Okay, but seriously, what exactly IS a civilization?

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
695
I mean can you think of a major Polynesian group or Native American group from the U.S./Canada that wasn't related to Anglo history in some form? :confused:
There are options that fit better what CIV gameplay do:
- Tonga instead Maori. Tonga was an actual empire with long range oceanic networks and deeper history.
- Choctaw instead of Cree, representative of Mississippian, longer and more diverse interaction and turned to be one of the "Five Civilized Tribes".
- Shona instead of Zulu, kingdoms like Zimbabwe, Butua, Mutapa and Rozni, long and more diverse history of trade.
Then again we also had the Mapuche. :p
True, Mapuche is a gained slot for South America. But we can also ask for the Siberian native like Evenks or a non imperialistic option from East Asia like the Hmong.
 
Last edited:

reddishrecue

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,837
There are options that fit better what CIV gameplay do:
- Tonga instead Maori. Tonga was an actual empire with long range oceanic networks and deeper history.
- Choctaw instead of Cree, representative of Mississippian, longer and more diverse interaction and turned to be one of the "Five Civilized Tribes".
- Shona instead of Zulu, kingdoms like Zimbabwe, Butua, Mutapa and Rozni, long and more diverse history of trade.

True, Mapuche is a gained slot for South America. But we can also ask for the Siberian native like Evenks or a non imperialistic option from East Asia like the Hmong.
Tonga was a Polynesian city in civilization 5. Maori was its unique unit also. I can see how that civilization was split in so many ways in civilization 6.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
- Tonga instead Maori. Tonga was an actual empire with long range oceanic networks and deeper history.
- Choctaw instead of Cree, representative of Mississippian, longer and more diverse interaction and turned to be one of the "Five Civilized Tribes".
- Shona instead of Zulu, kingdoms like Zimbabwe, Butua, Mutapa and Rozni, long and more diverse history of trade.
I'm cool with Maoris, but Civ 7 can have Tonga to be some different.
About the five civilized tribes, is hard to pick one of them. But I would pick the Seminoles, because it can be lead by a Black charcter as John Horse or Negro Abraham.
And about the Zulu, that I need to disagree. I believe Zulu should appear in every game since it's my warmonger favorite and it is the only African remebered in this franchise since the begining.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
- Tonga instead Maori. Tonga was an actual empire with long range oceanic networks and deeper history.
Tonga would be a nice choice. Though my point was that Tonga for a time also became a protected state under the United Kingdom in the early 20th century. I'm fine with any Polynesian group that they decide to include, as long as we get one.
- Choctaw instead of Cree, representative of Mississippian, longer and more diverse interaction and turned to be one of the "Five Civilized Tribes".
I mean the Cree were an interesting choice, but I also agree that there are also more interesting tribes out there they could look at. At least they were the first tribe from Canada.
- Shona instead of Zulu, kingdoms like Zimbabwe, Butua, Mutapa and Rozni, long and more diverse history of trade.
Zulu are a staple at this point, which honestly I'm fine with. For trading civs from Africa at least we have the kingdoms from West Africa.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
372
I think it's vision of the past is still overly coherent, even bordering on deterministic.

The debate over who and what counts as a "civilization" reflects this thinking, because it presupposes timeless coherence that never really was. People will never agree on the definition, not only because of the wide diversity of human existence, but because it reflects our own era in a way that is impossible to map onto the past in a way that makes sense for all times and places. Someone will always be able to raise an objection.
I agree with you completely! I didn't mean to flog material determinism here, rather, to put it on one side along with innovation, and as a feature that many histories that celebrate "X great leader" or "X great nation" ignore. Your point about teleology is spot on, too. It's a challenge, when a model of history seeks to both reflect what happened as well as open up a "what if" - quickly the possibilities become endless (what if science was built on Aztec principles? What if the dominant powers in the world in 1800 were Kongo and Cree? Etc). And here's another what-if: what if all the what-ifs had to have art, animation and design attached to them? That said, I love alt history!
 

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
695
The difference between Tonga and Maori (also Hawaii) is that the former is now a independent still mainly native but small nation, the laters are minorities in way bigger Anglo countries. The transoceanic empire fit way better Tonga than Maori or Hawaii, but market recognition is obviously the final reason to choose.

