[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[eso12por8]

Lydia might be interesting, but I'd prefer the Hittites--I've had quite my fill of Hellenes in Civ6.

While I agree with that in principle, the Hittites are just wrong. IMO they did nothing but lose great battles, roving and raiding, like having a Visigothic Empire. It just doesn't work.

(Also, there's still no consensus that Troy was Lydian--that a Lydian inscription was found there is not conclusive evidence. Cf. there are Phoenician inscriptions in Egypt or Akkadian inscriptions in Elam. More evidence is needed.)

There is also no consensus that it is NOT Lydian, either, though the evidence we do have certainly supports it. There are several accounts of Hellene invasions into Troy and the territory itself was considered to be Lydia. In fact, it is accounted in the Iliad that Agamemnon was Mycenaean. Following the Trojan War, the territory of Troy itself was included as a part of Lydia. If anything I'd say the closest to an independent Troy would've possibly been a vassal state, or one with increased autonomy though there is no account of that theory. It's also believed the Etruscan language traces origins to Troy. This historical association with the Etruscans is seen to be exclusively Lydian. To me this is an issue of faith in whose account of history: do you believe the Greeks more or the Turks more? Many prominent nations still won't accept the Turks exterminated Greeks just as they did Armenians. It's how my family got to America. I had to do extensive research in order to find the lost family all over the globe. My great-grandfather's niece is still alive & she told a very similar story to what I'd been told. Getting back on topic, Troy is regarded as the reason Lydia exists in the first place, which should say something more than an inscription.

ETA: I'm aware that the Lydians were Hellenized Anatolians not Hellenes, but still they were heavily influenced by Greek culture and language.

While to an extent I agree, this logic is very questionable. By that I gather that Moscow proper was not Kievan Rus', but they were "Rus'inized" Vikings. It's also not the same as saying Egypt is Hellenized just because Alexandria was founded by Alexander the Great. I'm not sure which Russians or Egyptians would appreciate that approach. My family stayed in Smyrna for centuries where it remained a part of the Hellenic Republic until the Ottomans. I took one of those genetic tests & from that side of the family I was pure Greek. I was convinced surely Turk had to be in there but nope... nada.

I do gather your logic, after all it is true they were invaded, however that's how civilizations are created. They were invaded & the victors were Hellenes. Many of these cities claimed unity with the Hellenes long after Lydia passed its time. Aquitania became France but we don't really associate it with Aquitania (Rome) because it didn't reach prominence until it became a part of France (even if it were Romanized and known to be part of Rome prior).

Except that the entire point of the Epic of Gilgamesh is that there is no immortality for mortals; only the gods are immortal. Mesopotamian religion was kind of a downer.

You got me there, I'm not very familiar with the fertile crescent as well as I am Greeks in Anatolia. Though you did also make my point in that only gods are immortal. I'm sure we can agree that epics are based on true historical accounts, spruced up to include the gods to explain the miracles of triumph and to make for a more compelling story. There are several accounts from these epics that Omphale was a mortal, which can only be logically assumed that was indeed the case.

 

[Guatenadian]

I just had a thought. Say you conquered and eliminated an entire Civ. If your loyalty gets too low and cities start breaking off, maybe the Civ you eliminated would get revived instead of it becoming a free city.

 

[eso12por8]

I just had a thought. Say you conquered and eliminated an entire Civ. If your loyalty gets too low and cities start breaking off, maybe the Civ you eliminated would get revived instead of it becoming a free city.

That would be a great mechanic. I do believe that's how the system worked prior. It'd be interesting if that civ has different rulers, whether or not the ruler changes (looking at Greece)

 

[Vahnstad]

At least the Hittites did lose great battles and did raid back then. I'm sure no-one knows what Canada has done.

 

[Guandao]

Lydia is highly unlikely, since the Lydian language is so poorly attested. And I rather not have the leader speak Greek. There's only one notable Lydian ruler, Croesus, who lost his kingdom to the Persians.

 

[Civbra]

Civ 6 Fans:

Will there ever be a patch to the work and production lost when a Wonder is built before you finish it. In Civ 4 or 5? you received Gold for the amount of production you put into it before it was stolen from you with 1 turn left by an AI. Do you believe Firaxis will update that you will get compensated in gold with the amount of production you spent on building a Wonder when it's finished by another player or AI.


Thanks

Brew God

yeah I miss that too!!! But if they already put some new mechanics, that are working good, from another games, I saw a gameplay of Endless space 2 and I thought, why don't reward by category the building of wonders?! Like the first one gets the whole package, the second one gets production and gold, the third one only gold or something else!

 

[Guatenadian]

At least the Hittites did lose great battles and did raid back then. I'm sure no-one knows what Canada has done.

Here's the thing. I never learned about Nubia, or the Majapahit, or the Khmer. It just not something that was taught. Neither did these Civilisations have the same mainstream attention as Egypt, Rome or America in the media. I don't remember ever seeing a cartoon show on Kongolese characters. If Canada or any other Civ for that matter gets in and the average player gets to learn about its history and culture than that's best for everyone. While the Hittites were a great civilisation, I'm sure that if you ask the average person on the street they'll know more about Canada than the Hittites.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

At least the Hittites did lose great battles and did raid back then. I'm sure no-one knows what Canada has done.

They helped defeat the Nazis.

 

[Zaarin]

While I agree with that in principle, the Hittites are just wrong. IMO they did nothing but lose great battles, roving and raiding, like having a Visigothic Empire. It just doesn't work.

I'm going to have to say you're wrong on both points. The Hittites introduced iron weapons to warfare, innovated chariot designs, and conquered a considerable portion of the Near East, including claiming Egypt as a tributary. Their dominance was brief before Babylon reasserted itself, but they definitely made a name for themselves. As for the Goths, they established kingdoms in northern Italy and the Iberian Peninsula that would eventually become major powers in the Middle Ages. Their conquests in North Africa also sowed the seeds of political, economic, and religious dissent that would pave the way for the Islamic conquest there.

There is also no consensus that it is NOT Lydian, either, though the evidence we do have certainly supports it. There are several accounts of Hellene invasions into Troy and the territory itself was considered to be Lydia. In fact, it is accounted in the Iliad that Agamemnon was Mycenaean. Following the Trojan War, the territory of Troy itself was included as a part of Lydia. If anything I'd say the closest to an independent Troy would've possibly been a vassal state, or one with increased autonomy though there is no account of that theory. It's also believed the Etruscan language traces origins to Troy. This historical association with the Etruscans is seen to be exclusively Lydian.

You're correct: there is no consensus. Both sides of the debate regarding Troy's relationship to Lydia await further evidence.

However, I'm much more qualified to speak about Etruscan. Yes, a few decades ago there were many theories linking Etruscan to pre-Anatolian languages of Anatolia (not Lydian--aside from a few fringe theories, it's been well accepted for a long time that Etruscan is not Indo-European). These theories have fallen out of favor; most linguists now agree that Etruscan is indigenous to Italy and that its relatives were spoken in the Aegean and northern Mediterranean. Some still hope it might be proven related to Minoan, but until Linear A or Minoan Hieroglyphics are deciphered, there's nothing to be said on that front. At any rate, even if Etruscan came from Anatolia, it was of no relationship to Lydian, an Indo-European language, so that doesn't do much for your theory. If anything, it introduces the possibility that the Trojans spoke a cousin or ancestor of Etruscan.

While to an extent I agree, this logic is very questionable. By that I gather that Moscow proper was not Kievan Rus', but they were "Rus'inized" Vikings. It's also not the same as saying Egypt is Hellenized just because Alexandria was founded by Alexander the Great.

