Is the civ series too eurocentric?

[Flying Pig]

Interesting, thank you. So it's more correct to see the 'Westphalian state' as something which came into being organically as an outgrowth of changing political organisation, rather than something which was ever declared to exist - a de facto rather than a de jure creation. Is that so?

 

[jjkrause84]

Interesting, thank you. So it's more correct to see the 'Westphalian state' as something which came into being organically as an outgrowth of changing political organisation, rather than something which was ever declared to exist - a de facto rather than a de jure creation. Is that so?

Absolutely.

Could a nearly continent-wide domestic and foreign political reality happen any other way? Outside of conquest and forcible change (Napoleon or the Soviets after 1945) I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[innonimatu]

I think that there were some important modifications on "international laws", of international norms, bough about when this treaty was put together. The principle of each sovereign having sole discretion over internal matters of his domain was important, and new. The universal claims made in the name of religion were thrown out and the principle of national sovereignty was created de jure and recognized in practice by all major states at this time. WE can argue over prior examples, of about how there was still an HRE that interfered with the sovereignty of princes, but there was a change in the way of thinking and handling diplomacy after this.

 

[jjkrause84]

I think that there were some important modifications on "international laws", of international norms, bough about when this treaty was put together. The principle of each sovereign having sole discretion over internal matters of his domain was important, and new.

I don't recall coming across these sorts of things in the treaty itself (although if you know where they are I'm very happy to be proven wrong). Either way, I'd still be very wary of laying that sort of power and importance on Westphalia. Even if all the claims made about it are correct (which they simply aren't) would such sweeping cultural and political changes occur entirely because of peace negotiations, or would the negotiations reflect reality that had already come to be?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Civ isnt particularly Eurocentric by geography but by mentality. 'Non-European' civs included are too often just Western foils, and we project our bias more by giving way too much to the Mediterranean and Middle East. That trend is disguised by the categories used in the OP, which breaks this quite unified region up according to present-day categories. Classifying Greeks as 'European' and Byzantines and Ottomans as 'Middle Eastern' highlights the historical meaningless of such an anachronistic distinction, admitting that there has to be a certain arbitrariness in any attempt to draw up this kind of analysis. The bias we in Europe and N. America have towards seeing the Mediterranean and Middle East as the 'real' font of civilization where we drew our writing system, religion, and so forth, is one we share with other parts of the world, but it is still a big bias. We even use the bias against Europe. How many European civ players have heard of the Trypillian or 'Cucuteni-Trypillian' culture compared to, say, the comparatively minor Carthaginians or Hittites? The only reason the Celts are in the game is because they were a foil to the Greeks and Romans, not because they represented a significant European culture.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd say the game is conceptually Eurocentric. "Civilization" is a European concept, and in-game you quite literally act out the liberal/European conception of history (linear progression of discovering technologies, becoming more effective over time at exploiting nature for $).

Pangur also makes a good point about the non-European civs being represented in the game more as they were seen by Europeans than as they were seen by themselves.

 

[innonimatu]

I don't recall coming across these sorts of things in the treaty itself (although if you know where they are I'm very happy to be proven wrong). Either way, I'd still be very wary of laying that sort of power and importance on Westphalia. Even if all the claims made about it are correct (which they simply aren't) would such sweeping cultural and political changes occur entirely because of peace negotiations, or would the negotiations reflect reality that had already come to be?

I can't I haven't read all the treaties, only short sections and comments on the system established by those treaties.

To be fair the idea of sovereign resting with the ruler, and ditching any power above, is older. Cuius regio, eius religio was probably the first time in post-medieval Europe that the idea came up. And Henry VIII's action in nationalizing the church of England. So the idea was first put to practice in the mid-16th century. But it would be fought over for one more century, and a lot of blood had to be spilled before in was recognized european-wide. That was the landmark achieved in Westphalia. It wasn't so much a cut-off date as a symbolic date of when diplomats from a plurality of european states gathered in congress and acted according to this principle of full sovereignty rather than the old mess of feudal bonds and duties to higher lords (temporal or spiritual).

 

[Tahuti]

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.

There is not much Westphalian about Spain recognising the Netherlands and I did not claim the treaty created the modern nation-state system - it recognised it. The 1648 treaties is the confirmation trends that were indeed long underway before 1648. In many ways, 1648 is just a year to point to.

However, there several things about these series of treaties that made it special: It recognised dual centrifugal and centripetal forces at once; Empires previously head under a single monarch - in theory - collapsed while its subdivisions became slowly independent and more centralised, if they weren't conquered. Also, Calvinism and rationalism were under way and both undermined the authority of the pope, also an important landmark goal for the secular nation-state.

The Treaties of Westphalia are - in essence - a recognition of fait accompli.

 

[Mouthwash]

Civ isnt particularly Eurocentric by geography but by mentality. 'Non-European' civs included are too often just Western foils, and we project our bias more by giving way too much to the Mediterranean and Middle East. That trend is disguised by the categories used in the OP, which breaks this quite unified region up according to present-day categories. Classifying Greeks as 'European' and Byzantines and Ottomans as 'Middle Eastern' highlights the historical meaningless of such an anachronistic distinction, admitting that there has to be a certain arbitrariness in any attempt to draw up this kind of analysis. The bias we in Europe and N. America have towards seeing the Mediterranean and Middle East as the 'real' font of civilization where we drew our writing system, religion, and so forth, is one we share with other parts of the world, but it is still a big bias. We even use the bias against Europe. How many European civ players have heard of the Trypillian or 'Cucuteni-Trypillian' culture compared to, say, the comparatively minor Carthaginians or Hittites? The only reason the Celts are in the game is because they were a foil to the Greeks and Romans, not because they represented a significant European culture.

What what what?

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, Thracians aren't in the civ games, and they were likely of comparative importance to their concurrent celts. At least going by Herodotos. Scythians aren't a civ in any civ game either afaik.

Celts were in Civ3, not sure what happened to them later on, and civ4 had loads of poor choices far worse than celts (when France also exists, ok it's not celtic but it is a main civ later on which is tied).

 

[Lexicus]

The Scythians are going to be in Ci 6.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, Thracians aren't in the civ games, and they were likely of comparative importance to their concurrent celts. At least going by Herodotos. Scythians aren't a civ in any civ game either afaik.

Celts were in Civ3, not sure what happened to them later on, and civ4 had loads of poor choices far worse than celts (when France also exists, ok it's not celtic but it is a main civ later on which is tied).

The French are a Latinized Germanic tribe; the Celts covered like half of Europe. I really don't see the problem here. The Byzantines were much, much closely tied to the Romans than the French are to the Celts.

 

[sophie]

The French are a Latinized Germanic tribe; the Celts covered like half of Europe. I really don't see the problem here. The Byzantines were much, much closely tied to the Romans than the French are to the Celts.

If by Celt you mean "people who spoke Celtic languages", sure. But as in this(?) (the other?) thread, it's important to not to assign ethnic or political connotations to a term which bears them today, but probably didn't bear them then. Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tres, after all.

 

[EnglishEdward]

(I will admit that however that having Byzantine and Holy Roman civs is going too far. Keep in mind I only play Civ4, so I can't reliably comment on any other game.)

As a Civ IV player, this is my view too.


I'd have dropped the Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy, Roman nor an Empire.


I would then have added a Civilisation for the islands south east of Eur-Asia,
probably calling it the Polynesian Civilisation.

That that could include Indonesia, Melanesia, Polynesia and perhaps even the Philippines, Australia, and
New Zealand with a capital of Port Moresby on Papua New Guinea with unique ocean going war canoe.


Apart from that I think the Euro/non Euro balance is about right.

 

[Flying Pig]

If by Celt you mean "people who spoke Celtic languages", sure. But as in this(?) (the other?) thread, it's important to not to assign ethnic or political connotations to a term which bears them today, but probably didn't bear them then. Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tres, after all.

Yes, the Civ series - or at least Civ IV, which is the only one I have - does seem to have a bit of an uneasy relationship with questions about what a 'civilisation' is - there are a couple which seem to be 'supranational' (Native Americans, Celts, arguably Greece since it seems to be based on the Classical period) but the vast majority which seem to be based on political units and to change when those do - hence Germany and the HRE, or Rome and the Byzantine Empire, are separate. Given that we're already being asked to 'believe' that a country can be so micromanaged that no granaries or temples are built and nobody becomes an artist or a trader unless the omnipotent central power tells them to, I'm not sure there's necessarily a problem with the former approach, except that it encourages the sort of oversimplified thinking that you're talking about here.

 

[Lexicus]

I totally thought it said 'supernatural' instead of 'supranational' and was kind of confused for about thirty seconds.

My policy when it comes to civs in the civ games is not to think about them too hard. Because a lot of the civs seem historically ridiculous if you squint at them.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Well, Thracians aren't in the civ games, and they were likely of comparative importance to their concurrent celts. At least going by Herodotos. Scythians aren't a civ in any civ game either afaik.

Celts were in Civ3, not sure what happened to them later on, and civ4 had loads of poor choices far worse than celts (when France also exists, ok it's not celtic but it is a main civ later on which is tied).

Celts were in II - V, but only in II as a vanilla civ. They were DLC/xpac civs in the other iterations.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I have no issue with the Celts being in the game--indeed Brennus was one of my favourite Civ 4 leaders. Celtic speakers probably brought about the European Iron Age ('iron' is a borrowing into Germanic from Celtic), but they are not in the game for anything like that, but as a foil. They are the quintessential northern barbarian for the Romans, and the inner barbarian for the 19th century British elite.

The Trypillians were a neolithic European culture, a kind of eastern European Maya, who had some of the largest cities in the world in their era and some type of early form of writing. But they predate continuous literary traditions that emerge in the Mediterranean and Middle East and are not part of Europe's partly foreign 'historical memory'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, it would be unrealistic to expect the celts to be there as an equally civilised entity. The romans were semi-barbaric as well at the time, and there were cases of celts co-operating with greeks in funding new greek cities (it also happened in Sicily with other native people).
As for the trypillians, why exactly would they be in this game? It would make sense in a game centered in the archaic period. Not that it would be impossible to happen, eg it is the kind of less known civ that can end in an expansion.

In general the civ game avoids way too overarching groups (celts being one), so there never was a 'slavic' civ either (i suppose existence of Russia would make it even stranger, although the analogous has been done with other cultures). There was also a "skandinavian" civ in civ3, iirc. Which at least was a better idea from the point of there not being a more specific skandinavian entity in the other civilizations.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The Civ game has lots of overarching groups: the Greeks, the Celts, the Sumerians, the Vikings, the Maya, Native Americans, that's just from Civ 4.