I believe Zulu should appear in every game since it's my warmonger favorite and it is the only African remebered in this franchise since the begining.
Exactly. The most remembered Sub-Saharan civ is an agressive, militarized, barely urbanized, recent, short lived and highly linked to europeans history civ. Just think a moment. Which already on-game African civ fit better the stereotypes about African history? We all know the answer ;)
That mean Zulu should be censured? NO, but there is neither historical weight in Zulu to justify a permanent slot that could be used by many others deserving African options.

Expansive African civ in CIV7? Songhai, at the same time the title of the "Kingdom of Gold" used by Mali go for Shona (Zimbabwe). So exchange between the Sahel and the Bantu regions their roles. Also Zulu as the "South-East African Bantu" civ overlaps not just with Shona but also with Swahili.
 
Last edited:

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Exactly. The most remembered Sub-Saharan civ is an agressive, militarized, barely urbanized, recent, short lived and highly linked to europeans history civ. Just think a moment. Which already on-game African civ fit better the stereotypes about African history? We all know the answer ;)
That mean Zulu should be censured? NO, but there is neither historical weight in Zulu to justify a permanent slot that could be used by many others deserving African options.

Expansive African civ in CIV7? Songhai, at the same time the title of the "Kingdom of Gold" used by Mali go for Shona (Zimbabwe). So exchange between the Sahel and the Bantu regions their roles. Also Zulu as the "South-East African Bantu" civ overlaps not just with Shona but also with Swahili.
I need to agree it is a bad steriotype a warmonger as Shaka be the only remembered since the begining. Because Shaka is kind of "the evil". That is the why Civ6 start it's vanila edition with Kongo instead, a way more pacific civ than the Zulus and Zulus just came after some DLCs.

But I think civ 7 need to have room to more africans and Zulus, we can't forget the Zulus simply because it was in all games before and need to still.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
The difference between Tonga and Maori (also Hawaii) is that the former is now a independent still mainly native but small nation, the laters are minorities in way bigger Anglo countries. The transoceanic empire fit way better Tonga than Maori or Hawaii, but market recognition is obviously the final reason to choose.
If you want market recognition plus a transoceanic "empire" that is now (somewhat)independent there is also Samoa.
 

CaptainCH

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Messages
15
I am not an anthropologist or a sociologist, but I’ve been thinking about this question for a while. I don’t claim to have a definitive answer but I would like to offer my two cents here.

I would define civilization as simply a highly urbanized society with an organized distribution of resources (both material and human). How much urbanization for it to count might be arbitrary but if there are a lot of people who are making food and providing resources for another group of people who distribute the resources amongst themselves then that is civilization. This leaves open whether the means of producing food is primarily agricultural, silvicultural, aquacultural, or pastoral in nature. This definition also doesn’t require writing, pottery, irrigation, as well as social stratification beyond ‘people who distribute resources.’ These latter attributes are supplementary and secondary innovations to the end of resource production and distribution. But a civilization only needs heavy urbanization and a level of organization to manage that urbanization.

Under this definition, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andeans would all be true civilizations, and indeed they are the ‘cradles of civilization.’ There would also be little room to argue against including populations like the Nok culture, Mississippian culture, Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, Los Millares and El Argar cultures, and Ancestral Puebloans as pristine civilizations in their own right, or at least ‘proto-civilizations’ (if you think they are more borderline cases). This would however exclude groups like the Huns and Māori, who although did form state-like confederate structures did not need to manage their populations beyond the tribal level, as they did not have intensive urbanization. This doesn’t mean their society was inherently ‘lesser’ and civilization is something ‘more advanced. It just means that civilization is a way of managing population and resources under different circumstances that require it. As long as they are urbanized and intensified to the point of having to organize the distribution of resources and means of producing those resources across multiple urban population groups then they are civilization.

