The Carthage Thread

[Caesar of Bread]

I'm being reminded of the, "Black Rameses," debate.

For God’s sake, there were like 20 pages of full chaos about Ramses - and the Olmecs among others.
Old memories.

 

[Henri Christophe]

There is really no need to have both civilizations. They'd basically have the same uniques.

I'm not aware of Phoenicians uniques, but Carthage could have elephants that Phoenecians can't have. So, it isn't the same uniques.

If you want an African civ in the region, why not have native Berbers/Numidia instead?

About Berbers, they could be represented by Marrocos.
I google Numidia and found it is a region of north Africa, not a civilization.

So, is, "Africa," racial or geographic to you? Take your pick, here.

Africa is a continent, Black is the racial name I used to refer to the Africans bellow the Saara.
In that point you are right, this game is needing more black africans than north africans.
But that don't change Carthage was a important civilization who deserve to be a civ, an important civilization who is very unknown, I my self just discover this civilization after play civ5.

(you said once that you would be fine only including Rome as a European rep for VII)

I was talking about Vanila edition and Civ6 just have ONE Native American (the Aztecs) and ONE Black African (Kongo).
This statement is just to you see how it should sound if this game was less eurocentric

I'm being reminded of the, "Black Rameses," debate.

Here is not the right place to this discussion, but my point is, the Ramsés is too much white in civ6, it was white also in civ5.
And since it's unknown the true race of egyptians, it could be black once.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Look, I’m all for less Eurocentrism. My idea is that instead of like 20 European civs we have 13, increase the number of African civs to 12 (same with in the Americas), and increase the amount in the Middle East/South Asia/East Asia/Southeast Asia/Polynesia to 18.

I tried.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I'm not aware of Phoenicians uniques, but Carthage could have elephants that Phoenecians can't have. So, it isn't the same uniques.

About Berbers, they could be represented by Marrocos.
I google Numidia and found it is a region of north Africa, not a civilization.

Africa is a continent, Black is the racial name I used to refer to the Africans bellow the Saara.
In that point you are right, this game is needing more black africans than north africans.
But that don't change Carthage was a important civilization who deserve to be a civ, an important civilization who is very unknown, I my self just discover this civilization after play civ5.

I was talking about Vanila edition and Civ6 just have ONE Native American (the Aztecs) and ONE Black African (Kongo).
This statement is just to you see how it should sound if this game was less eurocentric


Here is not the right place to this discussion, but my point is, the Ramsés is too much white in civ6, it was white also in civ5.
And since it's unknown the true race of egyptians, it could be black once.

Numidia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Evie]

The only thing unique about Carthaginian war elephants is the way Hannibal only had one left past the start of the Italian campaign. Surrus (the elephants name) was, in fact, unique, a war elephant, and Carthaginian (though his name meant Syrian) that way.

Otherwise, pretty much everyone in the Ancient Mediterranean basin used them, if they had access to Asian or North African trade at all.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not aware of Phoenicians uniques, but Carthage could have elephants that Phoenecians can't have. So, it isn't the same uniques.

African War Elephants would probably only be unique to Hannibal. since they are associated with him. Other than that, any ancient era naval unit and Cothon harbor would fit both.

About Berbers, they could be represented by Marrocos.
I google Numidia and found it is a region of north Africa, not a civilization.

Numidia was literally an ancient Berber Kingdom. When the Romans conquered North Africa they just kept the name for that region.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

African War Elephants would probably only be unique to Hannibal. since they are associated with him. Other than that, any ancient era naval unit and Cothon harbor would fit both.

Numidia was literally an ancient Berber Kingdom. When the Romans conquered North Africa they just kept the name for that region.

