Is the civ series too eurocentric?

[Ajidica]

The Mughals are a fricking dynasty. It's directly the opposite of the standard used by Civilization.

I was unaware there was a standard beyond "historically notable or interesting".
Especially as Civ6 is also including "lends itself well to the new leader personality system" for its criteria.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The Mughals are a fricking dynasty. It's directly the opposite of the standard used by Civilization.

So are the Ottomans who have given the name to the Ottoman Empire.
Ottoman Empire have been in both civilization III/IV/V.

 

[Tahuti]

The Eurocentrism of Civilization is probably not so much in its catalogue of civilizations (that's just marketing, besides, China has more inhabitants than all Western nations combined). Rather, the premise behind the gameplay is pretty much based on Westphalian statehood: States neatly declare war, recognise each other as equals and conclude treaties. Right of conquest is assumed: If the states in question are destroyed, the conquered automatically recognises the conquerer as their lawful authority.

Those are pretty much Westphalian assumptions and given the timespan of the Civ series usually anachronistic at best. Ah well, it's just a game.

 

[Ajidica]

I dunno, I think it is a decent enough model for pre-modern Europe. You bring in your bunch of violent aristocrats, defeat the local violent aristocrats in a battle, and set yourself up in their castles. The peasants go on being oppressed and hey, it isn't like they got a vote under the previous group of warmongering inbred aristocrats anyhow.

 

[Tahuti]

I dunno, I think it is a decent enough model for pre-modern Europe.

Hence, Eurocentric...

Also, Civ assumes all the time war is between nation-states. Religion and economy are considered factors though these are all depicted as subservient to the state, so on top of being Eurocentric, Civ is arguably Statecentric as well. And pre-modern centric, as you noted yourself.

 

[jjkrause84]

The Eurocentrism of Civilization is probably not so much in its catalogue of civilizations (that's just marketing, besides, China has more inhabitants than all Western nations combined). Rather, the premise behind the gameplay is pretty much based on Westphalian statehood: States neatly declare war, recognise each other as equals and conclude treaties. Right of conquest is assumed: If the states in question are destroyed, the conquered automatically recognises the conquerer as their lawful authority.

Those are pretty much Westphalian assumptions and given the timespan of the Civ series usually anachronistic at best. Ah well, it's just a game.

Be extremely careful with Westphalia! It does not invent the modern state system the way political scientists love to claim. Go read it some time (it is online). Like so many peace treaties the document is more about trying to return to the status quo antebellum more than anything else.

It is a useful rhetorical tool because it gives us a set time and place for the beginning of the modern state system, but in reality it was nothing more than a moment in a long-running evolution that both pre- and post-dates the peace treaty.

 

[Flying Pig]

Could you give us some background on how the 'Westphalian' model of the state actually came to be?

 

[Mouthwash]

I was unaware there was a standard beyond "historically notable or interesting".

That's the kind of reasoning that gave us Joan of Arc in two Civ installments.

Especially as Civ6 is also including "lends itself well to the new leader personality system" for its criteria.

Civ 6 is an embarrassment and I refuse to recognize it as a legitimate Civilization game. The franchise ended with IV, sorry.

So are the Ottomans who have given the name to the Ottoman Empire.
Ottoman Empire have been in both civilization III/IV/V.

The Ottomans are there solely to represent the Turks.

The Eurocentrism of Civilization is probably not so much in its catalogue of civilizations (that's just marketing, besides, China has more inhabitants than all Western nations combined). Rather, the premise behind the gameplay is pretty much based on Westphalian statehood: States neatly declare war, recognise each other as equals and conclude treaties. Right of conquest is assumed: If the states in question are destroyed, the conquered automatically recognises the conquerer as their lawful authority.

Those are pretty much Westphalian assumptions and given the timespan of the Civ series usually anachronistic at best. Ah well, it's just a game.

This is something like accusing chess of being monarchist. The game doesn't even try to emulate any kind of historical process. It really is just a classic video game, not much different than Starcraft, with historical pizzazz sprinkled on (which is good for roleplaying, I suppose). You can criticize EUIV if you like; god knows it doesn't get enough.

 

[Ajidica]

That's the kind of reasoning that gave us Joan of Arc in two Civ installments.

While I find Joan of Arc a definitely odd inclusion, there is no getting around the fact she had a large impact on French national identity. She did more stuff on the ground than Victoria did - who largely sat around and became wider than she was tall- but nobody is arguing against the inclusion of Victoria.

Civ 6 is an embarrassment and I refuse to recognize it as a legitimate Civilization game. The franchise ended with IV, sorry.

Please, may I borrow your time machine and play Civ6 to determine if it is an embarrassment?

The Ottomans are there solely to represent the Turks.

How do you come to that conclusion?
The leaders are tall taken from the Ottomans, the UB comes from the Ottoman period, the UU are either Janissaries or Sipahis -both from the Ottoman period-, and the Civ5 Ability is a clear reference to the Ottoman period. I'm not getting any indication Firaxis intended the Ottomans to refer to anything other than the Ottoman Sultanate and the House of Osman. No reference to the Turkoman, Great Seljuks, Ak Koynulu, the Qizilbashi, or any other Turkish group.

 

[Kyriakos]

^ It is pretty obvious they are ottomans, and not some generic 'turkish' civ. They certainly aren't there to be current Turkey. It's not some other turkish nomad or post 1071 group either, as visible by the units and traits.

