The Last of the Civworthy

[Chewie]

If we're throwing Canada in, then Australia should be in too. Less of a world power but more of a regional power, from an area unrepresented so far.

 

[Dale]

If we're throwing Canada in, then Australia should be in too. Less of a world power but more of a regional power, from an area unrepresented so far.

Please no, I'd rather give up our slot for a worthy Civ, like Majapahit or Polynesian.

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

And I'd like to give up our slot to the Iroquois Confederacy.

 

[Thormodr]

Indeed. It'd be fun to play as Canada but I'd rather have Polynesia or Thailand or a fair number of other Civs instead. I'd really like to see the Iroquois or Haida represent Canada as they are the original inhabitants of the land.

Someone will make a good mod of Canada with John A. McDonald as the leader and with Mounties as our unique unit and that will be good enough for me.

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

Nonono. They should make Jean Chretien or Pierre Trudeau the Canadian leader, for extra lulz.

 

[Dale]

Indeed. It'd be fun to play as Canada but I'd rather have Polynesia or Thailand or a fair number of other Civs instead. I'd really like to see the Iroquois or Haida represent Canada as they are the original inhabitants of the land.

Someone will make a good mod of Canada with John A. McDonald as the leader and with Mounties as our unique unit and that will be good enough for me.

Agreed, Iroquois instead of Canada, Polynesia instead of New Zealand, Majapahit instead of Australia.

Though I'll be happy to see Canada, Australia and New Zealand appear as mods soon after release.

 

[CMKMStephens]

Though I'll be happy to see Canada, Australia and New Zealand appear as mods soon after release.

'Dear Mrs. Clark, would you please record the following phrases so I can mod you into the game Civilization 5 and fulfil my latent nationalist desires of having the glorious New Zealand Empire conquer all...'

 

[Evie]

Agreed, Iroquois instead of Canada, Polynesia instead of New Zealand, Majapahit instead of Australia.

Indeed. I'd much rather have cool unique civilizations from the rest of history than any civilization (excluding the unavoidable Americans) that are yet more (descendants of) Europeans, only on another continent.

Which is why I've been arguing from the start that I feel Canada and Gran Colombia should equally not be on the list (though I won't re-thread that particular issue; I've said enough).

 

[Mad Man]

what about Cherokee/ Five Civilized Tribes?

 

[Evie]

Cherokee (or 5CT) and Iroquois would both be better Native candidates than the Sioux. I miss the Civ 3 Iroquois, they were a great addition.

The Anishinabe people would also be nice, in the same vein, though they are far less well known to popular history.

 

[awesome]

if canada were to ever be put in the game as a separate civilization, i would make sure that i raze every single one of their cities, every game.

 

[GigaNerd]

I'd like to suggest the Mississippian Empire!

We might not know any of their leaders, but at least we have plenty of city names!



EDIT: Alternatively, we could have the Hopewell Empire!

 

[Evie]

The problem with both of them is that most of their city names are nicknames given by other native groups, or by archaeologists or anthropologists.

 

[dagriggstar]

The Uzbeks I would've thought are a definate possibility...With probably Shaybani (or a stretch for timur) as the leader.

Major contributions - well Ulugh Beg ? The extent of Shaybani's conquests ? Central asia has fair distinctive architecture...

Independent - Uzbek Khanates lasted about 400-500 years. Different enough - probably, not really covered by anyone atleast for this period in history

Leaders - Shaybani/Ulugh Beg/Timur (stretch). City list I wouldn't have thought would be too hard...

Tiebreakers - under-represented area, most westerners would atleast know of the silk road and stuff. Russians would probably atleast be aware of the region in some form...

 

[Ahovking]

My criteria were as follows:

1. Did the Civ in question make major contributions to human society (cultural, religious, architectural, military, etc.)?

2. Was the Civ in question independent for at least part of its history? Are they different enough from previously included Civs?

3. Can a definitive leader, city list and unique unit be chosen for the Civ?

4. As a tie-breaker to weed out possible candidates, I also made the following considerations: How famous is the Civ in the western world? Would western Civ-gamers want to play this civ? Is the civ from an as yet unrepresented region? What would it add to the game?

Here is my list, with a few comments. I consider it unfinished, as I remain unsatisfied with its content. What do you like or dislike about it? What would you change? Who else should be represented?

Ok lets see how Australia works out

1:Yep pass
2:Yep pass
3:....well maybe John Curtin
4:well i guess everyone know about Australia

Australia just pass or just failed it goes both ways i guess

 

[Willem]

Ok lets see how Australia works out

1:Yep pass

And what contributions might those be? The only thing I know about Australian achievements is that they played a minor role in the World Wars. That's certainly not eneough to qualify them on that criteria. Canada doesn't cut it on that score either, even though we invented the telephone and discovered Insulin. Both countries are just minor players on the world scene and don't deserve special status as unique civilizations. They are nations, nothing more.

 

[GigaNerd]

This took me several hours, so I hope you guys like it!

GigaNerd's Civworthiness Test:

1. Can you name an important city that would've significantly changed that civ's history if it hadn't been formed in the first place?

2. Does this civ have at least two leaders that have either:

a. Made important decisions/changes that altered (or potentially could have altered) that civ for the better?
b. Fought for independence, national rights, domestic tranquility, or national unity for their civ?
c. Been extremely successful in their military and/or expansionistic endeavors?​

3. Has this civ significantly influenced the culture of another civilization? ("Qin China influenced Ming China" doesn't count. )

4. Is this civ recognizable enough to immediately associate certain structures/people/images with them?

5. Has this civ ever been considered a local power in its area? (Automatic win for world powers)



SCORING SYSTEM:
5/5 - This civ has probably been represented in at least three editions of Civ, so I doubt any of our suggestions will score this high!

4/5 - This civ has probably been represented in at least one edition of Civ. If it hasn't, then it should!

3/5 - This civ probably hasn't been represented in Civ, but it'd be a decent "surprise civ!"

2/5 - This civ definitely hasn't been represented in Civ, but there's probably a mod for it somewhere!

1/5 - This civ is a bit too insignificant to make it on its own. I recommend assimilating it into a larger cultural group.

0/5 -



Let me give you some examples:

Spoiler :

The United States of America
1. Yes - Washington, D.C. If the nation's capital hadn't been placed in the South, the Southern states would have never agreed with Alexander Hamilton's financial plan, which would have resulted in an economic death for most of the nation!

2. Yes - