Mughal Leak

[Stomper66]

If we are going by the 'Roman Britain is antiquity Britain' rule, why isn't it the British Raj representing India in the modern age? Britain ruled India from 1858 to 1947, That covers most of the modern age in the base game. Duh Roman Empire good but British Empire bad!

 

[Evie]

He'S talking about people saying that Rome count as the first stage of the English/British chain (Rome-Norman-Great Britain), and bemoaning the fact that Britain starts with a people who conquered them while India gets to end with their own people rather than the Glorious British Empire (not).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

two gardens being much but two great walls being perfectly fine is stulid then

a fort would’ve been fine too

If they were being portrayed as militaristic maybe. I don't think a fort is needed when the Red Fort is the associated wonder. Though I guess we can both agree that a Qila would have made more sense than a stepwell.

If we are going by the 'Roman Britain is antiquity Britain' rule, why isn't it the British Raj representing India in the modern age? Britain ruled India from 1858 to 1947, That covers most of the modern age in the base game. Duh Roman Empire good but British Empire bad!

The Modern Age starts at 1750. That would mean the Mughal Empire lasted 108 years, which is more than the British Raj. I don't see any reason for them to appear anyways when we are getting Great Britain.

 

[Stomper66]

He'S talking about people saying that Rome count as the first stage of the English/British chain (Rome-Norman-Great Britain), and bemoaning the fact that Britain starts with a people who conquered them while India gets to end with their own people rather than the Glorious British Empire (not).

The Mughal empire also conquered India from outside, but the British conquered India during the games modern age. I don't want the British raj in the game and I'm not saying who's glorious and who's not. I'm pointing out the hypocracity that Britain should lead India in the modern era if Rome is leading Britain in antiquity.

If they were being portrayed as militaristic maybe. I don't think a fort is needed when the Red Fort is the associated wonder. Though I guess we can both agree that a Qila would have made more sense than a stepwell.

The Modern Age starts at 1750. That would mean the Mughal Empire lasted 108 years, which is more than the British Raj. I don't see any reason for them to appear anyways when we are getting Great Britain.

The mughal empire rules India in the 1500s but begins to lose power to the west India company in the mid 1700s and loses completer power in the 1850s. If the modern age is supposed to be about all the new forms of law and technology from 1850 to 1950?) then India is part of the British Empire during this time and is introduced to all this technology. Again i don't want Britain to represent India, but I also don't want Rome to represent Britain. I'm just point out the double standard.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Moderator Action: Multiple posts were deleted and some edited. This is a reminder to be civil towards one another- AH

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I don't think you know what we're talking about

Then explain it. I told you I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Show me something in civ 7 where they say Rome represents Britain. Or just say it’s your opinion and don’t pose it as a question.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The Mughal empire also conquered India from outside, but the British conquered India during the games modern age. I don't want the British raj in the game and I'm not saying who's glorious and who's not. I'm pointing out the hypocracity that Britain should lead India in the modern era if Rome is leading Britain in antiquity.


The mughal empire rules India in the 1500s but begins to lose power to the west India company in the mid 1700s and loses completer power in the 1850s. If the modern age is supposed to be about all the new forms of law and technology from 1850 to 1950?) then India is part of the British Empire during this time and is introduced to all this technology. Again i don't want Britain to represent India, but I also don't want Rome to represent Britain. I'm just point out the double standard.

the mughals weren’t just outsiders. they became indianized with time, adopted and influenced the culture, art, architecture, cuisine, etc. they weren’t an extractive force—they moved *to* india and ruled *from* india.

the british ruled india, but india didn’t influence the british—the raj was an administrative role mainly existent to nationalize the extractive capacities that formerly would have been done by the british east india company. it was a bona fide colony, used by the british to administer an economic asset, not a state in its own right with any meaningful power, nor a being worthy of civ status. this is in stark contrast to british colonies like south africa, canada, new zealand, australia and even egypt which exercised varying levels of autonomy and weren’t purely around for british monetary benefit.

also the reason why beach talks about rome in the context of antiquity britain is twofold

1) firstly, it’s just an example
2) it is the direct antiquity ancestor of modern britain. that’s not even in question. Britannia is a roman invention. the reason why you speak a heavily latinized germanic language? because the romans latinized or cleansed england of brythonic celts. england (the entity) is not a descendant of the Britons. Brythonic culture was pushed out to Wales, Cornwall and Cumbria.
3) therefore, understanding 2), the only other option for a antiquity precedent to Britain are the Anglo-Saxons or the Norse/a specific Norse tribe like the Geats/Jutes/Danes. Norse are fine (and will be a great addition), but the Anglo-Saxons weren’t really a cohesive group into well-past a reasonable timeframe for antiquity, and even if you go purely by the thematic approach to aging a civ, the anglo-saxons don’t make too much sense. Hence why Romans make sense.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

3) therefore, understanding 2), the only other option for a antiquity precedent to Britain are the Anglo-Saxons or the Norse/a specific Norse tribe like the Geats/Jutes/Danes. Norse are fine (and will be a great addition), but the Anglo-Saxons weren’t really a cohesive group into well-past a reasonable timeframe for antiquity, and even if you go purely by the thematic approach to aging a civ, the anglo-saxons don’t make too much sense. Hence why Romans make sense.