This is a complicated topic because any generalization is just that: a generalization. However, yes, Ptolemaic Egypt was also Hellenized (while the Copts remained quite Egyptian, the Ptolemies, including Cleopatra, the elites, and anyone who became educated accepted and imitated Greek culture, spoke the Greek language, studied the Greek classics, in most cases worshiped the Greek gods, and so forth). This was also true in Rome, and in most of Alexander's empire except Persia (which accepted some Hellenic influence but still remained strongly Persian and Zoroastrian, perhaps because it regained its independence quickly after Alexander's death).

I do gather your logic, after all it is true they were invaded, however that's how civilizations are created. They were invaded & the victors were Hellenes. Many of these cities claimed unity with the Hellenes long after Lydia passed its time. Aquitania became France but we don't really associate it with Aquitania (Rome) because it didn't reach prominence until it became a part of France (even if it were Romanized and known to be part of Rome prior).

Uh, Aquitaine is a province within France, but I do believe you mean Gaul (Gallia). Aquitania was the land in southwestern France inhabited by the Vascones (ancient cousins of the Basques) that later became one of the most powerful duchies within France (Frankia). What distinguished Aquitainia from Gallia in Caesar's day was ethnicity and language; what distinguished it from the rest of France in Eleanor's day was politics and language (Aquitaine spoke a langue d'oc [Occitan] rather than a langue d'oïl such as modern French)

You got me there, I'm not very familiar with the fertile crescent as well as I am Greeks in Anatolia. Though you did also make my point in that only gods are immortal. I'm sure we can agree that epics are based on true historical accounts, spruced up to include the gods to explain the miracles of triumph and to make for a more compelling story. There are several accounts from these epics that Omphale was a mortal, which can only be logically assumed that was indeed the case.

Without speaking specifically about Omphale, with whom I'm not familiar but whose story in your summary sounds rather similar to that of the Babylonian Semiramis (Šamiram), I'm not really a proponent of Euhemerism. Some myths hold kernels of history, but some are simply stories. Again, without any particular argument for or against Omphale because I'm not familiar with the subject matter, Gilgamesh is accepted as a historical figure because his cylinder seals have been recovered from Uruk. All that being said, there are other figures who have been leaders in the Civilization franchise before, like Dido [Elissat] and Hiawatha, who are not historically attested but believed by some scholars to be historical; Omphale might be in that category.

Lydia is highly unlikely, since the Lydian language is so poorly attested. And I rather not have the leader speak Greek. There's only one notable Lydian ruler, Croesus, who lost his kingdom to the Persians.

Not so poorly attested that we couldn't build the meager diologue necessary for a Civ6 leader: it's the second most well-attested Anatolian language after Hittite.

I'm sure that if you ask the average person on the street they'll know more about Canada than the Hittites.

I'm sure if you ask the average person on the street, they know more about celebrities' personal lives than any significant figure in history, but that doesn't mean I want Kim Kardashian leading America.

 

[ferretbacon]

I'm sure if you ask the average person on the street, they know more about celebrities' personal lives than any significant figure in history, but that doesn't mean I want Kim Kardashian leading America.

Don't you know? She's going to win in a landslide in 2020.

 

[Guandao]

Not so poorly attested that we couldn't build the meager diologue necessary for a Civ6 leader: it's the second most well-attested Anatolian language after Hittite.

Really? I thought Luwian and Lycian were better attested. My Ancient Languages of Asia Minor book says so.

 

[Zaarin]

Really? I thought Luwian and Lycian were better attested. My Ancient Languages of Asia Minor book says so.

You're right, I was thinking of Lycian. Other than Hittite, the Anatolian languages have such similar names, and Hittite is the only one that gets cited in books on Proto-Indo-European. (That's not true: one book--can't recall which one--used Lydian as a point of comparison, which is probably why I mistyped Lydian.) I still think Lydian is probably well enough attested to write a few lines of dialogue, though, but I'd still also rather have the Hittites. And of course Hittite is more than adequately attested to write a few lines of dialogue in.

