New Civilizations

[Greek Stud]

Thanks man!

I wanted Afrikans too, Iz just trying to keep the list short. I really like the Ashanti because they were sort of a nexus of Ghana/Benin Kingdoms, in fact sometimes I find articles online mixing the two up. But I really like Ashanti because of their strong and wealthy culture. Their art is awesome, lots of gold. And I want the leader to be wearing tons of jewelry maybe even those neckbraces, those rock! But I think they only had Kings, if it were a girl they could wear those neck stretchers.

Sheba would be cool, but their isn't enough research on them that shows concrete values on their culture. They are obviously part of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) so maybe the Queen of Sheba can be the leaderhead for Abyssinia. For those who don't know, Ethiopia was on both sides of the Red Sea. Some people deny that the province/kingdom Sheba on the Arabian peninsula was part of Abyssinia, but I'm pretty sure they were closely related. Abyssinia volunarily changed its name to Ethiopia, so calling it Ethiopia would make sense because people recognize their culture that way, and that is what they want to be known as. Ethiopia defeated the Italians in WW2 and fought off the Somalians who were trying to grab land. Then when the northern sea bordering province broke off, Ethiopia fell into famine during this civil war. Maybe Mussolini ultimately won, because they named their country Eritrea after the name Mussolini wanted to name his Italian colony.

I want Nubia, because come on, Egypt just needs a friend. lol And the Nubians were a staunch ally for the Egyptians during the times the Hittites, Assyrian, and Israelis attacked Egypt.

I know Canaan never functioned as an independent faction, but they did have a government similar to a Tribal Council, while under Egyptian rule. I guess Canaan would be cool for people that like evil stuff and the leader can be fasinated with orgies HAHA Civ can have sex appeal.

Minoans had a spearman similar to the Carthaginian's with a long spear. Maybe they can have a superior merchant ship, since they were so rich through trade. And maybe everytime you pick them a volcano appears on their city Thera and it blows up early on. How's that for disaster management? See how close your allies are.

Aborigines would be cool! Especially if they actually decided to fight the British. They can have people who spit poison darts, that kill the unit instantly.

Inuit would be awesome! Just dont call them eskimos! They never surved as one Inuit Empire, but their trade did. They could flourish in Tundra, and their cities would collapse into settlers every 25 turns or something. Their uu could be short little men that throw harpoons. Inuits in general never fought wars. They had good relations with tribes and would share their wives with each other. Instead of building structures within their city they can just build it on the land. This would also make sense for other Native American cultures.

Carib would be nice, and be similar to the Polynesian culture but for America; Minoan for Europe, Malay/Indonesian for Asia. Island hopper civs are cool.
*I also think Hawaii would be cool. Princess Lukani I forget her name.

 

[mitsho]

good list? I disagree. Where are the Etruscans? Wher is the whole CONTINENT of South America? C'mon, that's an average list, not more.

mfG mitsho

 

[Abrie JF Kilian]

Afrikaners

Afrikaners are white South Africans predominantly of Calvinist Dutch, German, French Huguenot and Belgian descent who speak Afrikaans. Some settlers from other parts of Europe (e.g. Scandinavia and Britain) also joined the ranks of the Afrikaners. Non-Europeans (including Malay, Indian, Khoi and Bantu) make up around 5-7% of Afrikaner origins.

Afrikaners are descended mostly from white Calvinist settlers and refugees who occupied the Cape of Good Hope during the period of administration (1652-1795) by the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC) and the subsequent period of British rule.

The term Afrikaner encompasses disparate communities of white Afrikaans speakers. Originally it distinguished those Dutch speakers who saw themselves as local, i.e. "African", from those who still primarily identified with Europe; it was later used to distinguish between Afrikaans speakers and English speakers among the white population. Its earliest use dates from 1707 but was not widely used until after the Anglo-Boer War of the early 20th century. Prior to then, the various white Afrikaans speaking communities were known under different names. A significant amount were known as Boers (farmers). The semi-nomadic/migrating farmers of the eastern frontier were known as Trekboers. Those who lived in the western Cape & did not trek eastward were known as the Cape Dutch. The isolated pioneers from the eastern cape frontier who trekked / migrated into the interior en masse in a series of migrations later known as the Great Trek were known as Voortrekkers. Though a small number of Voortrekkers came from the western Cape as well.