If they made the Khmer work, I'm sure they could potentially make the Anglo-Saxons work for Antiquity. It would also give them an excuse for them to potentially fight an Antiquity Norse civ.
They wouldn't be able to play with religion or have relic bonuses though.

 

[Metecury]

Are we expecting a first look/ official reveal today or tomorrow?

 

[Riconatic]

Are we expecting a first look/ official reveal today or tomorrow?

Hopefully really soon. Feels quite pointless to hold information back as game is already distributed to gamers to play full speed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Are we expecting a first look/ official reveal today or tomorrow?

Providing we're 14 hours from early access release (and on some platforms it's already released), I'd expect today.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If they made the Khmer work, I'm sure they could potentially make the Anglo-Saxons work for Antiquity. It would also give them an excuse for them to potentially fight an Antiquity Norse civ.
They wouldn't be able to play with religion or have relic bonuses though.

sure, i don’t actually take issue with the inclusion, im just trying to justify why romans as a civ that represents antiquity britain isn’t actually a stretch, nor is it equivalent to a british raj civ whatsoever

 

[Stomper66]

the british ruled india, but india didn’t influence the british—the raj was an administrative role mainly existent to nationalize the extractive capacities that formerly would have been done by the british east india company. it was a bona fide colony, used by the british to administer an economic asset, not a state in its own right with any meaningful power, nor a being worthy of civ status. this is in stark contrast to british colonies like south africa, canada, new zealand, australia and even egypt which exercised varying levels of autonomy and weren’t purely around for british monetary benefit.

Which is exactly what the Romans did in Britain. They didn't become Britishized, they governed it as a province on the fringe of the empire to extract natural resources. They brought new technology but also committed atrocities. How did the Roman Empire in Britain and British Empire in India have different influences and intentions?

it is the direct antiquity ancestor of modern britain. that’s not even in question. Britannia is a roman invention. the reason why you speak a heavily latinized germanic language? because the romans latinized or cleansed england of brythonic celts. england (the entity) is not a descendant of the Britons. Brythonic culture was pushed out to Wales, Cornwall and Cumbria.

The British Isles are a region in the world that was for the majority of this games antiquity age home of Brythonic celts. Go into any local museum in Britain and they'll likely have a celtic life section as well as a roman section. Rome conquered half of the British isles and as a Celtic British person myself I can tell you that we weren't all 'cleansed'. Recent studies have shown that Romans, Anglo Saxons and Scandinavians actually integrated with the celtic population rather than outright cleaning them, and music, architecture, fashion and military tradition in the British army have also been inspired by Celtic heritage throughout history.

sure, i don’t actually take issue with the inclusion, im just trying to justify why romans as a civ that represents antiquity britain isn’t actually a stretch, nor is it equivalent to a british raj civ whatsoever

It kind of is though mate. You just want to acknowledge Roman influence on Britain but not British influence on India that's all. I don't want the British Raj but I want British to lead Britain in antiquity like Indians lead India and Bugandans lead Buganda in modern. If you can't acknowledge that you have a double standard when it comes to the ruling class and the native inhabitants.

Then explain it. I told you I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Show me something in civ 7 where they say Rome represents Britain. Or just say it’s your opinion and don’t pose it as a question.

They explain in a video feature how they were inspired by the Roman and Norman maps of London for the 'history in layers' idea. Its also said by several members on this forum in several posts, including in this thread.

 

[RedCourtJester]

If we are going by the 'Roman Britain is antiquity Britain' rule, why isn't it the British Raj representing India in the modern age? Britain ruled India from 1858 to 1947, That covers most of the modern age in the base game. Duh Roman Empire good but British Empire bad!

Um, you can just play as Great Britain instead of the Mughals?

That's kind of the implication with Spain in the exploration era as well. If you want the colonialist fantasy, the empire is an option.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Which is exactly what the Romans did in Britain. They didn't become Britishized, they governed it as a province on the fringe of the empire to extract natural resources

britain did become romanized though. the celts who held onto celtic culture were ethnically cleansed and became cornish, welsh and cumbrian, as I said.

The British Isles are a region in the world that was for the majority of this games antiquity age home of Brythonic celts. Go into any local museum in Britain and they'll likely have a celtic life section as well as a roman section. Rome conquered half of the British isles and as a Celtic British person myself I can tell you that we weren't all 'cleansed'. Recent studies have shown that Romans, Anglo Saxons and Scandinavians actually integrated with the celtic population rather than outright cleaning them, and music, architecture, fashion and military tradition in the British army have also been inspired by Celtic heritage throughout history.

modern english people are not celtic. they’re germanic—originally anglo-saxon, norman, danish, but not celtic. their ancestors pushed out whichever celts were left after the roman’s, and proceeded to subjugate their new countries in the hundreds of years after

the coexistence hypothesis is fine, but ultimately the celtic cultures of great britain ended up only existing in a couple of places, one of which was importantly not england.

wales and cornwall (and britanny by extension) are the last brythonic places on earth (and cornwall lost its culture and is only reclaiming it now) Britons being a part of Britain’s path makes no sense unless Wales is an exploration era option.

 

[Evie]

I mean, there being a Celtic path that lead into Great Britain would make a lot of sense...

It's just that path is a alt-history path, not the historical English Great Britain one, and a Briton civ is not a good precursor to medieval England, Norman or otherwise.

 

[Krikkit1]

Which is exactly what the Romans did in Britain. They didn't become Britishized, they governed it as a province on the fringe of the empire to extract natural resources. They brought new technology but also committed atrocities. How did the Roman Empire in Britain and British Empire in India have different influences and intentions?



The British Isles are a region in the world that was for the majority of this games antiquity age home of Brythonic celts. Go into any local museum in Britain and they'll likely have a celtic life section as well as a roman section. Rome conquered half of the British isles and as a Celtic British person myself I can tell you that we weren't all 'cleansed'. Recent studies have shown that Romans, Anglo Saxons and Scandinavians actually integrated with the celtic population rather than outright cleaning them, and music, architecture, fashion and military tradition in the British army have also been inspired by Celtic heritage throughout history.



It kind of is though mate. You just want to acknowledge Roman influence on Britain but not British influence on India that's all. I don't want the British Raj but I want British to lead Britain in antiquity like Indians lead India and Bugandans lead Buganda in modern. If you can't acknowledge that you have a double standard when it comes to the ruling class and the native inhabitants.


They explain in a video feature how they were inspired by the Roman and Norman maps of London for the 'history in layers' idea. Its also said by several members on this forum in several posts, including in this thread.

At least 2 European civs lead Europe in all 3 ages (there are even 4 in modern)

the british isles are a tiny part of Europe and so they aren’t going to be one of the European civs in all 3 ages

I would expect an antiquity Celtic civ and an antiquity Germanic civ eventually
I would not count on those being the Britons or the Angles/Saxons

I could see exploration Irish making it in
(as well as Antiquity and/or Exploration Norse/Scandanavian civs for other parts of broader British identity)

 

[Stomper66]

Um, you can just play as Great Britain instead of the Mughals?

That's kind of the implication with Spain in the exploration era as well. If you want the colonialist fantasy, the empire is an option.

I don't want the British Raj in the game or a colonialist fantasy. I've said this about three times now. I'm making a point about representation. Read the discussion.

britain did become romanized though. the celts who held onto celtic culture were ethnically cleansed and became cornish, welsh and cumbrian, as I said.

modern english people are not celtic. they’re germanic—originally anglo-saxon, norman, danish, but not celtic. their ancestors pushed out whichever celts were left after the roman’s, and proceeded to subjugate their new countries in the hundreds of years after

the coexistence hypothesis is fine, but ultimately the celtic cultures of great britain ended up only existing in a couple of places, one of which was importantly not england.

wales and cornwall (and britanny by extension) are the last brythonic places on earth (and cornwall lost its culture and is only reclaiming it now) Britons being a part of Britain’s path makes no sense unless Wales is an exploration era option.

You said the British did not become Indianized and I'm telling you the Romans did not become Britishized. Both powers brought innovations and laws in a similar manner. I'm not talking about England I'm talking about Britain in the antiquity age. I would rather Britain than England in the game as the eras are too broad. It's not as general as you make out there are millions of people living in Britain with majority celtic ancestry. Just to clarify you don't want Britons in antiquity?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Which is exactly what the Romans did in Britain. They didn't become Britishized, they governed it as a province on the fringe of the empire to extract natural resources. They brought new technology but also committed atrocities. How did the Roman Empire in Britain and British Empire in India have different influences and intentions?

There wasn't any defined British culture at the time the Romans came. You have to remember that right now there are only two Antiquity European civs in the game right now, Greece and Rome. I think it's obvious why the devs pointed at Rome as being a pathway for British Isles right now. That doesn't mean it won't change in the future.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

There wasn't any defined British culture at the time the Romans came. You have to remember that right now there are only two Antiquity European civs in the game right now, Greece and Rome. I think it's obvious why the devs pointed at Rome as being a pathway for British Isles right now. That doesn't mean it won't change in the future.

yeah it’s a very weird hill to die on.