 

[Mouthwash]

While I find Joan of Arc a definitely odd inclusion, there is no getting around the fact she had a large impact on French national identity. She did more stuff on the ground than Victoria did - who largely sat around and became wider than she was tall- but nobody is arguing against the inclusion of Victoria.

She was never in any capacity described as being a leader of France. Similarly, I don't think that Subutai should lead Mongolia or that Parmenion should lead Greece.

Please, may I borrow your time machine and play Civ6 to determine if it is an embarrassment?

Did you see the videos of it? I shudder to even think people might even consider playing it.

The leaders are tall taken from the Ottomans, the UB comes from the Ottoman period, the UU are either Janissaries or Sipahis -both from the Ottoman period-, and the Civ5 Ability is a clear reference to the Ottoman period. I'm not getting any indication Firaxis intended the Ottomans to refer to anything other than the Ottoman Sultanate and the House of Osman. No reference to the Turkoman, Great Seljuks, Ak Koynulu, the Qizilbashi, or any other Turkish group.

Yes, there's an unavoidable tension between representing a cultural or ethnic group, which the game does thematically, and representing a well-defined state, which is integral to the gameplay itself. So the designers (quite reasonably, in my view) resort to using the most iconic state of each group. Others have mentioned already that Civilization's Persia doesn't reflect any of the Islamic identity that modern Iran possesses, but it goes deeper than that- even the city names would have been utterly antiquated in the eyes of a sixth-century Sassanian. Persia in the game is basically Achaemenids. By the same token, Italy is represented by Rome, and Egypt, for all its historical variety, is the pharaonic Egypt that everybody knows.

 

[jjkrause84]

She was never in any capacity described as being a leader of France.

Civ 2. Maybe even Civ 3 as well? (I don't quite recall)

 

[Kyriakos]

Some of Egypt's official Civ game (ie non mod) leaders are Ptolemaic, so it doesn't follow it's only the pharaonic era.
With some civs the main era is not that specific (eg Russia had Stalin in civ1, and 18th century tsars in most of the other games). With others it is hugely specific, and the ottoman dynasty is the clearest case of that.

 

[Mouthwash]

Some of Egypt's official Civ game (ie non mod) leaders are Ptolemaic, so it doesn't follow it's only the pharaonic era.

Well, to put it bluntly, but only a Greek nationalist (or Grecophile, to be charitable) would see any difference between the two. The Ptolemies were no more distinct than any of the other foreign dynasties that ruled in Egypt after the decline of the New Kingdom.

With some civs the main era is not that specific (eg Russia had Stalin in civ1, and 18th century tsars in most of the other games).

So? Russia and the Soviet Union are basically the same states. I don't see anything representing the Kievan Rus.

With others it is hugely specific, and the ottoman dynasty is the clearest case of that.

The only difference is that they are called by the dynasty name... and I think that has to do with the universal identification of modern-day Turkey with Turkishness. But I just don't see any difference between them and Persia or Rome.

 

[Camikaze]

It is, unquestionably, Eurocentric. The question "is it *too* Euroecentric" is another matter though. What would one use to measure that?

I think this is the correct question. Are Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis too Eurocentric? Presumably there's a different standard on the basis of what you think the game should be. If 'civilization', as it is used in terms of the game, is taken to be an inherently European concept, then perhaps the game isn't Eurocentric enough. Perhaps it's foisting a European concept onto groups which don't properly fit the mould.

 

[Mouthwash]

Are Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis too Eurocentric?

Those are already Europe-themed games. I mean, it's in the name.

 

[Camikaze]

That's my point.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh, OK.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, to put it bluntly, but only a Greek nationalist (or Grecophile, to be charitable) would see any difference between the two. The Ptolemies were no more distinct than any of the other foreign dynasties that ruled in Egypt after the decline of the New Kingdom.

I am sure it is nationalism, although allow me to still think you would benefit if you make an attempt at reading books before posting a reply, given the Ptolemaic era Egypt is sort of distinct from Pharaonic Egypt and yet is presented in Civ games as "Egypt". As known, the Ptolemaic empire was important in its centuries on its own. It was where Euclid, Eratosthenes and many other very crucial thinkers lived. They even bothered tranlslating the jewish backward religion into greek for their jewish subjects to be able to read, so maybe feel grateful.
Contrasted to what people are trying to note to you, that the Ottoman civ is strictly one era and dynasty. It isn't even (special units, traits etc) all of the ottoman era.

 

[jjkrause84]

Could you give us some background on how the 'Westphalian' model of the state actually came to be?

First and foremost you need state-centralised power, rather than the extremely power-diffuse reality for much of Europe in the Middle Ages. You can see this centralisation happening in France, for example, in the 1300s and 1400s with more and more power being assumed by the crown and parlement. From there you enter into the whole 'military revolution debate' of Michael Roberts, Geoffrey Parker and Co. (Clifford Rodgers' edited volume The Military Revolution Debate gives a fantastic account of this from many different perspectives). Basically, state-centric finances (taxation) and military force yield stronger European states that can wage war as a unit, rather than as a collective of smaller units (Barons and Dukes, etc.) that have to be coerced or cajoled into action.

So, 1648 is a useful date because the 30 Years War sees the last of the major, privately sponsored armies in Europe (under Wallenstein, if I recall correctly....it's been a while!), and the state-centric model is largely predominant by the early-to-mid-1600s. The idea that it is a creation of Westphalia, however, is simply incorrect. Again, read the treaty. If you can find where it creates the modern state system I'll be very impressed.