Mali....

[Xen]

Perhaps they do come from Nigeria; but they think the come from region of Modern Mali and Ghana, as a recent article about how Paris is becoming a new large scale stop for African americans llokign for thier past in person reveals

as for the nationalism thing; I can garuntee you around 75% of the time you see korea in a game, its marketing only that is responsible for it, starting all the way back when Age of Kings came out, or rather its expansion pack, which put Korea in for no other reason then to make money of it; and it worked too.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Yea right, they might not have been an empire but what difference does that make?? They were a collection of tribes (and even in the case of Ireland kingdoms) that ruled over a significant portion of Europe for a long time.

Their contibutions to crafts and agriculture are very impressive. They managed to achieve a lasting and homogeneous culture wherever they were represented. I think they do not deserve to be treated just as components or other nations that appeared much later, when they were not really a power in Europe any more.

That being said i agree there are too many civs from Europe already and too few from africa and america.

What anoys me is the context. If you are rome, attacke by the barbarians, and then meat the celts, what nation are the barbarians? The celts were the "barbarians" at that time. I think they deserve to be a little better then barbarians in civ 4 they should be a minor nation

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Put together all of the njorth american native american tribes were more poerful then the roman empire. The romans conqured the celts. The iriqous represent north american native americans. The culture deserves to be mentioned (i'm actually 1/256 native american- figure that i'm also half jewish- only in ny). The celts were included in rome, england, france, germany, and england. I just don't understand why you would include "barbarians" that later formed other nations (accepting that the celts include germanic tribes such as the goths in civ 4) when real empires are left out.

That is why i don't think the celts should be in, but Mali and Ghana should

which makes me happy Mali's in there

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Bonus for Mali -- I always modded them in.

However, I would prefer the Khmer over the Mali, but even then, Assyria over the Khmer. ;P

 

[Xen]

Put together all of the njorth american native american tribes were more poerful then the roman empire.

I quite doubt that; the Romanempire was quite use to sending 10,000 troops against heavy set odd; such as :the battle of watling street" during the Iceni revolt in which 10,000 legionaries plus a (theoretical) contigent of Auxilliaries took on at least 80,000 to 100,000 heavilyl armed and motivated British Celts, and those are the conseverative estimates; many put the numbe rof celts as high as 250,000; bear in mind, these are a quate rmillion celts whom all coem from state societies, all of which coul easilyl outproduce any native american tribe, and are garunteed to have better equipment, and in many cases, a stronger warrior ethos to boot.

this isnt to down play native americans mind you; but not many nations before the invention/introduction of gunpowder in thier respective areas can match Rome in much of anything

 

[Xen]

What anoys me is the context. If you are rome, attacke by the barbarians, and then meat the celts, what nation are the barbarians? The celts were the "barbarians" at that time. I think they deserve to be a little better then barbarians in civ 4 they should be a minor nation

Germanics were the real barbarians of europe at the timel; the Celts were civilization in every respect; its only the fact that thier cuklture was one that was far more rustic then that of the metropolitan Romans, and one where large natiosn were only just beginning to emerge in thier cultural area.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I quite doubt that; the Romanempire was quite use to sending 10,000 troops against heavy set odd; such as :the battle of watling street" during the Iceni revolt in which 10,000 legionaries plus a (theoretical) contigent of Auxilliaries took on at least 80,000 to 100,000 heavilyl armed and motivated British Celts, and those are the conseverative estimates; many put the numbe rof celts as high as 250,000; bear in mind, these are a quate rmillion celts whom all coem from state societies, all of which coul easilyl outproduce any native american tribe, and are garunteed to have better equipment, and in many cases, a stronger warrior ethos to boot.

this isnt to down play native americans mind you; but not many nations before the invention/introduction of gunpowder in thier respective areas can match Rome in much of anything

You're not understanding me

Modern u.s. and canada have a rich history of nomadic tribes

put together they should be a noation, but seperate they were puny nomadic tribes. The iriqous in civ3 represents all of north american native americans not including mexico,

whereas the celts are represented a thousand times over with different cultures, and are ideal for the barbarians in the game. They sacked rome- destroyed improvements, taaking money and left- barbarians. (this was early roman history i'm not talking abut the goths who were germanic)

If you're including the celts why not include the huns, mexico, canada, turkministan. All of these are pretty much represented allready

 

[Xen]

You're not understanding me

Modern u.s. and canada have a rich history of nomadic tribes

put together they should be a noation, but seperate they were puny nomadic tribes. The iriqous in civ3 represents all of north american native americans not including mexico,

whereas the celts are represented a thousand times over with different cultures, and are ideal for the barbarians in the game. They sacked rome- destroyed improvements, taaking money and left- barbarians. (this was early roman history i'm not talking abut the goths who were germanic)

If you're including the celts why not include the huns, mexico, canada, turkministan. All of these are pretty much represented allready

A)all of the cultures you say represent the celts in game are more Roman then they are celtice; even modern germany owes more to Rome then it dose to the ancient Germanic tribes