Notice, however, that I did not say ‘a civilization.’ It’s one thing to come up with a definition of what constitutes a civilization, but it is another thing to come up with a definition of distinct civilizations, and this happens to align more with the OP’s particular concern. For this I would say that a distinct civilization emerges when the organization of people has a distinct sociocultural superstratum. That is, a particular culture or group of cultures is imbued in the way the civilization organizes itself. For example, we would associate ancient Greek philosophy and religion solely with Ancient Greek civilization, and the way they organized themselves went hand in hand with their cultural values (like the ideal of the polis and serving and fighting for one’s polis). This is something distinct from Egyptian civilization, which had more authoritarian and absolutist values in their culture, and that was reflected in the way they organized themselves (a pharaoh who acted as a god-king). This doesn’t mean that cultural values in a civilization don’t change, in fact they do all the time, especially when it comes to political organization. The Hellenistic era and the rise of Rome deemphasized the role of the polis. The role of the Egyptian king/pharaoh fluctuated over time. However over time things gradually drift apart and cultural value systems become incompatible. The way a civilization becomes distinct then is pretty much the way any sociocultural system becomes distinct, albeit on a wider scale. The most visible way this has occurred in history is with western Eurasian religions, like Western and Eastern Christianity and Islam. I would argue that Christendom and Islamdom were distinct civilizations, because of the core cultural and religious values that were incompatible with each other, but also united different nations under those cultural and religious values. This also means that a civilization could be distinguished chronologically. One could argue that medieval Christendom and classical Greece and Rome were entirely different civilizations, even though most of us would consider them ‘Western.’ Likewise, you could argue that the modern day secular, industrialized, Anglicized West is distinct enough to be a different civilization from medieval and early modern Europe (though I would personably disagree). I think it also depends on self-perception to an extent, too. There are clearly people who think that their society is a different kind of society from other groups of people, and I think we should take that to be pragmatically meaningful.

I think we should also consider that there is a difference between a ‘civilization,’ a ‘nation,’ and a ‘state.’ A civilization would be the framework of organization and management of urbanized populations. A state is just the central political organization that does the managing. Civilizations tend to form states, though it doesn’t have to be completely divorced from other cultural and religious functions, as was the case for most of history. A nation is a body of people who share a common cultural heritage. A nation-state is a state governing a particular nation. A city-state is a state governing a particular city. You get the idea. Now nations and states work within the framework of a civilization, but they aren’t civilizations themselves. If you were a peasant living in the 1300s, it wouldn’t matter whether your lord was English or French, you were still living in medieval Christian civilization.

These differences are relevant because we have to keep in mind whether the civilizations in the Civilization games are really just nations or states. If you think about it most of them are. We never talk of ‘Polish civilization’ or ‘Venetian civilization.’ We always say ‘Polish nation” and ‘Venetian city-state’

The only 2 factions in the game that could unambiguously be considered civilizations are China and India, both of which have always been a distinct civilization from the very beginning, and both of them have very long and convoluted histories that their representation in the Civ series does very little justice. The very idea of a united Indian state is a recent concept. All other civs in the game are either too vague or too specific. Venice isn’t a civilization. Portugal isn’t a civilization. America isn’t its own civilization, it’s an empire (half-joking here). There is no Dutch civilization. Most European civs aren’t their own civilizations. And then there’s cases like Greece where we have a modern nation named Greece and then we have the ancient Mycenaean and Helladic civilizations which were quite distinct from modern Greek culture. But then there’s Byzantium which is technically a continuation of Classical Greek and Roman civilization but also has the Eastern Orthodox Christianity DLC so I guess one could argue that it’s different enough to be considered a civilization. Then there’s Sumer which I would argue wasn’t a completely separate civilization but the first iteration of Mesopotamian civilization, which also included Babylon and Assyria, and they all shared similar cultures. But then there’s the Maya and Aztecs and the Aztecs I mean they were a pretty temporal state and kinda just built off the altepetl tributary system which was already in central Mexico for a while, so I wouldn’t count them as a distinct civilization. The Maya meanwhile is a little ambiguous because they do have some features that separate them from other Mesoamerican societies but at the same time they do share a lot in common so it’s up to debate. It’s a similar deal with Greece and Rome considered individually, Rome itself was a state that absorbed several civilizations like Carthage, the Iberians, the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Etruscans. But most famously they subdued the Greeks and they pretty much copied all of their culture, so because of this I would consider both Greece and Rome to be under the umbrella of ‘classical civilization’ though Rome was initially connected to Etruscan/Italian civilization.

All of this should go to show that there aren’t actually very many civilizations in the Civilization series, at least not unless you narrow down the definition of civilization to include any distinct nation group. But I think this is how it should be. The Māori never circumnavigated the entire globe and plopped down to build big cities and farms. The Romans never developed tanks for their legions. The Maya never built spaceships to explore the stars rather than just watching them. America never existed during the Neolithic. The Russians never got to dominate the whole of Europe culturally and religiously. The point of Civilization isn’t to define what a civilization is. The point of Civilization is for you to define what civilization means for you. You could be the Māori that settles and vibes across the entire world. You could be the Romans that demolish entire cities with your mechanized legions. You could be the Maya that make ever greater advances in science and technology. You could be the Americans existing in 3000 BC. You could be the Russians that truly become the Third Rome. In that case all cultures deserve a chance in the spotlight, because they all have the potential to do great things (and also because having unique cultures is cool), and we should all get a chance to learn about them. Maybe that means I was wrong about civilizations. Maybe it really is all subjective, maybe civilization is what we make if it, maybe civilization was the friends we made along the way. Maybe there was a man who wanted to share his vision with the world, a vision of a game where you get to decide and play and experience these ideas. But we do know one thing. That game was called Sid Meier’s Civilization.
 

