Let's Talk About the Civs that WON'T Make It In Despite Popularity

[King Kalmah]

Egyptians were quite wise and its rumored they had electricity....Baghdad Battery?

 

[ko3ak]

No, not exactly an "empire". Native Americans as a civ. In my opinion adding them as a civ is silly. Of course it is my opinion and I understand that others may disagree with me.



Not exactly. Native Americans were never able to develop architecture, knighthood, gunpowder, radio etc. They were not able to build castles, cathedrals (or other huge, stone temples) or aqueducts. Civilization's tech tree is mainly following european tech progress - Greece, Rome, Middle Ages etc. I like "what if" scenarios, but again - not in this case. Maybe Aztecs or Incas would develop modern tanks after centuries or millennias, but Native Americans... well, I don't think so. Just look at other Indians living deep into Amazonian forest or native inhabitants of Borneo. How on Earth can we think that they may have their own civ in Civilization game, build cities, have knights/riflemen and then at last build and launch a SPACESHIP?

Any Civ could, and perhaps, would have developed those things under different circumstances. That is why we play the game. If you can imagine a world where the Aztecs miraculously survived to present day and developed space flight, why can't you do the same for the North American Natives? It's not that big a stretch. The two Civs were not that different from one another.

 

[weltraeumer]

about this european dominance... well well, here´s a list of the top cities through history:

(actually the numbers could be very vague... for example other sources count rome with 1 million... or Baghdad with over 1 million... but all in all you get the point)

Top 10 Cities of the Year 100

1 Rome - 450,000
2 Luoyang (Honan), China - 420,000
3 Seleucia (on the Tigris), Iraq - 250,000
4 Alexandria, Egypt - 250,000
5 Antioch, Turkey - 150,000
6 Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka - 130,000
7 Peshawar, Pakistan - 120,000
8 Carthage, Tunisia - 100,000
9 Suzhou, China - n/a
10 Smyrna, Turkey - 90,000


Top 10 Cities of the Year 1000

1 Cordova, Spain - 450,000
2 Kaifeng, China - 400,000
3 Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey - 300,000
4 Angkor, Cambodia - 200,000
5 Kyoto, Japan - 175,000
6 Cairo, Egypt - 135,000
7 Baghdad, Iraq - 125,000
8 Nishapur (Neyshabur), Iran - 125,000
9 Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia - 110,000
10 Patan (Anhilwara), India - 100,000


Top 10 Cities of the Year 1500

1 Beijing, China - 672,000
2 Vijayanagar, India - 500,000
3 Cairo, Egypt - 400,000
4 Hangzhou, China - 250,000
5 Tabriz, Iran - 250,000
6 Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey - 200,000
7 Gaur, India - 200,000
8 Paris, France - 185,000
9 Guangzhou, China - 150,000
10 Nanjing, China - 147,000


Top 10 Cities of the Year 1900

1 London, United Kingdom - 6,480,000
2 New York, United States - 4,242,000
3 Paris, France - 3,330,000
4 Berlin, Germany - 2,707,000
5 Chicago, United States - 1,717,000
6 Vienna, Austria - 1,698,000
7 Tokyo, Japan - 1,497,000
8 St. Petersburg, Russia - 1,439,000
9 Manchester, United Kingdom - 1,435,000
10 Philadelphia, United States - 1,418,000

 

[The End Is Nigh]

I think that there are some legitimate demands from several people to have their countries included in the game. For example, why have the US included (which is not a civilization in the strict sense) and not Canada? Many argue that Canada and Australia are covered by the inclusion of England, but England is not a civilization! It originates from anglo-saxon and germanic tribes. The same is true of France, Germany and most northern European countries which originate from the Goths, Visigoths etc.

What I am trying to say is that if Canada cannot be included, then England should be replaced by the Angles, Germany by the Goths, and so on. But then, who would play the game? So the argument goes. Canada? Why not? Then again, where does it stop?

 

[ko3ak]

I assume those numbers represent population? If so, they are quite interesting. Tokyo only 1.5 million in 1900. Its population increased by 11 million in 100 years. Crazy.

 

[weltraeumer]

...and if you look at the list of nowadays top cities by population... theres a single european city in the top 50 (london)... maybe europe had it´s peak, but the future definatly belongs to south america and asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population


though I´m not saying that it´s all about population and city size... but it´s just interesting...