In the 1830s and 1840s an estimated 12,000 Voortrekkers penetrated the future Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal provinces to put themselves beyond the reach of British authority, in order to escape relentless border wars, British colonialism and its Anglicization polices, as well as to ease pressure on an overcrowding frontier where land was becoming scarce. While some historians claim that these series of migrations, later known as the Great Trek, was caused because the Boers did not agree with the British restrictions on slavery, most Trekboers did not own slaves, unlike the Cape Dutch; their more affluent cousins in the western Cape who did not trek eastward and migrate or participate in the Great Trek. The vast majority of Voortrekkers were Trekboers from the eastern Cape who engaged in pastoralism. Nevertheless, the British promulgation of Ordinance 50 in 1828, which guaranteed equal rights before the law to all "free persons of color", was indeed a factor in Boer discontent, as is well documented by numerous contemporary sources; the various republics founded by the Voortrekkers while prohibiting slavery itself would all enshrine inequality by race into their constitutions.

The Great Trek was mainly the result of the "bursting of the dam" of pent up population migration and population pressures, as Trekboer migrations eastward had come to a virtual stop for at least three decades (though some Trekboers did migrate beyond the Orange River prior to the Great Trek). During the Great Trek they fought with the Zulus (after Voortrekker leaders Piet Retief and Gerhard Maritz, along with almost half of their followers, were killed by Dingaan and his warriors after initially signing a land treaty with them), who at the time occupied the areas the Boers were trekking into.

The Boers established independent states in what is now South Africa, Natal / Transvaal (the South African Republic) and the Orange Free State. The English wish to extend their colonial empire to the Boer areas led to the two Boer Wars of 1880-1881 and 1899-1902, which ended with the inclusion of the Boer areas in the British colonies. Following the British annexation of the Boer republics, the creation of the Union of South Africa (1910) went some way towards blurring the division between British settler and Afrikaner. The black majority, however, was excluded from equal participation in the affairs of the State / country until 1994 owing to the British colonial policies then later Afrikaner political leadership's policy of apartheid (the Afrikaans word for "aparthood" or "separation"), particularly under the National Party from 1948.

In recent years there has been encouragement from some Afrikaners to encourage the mixed race "coloured" population of South Africa, most of whom speak Afrikaans as their first language, to consider themselves Afrikaners. This has seen some success despite the history of exclusion under Apartheid.

Read more about the Afrikaner’s fight for recognition in the topic “Please add the Afrikaners as a Civilization!”

Air you views on this extraordinary and young civilization that made a significant contribution towards modern war fare.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Greek Stud:

Your list sure did include a lot of "not civilizations."

Kind of funny to include groups of people who never even formed a civilization in a game called Civilization, don't you think?

 

[Greek Stud]

Etruscans would be cool. I just wrote a list of the Civs I thought would be coolest to have.

In anthropology courses I've taken (3rd World/Mystics/Ancient Civs) we have very well established that the groups mentioned could easily be classified as 'Civil'. When a tribe governs, has law, it is civil. When they have social habits (culture) they have a rich distinct identity. Suffice to say, although most people are taught that particular Civs are the social standard to being a Civilisation, there are different versions, you just have to open your eyes.

For my research packets I studied:
Inuit Empire
Ashanti Kingdom
Canaanite Tribal Orders
Tasmanian Aborigines
The Iroquis States

Most Polynesian island were self-ruling, so you are right that it would only make since to separate each one. Most served under a monarch-style government. Most notably the nuissance was Tonga, which has strongly survived up to today. Hawaii almost made it. So instead of Polynesia, possibly:
Hawaii Kingdom
Tonga

I think the coolest thing about Civilization is that it teaches History and Social Sciences. Adding new deminsions to Civ 4 could help educate people that there isn't just one way on how to be civilized. Although the Greeks started this trend, most Western Europeans did it too. They would classify tribes as barbarians (Greek for bar bar bar like Theodora says) which means mumbo jumbo. Other slurs are actual words like Vulgar in Greek Bulgar for Bulgarian tribes, with the negative connotation of tempered like. Putting these cultures at a lower level than ones own gave those civs popular power.

