Wikipedia says Bolivar is Venezuelan man, not Colombian. In fact, his name is in the official name of Venezuela. I expect Venezuelan people to be quite angry if you made Bolivar the leader of Colombia... Yet Gran Colombia is indeed weird idea, so we have a problem
You could say much the same about Zenobia of Palmyra. She gets a lot of isolated support here and there (but isn't doing all that well here, to my surprise), but when push comes to shove, her Empire made it three (3) years. Considering how many great Civs there are in that area that survived for over a decade, Palmyra just seems like a hamfisted way to get a cool lady leader, much as Gran Colombia seems like a hamfisted way to get a cool South American civilization.
Some Hungarian nationalists claim descent from Sumeria.
Genetically speaking, the so-called Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq are probably at least somewhat Sumerian, but after 4,000 years and the rise and fall of dozens of empires in the region, who knows and who cares; they certainly don't. Certainly not a comparable situation to the Assyrians, who still identify as Assyrian.
I think it's possible we will see them much sooner. We have seen a bunch of fan-made mods for them and the like, and they get a lot of attention and discussion, and the devs pay attention to what the fans want and talk about. Besides this, there is no question that they would be very niche, and niche is great for new ways to play the game.
Let's be honest here, a very tiny minority wants Palmyra, it was just a rebellious region of the roman empire with a female leader. Generally not worthy of civ status. Gran Colombia is all centered around bolivar, I'd Argue argentina would make for a good second post colonial SA civ while the rest should be covered by Mayans, Incas and the Likes. Bolivar works just fine as a general.
While I agree with your assessment of Zenobia's popularity, you could argue that the Palmyrene Empire lasted closer to 13 years.
Dene are NOT Inuit. In fact the two were blood enemies in pre-Colonial days, and the derogatory slur for Inuit, "Eskimo," was a Dene word (specifically the Gwi'chin People) who told the British and Russian explorers that that's what "the people to North were called." The Copper River Massacre was another good example right under British explorers' noses and with their guns of this old hatred.
One can also contend, though, that Zenobia is a prime choice for an Aram or Syria civilization, which is otherwise rather short on leaders despite centuries of regional prominence (pun certainly intended
).Well, the Dene are a specific Athabaskan tribe, but not an exceptionally important one. The Tlingit and the Navajo are the only really likely civs out of the Na-Dene speakers.
Actually, that's incorrect. The "Dene" is (at least in a fair number of usages), a grouping of a fair number of tribes, including Gwi'chin, Han (not to be confused with the OTHER Han, the most populous ethnic group on Earth today), Cree, Slave, Pigeon, Nanehi, Chipewan, and others, whose homeland covers a VERY large area. The problem is, in the Na-Dene languages, a lot of words, even proper names, are used redundantly - thus the Dene TRIBES, calls themselves such, but they ALSO belong to the broader Dene cultural group, all of whose languages are in the Na-Dene family. Also Deneh is a proposed name by indigenous inhabitants for the NWT in Canada, to take away the "technocratic administrative sound of it," but Mount Denneh in Alaska, the highest peak in North America, is an almost identical word with virtually identical meaning, but is about 500-800 km of Yellowknife, the NWT's capital, and named by a different Dene tribe.
I stand corrected. Most of my knowledge of Athabaskan comes from the perspective of the Tlingit, who called the Athabaskans Gunana, which one might roughly translate as "those backwards hicks from the interior."
That didn't stop Athabaskan embroidered and fringed tunics from becoming fashionable at Tlingit potlatches...One can also contend, though, that Zenobia is a prime choice for an Aram or Syria civilization, which is otherwise rather short on leaders despite centuries of regional prominence (pun certainly intended
It doesnt strike me as cool or interesting to warrant major civ... Frankly, they seemed to be one of the most "city-state-like" civs to me. Lingua franca? Cool. Rich architecture? Cool. Still - just city states, secondary actors to the Middle East, captured and recaptured by Assyria/Babylon/Persia/Macedon/Rome/whoever.
But Bolivar's direct and obvious political legacy still exists in a direct, traceable, unbroken chain to this day, EVEN if it's now split among six separate Modern sovereign nations, and not just one. Zenobia's legacy only came to the zeitgeist of most in the world recently outside avid history buffs, like most here, because her capital, in ruins for over a millennium-and-a-half, had what was left of it blown up by ISIS terrorists.The problem with Aram/Syria is, as far as I checked Aramaic history, its basically "a bunch of city states, never united, conquered by whatever major empire was nearby"
On the other hand, Palmyrene Empire under Zenobia sounds nice. But it lasted three years (13 if countong her father) and its existence was essentially "surprise rebellion, then being systematically wiped out in every major battle by Roman expeditionary force". Well...
For me Zenobia is an unfortunate case of a "leader without a civ". She is IMO very similar to Bolivar in this regard and also one other thing... The reason why Zenobia and Bolivar are popular is because of their exact historical context, as charismatic rebels against powerful empires. Now take this context away. You start as a Boliar with settler and warrior, on the ancient map without Spain. Suddenly most of things the guy is known for - L I B E R A T I O N - disappears. Similar problem with Zenobia - put her in the game without subjugation and Rome, and her entire "story arc" disappears.
And what we are left are leaders without story and civs without story.