 

[Aquila SPQR]

They have much more chances to build riflemen and launch the spaceship than any of the following:

Sumers
Roman Empire
Egyptians (true Egyptian civilization, not Arabs by the name Egypt)
Babylon
Byzantian Empire
Carthage

No. Their chances were destroyed by historical events. Amazonian Indians will never be able to build spaceships on their own. They just don't need to progress in this direction. They live now like they lived thousands of years ago and they would still live in this way if our missionaries or merchants didn't give them underwear and machetes.

Any Civ could, and perhaps, would have developed those things under different circumstances. That is why we play the game. If you can imagine a world where the Aztecs miraculously survived to present day and developed space flight, why can't you do the same for the North American Natives? It's not that big a stretch. The two Civs were not that different from one another.

Actually - they were. There is a huge rift between Aztecs, Mayans etc and tribes like Cherokee, Lakota etc.

about this european dominance... well well, here´s a list of the top cities through history:

Your post would make sense if "dominance" would be measured by number of city's citizens. Name at least one nation from other continents than Europe that achieved such dominance as european powers. China? There is no comparison between european and Chinese achievements. Japan? Mali? Arabs? Maybe Arabs could compete, but even them did not change world as europeans did.

But even your numbers show us a curious thing:

Top 10 Cities of the Year 1900

1 London, United Kingdom - 6,480,000 - Europe
2 New York, United States - 4,242,000 - European Culture (surely more european than Chinese or Native American)
3 Paris, France - 3,330,000 - Europe
4 Berlin, Germany - 2,707,000 - Europe
5 Chicago, United States - 1,717,000 - European Culture
6 Vienna, Austria - 1,698,000 - Europe
7 Tokyo, Japan - 1,497,000 - only one from Asia. Very curious thing is that european culture is gaining more popularity there even now
8 St. Petersburg, Russia - 1,439,000 - Europe
9 Manchester, United Kingdom - 1,435,000 - Europe
10 Philadelphia, United States - 1,418,000 - European Culture

 

[ko3ak]

Actually - they were. There is a huge rift between Aztecs, Mayans etc and tribes like Cherokee, Lakota etc.

Please elaborate. What specifically made the Aztecs far more civilized than the Native North American tribes? You can't just say there is a huge rift, then not give concrete examples.

 

[EMT]

Mesoamerica had cities, empires, and organized religions. They also where some of the most populous areas in the New World. Meanwhile, North American natives lived in organized tribes, with few building anything that could be considered a city.

 

[phungus420]

I think that there are some legitimate demands from several people to have their countries included in the game. For example, why have the US included (which is not a civilization in the strict sense) and not Canada?

Saying the US is not a civilization does not make it true. Question for you, which country is older, the United States or Germany? Bonus question, which country has controlled an empire extending across 1000s of kilometers for the longer period of time, Mongolia, or the United States?

This whole United States is not a civilization assertion is simply ludicrous. Ludicrous of course meaning that the point is so flawed and idiotic that it is comical.

Many argue that Canada and Australia are covered by the inclusion of England, but England is not a civilization! It originates from anglo-saxon and germanic tribes. The same is true of France, Germany and most northern European countries which originate from the Goths, Visigoths etc.

And the nation of China originates from a collection of ancient ethnicities like the Han, does this mean China isn't a civilization? Go look up civilization in a dictionary and get back to me.... Also point to me one single nation/society that does not have ancient roots in some ehtnic tribal groups, such a thing cannot exist, unless you take the creationist beliefs even farther then fundamentalists do and assert that there are some civilizations out there that god just plopped down on earth within the last couple centuries or something...

What I am trying to say is that if Canada cannot be included, then England should be replaced by the Angles, Germany by the Goths, and so on. But then, who would play the game? So the argument goes. Canada? Why not? Then again, where does it stop?

Again with the stupid idea of eliminating the use of proper nations with ethnic groups and claiming them to be better terms to use for civilizations. Why would Firaxis choose to emphasize race in their use of labels for the various civs players can choose? What possible purpose would this server?

Vietnam still rocks all the other submissions for civs that should be included in this thread forward backwards and sidewise

Again Vietnam is still better then all the "Canada, Yugoslavia, etc" nations people keep proposing.

 

[Art Grin]

Please elaborate. What specifically made the Aztecs far more civilized than the Native North American tribes? You can't just say there is a huge rift, then not give concrete examples.

They lived in cities and weren't nomads. They were capable of building giant monuments and pyramids. They were good at gold working. They had a well organized state with governmental institutions.
I don't remember North Americans doing anything of the above.

