The Carthage Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There is a difference between Phoenicia and Carthage. Phoenicia refers to a region of City-States, such as Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, that were a rule onto themselves. Carthage is the The North African territory settled and colonized by Phoenicians. A settlement that became an Empire. It's possible to have Carthage and the Phoenician City-States in the same game. Such as we had with Civ-V.

Or it's possible to have Carthage as a Phoenician city, like in Civ 6, which I would prefer. Carthaginians were essentially a Phoenician people after all.

 

[jsciv69]

Too much overlap in my opinion. The Phoenician city states were commercial (and military) powers that engaged in far reaching sea voyages to settle colonies across the Mediteranean basin.

As opposed to Carthage, which was a Pheonician colony turned city state that was a commercial and military power that engaged in far reaching sea voyages and settled colonies across the Mediteranean basin, and ultimatrly built an empire out of those colonies and assorted vassals. Very different.

I see virtually no reason to have them separate; it'd be like having Greece and Athens as two separate civilizations.

Civ V tops Civ VI in a few areas. One of them is realism. and not just in graphics and animations. It had both Carthage as a full Civilization, with Dido(though I'm sure General Hannibal is preferred), and Phoenician City-States as powers onto themselves. Carthage and the Phoenician City-States share much of the same cultures, traits, and lifestyles. But unlike Athens and Greece, are geographicly seperate.

 

[pineappledan]

I think civ 6 opting for Phoenicia instead of Carthage was a smart move. It adheres more to factions as civilizations, rather than as empires. The Carthaginian empire was an iteration or product of Phoenician, or perhaps more accurately Canaanite civilization. The people of Carthage were called Punic by their neighbours and enemies, worshipped a Levantine pantheon, and traced their roots back to the city-states near the coast of modern Lebanon. I think you could have Carthage as a playable empire or leader, but giving the category of civilization to the name "Phoenicia" or "Canaan".

Re: the unique unit, every group that could be made into a civ would have some form of land UU candidate, but not all of them have anything that could be made into a naval UU. Priority needs to be given to adding unique naval units wherever they can be found, otherwise the game would suffer from a lack of overall unit diversity. If you merely prioritize the most famous troops of each empire, you will end with 15 cavalry units for every 1 new ship added to the game.

I have no issue with Dido/Elissa. Someone obviously founded Carthage; the existence of the city itself stands as good enough evidence that its founder also existed, embellished or not. Other options for a Phoenician leader could be Hiram I or Ithobaal I

 

[jsciv69]

I think civ 6 opting for Phoenicia instead of Carthage was a smart move

The problem with that is we're talking two different regions. Carthage and the Phoenician City-States shared the same type of peoples. But occupied different geographic areas. Carthage in north Africa and the Phoenician City- States in the Levant. Civ-V got it right and includes both. Civ- VI for some reason did not include Carthage. That was a flaw. Carthage and Hannibal, with his War Elephants, need to come back to Civilization.

 

[pineappledan]

Carthage was a city-state in civ 6 until the Phoenician civ was released.
Carthage is the 2nd city in the Phoenician city list, after the capital of Tyre, and Dido's leader ability allows her to move her capital to another city. The civ very explicitly gives you the tools and incentives to enact the settling, and transition from Tyre to Carthage as part of their core design.
Hannibal Barca is a Great General in civ 6: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Hannibal_Barca_(Civ6)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The problem with that is we're talking two different regions. Carthage and the Phoenician City-States shared the same type of peoples. But occupied different geographic areas. Carthage in north Africa and the Phoenician City- States in the Levant. Civ-V got it right and includes both. Civ- VI for some reason did not include Carthage. That was a flaw. Carthage and Hannibal, with his War Elephants, need to come back to Civilization.

There's no reason why Hannibal couldn't be a leader for the Phoenicians either, with his capital at Carthage.
Civ 6 Phoenicia was basically Carthage from the previous versions, all but in name.

 

[Evie]

Wouldn't be the first empire to be spread over multiple regions. I don't really see a problem with that, either.

(And if the problem is the lack of a North African/Maghreb civilization, I'd rather have a civilization that has deeper local roots - Berbers or what have you - than a Phoenician colony.)