BackseatTyrant

Queer Anarchotranshumanist
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
285
By that standard, there were no civilization until the 19th centurY, at ehich point all humanity was one civilization, an pd we only got to two civilizations in the 20th...
I mean haha, good on you for pointing out the obvious flaw, but you do agree that all civilizations should be defined so that they're roughly equal in population size, right? Or at least, that it's one definition to consider...
I am not an anthropologist or a sociologist, but I’ve been thinking about this question for a while. I don’t claim to have a definitive answer but I would like to offer my two cents here.

I would define civilization as simply a highly urbanized society with an organized distribution of resources (both material and human). How much urbanization for it to count might be arbitrary but if there are a lot of people who are making food and providing resources for another group of people who distribute the resources amongst themselves then that is civilization. This leaves open whether the means of producing food is primarily agricultural, silvicultural, aquacultural, or pastoral in nature. This definition also doesn’t require writing, pottery, irrigation, as well as social stratification beyond ‘people who distribute resources.’ These latter attributes are supplementary and secondary innovations to the end of resource production and distribution. But a civilization only needs heavy urbanization and a level of organization to manage that urbanization.

Under this definition, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus River Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and the Andeans would all be true civilizations, and indeed they are the ‘cradles of civilization.’ There would also be little room to argue against including populations like the Nok culture, Mississippian culture, Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, Los Millares and El Argar cultures, and Ancestral Puebloans as pristine civilizations in their own right, or at least ‘proto-civilizations’ (if you think they are more borderline cases). This would however exclude groups like the Huns and Māori, who although did form state-like confederate structures did not need to manage their populations beyond the tribal level, as they did not have intensive urbanization. This doesn’t mean their society was inherently ‘lesser’ and civilization is something ‘more advanced. It just means that civilization is a way of managing population and resources under different circumstances that require it. As long as they are urbanized and intensified to the point of having to organize the distribution of resources and means of producing those resources across multiple urban population groups then they are civilization.

Notice, however, that I did not say ‘a civilization.’ It’s one thing to come up with a definition of what constitutes a civilization, but it is another thing to come up with a definition of distinct civilizations, and this happens to align more with the OP’s particular concern. For this I would say that a distinct civilization emerges when the organization of people has a distinct sociocultural superstratum. That is, a particular culture or group of cultures is imbued in the way the civilization organizes itself. For example, we would associate ancient Greek philosophy and religion solely with Ancient Greek civilization, and the way they organized themselves went hand in hand with their cultural values (like the ideal of the polis and serving and fighting for one’s polis). This is something distinct from Egyptian civilization, which had more authoritarian and absolutist values in their culture, and that was reflected in the way they organized themselves (a pharaoh who acted as a god-king). This doesn’t mean that cultural values in a civilization don’t change, in fact they do all the time, especially when it comes to political organization. The Hellenistic era and the rise of Rome deemphasized the role of the polis. The role of the Egyptian king/pharaoh fluctuated over time. However over time things gradually drift apart and cultural value systems become incompatible. The way a civilization becomes distinct then is pretty much the way any sociocultural system becomes distinct, albeit on a wider scale. The most visible way this has occurred in history is with western Eurasian religions, like Western and Eastern Christianity and Islam. I would argue that Christendom and Islamdom were distinct civilizations, because of the core cultural and religious values that were incompatible with each other, but also united different nations under those cultural and religious values. This also means that a civilization could be distinguished chronologically. One could argue that medieval Christendom and classical Greece and Rome were entirely different civilizations, even though most of us would consider them ‘Western.’ Likewise, you could argue that the modern day secular, industrialized, Anglicized West is distinct enough to be a different civilization from medieval and early modern Europe (though I would personably disagree). I think it also depends on self-perception to an extent, too. There are clearly people who think that their society is a different kind of society from other groups of people, and I think we should take that to be pragmatically meaningful.