Ethiopia is probably one you'd say didn't accomplish anything. Yet they won huge battles against: Nubia, Italy, and Somalia. They only recently lost a civil war, and they are the longest lasting Civilization that has never been conquered. They have distinct architecture, language, art, weaponry and customs. If you're looking for colonization, then look at Sheba.

Basically, it would be cool to see other civs represented, they deserve recognition.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Dictionary.com/American Heritage:

"An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

Merriam-Webster:

"A relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained."

Civil != Civilization.

 

[Teabeard]

Greek Stud:

Your list sure did include a lot of "not civilizations."

Kind of funny to include groups of people who never even formed a civilization in a game called Civilization, don't you think?

You are absolutely correct, but the game already includes some non-civs. Mongols, for example. If you are going to include Mongols, I mean, where do you draw the line?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Normally I'd agree, but them owning the largest land empire in the history of mankind kind of gives them a special place in history. The others being discussed don't exactly have such a spicy resume.

There is some diversification necessary in order to prevent the game from being Euro-centrc, but I doubt there will be all THAT many civs in CIV, so I don't think we should go overboard with civs. If you want to talk about the Americas then the Aztecs, Incas, maybe another N. American tribe would be best, Songhai and/or Mali for Africa, etc...

I just don't think Civilization is the right canvas to have groups like the Inuit or the Pacific Polynesians included. While semantics can be argued longer than anyone really cares to, with limited spots you have to make the tough decisions on who ought to be included. No offense to the Polynesians, but I'd rather have Japan or Germany or France or Mali in.

 

[Teabeard]

Okay, well what about Zulu then? Are they worthy of being called a civ? I would think Ethiopia or Zimbabwe are more valid African Civs than Zulus, but that's just me. I think any civ which designers can only justifiably give the traits of 'militaristic and expansionist' are obviously not very civilized, you know?

And another thing I'd like to say is that a nation is not the same as a civilization. Some people want to see the inclusion of Austria, and other nations which are already basically covered by something already included. You could also argue the Dutch and Scandinavia could be included under the German category as well. I don't really know what else to say on this, but I have to ask, where do you draw the line? If you have a German civ then is it a good idea to also include an Austrian civ? Or a Swiss civ? Or a Belgian? If you already have a Greek and Roman civ is it justifiable to include Byzantium? Are Spanish and Portguese really that distinct? Why isn't there an Italian civ?

What exactly is the difference between a nation and a civilization? Should the game include only civilizations, or include distinct nations?

 

[Jon Shafer]

The question is where you draw the line, as you said. The distinction between a "civilization" and a "nation" is often quite blurry.

I think the best way to approach it is to see what a nation/civ accomplished, rather than trying to solidify the blurry distinctions. What did the Romans accomplish vs. the Italians? No offense, but Rome has a bit better history all across the field. Italy is known for the culture for the Renaissance and some maritime trading states but that's about it. I don't think they even ever won a war against a "modern" country by themselves, nor did they ever even accomplish much against the non-industrialized states. They are certainly a valid civ to include, but based on merit and trying to diversify the civ choices, there are better/more successful European states to model.

The Germans weren't unified until 1871, and even then the Austrians were still a distinct group, despite being the same ethnicity. In many ways the Germans and the Austrians are the same, but in others they are not. It's similar to the Portugal-Spain situation. Both Portugal and Spain accomplished quite a bit independently and both Germany (Prussia) and Austria did the same. For that reason alone I do think that an Austrian "civ" is valid, though there are obviously many better choices given the already prevalent Euro-centralism present in this and other related games.