B)that said, the Celts represent an important bridigin between both Roman, and Germanic cultures; they were a little bit of both, and liek the Byzantines woudl eventually become when they mixed Greek and Roman influnces, were highlly unique because of it

C) "native americans" cant all be put into soem big croup; thier were distinct cultures in north america just like thier were(are) in Europe or Asia; but while each of these was a rathe rlocal affiar, celtic cutlure spread (albeit rather sporadicly) from Ireland to Anatolia(turkey), and even spanned over different ethnic groups, one can easilly imagine, as while the books always portray the celts as bieng fair haird and fair eyed, onenotices a distinc tlack of these features in dominace in many areas they settled; that of course, is a mark of truelly advabced cultre, when peoples of different ethnicites can adopt a culture, and feel relitivlly comfortable living inside it (though, I;ve always been skepticle of the germanic style of the way celts have been portrayed anywayl the celts were established before the germans really settled in central europe; one woudl assume thier traits to be more inline with the Illyrians, who themselves were realted to the Itallians)

D)while th eportray of celts has been classically that fo Barbarians, they were far from it; they had towns, they had (small) cities, they had famring communties; they had religious sights, they had assorted nations, they made technological developmets, such as advaced smelting, that led to steel manufacture for the early and mid Roman empire, and a great invention of Celtic origin woudl be soap yes, far from the dirty heathens many imagine them, celts were worried about bodilly oders as much as any person from the
civlizaed" world, and they had a strong culture and religion that would mingle with what the Romans introduced in thier conquest (of course, the British celts had a worryign tradition of Human sacrificel I;m not sure if the contiental celts practiced such a tradition; though either way, all duridic cults were stamped out, theoreticaly because human sacrifice was wide spread, and because the druids were aiding in orginizing rebellions; while the human sacirifce part is rather crule, and dosent seem to have been present in the eastern celtic peoples, it is a testiment to power of Celtic culture in the influnce of thier Druid priests

E)while not a firm political solid, Celts; clets whom cant be identifed with any other nation included int he game, played an important role in history; it was Celts who settled in Anatolia whom helped Alexander in a small capactiy; it was the Celts in Northern Italy whom sacked Rome, and whos descendents, who were throughlly Roman themselves now, woudl aide Caesar conqoure Gual; the celts occupy an important area of history; a broad cultural influnecne that, soemhow, has persisted, if barelly to this day, and even if not orginized into large empires, is still an important culture to represent, in my opinion

 

[HourlyDaily]

The most important thing with the Civs included or not is the ability to add as many as you please (mod community for UU and flavours) and re-name and shape them to fit different historical scenarios. This is because I always played Civ III with the max number of civs - but the play of the AI always became very linear, but hopefully with the advanced AI, there will be more going on changing the shape of things as the game progresses.

I personally would love to play a history of the world where, for instance Carthage is wiped out by the Romans, replaced by Algerians with their relationship to the Ottomans - or the evolution of the Celts into Ireland/Scotland/Wales/Cornwall/Isle of Man etc. Balanced or not, it would be fanatastic.

 

[HourlyDaily]

Also, Cleopatra and Persian kings had elite Celtic bodygyards

 

[Guagle]

What anoys me is the context. If you are rome, attacke by the barbarians, and then meat the celts, what nation are the barbarians? The celts were the "barbarians" at that time. I think they deserve to be a little better then barbarians in civ 4 they should be a minor nation

Mmm I don't really get your point. There were lots of tribes and small nations in northern Europe that were considered uncivilized by the Romans, each would be more fitting to represent barabrians than the celts. As Xen pointed out they managed to build a true civ in every respect.

Plus if you are playing Rome (and its even truer with Greece) you should consider almost every nation you meet as barbarians... so no pb here

 

[Hannabir]

I quite doubt that; the Romanempire was quite use to sending 10,000 troops against heavy set odd; such as :the battle of watling street" during the Iceni revolt in which 10,000 legionaries plus a (theoretical) contigent of Auxilliaries took on at least 80,000 to 100,000 heavilyl armed and motivated British Celts, and those are the conseverative estimates; many put the numbe rof celts as high as 250,000; bear in mind, these are a quate rmillion celts whom all coem from state societies, all of which coul easilyl outproduce any native american tribe, and are garunteed to have better equipment, and in many cases, a stronger warrior ethos to boot.

this isnt to down play native americans mind you; but not many nations before the invention/introduction of gunpowder in thier respective areas can match Rome in much of anything

Hmmm, the Iroquois have been called the Romans of the West by historians for a number of similarities like most advanced government, creation of laws, oratory skills, but also empire building and warfare advances. Of course there are many differences as well.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

xen-

THE CELTS ARE A TEXTBOOK CASE OF "BARBARIANS" IN THE GAME

THEY WERE SMALL TOWNS OR NOMADIC YOU ARE GETTING CONFUSED WITH THE GERMANIC TRIBES

 

[Graadiapolistan]

At most the celts would be a minor nation. They are in the same league with the Romans, Chineese, Indians, Egyptians, and Incas. They were a disorganized group of tribes that fought eachother more then their enemies. The game is called civilization, not a group of nomadic and sedentry tribes that were conqured and some of their cultural ideas were taken in by their conqurers, but they were mostly small tribes that fought eachother.

