The Cradles of Civilization in Civ V

[CivOasis]

This post relates to the civs present in Civ V, and, more specifically, which regions aren't represented there (Before anyone asks why this isn't in the Civ V forums, I was told to put it here).

Basically, there are six accepted cradles of Civilization:
Egypt (represented in civ v by... Egypt...)
Mesopotamia (represented by Babylon, maybe Persia?)
The Indus River Valley (India)
The Yangtze River Valley (China)
Those, I really wouldn't worry about. Sure, Mesopotamia could've gotten more attention, but it is represented relatively fairly.

In the Americas, though, there are two more:
Norte Chico (which isn't represented at all)
Mesoamerica (admittedly, that one's the latecomer to the group, but it's only represented by the Aztecs, who first showed up in the 1300's A.D.)

Basically, the questions are:
Looking at history:
Who should represent Norte Chico?
Is Mesoamerica fairly represented by the Aztecs? If not, what civ should represent it?

 

[Tee Kay]

Who should represent Norte Chico?

The Incas.

Of the Andean civilizations, the Incas are by far the widely known enough and were the most dominant in their time. So if one Andean civ should be included, it would be the Incas (and I understand it's already in a DLC).

As for Mesopotamia, again, the Aztecs are included for prominence. If you want something earlier, the Mayas whose history stretched back to about 1800 BC or earlier would do nicely, or the Olmecs, sometimes erronously thought of as the "mother culture" of Mesoamerica (there were other cultures which were in development at the same time).

 

[CivOasis]

Problem is, the Incans were incredibly removed from Norte Chico. If I recall the map correctly, there was quite a difference between Cusco and the Norte Chico region, much more so than the difference between the Central basin and Valley of Oaxaca in Mexico. Could be wrong about that part, though.
Another problem with the Incans is time period. They were contemporary with the Aztecs, but Norte Chico is much older, dating from around the time of the Old World sites.
I'd say the Huari Empire for Norte Chico, and the Empire of Teotihuacan for Mesoamerica, but neither of those is likely too popular, and I wanted to see what others think. Plus, somebody at Firaxis put Teotihuacan as an Aztec city... which I think is more weird, but whatever.

 

[North King]

I'd say the Huari Empire for Norte Chico, and the Empire of Teotihuacan for Mesoamerica, but neither of those is likely too popular, and I wanted to see what others think. Plus, somebody at Firaxis put Teotihuacan as an Aztec city... which I think is more weird, but whatever.

The Wari and Teotihuacan were both far, far removed from the "genesis" of civilization themselves. They're a little closer, of course, but a thousand years for Teotihuacan rather than two thousand for the Aztecs... honestly in the grand scheme of things, that's not really that impressive. The Wari are similarly far removed from the cradle in Norte Chico.

While I do think that the Maya, Teotihuacan, the Mixtec, Zapotec, and the Toltecs on the one hand, and the Wari and Tiwanaku on the other side would both be interesting additions to a Civ game, there's only so much room. It would be hard to justify including them by claiming these cradles' current representatives are somehow inauthentic because of their time periods.

 

[CivOasis]

The Wari and Teotihuacan were both far, far removed from the "genesis" of civilization themselves. They're a little closer, of course, but a thousand years for Teotihuacan rather than two thousand for the Aztecs... honestly in the grand scheme of things, that's not really that impressive. The Wari are similarly far removed from the cradle in Norte Chico.

Admittedly true, but, those happened to be the best I could think of.

While I do think that the Maya, Teotihuacan, the Mixtec, Zapotec, and the Toltecs on the one hand, and the Wari and Tiwanaku on the other side would both be interesting additions to a Civ game, there's only so much room. It would be hard to justify including them by claiming these cradles' current representatives are somehow inauthentic because of their time periods.

Claiming that the current representatives don't count, admittedly, isn't a good argument, but, perhaps the fact that those regions of the world are largely empty would be a decent argument?
As interesting as the Toltecs are, though, they'd be impossible, not enough is known about them.

 

[North King]

Claiming that the current representatives don't count, admittedly, isn't a good argument, but, perhaps the fact that those regions of the world are largely empty would be a decent argument?

Oh I totally agree that they're underrepresented, but I think Civ V is probably not the best platform for getting all gung-ho about it unless you're going to make some sort of modpack. These civs wouldn't sell enough copies, and as we all know, game companies are money obsessed demon feeders.

As interesting as the Toltecs are, though, they'd be impossible, not enough is known about them.

That's really quite subjective. What is "enough" to make a civ off of? The Toltecs did great, we know quite a few of their city sites, we know to a large extent what Tula looked like, we know basically how they lived, who they worshiped, and a pretty decent ruler/head/person.

The most mileage you could probably get out of the Americas for a Civ game without overrepresenting would be the Aztecs, Inca, Wari, maybe Tiwanku, Toltecs, Maya, Iroquois, Comanche, maybe the Mapuche and... yeah, after that you'd really be stretching it.

 

[CivOasis]

If I can get ahold of graphics (and some advice/help...), I will make a modpack.
As for the Toltecs, didn't think we actually had a leader.
My definition of enough info is just a city list, leader, UU, and UU/UI/UA.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What's a cradle of civilization?

 

[Dachs]

What's a cradle of civilization?

An understandable question, coming from a student of Irish and Korean history.

 

[Tee Kay]

But wait, Korea's the original cradle of all civilisation

 

[Lord Baal]

But wait, Korea's the original cradle of all civilisation

According to the dates on that map Siberia is the original cradle of civilisation.

I'm pretty sure the Irish still don't have civilisation.

 

[CivOasis]

The cradles of civilization are the six spots where civilization is believed to have formed separaterly.
Korea is not one of them.
Lol at the concept of a major civ in Siberia during the 8th millenium B.C., though.

