"Pokrovka" is surely not Scythian city name

[skyclad]

Shows that this ridiculous "civ" should not have been included at all. Anyway, there has to be better alternativens than modern slavic city names.

 

[Zaarin]

It would be a disaster if a lot of people cared. But it wasn't. Celts had a druidic flavor ,with wood based faith for early religion and faith fighter and it was enough to define them in a civ 5 context. Perfectly acceptable.

Yes, the stereotyped hippy-druid tree-worshiping Welsh-speaking Briton queen with dreads with cities with English names from four different cultures is exactly what I was talking about. May the Celts never return, and if they do may Boudicca not join them. Civ5 Celts are right behind Civ4 Native Americans as worst civ in the franchise.

Scythia is a different story. Its city names are problematic, but the civ is otherwise well-designed.

 

[isau]

...and again, Teddy Roosevelt is still around in 4000 BC.

I will never understand why people stake so many priorities on how gloriously a civ is showcased in a game that is basically making fun of them.

The Celts were a "disaster"? I think you just didn't get the joke.

 

[Zaarin]

...and again, Teddy Roosevelt is still around in 4000 BC.

I will never understand why people stake so many priorities on how gloriously a civ is showcased in a game that is basically making fun of them.

The Celts were a "disaster"? I think you just didn't get the joke.

Sorry, actually knowing history makes stereotyped joke civs extremely unappealing to me. If Boudicca was a joke, she wasn't funny.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So, in short, instead of Russian sounding names we would get a list of Greek sounding names. (Tanais and Pantikapaion actually were Greek colonies, by the way.) Tribe names might be a better idea, but I'm sure this will be picked up by a modder. (As for CiV there is an 'Egyptian city name' mod.)

Tanais was a Greek colony so-named because it was near the mouth of the Tanais River, a Scythian name. Herodotus (IV.47) indicates that it meant 'icy river' and had a River God also named Tanais associated with it.

Pantikapeum or Panticapeum was a later Greek colony, the original was closer to 'Pontikapy', derived from 'punt' or punty' meaning 'rich with food' and 'kapy' meaning gate or entrance. 'Pantikapeum' was at the site of modern Kerch on the eastern tip of the Crimea, the entrance to the modern Sea of Azov - a rich fishing ground.

Please to remember that Greek itself is full of 'borrowed' words, especially place names, as are all languages spoken by people who moved into territory already inhabited by different language speakers: consider 'Tanais' or 'Pantikapeum/Pontikapy' as the equivalent of Chicago, Osceola or Cuyahoga in the USA.

Unlike, as the OP pointed out, 'Pokrovka' which has no Scythian connection AT ALL.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The thing about the Celts is that 1) there never was one celtic empire 2) there were different celtic tribes and different cultures as well (Hallstadt, La Tene) 3) The C5 version is basically just a Gaelic civ, ignoring that Ireland and Scotland and Wales are nothing alike culture-wise. It's a civ based on cultural ignorance.

A celtic civ could work if it focused on ONE such tribe (e.g. The Gauls under Vercingetorix, Scotland under Robert the Bruce, etc) and didn't try to coalesce every gaelic stereotype into one civilization, which is what C5 did.

 

[Zaarin]

Tanais was a Greek colony so-named because it was near the mouth of the Tanais River, a Scythian name. Herodotus (IV.47) indicates that it meant 'icy river' and had a River God also named Tanais associated with it.

Pantikapeum or Panticapeum was a later Greek colony, the original was closer to 'Pontikapy', derived from 'punt' or punty' meaning 'rich with food' and 'kapy' meaning gate or entrance. 'Pantikapeum' was at the site of modern Kerch on the eastern tip of the Crimea, the entrance to the modern Sea of Azov - a rich fishing ground.

Please to remember that Greek itself is full of 'borrowed' words, especially place names, as are all languages spoken by people who moved into territory already inhabited by different language speakers: consider 'Tanais' or 'Pantikapeum/Pontikapy' as the equivalent of Chicago, Osceola or Cuyahoga in the USA.

Unlike, as the OP pointed out, 'Pokrovka' which has no Scythian connection AT ALL.

This. The Scythian names we have are Hellenized because they've been passed on to us by the Greeks, but at least they're ultimately of Scythian origin (probably--Greek historians are notorious for making things up). But they'd at least be better than random Central Asian names largely from Russian that happen to have kurgans nearby.

The thing about the Celts is that 1) there never was one celtic empire 2) there were different celtic tribes and different cultures as well (Hallstadt, La Tene) 3) The C5 version is basically just a Gaelic civ, ignoring that Ireland and Scotland and Wales are nothing alike culture-wise. It's a civ based on cultural ignorance.

