those who committed genocide against them.

Don't mistake the Nazi Regime from 1933-1945 with Germany in general. I don't think that any german Civ player was involved in the genocide which happened more than 73 years in the past. (Besides most of the genocide was committed by the SS and some other non-Wehrmacht-groups in occupied eastern europe/soviet union while most of the germans were occupied with surviving the dictatorship / regime, allied bombing and the war.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Don't mistake the Nazi Regime from 1933-1945 with Germany in general. I don't think that any german Civ player was involved in the genocide which happened more than 73 years in the past. (Besides most of the genocide was committed by the SS and some other non-Wehrmacht-groups in occupied eastern europe/soviet union while most of the germans were occupied with surviving the dictatorship / regime, allied bombing and the war.)

Sorry, but this belief, in the 'honorable' Wehrmacht and the Evil Nazis, is no longer tenable. German historians going through all the records, including a trove buried in East Germany until the wall came down, wrote a 10 volume history of "Germany in the Second World War" (Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg) in the 1990s which thoroughly examined and exploded this Myth. Furthermore, the insistence that the Wehrmacht somehow was not involved in atrocities and genocidal activities was consciously promoted by German officers after the war in memoirs and histories - Franz Halder, the one-time Chief of Staff for the German Army, admitted as much in a post-war letter. The Wehrmacht aided, assisted, and augmented the SS Einsatzgruppen, provided all sorts of manpower and logistical assistance in sending populations to the Death Camps, massacred civilians all over Europe, and then evaded their responsibility for any of it after the war.
I do not hold any post -war Germans responsible for the actions of their ancestors, but it does no one any favors to perpetuate Myths of History when the documented facts are available (The German History I cited is starting to become available in English translation from Oxford University Press, but they are still very pricy - $80 and up for a paperback copy of a single volume, $250 and up for the hardbacks: check a local University library, and harass them if they don't have copies already!)

 

[historix69]

I know the 10 volume history of "Germany in the Second World War" but I have not found time to read it in detail since it is over 12.000 pages, not always in an easy language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War
Have you read them? Can you give some details?
Do you have examples of massacres in the east where the Wehrmacht decided on its own (not by command of the Nazi party and supreme commander Hitler) to commit atrocities? (In theory, the Wehrmacht was responsible for the conquered territories, but in fact I think they had no control over SS and Einsatztruppen directed by Himmler. And they could hardly fight the SS during the war to enforce law of war. )

(The definition of atrocities is very formal. So it is not a warcrime to carpetbomb, flatten and burn a city and maybe kill tenthousands of civilians, but when one of the bomber aircraft goes down and the crew parachutes and capitulates and is massacred by enraged civilians from the city (retaliation), it is a warcrime and the civilians are accused as murderers.)

I read some books by Ian Kershaw like the Hitler biography and "The Nazi Dictatorship", but also books like Adam Tooze "The Wages of Destruction" (which was recommended in the HOI2-Forum many years ago) or Keegan (WW1, WW2)

At the time of 2nd world war, the german population was about 80 million people. Almost all male persons capable of fighting, around 20 million men, were mobilized between 1939 and 1945. With such a mass of people it is difficult to judge. Atrocities should not only be rated by absolute numbers but also in relation to duration, conditions (e.g. partisan wars) and number of total soldiers in a theater.

 

[Equilin]

Don't mistake the Nazi Regime from 1933-1945 with Germany in general. I don't think that any german Civ player was involved in the genocide which happened more than 73 years in the past. (Besides most of the genocide was committed by the SS and some other non-Wehrmacht-groups in occupied eastern europe/soviet union while most of the germans were occupied with surviving the dictatorship / regime, allied bombing and the war.)

I thought the point is that including Israel will trigger Israel in that sense (not Germany)?

 

[historix69]

I thought the point is that including Israel will trigger Israel in that sense (not Germany)?

In Civ4 Israel was one of the nations included by mod for the Giant Earth Map. In TSL Civ games Israel usually is more in danger to be conquered by Egypt or Arabia or vice versa than be in conflict with Germany. Controlling the Suez Canal is usually advantegous for every player. (Maybe now with Loyalty, a single Canal city is more difficult to maintain.)

 

[Brianstorm]

The ability to colonize a resource in Civ 3 was a great idea. Expanding on it to where farms and castles are much more important and it's a big deal to place a district would probably be the natural evolution of the current system, though you'd need bigger maps. Personally I'd like to see a prehistoric element where you start as a culture group (European, African, Asian) and through whatever circumstances you become a "civ". You could have sub groups like Near East and Far East, Med and Northern Europe, with a revolution aspect to mimic the Ri(y)se and Fall of Civilizations (Free Cities are a good start). It would probably have to be a special mode instead of pick your own civ however.

 

[nzcamel]

I remember that in Civ1 the Goody Huts were also spawning barbarians, so stepping on a Goody Hut in one of the first turns could end your game very quickly by spawning a group of 5 barbarian cavalry units.

That was still the case in Civ IV lol (can't remember what happened in between).

Don't mistake the Nazi Regime from 1933-1945 with Germany in general. I don't think that any german Civ player was involved in the genocide which happened more than 73 years in the past. (Besides most of the genocide was committed by the SS and some other non-Wehrmacht-groups in occupied eastern europe/soviet union while most of the germans were occupied with surviving the dictatorship / regime, allied bombing and the war.)