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

And if the problem is the lack of a North African/Maghreb civilization, I'd rather have a civilization that has deeper local roots - Berbers or what have you - than a Phoenician colony.

I know nothing about the history of Berbers, but if we ever see Barbary Corsairs as a unique unit for someone other than the Ottomans my fancy will be tickled.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know nothing about the history of Berbers, but if we ever see Barbary Corsairs as a unique unit for someone other than the Ottomans my fancy will be tickled.

Barbary Corsairs wouldn't make much sense, at least if you want to portray the Berber people pre-Islam. I'd rather them have the Numidian Cavalry, which were said to be the best horsemen in Africa.
They could be used as a unique unit for Morocco.

 

[Patine]

Barbary Corsairs wouldn't make much sense, at least if you want to portray the Berber people pre-Islam. I'd rather them have the Numidian Cavalry, which were said to be the best horsemen in Africa.
They could be used as a unique unit for Morocco.

The thing is, Berber history, like, say, Iranian history, is such that both Pre-Islamic and Islamic portrayals are quite interesting, in their own ways.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Unique Units: Hippo(Trade Ship), Sacred Band(Hoplite spearman)

First, about the units, I think the most fun of Carthage is the elephants and they should be their unit.

I think civ 6 opting for Phoenicia instead of Carthage was a smart move

I need to disagree on that, I like Carthage being a separate civ of Phoenician because that makes us remember how strong was an African empire.
I feel Carthage isn't well known because, in my exam at the University of History, my teacher just asked: "Against who Rome was at war in the Punic war" and most of my colleagues can't remember who or what was Carthage.

I would not want to see Dido, for the same reason I would not want to see some other suggestions made on these sub-forums, such as Gilgamesh (I don't think anyone here suggested his return - I include him because he's currently in game), Solomon, Menes, Romulus, Junius Brutus, Shango, the Queen of Sheba, Menelik I, Quetzalcoatl, Hiawatha, and other leaders who may or may not have existed, but are so heavilty mythologized that very little is actually known about them as factual people and leaders if they did to credibly include them.

As everybody already knows, I put myself on the opposite of this idea, where I don't understand what is the problem with semi-mythical leaders as the list you suggest. Okay, Dido could actually be changed for Hannibal who I guess you don't think is a myth. But that will be less one female leader what isn't cool.

Of your list of unavailable leaders you even put Hiawatha (!). Are you the kind of guy who just believes in written history and believes the Iroquois couldn't have a history just because they didn't develop a written system before the European arrival?
I think that is kind of racist because disagree in the oral tradition in order to put some civilizations in a limbo of no-history people.

 

[Patine]

I need to disagree on that, I like Carthage being a separate civ of Phoenician because that makes us remember how strong was an African empire.
I feel Carthage isn't well known because, in my exam at the University of History, my teacher just asked: "Against who Rome was at war in the Punic war" and most of my colleagues can't remember who or what was Carthage.

It would be a very unusual University history class in the modern world that immediately know Carthage as the enemy of Rome in the Punic Wars. It may just be Brazilian views of history, but certainly isn't a general trend of lack of knowledge.

 

[Patine]

Of your list of unavailable leaders you even put Hiawatha (!). Are you the kind of guy who just believes in written history and believes the Iroquois couldn't have a history just because they didn't develop a written system before the European arrival?
I think that is kind of racist because disagree in the oral tradition in order to put some civilizations in a limbo of no-history people.

If one looks at the oral records of Hiawatha, they share the same problem I was pointing out that do tend to make him a larger-than-life figure, plausibly combining traits of several different leaders, with grand achievment but focus little on him AS A PERSON. Exactly my complaints about the portrayals of most other such leaders. Saying it is wrong for not taking all oral records at face value as absolute, irrefutable truth, but many, many oral records do obviously tie into religious, mythological, or spiritual references mixed with history, and do have a grandiose feel and, "tales that get taller in the telling," because they were also meant to entertain as well as keep records and lore, and not give them a sober analysis, is just inappropriate and overbearing, and using the word, "racist," to try to lend weight to such an overreach is unacceptible.

 

[jsciv69]

First, about the units, I think the most fun of Carthage is the elephants and they should be their unit.

I know that Carthage, Hannibal, and War Elephants are linked together forever. But elephants were used elsewhere. Such as with the India Civilization. We could have Carthage and India each have a specialized Elephant unit.

 

[jsciv69]

I feel Carthage isn't well known because,

If we're talking a course of World or Western History, it would certainly be odd to not include a study of Ancient Carthage.

 

[Henri Christophe]

If we're talking a course of World or Western History, it would certainly be odd to not include a study of Ancient Carthage.

It was a discipline about ancient history, in a full year we saw Egypt, Jews, Greeks, and the Romans (in that order).
I'm sure the teacher told us about Carthage, but when he asked that on the exam, a lot of people didn't have any idea what Carthage was.
I was wondering, maybe I just know about Carthage because this game introduced that history to me, I guess I didn't know about Carthage before playing civ5 for the first time.

I know that Carthage, Hannibal, and War Elephants are linked together forever. But elephants were used elsewhere. Such as with the India Civilization. We could have Carthage and India each have a specialized Elephant unit.

About elephants, I guess it could be an unit for all civs to build, as it is with horses.
But if it's as it is today, an unique unit of some civs, of course Carthage need to have an elephant as unique unit.

If one looks at the oral records of Hiawatha, they share the same problem I was pointing out that do tend to make him a larger-than-life figure, plausibly combining traits of several different leaders, with grand achievment but focus little on him AS A PERSON. Exactly my complaints about the portrayals of most other such leaders. Saying it is wrong for not taking all oral records at face value as absolute, irrefutable truth, but many, many oral records do obviously tie into religious, mythological, or spiritual references mixed with history, and do have a grandiose feel and, "tales that get taller in the telling," because they were also meant to entertain as well as keep records and lore, and not give them a sober analysis, is just inappropriate and overbearing, and using the word, "racist," to try to lend weight to such an overreach is unacceptible.

This kind of record, as Hiawatha records, can have a lot of religious beliefs intermixed with the record since the separation of faith and state is something very modern. So we can't disqualify the history of a civilization as Iroquois just because our records are intermixed with faith issues.
And I don't think the developers agree with you in your agenda of anti-mythical leaders, because they made leaders like Gilgamesh in civ6. And they should and could do more semi-mythical leaders in civ7.

By the way, there is no true history, even written history, as European history, can be made with bias.

 

[Patine]

This kind of record, as Hiawatha records, can have a lot of religious beliefs intermixed with the record since the separation of faith and state is something very modern. So we can't disqualify the history of a civilization as Iroquois just because our records are intermixed with faith issues.

Ignored the bigger point I made, of exaggeration and mythologization happening more frequently because of the style of presentation.

And I don't think the developers agree with you in your agenda of anti-mythical leaders, because they made leaders like Gilgamesh in civ6.

It's not an, "agenda." But, like all desire changes in a game, it has to be advocated for. Or, are you resigned to the lack of African representation, as something the developers don't seem to agree with.

 

[Patine]

And they should and could do more semi-mythical leaders in civ7.

I don't see how that better them game, and not water it down. I suggested advocating for a Mythology spin-off, but that idea doesn't seem to be enough for you.

 

[Patine]

By the way, there is no true history, even written history, as European history, can be made with bias.

By that reckoning we have nothing to work with, and the point is moot.

I think that is kind of racist

And, I would like an apology for inappropriately calling me a racist. I do not throw around terms of that gravity friviolously and spurilously at other posters, and I think expecting the same, reciprocally, is not out of line.

 

[Henri Christophe]

a Mythology spin-off

A Mythological spin-off should be cool but would be very different. For example, Rome in a mythological spin-off should be led by Jupiter or Mars. That means the Romulus just could be a leader in a main series game.
Okay, Rome has a bunch of better names and doesn't need a Romulus leader, but some other civilizations as Carthage don't have a bunch of better names and Dido still being a strong option which I can't see any problem with.

I would like an apology for inappropriately calling me a racist.

Okay, sorry.
But I still think your thoughts about what is mythical and what is true isn't right anyway.
First, there is no true history, even written history is biased.
Second, eliminating some civs completely just because they have a heavily mythologized history (as in the case of Toltecs we already discussed too much) isn't right. I think I could say this kind of thought is racist because most of civs who fall down in the category of heavily mythologized are no white civilizations.