A celtic civ could work if it focused on ONE such tribe (e.g. The Gauls under Vercingetorix, Scotland under Robert the Bruce, etc) and didn't try to coalesce every gaelic stereotype into one civilization, which is what C5 did.

This. (Except that the Welsh aren't Gaels, they're Brythons.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The thing about the Celts is that 1) there never was one celtic empire 2) there were different celtic tribes and different cultures as well (Hallstadt, La Tene) 3) The C5 version is basically just a Gaelic civ, ignoring that Ireland and Scotland and Wales are nothing alike culture-wise. It's a civ based on cultural ignorance.

A celtic civ could work if it focused on ONE such tribe (e.g. The Gauls under Vercingetorix, Scotland under Robert the Bruce, etc) and didn't try to coalesce every gaelic stereotype into one civilization, which is what C5 did.

In fact, there is a 'Celtic Civilizations" Mod for BNW Civ V that does just that, allowing you to pick Iceni (Boudicca's original tribe), Pict, Welsh, Irish, or Cornwall as separate 'civs'. There are several separate Mods for Civ V with several versions of Scotland under James VI or Robert Bruce or the Gallic Tribes under Vercingetorix. And even if you play with all of those mods, the game would still just barely represent the variety of 'Celtic' societies and civilizations possible.

You can (and Modders have) do the same thing with Islamic, German, and Chinese 'civilizations', directing each Mod at a different aspect of the original 'civilization'.

The Celtic Civ in Civ V was just one example (along with Polynesians and Shoshone for instance) of the 'agglutinative' nature of Civ V: Lump a bunch of different groups together at near-random and pretend they amount to a single 'Civ' ...

 

[isau]

Sorry, actually knowing history makes stereotyped joke civs extremely unappealing to me. If Boudicca was a joke, she wasn't funny.

You mean a joke besides appearing in a game where they fight the Aztecs and build the Eiffel Tower?

This game is ridiculous. Intentionally so. It's a mash up of pop culture references thrown into a ludicrous scenario (what if 8 civilizations all got born in 4000 BC and their leader somehow lived for 6000 years?) Of course the Celts are based on 1990s food court Druids. Of course Montezuma is a blood thirsty lunatic in a grass skirt. Of course a civ like Scythia about which little is known isn't treated like we're at induction to an anthropology museum.

Once you realize this game is not that serious--and that for every aspect of it that is honoring a civ by turns it's making fun of them at the same time--it's a lot easier to just let stuff go. A city name that doesn't match what the civ itself might have called it should be the least of anyone's concerns. None of these cities existed in the time period the game starts anyway. And in this particular case, all you have you have to say is "Ok that's the name some Russian's gave it." The end. I mean, the name of the place is about the least of the historical problems here.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

You mean a joke besides appearing in a game where they fight the Aztecs and build the Eiffel Tower?

This game is ridiculous. Intentionally so. It's a mash up of pop culture references thrown into a ludicrous scenario (what if 8 civilizations all got born in 4000 BC and their leader somehow lived for 6000 years?) Of course the Celts are based on 1990s food court Druids. Of course Montezuma is a blood thirsty lunatic in a grass skirt. Of course a civ like Scythia about which little is known isn't treated like we're at induction to an anthropology museum.

The game has its own logic, and to be consistent it should follow that logic. Having a leader that lives for 6000 years and civilizations that all start at the same time are inevitable consequences of how the game works. For other aspects of the game we see that the developers have tried to apply historical flavour, like the loading screens, the tech tree, the unique units and unique abilities. That historical flavour is one of the things that make Civ a good game. City names are like that. Having ridiculous city names is not a necessary effect of gameplay. It is solely an effect of arbitrary carelessness. And it is not that difficult to fix.

 

[Zaarin]

None of these cities existed in the time period the game starts anyway.

Ur was around.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

And in this particular case, all you have you have to say is "Ok that's the name some Russian's gave it." The end.

In this particular case, all you have to say is "OK, that's the name some Russians gave some other, mostly unrelated place."

 

[Agent327]

Ur was around.

Actually, it wasn't. There have been found remains at Jericho from about 6,000 BC, but it's a bit of a stretch to call that a city. We don't find any actually cities until around 3,200-3,000 BC.

Tanais was a Greek colony so-named because it was near the mouth of the Tanais River, a Scythian name. Herodotus (IV.47) indicates that it meant 'icy river' and had a River God also named Tanais associated with it.

Pantikapeum or Panticapeum was a later Greek colony, the original was closer to 'Pontikapy', derived from 'punt' or punty' meaning 'rich with food' and 'kapy' meaning gate or entrance. 'Pantikapeum' was at the site of modern Kerch on the eastern tip of the Crimea, the entrance to the modern Sea of Azov - a rich fishing ground.

