Some Historical background

[Miles Teg]

For awhile now I've been working on one of those personal epic game mods that never seem to get released, and I have a few questions.

Was the word "Dewa-Raja" the title of the Khmer king or was it the name of the imperial cult? I can't seem to get a straight answer on this.

What would be the most accurate title for the emperor of china? Currently I'm going with Tia-Nzi, or Son of Heaven.

Is Calcagus a good source for city lists? I felt the selection of Tara as the capital of the Celts kind of odd

My civ choices are pretty much standard with the repeats (Babylon, Hittites) and nomads (Iroquis, Zulu) removed. The list looks like this:

America
Arabia
Aztecs
Byzantium
Carthage
Celts (Continental & Gaelic)
China
Egypt
England
Ethiopia
France
Germany
Greece
Inca
India
Japan
Khmer
Korea
Mali
Mongolia
Netherlands
Persia
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Scandinavia
Spain
Sumeria
Turkey (Ottomans Re-named)

If you've been paying attention you'll notice there's only 30 civs. I'm sort of divided on the last. For the record I have ceirtan standards: Permanent settlements, Division of labor, Social hierarchies and all that jazz. That's what got the Iroquois and the Zulu kicked. I'm kind of stumped as to a 31st civ that is distinct and notable that meets those qualifications

I do have few candidates:

Austria (Seems to close to Germany.)
Bantu (Did they meet my definition of civilization?)
Restore the Iroquois (See above, also I'm having a hard time finding 10 MGls and 4 SGLs without going allover the Native Americans)
Harrapa (They'd be a shoo in if we could decode that script of theirs)
Tibet (Were they that significant?)

Fell free to point out the obvious civ that I forgot, but first check if they meet requirements

History Buffs should keep an eye on this thread, I'll doubtless have more questions.

 

[Colonel Tigh]

I'm an historian and I think your list is fine and I'll try to think of some recommendations for you. However, if you're going to eliminate the Hittites and Babylon on the basis of their being repeats you should probably eliminate the Byzantines as well. Even as a Greek historian, I find their inclusion slightly odd as they're essentially the medieval Greeks or some might even say more akin to the medieval Romans. Either way though, they are a combination of the two--evidenced by the fact that the capital city of the Byzantines appears in the city lists of both the Romans and Greeks. By the same token, the Babylonians had quite a large impact on Near Eastern history and were ethnically different from the Sumerians just as the Hittites were ethnically different than the Turks. Both of those civs had quite an impact on the history of their regions--perhaps less so for the Hittites than the Babylonians. I would recommend taking out the Byzantines and at least adding the Babylonians back into your game.
Anyway, just my opinion...do with it as you please.

 

[cubsfan6506]

Oh canada my home and native land.

Seriously though I would go Malumuk,

 

[Plotinus]

The Zulus weren't nomadic, were they?

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Blue Monkey would know more about this, but I believe "Deva-raja" was the king's title. It's sort of like calling a ruler a "god-king." Rob's "Anno Domini" and Blue Monkey's "Bharata Varsha" threads could give you a good idea on South Asian civs.

The Chinese title for "Emperor" is "Huangdi," but this was quickly abbreviated as either "Huang" or "Di" (thus Qin Shi Huang Di is often simply called "Qin Shi Huang"). This title was exclusively used by the Chinese emperor. "Tianzi" would work as well; the emperor was referred to as either the "Tianzi" or "Huangdi."

Tibet was significant as a regional power for a while; it was powerful enough to challenge the mighty Chinese Tang Dynasty (and force the Chinese to pay tribute). Culturally, Tibetan-style Buddhism influenced Mongolia and parts of Southeast Asia. Their empire historically covered the Tibetan Plateau, the Himalayas regions, northern Burma, and the present-day region of Qinghai. I'd say that it's pretty much up to you on whether or not they go in.

If you need another Asian civ, however, the Thai and Javanese are pretty good candidates.

 

[RedAlert]

I would highly suggest the Iroquois for your 31st civ. You may find some useful information here.
There are plenty of city and leader names to be found for the Iroquois, and they also posessed a notable social hierarchy and government, among other things. In my opinion, they are very much qualified under your specifications.

If you decide to go with a southern African civ, however, I would suggest Zimbabwe (precisely, the Mutapa Empire) over the Zulu.

EDIT: If you do decide on the Iroquois, I could compose a list of leaders for you if you want.

 

[Quinzy]

Tara was the home of the High King of Ireland, and the Irish being one of the last surviving Celtic races i'd say it's as good a place as anywhere in Gaul.

FWIS, here's my list, Celts not being a civ because they're represented by the British Islesm France, and Spain.

arabs
austria
aztecs
bantu
british
carthaginians
chinese
egyptians
ethiopians
french
germans
greeks
inca
indians
iroquoi
israelites
japanese
koreans
malays
mali
maya
mongols
persians
polish
romanians
romans
russians
scandanavians
spanish
siamese
turks

 

[Miles Teg]

@Colonel Tigh. I've honestly considered removing the Byzantines more then once, and the only thing really stopping me is finding two more civilizations is twice as difficult.

@cubsfan6506. I'm under the impression that the Mamluks were sort or rebels that made off with Egypt. What's noteworthy about that?

@Plotinus. No they weren't , but they did'nt really have "cities". To use Jared Diamond's (Guns, Germs, and Steel) terminology the Bantu were tribes, with the occasional chiefdoms springing up, but not states.

@Ogedi. Huangdi sounds cooler, so I'll go with that. . I'v thought about it and I don't think I'm going with Tibet. Thanks for clearing up the "Deva-raja issue. Now all the leader titles are either in their native language or as the Anglicized version of it.