 

[mitsho]

So, who wold be the leader of Teotihuacan? What would be the City List? The Unique Unit? The Unique Building? And remember, it's not allowed to make something up. No invention of "Eagle Scout" or "The Great Leader" translated into some near language.

Same goes for Olmecs, Cahokia, yeah even Sumeria to a part (Gilgamehs as leader, come on!).

So, you need to detach history from a computer game. The Inca and Aztecs are just fine as representation

 

[CivOasis]

Teotihuacan?
Leader could be Atlatl Cauac.
not sure about a UA or UU, but I'm sure we could find them
City list? I don't have one at the moment, but they ruled the entire Yucatan+some for a couple centuries, there are certainly some out there.
Olmecs, I wouldn't know, but I've seen enough posts to know that that information is out there.

Those two civs aren't like Cahokia or the Harappans, there's actually a lot of info on Teotihuacan (apparently Olmec, again, I personally don't know there).

 

[mitsho]

"Spearthrower Owl" (or Atlatl Cauac) (? - 439 AD) is the name commonly given to a Mesoamerican personage from the Early Classic period, who is identified in Maya inscriptions and iconography. It has been suggested that Spearthrower Owl was a ruler of Teotihuacan at the start of height of its influence across Mesoamerica in the 4th and 5th century, and that he was responsible for the introduction of Teotihuacán related cultural traits in the Maya area.[1]

"Spearthrower Owl" is a name invented by archaeologists basically just describing the visual appearance of the Teotihuacan originated spear holding owl symbol stylised as one or two Maya glyphs usually used to represent his name. The symbols themselves are not readable Maya writing, even though inserted among otherwise normal glyphs.
However, in Tikal, the name appears once written as an ordinary Maya glyph compound, that can be spelled out. The suggested spelling for the name is Jatz'om K'uh, meaning "owl that will strike".[2] This naturally also looks like a verbal description of the spear holding owl symbol.
Various logographs or glyphs depicting an owl and a spearthrower are documented in Teotihuacan and in the Maya cities of Tikal, Uaxactun, Yaxchilan, and Tonina. They may or may not refer to the same individual, or have some other symbolic meaning.

So technically, Atlal Cauac is a MAYAN Name given to a "ruler" of the city based on Inscriptions. His name, life and rule though are hotly debated by modern archeologist. Even the Wikipedia Entry is name Spearthrower Owl because we have no idea what was his real (native) name. Atlal Cauac seems just to be the Mayan translation.

Now see, here's the problem: Either you go historically correct. Then you can't chose that because you don't want to imprint false knowledge (if it turns out that the Glyphs were wrongly read and the name is something completely different). Or you want to have a good game with recognition value, then you cannot chose them because from the information we have, you could just make a fantasy civ up, better suited for fun gameplay!

 

[CivOasis]

So technically, Atlal Cauac is a MAYAN Name given to a "ruler" of the city based on Inscriptions. His name, life and rule though are hotly debated by modern archeologist. Even the Wikipedia Entry is name Spearthrower Owl because we have no idea what was his real (native) name. Atlal Cauac seems just to be the Mayan translation.

Now see, here's the problem: Either you go historically correct. Then you can't chose that because you don't want to imprint false knowledge (if it turns out that the Glyphs were wrongly read and the name is something completely different). Or you want to have a good game with recognition value, then you cannot chose them because from the information we have, you could just make a fantasy civ up, better suited for fun gameplay!

The point was, the ARE known leaders of Teotihuacan. I was just trying to prove that. As for it being a Mayan name (probably Ch'olan, from my understanding), most of the leaders use Anglicized versions of their name, so that's not an issue. As for language, Ramesses speaks Arabic, so I don't see a problem with a Teotihuacan ruler speaking Ch'olan, nevermind the fact that this would likely be a mod.

How is a fantasy civ any more valid than a real one? We have a real civ, with real people. Admittedly, they're vague, but no more so than Ramkhaemang, who's name actually means "Great King", and who's information mainly comes from the equivalent of an autobiography.

And Teotihuacan itself has pretty good recognition value.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As for language, Ramesses speaks Arabic,

Does he really? Glad I never put out the money for that pile of dog poop.

 

[Leoreth]

Does he really? Glad I never put out the money for that pile of dog poop.

Seconded.

 

[CivOasis]

Yeah, everyone else speaks their native language, but it would appear that it was too difficult to get someone who speaks Coptic. Not surprising, given how rare that language is, but it means he is the only leader who doesn't *actually* speak their own language.

 

[GoodGame]

The British Isles were the cradle of civilization, according to this website:

The Disciples of Horus

The land we now call Egypt was colonized...and was originally peopled by fair Celts from the shores of Britain. This was the Exodus of the Aryans, some of whom returned later to their primeval homes - Comyns Beaumont (Riddle of Pre-Historic Britain)

The Caucasian features described by Sir Elliot Smith are to be seen on the face of Queen Nefertiti, her sister Mutnodjmet (wife of Pharaoh Heremheb), and her daughter Meritaten (Scota). Indeed, there is little doubt in our minds that Nefertiti and her family were of Irish ancestry. This explains why Scota, her eldest daughter, traveled to Ireland by way of Spain after the fall of Akhenaton's corrupt dynasty and why her grave was found, not in Egypt, but in Ireland's County Kerry.

http://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/irishoriginsexcerpts/book1_chap10.html

I guess this is just some Aryanism mumbo jumbo though.




Unrelated Sub-Question: Why do the Sumerians get lots of attention on the subject of "cradle of civilization" but say Jericho doesn't, despite being older by a bit?