Doc Tsiolkovski said:
And the very same is true for gazzillions of 'native' tribes all over the world. Even for Proto-Germanic or Proto-Celtic tribes. And yet, only the NA ones are brought up again and again.
If Firaxis decides to include them for Marketing Purpose, because they have strong supporters on the most important market, I do understand that. Seriously.
But not because of their historical importance.
A)these arnt "native tribes", and you seem to lump "early civlizations" with "Native tribes" when such a grouping is a (obvious) mistake, one that appears to only be made to make soem sort of piller for your argument to center on; lets set things stright, shall we?
1)the early Germanic and Celtic tribes are a whole different matter then the orginized peoples such as the the iroqouis, but more properlly th epeoples of mesoamerica, such as the Olmecs, Toltecks, Maya and Aztecs
2)where as Celtic culture is another facet of the Bronze age Med sea culture, and took its cues heartilly from the same sources the Italians woudl draw from to create thier cultures (even during the rise of the Roman republic, many areas of central Italy had peoples whos lifestyle was similer to that of Guals, as befits thier often in moder times downplayed relationship; in reality, Celts were closer to Italians and Spaniards then they were to Germanics, who themselves were relitivlly new arrivals in central europe) These peoples were, at least in the cas eof the Guals (germans wouldnt reach the same point until the late 3rd century) taking forign ideas, and applying the to thier own culture,. creating a unique mix of ideas, resulting a firm cultural identy over a given area, combined with advanced enough technology and availibl ecrops that could be easilyl enough mass produced to ensure a sedientry lifestyle; the definition of a civlization itself; but these peoples were hardley pioneers in this, and were heavilly influenced by the peoples around them in thier efforts to "civlize" which is why Feudal europe, so often attributed to being Germanic in origin, is nothing more then the late Imperial roman government on a smaller leval -titles of nobility, status as knights and all included
2)where as the celts, germans, Spainards, and a hell of alot of other civlizations, including such greats as Rome were a combination of inside, andoutside influences taking flux during a revolution of centrilization and sedentry life, the assorted peoples of mesoamerica, the eastern american indians, and Incans, and other pervuivan and chilean peoples were takign on a role that we woudl identfy as none other then the same role the Egyptians and Babylonians took in the old world. these peoples had just recentlly developed a crop that woudl allow enough foods to be produced to allow a centrlized, sedentry lifestyle during the era of the punic wars between Carthage and Rome, corn in mesoamerica, which would in time spread into
the area of the united states, and lead to soem truelly amazing early civlizations in the area of the eastern sea board, including the mysterious "temple-mound builders" of the mississippi river basin; it took time for the proto-culturs to get steam in building themselves to becoem true civlizations, but the same huge amounts of time took place in the old world as well, and the results were right in the middle of blossoming, and spreading out into othe rregions, creatign new cultures and civilizations in 1492
B)Historical importance they have not you say? Why sir, it seems you over look the entirty of ethnic histories in the new world, of which have played a very important part in the event sin the new world; mexico woudl not be mexico if not for the people wantign to be free of Spanish rule, and once free, looking to recapture soem fo the lost glory of the Aztecs; perhaps thes epeoples did not have impacts on the world around them beyonf being fodder for european conqerors; but thier very existicen
did have a long rang impact, and if civil wars were included in civ4, and if they were to be spawned by unhappy populations, this is exactley what would happen. -somthing that IS very important histoircally, only its not he standard context of events which seem important in soem peoples view; but that dosent make it any less of a hinge of events in the new world.
ofcourse, to justify that line of thinking, one woudl have to assume civil wars are in the game - a very large, and not well supported assumption- but even fi they werent; if conquistadores had come onyl a century later to the new world, they may have found a plethora of civlizations of varying importance, and perhaps soem whom were of the stregth needed to hinder conquests so badlly, that it was of more worth to let them be then it was to conqoure them at the time; and in a game that is all about changing history, this is a very intruiginh thought all of itself, not to mention more then proper justifacation, anyway you wish to look at the problem, for thie rinclusion, given the context of the game itself.
), Tibet, Vikings, Celts, Minoans,...
They for sure represent the most advanced European (not mediterranean) Civ.
. I guess Im pretty alone in this opinion, but I would rather have had Celts or Vikings, civs I "know", in the game instead of Mali which I know very little about.