Sorry, but this belief, in the 'honorable' Wehrmacht and the Evil Nazis, is no longer tenable. German historians going through all the records, including a trove buried in East Germany until the wall came down, wrote a 10 volume history of "Germany in the Second World War" (Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg) in the 1990s which thoroughly examined and exploded this Myth. Furthermore, the insistence that the Wehrmacht somehow was not involved in atrocities and genocidal activities was consciously promoted by German officers after the war in memoirs and histories - Franz Halder, the one-time Chief of Staff for the German Army, admitted as much in a post-war letter. The Wehrmacht aided, assisted, and augmented the SS Einsatzgruppen, provided all sorts of manpower and logistical assistance in sending populations to the Death Camps, massacred civilians all over Europe, and then evaded their responsibility for any of it after the war.
I do not hold any post -war Germans responsible for the actions of their ancestors, but it does no one any favors to perpetuate Myths of History when the documented facts are available (The German History I cited is starting to become available in English translation from Oxford University Press, but they are still very pricy - $80 and up for a paperback copy of a single volume, $250 and up for the hardbacks: check a local University library, and harass them if they don't have copies already!)

I think I stand somewhere between the two of you. Germany as a whole had -eventually- bought into the Nazi regime, and many of them had blood on their hands. Likewise the populations of too many other countries who were occupied by Germany in WWII also did the same. But that wasn't everyone in Germany and elsewhere. I have no doubt that many in the German forces had no time for the Nazi's, or their atrocities. But they walked a fine line, and so it was tricky to openly resist.
It's the same everywhere. As long as a group does well, they will have band waggoners jump on with them. Once they stop doing well, good luck finding those people.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I know the 10 volume history of "Germany in the Second World War" but I have not found time to read it in detail since it is over 12.000 pages, not always in an easy language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War
Have you read them? Can you give some details?

I have not read all of them, of course, but I have read Volume IV "The Attack on the Soviet Union" in the process of writing my second book on the 1941 Campaign. Chapter VII (pp 481 - 524) is entirely on "Operation Barbarossa as a War of Conquest and Annihilation" and includes sections on:
Regulation of SS Activity in the Operations Area of the Army - because the army provided the Einsatzgruppen with vehicles, manpower, rations, supplies and other support.
Hitler's Ideological Intentions Translated into Orders - by the Wehrmacht, including the order that exempted Wehrmacht personnel from ordinary military justice for crimes committed against the civilian population. Even German officers protested against this one, because it made 'murder' of prisoners and civilians virtually unpunishable and was bad for discipline.
Preparations for the War of Annihilation and the Attitude of Military Leaders - which lays out specific orders and directives for the (illegal) 'extermination' of civilians, commissars, and the taking and murdering of hostages - all of which were piously denied by the surviving Wehrmacht officers after the war, and all of which were War Crimes under the international agreements at Geneva and the Hague.

In addition, I have read and translated the War Diaries (Kriegstagebuchen) of the German 4th Army, 3rd and 4th Panzer Groups, XXXX, XXXXI, XXXVI, LVII Panzer Corps, V, VII, and XIII Army Corps, 1st, 2nd, 5th, 11th, and 20th Panzer Divisions, 36th Infantry Division (Mtz), and 7th, 34th, 35th, 98th, 106th, and 258th Infantry Divisions of the German Army, and in those documents just for the months of October through December 1941 the German Army units themselves record instances of:
"using prisoners to clear minefields"
"organizing rations from the villages" (in fact, as the Chapters in DiZW Vol IV indicate, the German military was expected to 'live off the land' throughout the eastern campaign)
"seizing houses and driving the inhabitants into the forests" (in December in temperatures of - 30 degrees)
"seizing the farm carts and their drivers to supplement the supply columns"

These steps, taken by numerous German Army Divisions are all in violation of International Law.

I read some books by Ian Kershaw like the Hitler biography and "The Nazi Dictatorship", but also books like Adam Tooze "The Wages of Destruction" (which was recommended in the HOI2-Forum many years ago) or Keegan (WW1, WW2)

I suggest in also (and all in English!):
Craig Luther Barbarossa Unleashed
Robert Citino Death of the Wehrmacht, The Wehrmacht Retreats, and The Wehrmacht's Last Stand
Finally, for a 'comparative study', I suggest Frank Ellis Barbarossa 1941: Reframing Hitler's Invasion of Stalin's Soviet Empire, in which Ellis tries to make the case that the German activities were not that different from those of Stalin's Red Army and NKVD, but in the process lays out a pretty complete list of War Crimes committed by the German military in 1941.

I apologize that most all my sources are on the Eastern Front, but that has been my primary field of research for the past 5 years, so that's what I'm most familiar with.
I have not gone into any detail on the most massive war crime of all committed entirely by the German military, the systematic murder by starvation, shooting and neglect of over 2,000,0000 Soviet prisoners of war in 1941 - before any of the survivors ever made it back to Germany and the SS-run camps there.

At the time of 2nd world war, the german population was about 80 million people. Almost all male persons capable of fighting, around 20 million men, were mobilized between 1939 and 1945. With such a mass of people it is difficult to judge. Atrocities should not only be rated by absolute numbers but also in relation to duration, conditions (e.g. partisan wars) and number of total soldiers in a theater.

All War is an Atrocity; or to quote Sherman's entire phrase: "War is Hell and you cannot refine it."

BUT the systematic commission of War Crimes by a military force, and especially the commission of crimes which have a negative effect on its own capabilities (as when the Germans went looking to use Soviet POWs as slave labor in 1942, and discovered that most of them were already dead or dying - oops!), is an act of both Atrocity and Stupidity, and if the former may or may not be punished by human institutions, the latter always is, by that Homicidal (W)itch, Mother Nature if no one else.

I have little good to say about Iosif Stalin, but he summed up the massive German mistake in one phrase:
"They say they want a War of Annihilation: then they shall have it."

- And so they did.