Please to remember that Greek itself is full of 'borrowed' words, especially place names, as are all languages spoken by people who moved into territory already inhabited by different language speakers: consider 'Tanais' or 'Pantikapeum/Pontikapy' as the equivalent of Chicago, Osceola or Cuyahoga in the USA.

Unlike, as the OP pointed out, 'Pokrovka' which has no Scythian connection AT ALL.

It's my understanding they used sites where Scythian remains were found. That inevitable will include both Russian and Ukrainian names (amongst others). While your post is very informative, it rather ignores the fact that the Scythians didn't found any cities at all. So their 'city names' will be random in any case. But, as said, this is easily 'fixed' with an alternate city list. (For which you provided plenty of examples.)

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

Actually, it wasn't. There have been found remains at Jericho from about 6,000 BC, but it's a bit of a stretch to call that a city. We don't find any actually cities until around 3,200-3,000 BC.

Well, you have to take into account that standards for calling a settlement a city have probably evolved from 4000 BCE to now. When you settle a city in Civ it has a population of 1, which means a 1000 people. By modern standards that would be a small village. By historical/archaeological definitions it wouldn't automatically be a city.
Since you have no specialized buildings yet when you found a city in Civ, by modern definitions those settlements probably don't count as proper cities yet, not until you build a temple, city walls or a granary or something like that.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Don't get me wrong I like somewhat obscure civs like Scythia when they're in game but this is exactly why I get a little cranky every time someone suggests a Civ with very little written history or just secondhand oral history.

This is true. Otherwise, I'd agree with OP.

If they cannot find many Scythian names, then they should at least choose one of them for the capital.

It's not (only) a problem of historicity, it's a problem of immersion.

If you played a game with vampires that speak with a slavic accent, but their names are "Francesco", "Rodrigo" or "Diego", then something is off. If you play a game with Scythian and the names of their city are "Petrograd", "Moldova" and "Barbarovitch", then something is off.

 

[Zaarin]

Actually, it wasn't. There have been found remains at Jericho from about 6,000 BC, but it's a bit of a stretch to call that a city. We don't find any actually cities until around 3,200-3,000 BC.

Ur was an inhabited site since around 5800 BC, and given that Ur has no clear Sumerian etymology it is quite likely that the Ubaid culture that inhabited Sumeria before the Sumerians called it Ur. So yes, Ur was around in 4000 BC, even if the Sumerians were not.

 

[magha77]

begs why its a civ in the first place. what would have been really interesting is if barbarians were changed over to "barbarian" civs like the Scythians, Visigoths...like a version of nomadic and warlike city states. certain civs could have an easier time with them or have them join as allies (mongols).

 

[isau]

begs why its a civ in the first place. what would have been really interesting is if barbarians were changed over to "barbarian" civs like the Scythians, Visigoths...like a version of nomadic and warlike city states. certain civs could have an easier time with them or have them join as allies (mongols).

Well they can build rocket ships and missile launchers too so already we've left reality far behind.

 

[Ravellion]

I would rather not have them in the game, considering we know so little about them. There are other civs that could have filled the gameplay gap, and are alive in more people's imaginations.

Furthermore, so many things about this game show an absolute love for history, that a move like this (and C5s Huns, and C5s Celts) just stands out so much, and in a negative way.

Eventually, I'll do what I did with Civ 5s Huns: switch them off through a mod. I really don't understand why groups of nomads apparently make good playable options in a game that primarily deals with growing cities . In my opinion, that's what the barbarians and possibly city states are for.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's my understanding they used sites where Scythian remains were found. That inevitable will include both Russian and Ukrainian names (amongst others). While your post is very informative, it rather ignores the fact that the Scythians didn't found any cities at all. So their 'city names' will be random in any case. But, as said, this is easily 'fixed' with an alternate city list. (For which you provided plenty of examples.)

The Scythians DID found cities, or settlements, which was indicated in the list I derived from the linguistic study. Not many, I'll grant you, which is why the list included Scythian place-names (rivers, sacred sites) and Clan/Tribal names that could be attributed to settlements composed of those peoples.

Also, and entirely left out of my list, are sites showing evidence of Scythian culture (burial practices, art motifs) but not on the steppes: places as far north as Kaluga, just southwest of Moscow and grave sites on the edge of the Siberian forest region.

BUT, and here you are correct: when we insist that to be a 'civilization' in Civ VI (or any other Civ game) the Scythians have to found cities, we run into the problem that historically they remained nomadic pastoralists throughout their existence, and never transitioned to settled city life. - Like the Huns, Lakota, Shoshone, or most of the other 'nomad' civilizations in the Civ games...

If such are to be included, they need to provide a different mechanism for them besides the permanent city foundation, which was never part of their historical culture. Maybe by CivX...