@Redalert. I'd say I'm probably going with the Iroquois as the 31st civ, might swap the Byzantines out for another.

@Quinzy. Oops. I meant to say that I thought Camelot was an odd choice for the Celts. I'm actually using Tara as the capital.

 

[Quinzy]

Miles- Aha, yeah, Camelot is a bit of a daft choice. Tara makes more sense.

For the sake of diversity and general decent dispersion I chose to have the Pacific Islands, Zulu and Iroquois as civs, the Iroqouis upgrading to America in the late Medieval age The Pacific Islands will probably become Indonesia, and the Zulu will become South Africa.

I too, like you, tried to avoid overlap, and as such came up with said list

 

[WildWeazel]

I echo Colonel Tigh's comments on the Byzantines. If you want to remove "repeats" they're a prime candidate- more so than the Babylonians and Hittites. Of your candidates, I would recommend Austria. The Austrian Empire was once on the major powers in Europe, and even an enemy of Germany. Plus, Firaxis included them in C3C as the 32nd civ.

In my mod I removed:
Korea, Byzantines, Hittites, Dutch, Sumeria, Portugal
and added:
Siam, Austria, Israel, Mali, Ethiopia, Sioux

 

[Colonel Tigh]

I second Weasel Op's suggestion. I think Austria would make a nice addition to the game.

 

[Miles Teg]

@Colonel Tigh, Weasel Op. I'll probably swap out the Byzantines for the Austrians, plenty of chance I'l put in some other civ though.

Couple more questions.

Who bests represents Korea? I'm currently using Sejong the Great. And is Wang the right title?

What would the Khmer and the Indians call their elephant UUs?(Just use the most generic name, War Elephant is reserved for the standard unit.) And what would be the best graphics for them?

Oh and Redalert. Is Hiawatha the best choice for the Iroquois? If so what would his title be? If not then who would be the best and what would his title be.

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

Sejong was known as "the Great" thus his title is "Daewang," literally meaning "great king." Other possibilities for Korea are Taewang Gwanggaeto, Naemul Magripgan, Jinheung Wang, or Yi Songgye.

 

[Quinzy]

The Hittites were in Anatolia and so are the Turks, so wouldn't that be overlap?

And if you have both Americans and Iroquois won't they overlap? And the decline of the Iroqouis and the rise of the Americans are roughly at the same time, insofar as the Americans dominated the Iroquois

 

[TopGun]

Hiawatha's title should be "Sachem".

 

[Colonel Tigh]

Quinzy,
I think you could make the argument that because the Hittites and Turks (as well as the Americans and the Iroquois) are so different culturally and ethnically that they wouldn't be overlap even though they did control the same geographic area. At least I wouldn't consider them so.

 

[RedAlert]

Hiawatha's title should be "Sachem".

I'm not so sure about that. Sachem appears to be an Algonquian language term, and I don't think the Iroquois, speakers of Iroquoian languages, would have used it. I'm no expert though, and you may know something I don't.

As for what title I think Hiawatha would have held / should hold, I was unfortunately unable to find any term in the Onondaga or Mohawk languages, which would have been the most suitable. However, I was able to find two terms in Cayuga: "Hahsenowayneh" and "Hoyayneh", and one term in Oneida: "Tuwahkwa-nuh". These three words roughly mean chief. Note that the spelling reflects, to the best of my ability, pronunciation, according to our alphabet, and is not how those words would be spelled in either language.

Again, in my opinion, I am rubbish at languages, so none of this may be entirely accurate.

 

[TopGun]

Wikipedia has the following:

"Features of Confederacy
The general features of the Confederacy may be summarized in the following propositions:

The confederacy was a union of Five Tribes, composed of common gentes, under one government on the basis of equality; each Tribe remaining independent in all manners pertaining to local self-government. It created a Great Council of Sachems, who were limited in number, equal in rank and authority, and invested with supreme powers over all matters pertaining to the Confederacy. Fifty Sachemships were created and named in perpetuity in central gentes of the several Tribes; with power in these gentes to fill vacancies, as often as they occurred, by election from among their respective members, and with the further power to depose from office for cause; but the right to invest these Sachems with office was reserved to the General Council. The Sachems of the Confederacy were also Sachems in their respective Tribes, and with the Chiefs of these Tribes formed the Council of each, which was supreme over all matters pertaining to the Tribe exclusively. Unanimity in the Council of the Confederacy was made essential to every public act. In the General Council the Sachems voted by Tribes, which gave to each Tribe a veto over the others. The Council of each Tribe had power to convene the General Council; but the latter had no power to convene itself. The General Council was open to the orators of the people for the discussion of public questions; but the Council alone decided. The Confederacy had no chief Executive Magistrate, or official head. Experiencing the necessity for a General Military Commander, they created the office in a dual form, that one might neutralize the other. The two principal War-chiefs were made equal in powers. Equality between the sexes had a strong adherence in the Confederacy, and the women held real power. The Grand Council of Chiefs were chosen by the Clan Mothers and if any leader failed to comply with the Great Law of Peace, he could be removed by the Clan Mothers."

Granted, Wikipedia has to be taken with a grain of salt, but this information matches what I remember from school wayyyyy back when.

 

[Quinzy]

Colonel, I was just making a suggestion so as to increase the range of Civs within the ever-constricting 31 civ limit.

 

[Colonel Tigh]

Quinzy--I know, I was just stating my own feelings on it. I do think you've a good point, though.