I think we should also consider that there is a difference between a ‘civilization,’ a ‘nation,’ and a ‘state.’ A civilization would be the framework of organization and management of urbanized populations. A state is just the central political organization that does the managing. Civilizations tend to form states, though it doesn’t have to be completely divorced from other cultural and religious functions, as was the case for most of history. A nation is a body of people who share a common cultural heritage. A nation-state is a state governing a particular nation. A city-state is a state governing a particular city. You get the idea. Now nations and states work within the framework of a civilization, but they aren’t civilizations themselves. If you were a peasant living in the 1300s, it wouldn’t matter whether your lord was English or French, you were still living in medieval Christian civilization.

These differences are relevant because we have to keep in mind whether the civilizations in the Civilization games are really just nations or states. If you think about it most of them are. We never talk of ‘Polish civilization’ or ‘Venetian civilization.’ We always say ‘Polish nation” and ‘Venetian city-state’

The only 2 factions in the game that could unambiguously be considered civilizations are China and India, both of which have always been a distinct civilization from the very beginning, and both of them have very long and convoluted histories that their representation in the Civ series does very little justice. The very idea of a united Indian state is a recent concept. All other civs in the game are either too vague or too specific. Venice isn’t a civilization. Portugal isn’t a civilization. America isn’t its own civilization, it’s an empire (half-joking here). There is no Dutch civilization. Most European civs aren’t their own civilizations. And then there’s cases like Greece where we have a modern nation named Greece and then we have the ancient Mycenaean and Helladic civilizations which were quite distinct from modern Greek culture. But then there’s Byzantium which is technically a continuation of Classical Greek and Roman civilization but also has the Eastern Orthodox Christianity DLC so I guess one could argue that it’s different enough to be considered a civilization. Then there’s Sumer which I would argue wasn’t a completely separate civilization but the first iteration of Mesopotamian civilization, which also included Babylon and Assyria, and they all shared similar cultures. But then there’s the Maya and Aztecs and the Aztecs I mean they were a pretty temporal state and kinda just built off the altepetl tributary system which was already in central Mexico for a while, so I wouldn’t count them as a distinct civilization. The Maya meanwhile is a little ambiguous because they do have some features that separate them from other Mesoamerican societies but at the same time they do share a lot in common so it’s up to debate. It’s a similar deal with Greece and Rome considered individually, Rome itself was a state that absorbed several civilizations like Carthage, the Iberians, the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Etruscans. But most famously they subdued the Greeks and they pretty much copied all of their culture, so because of this I would consider both Greece and Rome to be under the umbrella of ‘classical civilization’ though Rome was initially connected to Etruscan/Italian civilization.

All of this should go to show that there aren’t actually very many civilizations in the Civilization series, at least not unless you narrow down the definition of civilization to include any distinct nation group. But I think this is how it should be. The Māori never circumnavigated the entire globe and plopped down to build big cities and farms. The Romans never developed tanks for their legions. The Maya never built spaceships to explore the stars rather than just watching them. America never existed during the Neolithic. The Russians never got to dominate the whole of Europe culturally and religiously. The point of Civilization isn’t to define what a civilization is. The point of Civilization is for you to define what civilization means for you. You could be the Māori that settles and vibes across the entire world. You could be the Romans that demolish entire cities with your mechanized legions. You could be the Maya that make ever greater advances in science and technology. You could be the Americans existing in 3000 BC. You could be the Russians that truly become the Third Rome. In that case all cultures deserve a chance in the spotlight, because they all have the potential to do great things (and also because having unique cultures is cool), and we should all get a chance to learn about them. Maybe that means I was wrong about civilizations. Maybe it really is all subjective, maybe civilization is what we make if it, maybe civilization was the friends we made along the way. Maybe there was a man who wanted to share his vision with the world, a vision of a game where you get to decide and play and experience these ideas. But we do know one thing. That game was called Sid Meier’s Civilization.
Thank you! That's exactly the kind of reply I was looking for!
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,188
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
I don't think population size equality is significant, no. There is simply too much variance over time in human population to work with a standard like that, and it would simply eliminate smaller but more isolated (thus more unique) groupings from consideration.
 