 

[Art Grin]

damn double post, sorry.
Can an admit delete my second post?

 

[phungus420]

The mound builders in the Mississippi river valley did actually. Unfortunately we don't know much about them, the Spanish did a lot of physical damage to their settlements, and of course like the rest of the Native North American peoples they were nearly eradicated by disease. Keep in mind over 90% of the native north American population was wiped out by disease alone in the 18th century, the impact this must have had on their societies is almost unfathomable.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Please elaborate. What specifically made the Aztecs far more civilized than the Native North American tribes? You can't just say there is a huge rift, then not give concrete examples.

You're right. Aztecs (and Mayans, Incas etc) created (at some point) rather advanced civilizations with developed art (on much greater scale than Indian tribes of North America), architecture (huge stone buildings - pyramids including Pyramid of the Sun and Pyramid ofthe Moon, temples etc while in America the greatest achievements were small "pyramids" of earth and buildings made of wood), calendar and of course - Tenochtitlan - a city which was far beyond capabilities of any Native American tribe. We also have Cuzco, amazing city walls made of huge stone blocks, good road network and great wealth - gold later stolen by Spanish invaders. In Tenochtitlan I believe there was also a zoo, bothanical garden and aqueducts.

What Native American (from USA or Canada) tribe achieved something similiar?

 

[Arakhor]

Saying the US is not a civilization does not make it true. Question for you, which country is older, the United States or Germany? Bonus question, which country has controlled an empire extending across 1000s of kilometers for the longer period of time, Mongolia, or the United States?

Well, I could answer that the United Kingdom beats the USA in both categories, but it isn't in Civ games. England gets that distinction.

 

[phungus420]

Yeah, the fact that they call the United Kingdom, England is certainly debatable. Asserting they should change the name to the UK certainly makes sense, and is a logical and very valid argument. I don't see how this is relevant to my quote though, unless you are just bringing it up as a side point. In which case, congratulations, you've posted probably 1 of the 3 arguments made in this thread that are actually relevant, pointful, and coherent enough to be actually discussed , and shouldn't just be bashed down due to the absurdity they represent, like over 90% of the points people are trying to make in this thread.

 

[klaidonis]

Bonus question, which country has controlled an empire extending across 1000s of kilometers for the longer period of time, Mongolia, or the United States?

Mongolia for sure. The Golden Horde existed for about 300 years and controlled roughly the same territory as the Soviet Union (not modern Russia). Some Russian political pundits even say that Grand Duchy of Moscow and Russia were heirs of the Golden Horde. Only Great Britain had more land for longer time. No Americans, sorry.

It doesn't mean that USA is not a civilization in its' own right, but Genghis Khan has much greater place in the world history than Roosevelt.

Going back to the topic: I would like to see Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or at least Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Especially after seeing Holy Roman Empire. Great battles with Grand Duchy of Moscow using modern weapons... can only dream about it!

And the leaders: Gediminas and/or Stephen Báthory. It would be a nice Slavic alternative to Peter the Great (who had almost literally whipped out Saint Petersburg exactly in a Civilization way) or to even more terrible Stalin.

 

[phungus420]

The Mongolian Empire was impressive, and is the largest contiguous empire to have ever existed on Earth. And certainly I'd agree Genghis's position as a world leader trumps Roosevelt, but the Mongolian Empire collapsed in less then a Century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Empire

 

[phungus420]

Also Vietnam > Canada + Poland + Australia + any other random nation not in a previous civ game that has been submitted as needing inclusion in this thread

 

[Tusked]

Yeah, the fact that they call the United Kingdom, England is certainly debatable. Asserting they should change the name to the UK certainly makes sense, and is a logical and very valid argument. I don't see how this is relevant to my quote though, unless you are just bringing it up as a side point. In which case, congratulations, you've posted probably 1 of the 3 arguments made in this thread that are actually relevant, pointful, and coherent enough to be actually discussed , and shouldn't just be bashed down due to the absurdity they represent, like over 90% of the points people are trying to make in this thread.

Changing England's name to the UK doesn't fit in the naming scheme. All the names of civilizations end in 'empire': it's not USA, it's American Empire. What'll they call the UK, the United Kingdom Empire? The United Empire? English Empire just sounds better. Now, they could change the naming conventions, but it'd look displaced to have a crapton of empires and then the UK and the USA without the word 'empire'.