Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Zaarin]

the cynical part of me can't help but think the limit is going to be less "How foreign is their name?" and more "How foreign does their name sound?" Hopewell no, Mississipian yes!

cries in "We actually know what a good number of Mississippian civs called themselves"

 

[Evie]

We know what a good number of Mississippian towns and polities in certain specific periods in certain specific regions called themselves.

Which of these were culturally interlinked to the point of forming a civ and what they called themselves in other regions, or even in those same regions in earlier period, we...know nothing about their names.

Since the "we don't know" category include the Upper Mississippi + Ohio moundbuilders of Cahokia and surroundings who are the ones everyone fixate on when they hear Mississippian, weeeellllll...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Eeehhhhhhhhh. Yes, if we go by modern regional coat of arms. If we go by history...actually the number matter little, and there is little to no evidence for *any* Norman leader using two lions rather than three or any other numbers (or indeed, , whereas English kings used one, two or three lions with indifferent abandon for the first quarter millenium of their existence. It's only in the 1300s that Edward III stabilized the three lions in law as the coat of arms of the English monarchy. Then promptly added the fleur-de-lys to it.

Factor in that graphic limitations (how well you can see two versus three lions at game sizes) may also be a thing, and I would avoid large bets.Could be the normans, could be England. The same goes for the Tower of London, which has been one of the most notable landmarks of England from the Normans to today, so who know what it means.

(We will not discuss at length how idiotic not having ENGLAND in the AGE OF EXPLORATION would be.)

I'm not going to disagree with you on these points, and well I know they've made mistakes in the past, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I also agree with you that having an Exploration Age civ named England, and a Modern Age civ named Britain would be very, or more, appropriate. I think that's unfortunately a result of lumping together much of the Medieval Era and Early Modern Era into one age.

 

[Zaarin]

We know what a good number of Mississippian towns and polities in certain specific periods in certain specific regions called themselves.

Which of these were culturally interlinked to the point of forming a civ and what they called themselves in other regions, or even in those same regions in earlier period, we...know a lot less well.

Yes, we know what some of the Muskogean, Catawban, and Caddoan cultures in the South called themselves. Alas, we don't know what the people of Cahokia called themselves. If there's even a theory of what language family they spoke, I haven't heard it.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm not going to disagree with you on these points, and well I know they've made mistakes in the past, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I also agree with you that having an Exploration Age civ named England, and a Modern Age civ named Britain would be very, or more, appropriate. I think that's unfortunately a result of lumping together much of the Medieval Era and Early Modern Era into one age.

I could see having Normans instead of England, because they did control it for the whole Exploration Age, and the Normans controlled more than just England.
However, the Modern age should be Britain.

 

[Wabnosa]

Yes, we know what some of the Muskogean, Catawban, and Caddoan cultures in the South called themselves. Alas, we don't know what the people of Cahokia called themselves. If there's even a theory of what language family they spoke, I haven't heard it.

Illiniwek Confederacy?

 

[Evie]

Last I'm aware the leading hypothesis appears to be that most of the Ohio/Upper Mississippian are quite plausibly linked to the non-Dakota Siouan people (Dhegiha and Chiwere families) who seem to correlate to the right place and the right time, and the Siouan-Mississipian link appears well documened. Which, specifically, is responsible for Cahokia *exactly* remains a lot more mysterious of course and you basically cannot point at one people without the next five being like "Ahem, us?".<

(There's also the non-trivial possibility that Cahokia may well have been a metropolis inhabited by ancestors of multiple Siouan and possibly other people).

Given that, I'd be wary of calling the Muskogean, Catawban and Caddoan as we know them *Mississippian* per se, as I would be wary to call the later Ioway, Quapaw, Kaw et al Mississippians. There is a clear connection and descent, but with the notable exception of the Natchez whose culture appear to have endured fairly well, how much of the Mississipian culture they retained between the De Soto-fueled plague collapse and the arrival of English settlers is a bit of a good question.

By and large, the only definitely Mississippian names I would label known are those De Soto recorded, and even then the recording is without a doubt deeply flawed by issues of languages not having the right bckground to understand each other.

Illiniwek Confederacy?

Did not build Cahokia. They arrived in the region after Cahokia's heighdays as best as we can tell from Archaeology and tryin to trace the oral tradition of western migration of the Algonquian people and match it to the archaeological record.

The Europeans named the mound after the Cahokia people who came to inhabit the region after the fact.

 

[Zaarin]

Last I'm aware the leading hypothesis appears to be that most of the Ohio/Upper Mississippian are quite plausibly linked to the non-Dakota Siouan people (Dhegiha and Chiwere families) who seem to correlate to the right place and the right time, and the Siouan-Mississipian link appears well documened. Which, specifically, is responsible for Cahokia *exactly* remains a lot more mysterious of course and you basically cannot point at one people without the next five being like "Ahem, us?".

Oh, nice, because that was kind of my hunch.

Given that, I'd be wary of calling the Muskogean, Catawban and Caddoan as we know them *Mississippian* per se, as I would be wary to call the later Ioway, Quapaw, Kaw et al Mississippians. There is a clear connection and descent, but with the notable exception of the Natchez whose culture appear to have endured fairly well, how much of the Mississipian culture they retained between the De Soto-fueled plague collapse and the arrival of English settlers is a bit of a good question.

By and large, the only definitely Mississippian names I would label known are those De Soto recorded, and even then the recording is without a doubt deeply flawed by issues of languages not having the right bckground to understand each other.

Yes, I meant the broader Mississippian-associated cultures rather than Mississippian proper. And these are all good points. Unfortunately, De Soto's expeditions records are the best we have for the period.

 

[Guandao]

have we also considered the possibility that some civs won’t have historical paths all the way through? It might be more respectful, for example, for exploration age Shawnee to have no historic path, or use a thematic/geographic feature path like Egypt to Songhai (perhaps another, more recent indigenous culture which has resisted its colonizers), than lead into the US




Yamato is also the name of the major Japanese ethnicity, since this is the population they directly descend from. Pro is continuity, con is there might not be as much distinction compared to Jomon.


As much as Korea is a big market, idk if it’ll get one in all three. In civ 4 we got Goguryeo, then Civ 5 Joseon, and Civ 6 Silla. Since Goguryeo fully united the peninsula temporarily, and hasn’t been highlighted in a while, if we are getting one in all three, I would like to see Goguryeo again rather than Baekje. Could be interesting too—Military to Science/Cultural to Cultural/Industrial

Bonus is Goguryeo can function more comfortably in Antiquity compared to Baekje and Silla

I thought the Korean leader in Civ3 and 4 was the founder of the Goryeo dynasty. Isn't Goguryeo one of the Three Kingdoms prior with Baekje and Silla?

 

[Zaarin]

I thought the Korean leader in Civ3 and 4 was the founder of the Goryeo dynasty. Isn't Goguryeo one of the Three Kingdoms prior with Baekje and Silla?

Correct.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I thought the Korean leader in Civ3 and 4 was the founder of the Goryeo dynasty. Isn't Goguryeo one of the Three Kingdoms prior with Baekje and Silla?

yep that’s my bad

there’s continuity and Goguryeo claimed heritage from Goryeo, I believe, but I think I got them thoroughly mixed up, LMAO

 

[Guandao]

I think you mean Goryeo claimed heritage from Goguryeo. Wait till you hear of the legendary Gojoseon. Don't confuse that with the last dynasty of Korea, Joseon.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think you mean Goryeo claimed heritage from Goguryeo. Wait till you hear of the legendary Gojoseon. Don't confuse that with the last dynasty of Korea, Joseon.

They gotta better about naming things out there i swear to god

 

[Siptah]

I've always been critical of Korea in Civ for always being a scientific powerhouse whose sole job is to produce science. But I think that dividing Korea, its modern version being a scientific powerhouse is not absurd, since South Korea is a nation recognized for its scientific prominence. I still think they could gain a bit of culture because of Hallyu. Goryeo/Joseon and Silla, however, I hope they don't have interaction with science as their main focus.

Modern Korea could also be cultural/militaristic. South Korea has one the largest armies in the world, and North Kore has straight up the largest (nominally at least).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Modern Korea could also be cultural/militaristic. South Korea has one the largest armies in the world, and North Kore has straight up the largest (nominally at least).

Industrial! Industrial! It’s all factories! It always has been! Half of South Korea works for Samsung or related companies!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

cries in "We actually know what a good number of Mississippian civs called themselves"

I feel like the situation isn’t dissimilar from Indus Valley Civ—we know of them, some aspects of their culture, but the language and actual names and such are more unknown to us

It could work since we can have more nebulous civ’s provided there’s enough context for abilities and units, but it’s not necessarily ideal.

 

[Guandao]

For Southeast Asian Civs, it could be like "Srivijaya to Majapahit to Indonesia", or "Funan to Khmer to Cambodia", or "Dvaravati to Siam to Thailand", or "Pyu to Burma to Myanmar".

 

[thecrazyscot]

I enjoy reading discussions between people who are smarter than me, very educational

 

[E.C.H]

For the people discussing the English situation, I'd add that the BBC article, which is largely based on conversation with Ed Beach himself, also specifically notes Rome > Normans > England/Britain(?) as a route, so alongside the Tower of London rationale I'm pretty certain that's what we're getting.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Modern Korea could also be cultural/militaristic. South Korea has one the largest armies in the world, and North Kore has straight up the largest (nominally at least).

I doubt North Korea will have any meaningful design decisions on a Modern Age Korea.