Marla_Singer

United in diversity
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
13,137
Location
Paris, west side (92).
I'd point you all, too, to the critiques of notions of "Classical Age" and collapse coming out from anthropological and archaeological scholars, especially against Jared Diamond's writing there. While Diamond has some valuable points re: environment, "collapse" is a far more nuanced thing - sometimes collapse doesn't actually mean collapse, and simply means an abandonment of centralized cities because something has become politically, economically, or environmentally unstable there. The Maya have "collapsed," but there are millions of Maya living now, living Maya lives and speaking Maya languages. The birth of cities doesn't have to mean hierarchy, and the decline of cities doesn't have to mean that a culture has disappeared.
I totally agree with this point. Even the most Ancient civilizations resulted from the exchanges of techniques or ressources of which we may have lost track, but which pre-existed nonetheless. In any Human endeavor, it's not necessarily discovering something that will make some people or society memorable but rather the ability to use it in a sustainable way. Ultimately, it's about the capacity of a society to establish a system stable enough to sustain itself, and the longer it will last the more impactful it will be. Yet if it collapses, it can grow as something else. Or even when it expands, it can give birth to something else. Typically Spain and France grew out of the expansion of the Roman Empire and only later became their own thing.

In this regard, the limitation here is perhaps that in civ games, all players spawn independently in 4000 BC and that's about it. We can easily see the interest of it for gameplay reasons, but I wonder what that would be leading to with a more dynamic process. By that I mean new civilizations emerging first as colonies before growing independent, or others being reduced as vassals for a while before outgrowing their former lords.
 

reddishrecue

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,837
I totally agree with this point. Even the most Ancient civilizations resulted from the exchanges of techniques or ressources of which we may have lost track, but which pre-existed nonetheless. In any Human endeavor, it's not necessarily discovering something that will make some people or society memorable but rather the ability to use it in a sustainable way. Ultimately, it's about the capacity of a society to establish a system stable enough to sustain itself, and the longer it will last the more impactful it will be. Yet if it collapses, it can grow as something else. Or even when it expands, it can give birth to something else. Typically Spain and France grew out of the expansion of the Roman Empire and only later became their own thing.

In this regard, the limitation here is perhaps that in civ games, all players spawn independently in 4000 BC and that's about it. We can easily see the interest of it for gameplay reasons, but I wonder what that would be leading to with a more dynamic process. By that I mean new civilizations emerging first as colonies before growing independent, or others being reduced as vassals for a while before outgrowing their former lords.
I kind of noticed that too, but there's not just Maya because of the mixtures of the bloodlines that happened to the ancestors of the people in the world. There are other civilizations in the world that are in the world as well. I've heard of Rigoberta Menchu who had protected Maya civilization in Guatemala and won the Nobel Peace price for helping protect the Maya in Guatemala who were pursued by the Guatemalan government and now lives in Mexico. Guatemala is where the Mayans are. AFAIK I haven't heard of Mayans in other places in the world other than Guatemala except with citizens that are from the modern countries that remain where Mayans used to live in central America that happened to live in other places in the world which doesn't make them Maya at all. There are a lot of tribes that used to exist with mixed bloodlines today not just Maya.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,188
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Genetics and civilization belonging are not really related, though,
 

Abaxial

Emperor
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
1,145
Of course, us folks in this forum are terribly well educated, but I wonder, out of all the 50,000 or so purchasers of the game, how many had ever heard of the Mapuche before? I always thought it was the Araucarians down there, and (a) that's only because I played SPI's Conquistador, and (b) OK, the Mapuche were Araucarians.
 

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
695
Of course, us folks in this forum are terribly well educated, but I wonder, out of all the 50,000 or so purchasers of the game, how many had ever heard of the Mapuche before? I always thought it was the Araucarians down there, and (a) that's only because I played SPI's Conquistador, and (b) OK, the Mapuche were Araucarians.
Mapuche are not realy obscure considering they are the top native people of both Argentina and Chile, also Cree are way less numerous, from a less populous country and kind of less impressive.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Of course, us folks in this forum are terribly well educated, but I wonder, out of all the 50,000 or so purchasers of the game, how many had ever heard of the Mapuche before? I always thought it was the Araucarians down there, and (a) that's only because I played SPI's Conquistador, and (b) OK, the Mapuche were Araucarians.
When I enter in this forum I was asking for Mapuche, Colombia and Haiti. I don't think Mapuche is so obscure civ and deserve his spot in this game.
They defeat the Incas and the Spaniards and still untill today one of the bigest native american nations
 

Abaxial

Emperor
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
1,145
Mapuche are not realy obscure considering they are the top native people of both Argentina and Chile, also Cree are way less numerous, from a less populous country and kind of less impressive.
I wager if you went out into the street in any city in North America or Europe and tried to find someone who knew who the Mapuche were, you would have a hard time of it.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
I wager if you went out into the street in any city in North America or Europe and tried to find someone who knew who the Mapuche were, you would have a hard time of it
If you asked an avarege American what is the Brazilian capital, they should answer Buenos Aires.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom