Should Arabia be split?

[Cossackaiser]

Historically, ‘Arabia’ has never been a unified nation, or under the name ‘Arabia’. In Civ V, Arabia used city names from cities in Persia to Morocco.
In my opinion, the next civ game should split Arabia, into Moors/Morocco/Andalusia, Ottomans/Turkey, Islamic Egypt (Ayyubids?) and Oman.
Thoughts?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Under the Rashidun and Ummayyad Caliphates the Islamic world was ruled by an Arab Caliph from Morocco to Persia which is what the Arabs effectively represents.
Morocco, the Ottomans and Persia have all been separate civs, although the Ottomans and Persians aren't Arab. Moroccans are mostly descended from Berbers.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm comfortable with the caliphates being treated as a single civ.

Moroccans are mostly descended from Berbers.

Interestingly a lot of Moroccans seem to self-identify as Arab, regardless of their ethnic background, as do most of the Islamic peoples of the Middle East except the Lebanese, Turks, and Persians. It's an interesting phenomenon.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm comfortable with the caliphates being treated as a single civ.


Interestingly a lot of Moroccans seem to self-identify as Arab, regardless of their ethnic background, as do most of the Islamic peoples of the Middle East except the Lebanese, Turks, and Persians. It's an interesting phenomenon.

Yes, I was a bit uncertain about what to put there being too lazy to write an essay

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, I was a bit uncertain about what to put there being too lazy to write an essay

It's an interesting case where Arab identity seems to have supplanted traditional ethnic identities, even in places where ethnic Arabs do not make up a large portion of the local genetics (like Egypt and Morocco). Which also makes it interesting that the Lebanese have developed such a strong ethnic identity (Persians and Turks are less remarkable because they don't speak Arabic).

 

[Siptah]

It's an interesting case where Arab identity seems to have supplanted traditional ethnic identities, even in places where ethnic Arabs do not make up a large portion of the local genetics (like Egypt and Morocco). Which also makes it interesting that the Lebanese have developed such a strong ethnic identity (Persians and Turks are less remarkable because they don't speak Arabic).

It has several connotations to it though. Generally, urban Moroccans and Egyptian refer to themselves by nationality more often than by ethnicity. Notable exception for the Nubians. Moroccans like to discriminate between more traditionally living people and people in cities (that may have arab heritage), despite many berbers living in cities. Also, a lot of people in rural Morocco speak a berber language as first language - ethnic berbers in cities often don't. They might not identify themselves that much with being berber because it has a rural/backwards connotation to it in many places. However, they quite clearly differentiate themselves from the ethnical arabs and it is very rude to mistake them for arabs. Egypt is similar in that: when describing other people to you, Egyptians often use ethnicities/regions and I often heard "arab" in such cases. They've adopted a lot of arabic culture, especially in the cities, and agree to be thrown into the basket labeled "arab world" because of that (although many Moroccans disagree here already). Calling the people themselves arabs is not a polite thing to do however. From my experience, Lebanon doesn't have a stronger national identity than Morocco and Egypt, rather the other way round, since Lebanon identity is much harder to assess, and boils down to being a melting pot of other, still present, identities (something the Lebanese are very proud of). A lot of countries in the arab world have strong national identities, actually: Oman, Syria, Tunisia and Algeria as well for example. Some others not so much though, like the UAE, Jordan (due to being mostly inhabited by Palestinians) or Iraq (despite its history).

 

[Phrozen]

Oman was not part of the Arabian Caliphates and adopted the first splinter sect from Islam.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I've never liked the name "Arabia" because a united Arabic nation has never existed under that moniker. The different Caliphates were known by their dynastic names, similar to how Indian, Iranian and Turkish empires are traditionally refered to. Civ's Arabia is basically everything that in Medieval Europe was refered to as the Saracens (which is a name I can personally live with). Functionally they've always been a blob civ until Civ6: Leaders from the Ayyubid, Rashidun and Abbasid caliphates + an Ummayyad city list. Even the current Arabia has its capital outside of geographical Arabia. Mess.

I don't think they need to be split per se, but I'd love to see them called by their proper dynastic name instead of "Arabia". (and this also applies to India, Persia and China tbh) #Abbasids4Civ7

 

[Patine]

The thing is, that Saladin, their chosen leader, was NOT a Caliph, never ruled the vast lands of the Rashidun or Umayyad Caliphates (or even close to that geographical area), was not an Arab (he was a Kurd), and was not a direct descendant of Mohammed (an actual stated requirement to be Caliph, officially), and thus isn't a good choice for that definition of a civ. It should be Omar I or another actual Caliph of the Rashidun or Umayyad Caliphates, to be appropriate.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ's Arabia is basically everything that in Medieval Europe was refered to as the Saracens (which is a name I can personally live with).

Considering Saracen was not exactly a compliment (and also was something the Muslims/Arabs certainly never called themselves), do you know how much heat Firaxis would get for that? It would be like calling a Beothuk civ "the Red Indians" or the Germans "the Kraut Empire."

I don't think they need to be split per se, but I'd love to see them called by their proper dynastic name instead of "Arabia". (and this also applies to India, Persia and China tbh)

For Arabia and Persia, however, this excludes the possibility of alternate leaders from other dynasties (not that I actually expect to see them or that this applies to a prior or future game without alternate leaders--but still worth noting). For India, I heartily agree that I'd love to see it de-blobbed--none of this combined Mauryan/Mughal/Republic of India nonsense (plus where is Dravidic southern India in this blob?). For China, the concept of a civilization called "China" or "the Middle Kingdom" (Zhuongguo) or "Everything Under Heaven" (Tianxia) is rather old; I have no problem with China being treated as a single civilization.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Considering Saracen was not exactly a compliment (and also was something the Muslims/Arabs certainly never called themselves), do you know how much heat Firaxis would get for that? It would be like calling a Beothuk civ "the Red Indians" or the Germans "the Kraut Empire."

- Or lumping all the medieval Christian European states together as 'Franks'

For Arabia and Persia, however, this excludes the possibility of alternate leaders from other dynasties (not that I actually expect to see them or that this applies to a prior or future game without alternate leaders--but still worth noting). For India, I heartily agree that I'd love to see it de-blobbed--none of this combined Mauryan/Mughal/Republic of India nonsense (plus where is Dravidic southern India in this blob?). For China, the concept of a civilization called "China" or "the Middle Kingdom" (Zhuongguo) or "Everything Under Heaven" (Tianxia) is rather old; I have no problem with China being treated as a single civilization.

Blob Civs are acceptable only if they meet two criteria:
1. We don't know enough to differentiate among dynasties or epochs
2. There are no major cultural/political/social/military differences between the dynasties or epochs except for those caused by Technology

In this respect, I'd have to say that neither India, nor China, nor 'Arabia' deserve Blob treatment. The current Arabia in Civ VI is a case in point: it is led by a man who ruled an Egyptian-based Civ, as opposed to the earlier Caliphates based in Damascus or Baghdad. There are distinct differences in the cultural and scientific achievements of each Caliphate. Likewise, the Concept of a Middle Kingdom may have been present for centuries, but Chinese history is full of periods labeled 'Waring States' or 'Three (or Four, or Five, or Seven) Kingdoms' that indicates that the concept was not the same as the reality. And the Chinese Dynasties are wildly different in military, social, cultural, and political achievements and emphasis - not to mention the fact that several of them aren't ethnically entirely Chinese, although they 'appeared' as Chinese as part of their assumption of legitimacy.
I would much rather that the game celebrate the differences among civilizations and their variants rather than try to portray historical empires/civilizations as Generic Types. Looking back, modern Chinese, Egyptian, Arab, Indian, etc. peoples might like to think that they have a continuous 'thread' linking them back to their respective National Origins, but the threads have lots of knots, tangles, and splices, and a distressing habit of changing color, size, and type unexpectedly. Let's not ignore the distinctions just to pick up some Alternate Leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

@Boris Gudenuf But how likely are we to have a Tang civilization, a Qin civilization, and a Ming civilization? (Let's be grateful that a People's Republic of China isn't going to happen. ) Or an Abbasid, Ummayad, and Fatamid civilization? I think by this point it's become blatantly obvious that there will never be any Persian leader who's not an Achaemenid...

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If you're saying you'd like the civ designed more specifically to match the period of the leader, I agree with you. In the case of China, I'd still prefer it be called China; in the case of Arabia, I don't really care what they call it since any name will be to some degree an anachronism.

Blob Civs are acceptable only if they meet two criteria:
1. We don't know enough to differentiate among dynasties or epochs
2. There are no major cultural/political/social/military differences between the dynasties or epochs except for those caused by Technology

In this respect, I'd have to say that neither India, nor China, nor 'Arabia' deserve Blob treatment.

People will stop complaining about Civ6 being Eurocentric when Civ7 launches with Wessex, Norman England, Plantagenet England, Tudor England, Stuart England, the Commonwealth of England, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Honestly, I'd love to see different phases of various civs' histories portrayed in game, but with limited development resources every alternate version of a civ is another civ that won't be added (I'm still begrudging Gorgo and Alex the Punchable their places, as much as I'd like to see other interesting leaders get the Macedon treatment).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Boris Gudenuf But how likely are we to have a Tang civilization, a Qin civilization, and a Ming civilization? (Let's be grateful that a People's Republic of China isn't going to happen. ) Or an Abbasid, Ummayad, and Fatamid civilization? I think by this point it's become blatantly obvious that there will never be any Persian leader who's not an Achaemenid...

Actually, the Civ VI Mod Community has already produced Song and Tang China Alternates and a completely separate Manchu Civ. While they haven't delved into the Caliphate variants, there is a separate Moorish Civ, and a Sassanid Civ with several Alternate Leaders. Whether Firaxis or any other commercial company would be willing to put all the animation work into doing that much variety is, of course, quite another thing...

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If you're saying you'd like the civ designed more specifically to match the period of the leader, I agree with you. In the case of China, I'd still prefer it be called China; in the case of Arabia, I don't really care what they call it since any name will be to some degree an anachronism.

IF there is a continuity of culture, politics, policies, then a Civ can be modeled with just Alternate Leaders. But I would argue that many if not most Civilizations have Discontinuities from which they proceed as entirely different Civilizations afterwards, and therefore require not just an Alternate Leader, but an entirely new Civ. I personally think the differences between the Umayad and Fatimid 'Arabian' Dynasties would qualify, and I could make a case that Royal France under Henry IV, CdM, Louis XIV was in many very critical ways not the same Civ as Republican France under Clemenceau or DeGaulle. It's a fine line of distinctions, but I think it is worth making: going further back, Alexander's (or Phillip's) Macedon was not the same Civ as that of the Diadochi Seleucids, even though the latter was based on the former.

People will stop complaining about Civ6 being Eurocentric when Civ7 launches with Wessex, Norman England, Plantagenet England, Tudor England, Stuart England, the Commonwealth of England, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Honestly, I'd love to see different phases of various civs' histories portrayed in game, but with limited development resources every alternate version of a civ is another civ that won't be added (I'm still begrudging Gorgo and Alex the Punchable their places, as much as I'd like to see other interesting leaders get the Macedon treatment).

An interesting set of examples, which proves to some extent my point: Pre-Norman 'England' and its predecessor kingdoms like Northumbria and Wessex were very different in policy, culture, and language from the England of the Normans, Plantagenets and Tudors. That England - the increasingly Monarch-centric Royal England - was very different from the England that emerged from the Civil War and the increasingly absolute ascendency of Parliament. So much so that for the former the Leader should be one of the kings or queens like Elizabeth I, Henry V, VII or VIII, Edward I, but from the early 18th century Parliamentary England (or Britain, since after 1707 one government covered England, Scotland and Wales) the proper Leaders should be the Prime Ministers: Pitt, Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Churchill, Thatcher et al.
So from your list I would amalgamate a little and have Wessex, Northumbria, Saxon England, Royal England, and Parliamentary Britain, and would argue that each of them would make a perfectly good separate Civilization - but probably not until Civ VII or VIII, and even then most of them will more likely come from the Modders than Firaxis.

 

[Naeshar]

Historically, ‘Arabia’ has never been a unified nation, or under the name ‘Arabia’. In Civ V, Arabia used city names from cities in Persia to Morocco.
In my opinion, the next civ game should split Arabia, into Moors/Morocco/Andalusia, Ottomans/Turkey, Islamic Egypt (Ayyubids?) and Oman.
Thoughts?

Historically, Civilization game was always pseudohistorical. More than history, the game relied on the building and warring for your own empire more than historical accuracy. The different civilizations were never meant to represent the actual events and leaders were more like icons (think of Stalin and Mao in CIV 1), later they received unique attributes and personalities. These were not chosen based on their historical significance.