Please, North African elephant: there were two historical 'African' elephant species: Loxodonta africana, the 'bush' elephant from southern and central Africa, and the 'forest' elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) from the north coast to Ethiopia in Africa - that one is now extinct, having been used up in the Roman arenas by the 3rd - 4th centuries CE, but was used as a war elephant by both Carthage and Ptolemaic Egypt (and, for an Alternate History scenario, could have been used by Ethiopia, Morocco or Nubia, since they shared territories with the animals).
The bush elephant, the largest of the modern elephants (up to 7 tons) has never been used for anything but circuses and zoos, because it is just too dangerous: when the males go berserk ('must') as they fairly regularly do, it almost always is catastrophic for anyone nearby, as circuses discovered in the 19th century.

Historically, the principle Numidia kingdom was allied with Carthage, and Numidians provided a great deal of Hannibal's and other Carthaginians' core military units: heavy and light cavalry and battle line infantry. They were a separate people and polity, though, and in the end went over to Rome with disastrous consequences for Carthage.

 

[Patine]

And since it's unknown the true race of egyptians, it could be black once.

As I said many times, and you keep ignoring it, the race of the Ancient Egyptians is NOT unknown. It's known very well. It's just happens to not be Black African or European Caucasian, and that seems difficult for you to accept, because it means it couldn't, "just be declared Africam," and it doesn't conform to that racist German naturalist's three-race quackery you so cherish. But, it is, regardless, the fact of the matter, regardless of all your wistful thinking.

 

[reddishrecue]

Egyptian race at that time had strong men and beautiful women. They had a good civilization next to the Israelites.

 

[Patine]

Egyptian race at that time had strong men and beautiful women. They had a good civilization next to the Israelites.

This sounds like a Greek-written esthetic narrative.

 

[pokiehl]

Egyptian race at that time had strong men and beautiful women.

Uhh..what?

 

[reddishrecue]

Uhh..what?

By good I mean they were the world power of the ancient era. By the men and women I meant they had a superior race at that time. Sort of like the Germans during ww2.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

This is going downhill very fast and very weird

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Sort of like the Germans during ww2.

So... er... you mean like the Germans in the sense that they were deluded into thinking they were a superior race, right?

Right?

 

[reddishrecue]

So... er... you mean like the Germans in the sense that they were deluded into thinking they were a superior race, right?

Right?

Yes

 

[Patine]

Yes

As I said, the rhetoric doesn't sound anything that actually came out of Ancient Egypt, itself. They're views of themselves as a people were astonishingly nuanced and complex, and not remotely so, "cookie-cutter." Plus the Kingdom of Israel was not established until Egypt was in it's last gasps as a civilization.

 

[pokiehl]

As I said, the rhetoric doesn't sound anything that actually came out of Ancient Egypt, itself. They're views of themselves as a people were astonishingly nuanced and complex, and not remotely so, "cookie-cutter." Plus the Kingdom of Israel was not established until Egypt was in it's last gasps as a civilization.

What does that even mean? Egyptian archeological remains are chock full of stories glorifying themselves and smashing and subjugating their enemies of other ethnicities. Art of them conquering the “9 bows” is as clear cut as it gets—it’s an entire genre of them showing their superiority to non-Egyptians

 

[Patine]

What does that even mean? Egyptian archeological remains are chock full of stories glorifying themselves and smashing and subjugating their enemies of other ethnicities. Art of them conquering the “9 bows” is as clear cut as it gets—it’s an entire genre of them showing their superiority to non-Egyptians

Well, in an era when EVERYBODY, without notable exception, had varyng degrees of that kind of self-exalting rhetoric, the Egyptians were more nuanced and complicated than others.

 

[pokiehl]

Well, in an era when EVERYBODY, without notable exception, had varyng degrees of that kind of self-exalting rhetoric, the Egyptians were more nuanced and complicated than others.

How? What are good examples, especially ones that we don’t see in contemporaneous civilizations?

 

[Patine]

How? What are good examples, especially ones that we don’t see in contemporaneous civilizations?

Are you REALLY asking to give examples of how almost all civilizations in antiquity who had attestation of writing for themselves indulged in self-exalting rheotoric, like the claim of it's RARITY were credible and to be taken seriously? Is this question REALLY being asked?