Isn't there a reason the celts were conqured by the romans?

 

[Furius]

Isn't there also a reason that the Greeks were conquered by the Romans?

 

[Xen]

xen-

THE CELTS ARE A TEXTBOOK CASE OF "BARBARIANS" IN THE GAME

THEY WERE SMALL TOWNS OR NOMADIC YOU ARE GETTING CONFUSED WITH THE GERMANIC TRIBES

Hardley; the Celts were a settled people by this time, and, social wise, comparable with early iron Age Italy, or Mycenaean era Greece, but with better technology then either had at the comparable levels of civic development.

Nomadic? You dont have a damnable clue what your talking about; show me your sources, or retract your claim; what I have said can be found in any text book that goes even a modicum indepth about Celtic peoples; you however, are saying slander that not even the Romans claimed of the Celts.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

You, my friend are confusing the celts with other groups of people. No matter what i say, you don't listen. I try to listen to your "facts" but this argument is not worth it. I will allow you to wallow in your own ignorance. Show me an example that all celts were sedentary. I scoff at you.

 

[mitsho]

The problem lies in the definition of the word sedentary. Celtic tribes were moving around, but only in times of generations or slower! You probably recalled Caesar's description of the Moving of the Helvetians (burning all the villages down, bringing all the people into one gigantic chain and moving westwards to the Atlantic ocean, only to be beaten and sent back by Caesar's Legion at Bibracte).
But the fact still is: The Celts (here the Helvetians) had villages and lived on their own territory.

mitsho

 

[Graadiapolistan]

The problem lies in the definition of the word sedentary. Celtic tribes were moving around, but only in times of generations or slower! You probably recalled Caesar's description of the Moving of the Helvetians (burning all the villages down, bringing all the people into one gigantic chain and moving westwards to the Atlantic ocean, only to be beaten and sent back by Caesar's Legion at Bibracte).
But the fact still is: The Celts (here the Helvetians) had villages and lived on their own territory.

mitsho

The celts were never united, you're speaking as if they were a nation. there was never a nation of Gaul, the celts differed from location to location, and although many tribes were sedentary you can't say that the celts were sedentary because they were a cultural group, not a nation

 

[oldStatesman]

The celts were never united, you're speaking as if they were a nation. there was never a nation of Gaul, the celts differed from location to location, and although many tribes were sedentary you can't say that the celts were sedentary because they were a cultural group, not a nation

I fear to say you are sadly misinformed.

Excert from http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/history/events/dates/ss.shtm

Ireland, situated at the western edge of Europe, was certainly inhabited as early as 6,000 BC. Archaeology provides evidence of successive invasions, hunters and fishermen followed by farmers using stone tools to clear land, then by tribes skilled in metalwork. The last pre-Christian invaders were the iron-using Celts or Gaels, who reached Ireland around 600 BC. More than 1,000 years later, it was a well-established pagan Celtic society which accepted Christianity.

Fifth-century Ireland was divided into a number of small kingdoms. The more influential kings received tribute from the weaker ones, but the idea of a high king of Ireland is a later invention. The Celts were cattle farmers, wealthy enough to devote some resources to intricate gold and silver ornaments, sophisticated enough to have lawyers (brehons) and poets (filidh) as well as the druids who practised magic and offered sacrifices to the pagan gods. They had their own language, from which modern Irish has evolved. Kings were elected, but from a narrowly defined group possessing royal blood. Wars were common, and the balance of power between kingdoms shifted constantly.

Saint Patrick divided Ireland into dioceses, but before long abbots became more influential than bishops. The monasteries were important seats of learning at a time when the European mainland was entering a dark age following the collapse of the Roman Empire. In time Irish monks set out to spread the Christian message in foreign countries. Among them were Saint Columba, who founded a famous monastery on the Scottish island of Iona, and Saint Columbanus, who founded monasteries in France, Germany and Italy.

Ireland had escaped invasion by the Roman legions, but it could not escape the Viking longboats which menaced its coasts and rivers in the ninth century. But, while the Norsemen sacked monasteries, they also settled as traders and founded settlements which grew into such cities as Dublin, Cork and Limerick. The Celtic kingdoms eventually fought back, and in 1014 Brian Boru, who had claimed the high kingship, won a decisive victory over the Norsemen at Clontarf, near Dublin.

By now the Church was in disarray, the monasteries corrupt and the dioceses ineffective. However, the establishment of Cistercian monasteries from 1142 on, and the reorganisation of the Irish Church at the Synod of Kells in 1152 set reforms in motion. The petty kingdoms remained a source of disunion. Brian Boru had been killed at Clontarf, and successive aspirants to the high kingship were unable to enforce their authority. The land of saints and scholars lacked military and political cohesion, and was in no condition to repel the next invaders who sailed for Ireland.