 

[oopsy poopsy]

after reading a lot of these posts I had an idea. Now if I can articulate the idea that's the key . First when people get upset about aztecs in modern age and things like out of time debates, that's kind of the point. How would you get the aztecs through to the present day? That's the fundamental principle of the game. I think to try to accomodate a lot of civs without having hundreds of initial choices is this: make civ spawning and civ consolidation a new part of the game. For instance, if I start as Greece I also get to pick a sub-greek civ, like carthage, sparta etc. . . that is your capitol city. In the ancient age as I begin new towns they have to be controlled and even warred upon as they represent different greeks. MP's and happiness type controls to keep them in line. In times of war with other nations these petty differences can be put aside (greeks uniting against troy). If you can keep united for a certain period then you become the greeks, this unity is what sparks your golden age. However, as the city number increases, as a way to combat corruption, your civilizations develop new cultures inside your borders. Civ spawning would be as important to your score as defeating rival civs. This new civ would have something that is beyond an alliance, basically working together as one but with it's own leader that can make it's own deals with others. You would have to interact diplomatically with that culture's leader and keep him happy or they could break off from your empire.
This would allow for all sorts of amazing possibilities, although it may be a little too much, but I'd like to see something like that included, that's if anybody can understand what I just said. Imagine Americans spawned from phoenicians that became greece and discovered and settled new world first. Now that's what I call a real civilization!

 

[Bookworm2007]

There should be more options for historical leaders.

also the egyptians
Maybe the Muslims or Ottoman Empire??

but it's hard to put an african civ into CIV 4 because most of african civs were changed by colonzation and slavery

CAITLIN

 

[rhialto]

One of the dirty little secrets of pre-colonial Africa is that slavery was common then. For political reasons, this is not widely advertised in modern schools. Slavery didn't really change those African societies, although other aspects of the colonial era did.

 

[Nachos]

i would really like to see some more civs. mostly outside europe and middle east of course, there are already so many civs there.

although i would like to add SOME more european civs, thinking of austria. and even though one can think that there are already more than enough european civs i think scandinavia is a real problem. if you play a european scenario or a real world map scenario such as tetuhrkan, scandinavia gets very big. and since, in civ, size is power ( ), scandinavia gets quite powerful. or perhaps way too powerful. scandinavia has never been one country (except from queen margareta's rule but i do not find that worth mentioning really)and yeah, yeah i'm scandinavian so to me it's all important but one united scandinavia is just way too easy. divide it into two nations, sweden and denmark (norway came out of denmark and finland came out of sweden). the vikings didn't even exist half a century. and btw sweden is at least as important as the netherlands.

i would actually like as many civs as possible in civ 4. i mean why not?

 

[AtomRipper]

How about the moors, there is no denying their influence in southern Europe (spain) and in africa

 

[Portuguese]

Looking for some civs here, which have acomplished so few in world history compared to Portugal make me wonder how could some doubt of Port inclusion...

BTW, my choices for enlarging CIV4 number of civs:
1. Hebrews
2. Polynesians
3. Polish
4. Nubians
5. (the one whose capital was Tombuctu)
6. Khmer
7. Tupi (from Brazil, in Colonization)
8. Schmioes (typo?)

 

[Teabeard]

Why do so many consider inclusion of the Hebrews to be so important? Is this for religious reasons?

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Every wants the Hebrews in for religious reasons only. They didn't accompish anything else worth even thinking about. I'm glad they have never been included in Civ.

Portuguese, I don't think any of the great West African empires ever had their capital at Timbuktu. Songhai had theirs at Gao to the east, Mali had theirs at Niani and Djenne (mostly) to the south and southwest, and Ghana I don't think had anything to do with Timbuktu. BTW, what are the Schmioes?

 

[Abrie JF Kilian]

Add the Afrikaners!

 

[Portuguese]

Every wants the Hebrews in for religious reasons only. They didn't accompish anything else worth even thinking about. I'm glad they have never been included in Civ.

Portuguese, I don't think any of the great West African empires ever had their capital at Timbuktu. Songhai had theirs at Gao to the east, Mali had theirs at Niani and Djenne (mostly) to the south and southwest, and Ghana I don't think had anything to do with Timbuktu. BTW, what are the Schmioes?

Hebrews change world history from BC to nowadays!!! More than, say, US or Korea...

Ok, but if not the Mali or so, then add another african civ. We need 2 of them. Nubians and another. To make up the hole in that space (one of my criteria is to have continent representativity, other to have strong impact in a phase of world history, and other to add civ's which endured for milenia and are in some form unique (Hebrews, Polynesians, Esquimós or how you call them).

Schmioes or Esquimós or so is the civ that live in the northern ice... Don't know the correct name in english, sorry.

PS: who are Africanners? can you giva a resumée?