Don't you know? She's going to win in a landslide in 2020.

Not if JayZ and Lyndsay Lohan beat her to it. Suddenly CdM doesn't look so bad.

 

[eso12por8]

First & foremost, Zaarin I must say I do appreciate you took so much time to respond to me and speak to a lot of points. It shows a lot of thought and insight & it's greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I'm going to have to say you're wrong on both points. The Hittites introduced iron weapons to warfare, innovated chariot designs, and conquered a considerable portion of the Near East, including claiming Egypt as a tributary. Their dominance was brief before Babylon reasserted itself, but they definitely made a name for themselves.

We can agree to disagree on this one. I do agree they were conquerors that couldn't quite keep it together and well known in their day. I don't believe the Hittites could effectively fit into this but I've been proven wrong before so I won't discount the Hittites. It's my understanding that the only reason the Hittites reached Egypt was right place at the right time, government collapses so they swoop in. I don't see their connection to the Temple of Artemis, or any great structure for that matter. That is a bit of a question of mine.

As for the Goths, they established kingdoms in northern Italy and the Iberian Peninsula that would eventually become major powers in the Middle Ages. Their conquests in North Africa also sowed the seeds of political, economic, and religious dissent that would pave the way for the Islamic conquest there.

Certainly, the Goths have made their mark, especially along the Spanish March & Germanic lands. I'll never dispute it. I used to be a HUGE proponent of the Visigoths because of my academic ties with Iberian linguistics & my infatuation with Barcelona. My problem is I don't understand how to shape this type of a civilization with the rest of the ones we already have given the UI.

At any rate, even if Etruscan came from Anatolia, it was of no relationship to Lydian, an Indo-European language, so that doesn't do much for your theory. If anything, it introduces the possibility that the Trojans spoke a cousin or ancestor of Etruscan.

Thank you for informing me about this. That's very cool & insightful. You got me reading about Italy now.. a RARE occurrence!

Uh, Aquitaine is a province within France, but I do believe you mean Gaul (Gallia).

You missed my point on that one. I did mean the Roman province & not Gallia. I specifically didn't choose Gallia because it is my understanding Gallia was shaped more by the Visigoths than by the Romans.

 

[Kinestic]

Don't you know? She's going to win in a landslide in 2020.

Kanye 2020!

Anyway, is was thinking about loyalty flipping and capital citys. While it should be impossible to flip an opponents capital, what about a captured capitial? You should be able to flip back your own captured capitial, but can other civs flip it as well?
E.g Civ B has their captial captured by Civ A, before they make peace. At sone later point, Civ C manages to, by settling, spies, or flipping other nearby city's, flip Civ A's capitial, gaining control of it. Other posible scenarios have the captured capital as a city only Civ A can flip from Civ B, or in another case, anybody can try to flip it, but it always returns to the ownership of Civ A, instead of Civ C.

Thoughts?

 

[Guandao]

You're right, I was thinking of Lycian. Other than Hittite, the Anatolian languages have such similar names, and Hittite is the only one that gets cited in books on Proto-Indo-European. (That's not true: one book--can't recall which one--used Lydian as a point of comparison, which is probably why I mistyped Lydian.) I still think Lydian is probably well enough attested to write a few lines of dialogue, though, but I'd still also rather have the Hittites. And of course Hittite is more than adequately attested to write a few lines of dialogue in.


Not if JayZ and Lyndsay Lohan beat her to it. Suddenly CdM doesn't look so bad.

Since Firaxis dropped the ball on writing actual Sumerian dialogue for Gilgamesh. I'm not so hopeful about them getting Hittite right. Which is a shame, because I would like to hear how Hittite might have sounded, being the earliest attested Indo-European language.

 

[eso12por8]

Really? I thought Luwian and Lycian were better attested. My Ancient Languages of Asia Minor book says so.