Also, in the CIV incarnations, different strategies were chosen. If you compare Civ5 and Civ6, it is clear that one strives for realism (in then-current graphics), the other chose more cartoony look. It went with the popular trends. Similar is the choice of Civs and their Leaders. America did not exist until 1776, Sumeria did not exist after 2000BC. What we see in Civs are not nations, it is always a cultural group brought together by ruler or similarity.
Did Gorgo lead all the greek Polis? Did Alexander raze all the former cities and grounded new ones instead? Did Saladin lead "all" the Arabians?

I mean, Near and Middle East inhabitants were not all Arab back then - they were probably more united by the rulers and being muslim. Saladin lead them militarily against crusaders and became known to the European world.
As amero-euro-centric as Civ is, Saladin is the obvious choice for a leader - emphasis on leader, not ruler, here.
As a side note, I never heard or Harun-ar-Rashid before Civ5. The name is in my language arashid=peanut, perhaps there is a connection, but the name is too silly. Saladin is a much better leader than a peanut.

I think the official course is fine. Gandhi did lead the Indian people to freedom, Saladin did lead Arabian people to victory, Peter did lead Russia towards western world and Gengis did lead Mongolia to conquest...
Also, Civ is pseudohistorical - it builds upon historical facts, but is not tightly constrained. See the quotes in Civ6: " I am fond of pigs..."

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Historically, Civilization game was always pseudohistorical. More than history, the game relied on the building and warring for your own empire more than historical accuracy. The different civilizations were never meant to represent the actual events and leaders were more like icons (think of Stalin and Mao in CIV 1), later they received unique attributes and personalities. These were not chosen based on their historical significance.

Also, in the CIV incarnations, different strategies were chosen. If you compare Civ5 and Civ6, it is clear that one strives for realism (in then-current graphics), the other chose more cartoony look. It went with the popular trends. Similar is the choice of Civs and their Leaders. America did not exist until 1776, Sumeria did not exist after 2000BC. What we see in Civs are not nations, it is always a cultural group brought together by ruler or similarity.
Did Gorgo lead all the greek Polis? Did Alexander raze all the former cities and grounded new ones instead? Did Saladin lead "all" the Arabians?

Your argument contradicts itself. Greece the civilization in Civ VI is not 'brought together' by ruler, quite the opposite: Sparta and Athens represented the two Extremes of the Greek Polis in the time of Pericles and Lysander/Gorgo: Athens the most egalitarian-Democratic, Sparta the most autocratic - militaristic. Neither of them accurately represent the majority of the Greek political entities and Gorgo never even represented the political leadership of Sparta - like too many Civ Leaders, she is a completely artificial Figurehead. And Alexander only razed a few cities (Thebes in Greece, Persepolis in Persia the two most famous) but he founded dozens, many of which are still in existence. Alexandria in Egypt is only the most famous among a long list stretching from the Balkans to what is now Afghanistan.

I mean, Near and Middle East inhabitants were not all Arab back then - they were probably more united by the rulers and being muslim. Saladin lead them militarily against crusaders and became known to the European world.
As amero-euro-centric as Civ is, Saladin is the obvious choice for a leader - emphasis on leader, not ruler, here.
As a side note, I never heard or Harun-ar-Rashid before Civ5. The name is in my language arashid=peanut, perhaps there is a connection, but the name is too silly. Saladin is a much better leader than a peanut.

By this reasoning, no group should be included in Civ unless they have a Leader of some kind recognizable to the European World? In Civ VI as it now stands, that would pretty much leave out Indonesia, Kongo, Nubia, Mapuche, and probably Tomyris except to Classical Scholars. Exactly the opposite: Civ VI, at least, has obviously stretched to find leaders and Civilizations not familiar to the 'average' gamer. I personally happen to think that having done that, it would be a Good Thing to try to base the leader and the Civ on their historical antecedents, rather than throw up a collection of Cartoon leader caricatures.

I think the official course is fine. Gandhi did lead the Indian people to freedom, Saladin did lead Arabian people to victory, Peter did lead Russia towards western world and Gengis did lead Mongolia to conquest...
Also, Civ is pseudohistorical - it builds upon historical facts, but is not tightly constrained. See the quotes in Civ6: " I am fond of pigs..."