All three were spoken in Lydia (including of course, Lydian). I do believe Luwian was considered the "common tongue," so to speak, however Lycian for whatever reason has a more significant showing.

 

[Vahnstad]

Here's the thing. I never learned about Nubia, or the Majapahit, or the Khmer. It just not something that was taught. Neither did these Civilisations have the same mainstream attention as Egypt, Rome or America in the media. I don't remember ever seeing a cartoon show on Kongolese characters. If Canada or any other Civ for that matter gets in and the average player gets to learn about its history and culture than that's best for everyone. While the Hittites were a great civilisation, I'm sure that if you ask the average person on the street they'll know more about Canada than the Hittites.

That's ridicilous and you know it. The average person on the street probably know more about Donald J. Trump than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. The average person on the street probably know more about Canada too than the Incans... , but the Incans at least have considerably more history than Canada. It's just not so well known, and it's because we live in this time. This game isn't called Modern Civilizations.

The Hittites were one of the three / four greatest powers for several centuries back then along with Akkad / Sumeria, Egypt and the Indus Valley civilization, and even threatened at some point Egypt's hegemony.

They helped defeat the Nazis.

They weren't even entirely independent. They were a dominion, and so did all nations of the Commonwealth. So did almost half the world.

I'm Belgian. I'm not asking for a Belgian civilization either, but Belgium, at least has a much richer history than Canada. I can tell you that. My civilization doesn't need to be included, but there are at least 50 better choices than Canada right now. The only thing they care about is the money, and the current audience living in those nations.

Also, don't tell me that i bash on Canada. When people debate about the inclusion of my civilization, i always have to read discussions that immediately change into a discussion about whether someone should be included in the game because of a genocide or not. I'm even surprised that Leopold II is so well known in other parts of the worlds. Canada doesn't fit civilization, and that's my opinion, and I agree that Belgium also shouldn't been added in Civilization. There is even some likelihood that i won't buy the expansion at all, if they decide to include Canada.

 

[eso12por8]

Kanye 2020!

Anyway, is was thinking about loyalty flipping and capital citys. While it should be impossible to flip an opponents capital, what about a captured capitial? You should be able to flip back your own captured capitial, but can other civs flip it as well?
E.g Civ B has their captial captured by Civ A, before they make peace. At sone later point, Civ C manages to, by settling, spies, or flipping other nearby city's, flip Civ A's capitial, gaining control of it. Other posible scenarios have the captured capital as a city only Civ A can flip from Civ B, or in another case, anybody can try to flip it, but it always returns to the ownership of Civ A, instead of Civ C.

Thoughts?

I've never heard of a capital flipping. I suppose if you try REALLY hard to historically maintain a perpetually anarchic state of discontent, someone may be able to culturally overcome your capital and flip it? More like a capture and subdue dissenters. Cultural flips don't happen very frequently. I'd love a better, more realistic, diplomatic option to purchase territory from failing civs. Kinda like how Napoleon sold Louisiana, or Russia Alaska.

 

[Gabriel Sergio]

If Canada really added to the game, would it make Civ 6 at max limit on modern Civ?
I mean i want to see Mexico too, but Canada seems pleasing me too.

 

[Vahnstad]

If Canada really added to the game, would it make Civ 6 at max limit on modern Civ?
I mean i want to see Mexico too, but Canada seems pleasing me too.

Aztecs and Maya's make that more unlikely. I kinda wished we had a more well known civilization from earlier in Australia and Canada too, so that we don't had to fill those area's with those nations.

I've never heard of a capital flipping. I suppose if you try REALLY hard to historically maintain a perpetually anarchic state of discontent, someone may be able to culturally overcome your capital and flip it? More like a capture and subdue dissenters. Cultural flips don't happen very frequently. I'd love a better, more realistic, diplomatic option to purchase territory from failing civs. Kinda like how Napoleon sold Louisiana, or Russia Alaska.

I don't think that happened often too.