We are in semi-agreement: I think they have done a very good job of showing off unusual Civilizations and Leaders, and I applaud that. Where there was no real single political entity for the Civ (as in the Scythians, Arabs, or Greeks) their choices at least have been Iconic where they couldn't, strictly speaking, be Accurate historically.
My point - and I'm a historian, so Of Course it would be my point - is that the closer you can adhere to history, the better the game will be. For one thing, no set of designers no matter how talented can come up with the wildly incredible things that happen in history: the rise of the Arabian Caliphates or the Mongolian transcontinental Khanates are unbelievable as events, and people who achieve what Alexander of Macedon or Temujin did are scarcely more believable as Leaders - except that they were real and so provide templates for Game Characters.
In the end, I think the biggest problem with Civ VI and all the other Civ titles' selection of Leaders has been that having Locked the franchise into a strictly linear (build, build, build, expand, expand, expand) model of City-centric History, the game does a very poor job of representing Civilizations that were not united political entities as well. So, it represents Rome or the United States very well, but Greece, Scythia, Sumer, or any city-state or tribal society very poorly. In all the latter cases, it also guarantees that any leader picked for the game will be a mediocre choice compared to all the potential choices available historically.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think some of the larger, long-standing blob civs are planned to have alt leaders to represent different polities across time which shar their cultural history. China will probably have Empress Cixi to clear up some criticism about her and represent the end of Imperial China and the transition to the modern Chinese state. Yaroslav could represent Kievan Rus for Russia (or I guess Stalin for USSR). We already have different polities represented by Chandragupta (Maurya), Gorgo/Pericles (Peloppenesian/Delian), and Eleanor (Angevin/Norman England/Francia).

So with respect to Arabia, I think they will do the same thing. There are three options, in my mind:

1. An Abbasid caliph. This would bookend the caliphates nicely.

2. Ibn Saud. This would represent modern Saudi Arabia vs. Arabian Caliphates. Not a bad choice, but not as good as...

3. An Umayyad caliph. This would almost bookend the Arabian Caliphates while also representing the height of Arabia. It would also be the best choice for a dual leader like Eleanor, since the leader chosen could also be an alt for Morocco if/when it is included.

And imo the best Umayyad rep is Princess Antikah, because she kind of by extension represents all of the Umayyad caliphs.

 

[Patine]

I think some of the larger, long-standing blob civs are planned to have alt leaders to represent different polities across time which shar their cultural history. China will probably have Empress Cixi to clear up some criticism about her and represent the end of Imperial China and the transition to the modern Chinese state. Yaroslav could represent Kievan Rus for Russia (or I guess Stalin for USSR). We already have different polities represented by Chandragupta (Maurya), Gorgo/Pericles (Peloppenesian/Delian), and Eleanor (Angevin/Norman England/Francia).

So with respect to Arabia, I think they will do the same thing. There are three options, in my mind:

1. An Abbasid caliph. This would bookend the caliphates nicely.

2. Ibn Saud. This would represent modern Saudi Arabia vs. Arabian Caliphates. Not a bad choice, but not as good as...

3. An Umayyad caliph. This would almost bookend the Arabian Caliphates while also representing the height of Arabia. It would also be the best choice for a dual leader like Eleanor, since the leader chosen could also be an alt for Morocco if/when it is included.

And imo the best Umayyad rep is Princess Antikah, because she kind of by extension represents all of the Umayyad caliphs.

What about Umar I or Abu Bakr of the Rashidun Caliphate? The whole of the Sassanian Dynasty Persian Empire and Levantine, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian Byzantine lands were swiftly conquered between their two reigns, and the initial "fervor" that carried immediately after the death of Mohammed still burned brightly, socially speaking, then. I'm surprised no one is bringing them up at all.

 

[Siptah]

What about Umar I or Abu Bakr of the Rashidun Caliphate? The whole of the Sassanian Dynasty Persian Empire and Levantine, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian Byzantine lands were swiftly conquered between their two reigns, and the initial "fervor" that carried immediately after the death of Mohammed still burned brightly, socially speaking, then. I'm surprised no one is bringing them up at all.

Abu Bakr appeared as leader of Arabia in civ III. As far as I know, both should not be depicted, however, and that is why, in this day and age, they are highly unlikely. Arabia is a perfect civ for conquest, culture, science, and of course religion. While the islamic conquest after Mohammed is a good contender for the most impressive in world history, I'd rather have them focus on the other three aspects in civ, since I'm not that much a warmonger usually The Rashidun Caliphs would surely come with a conquest focus.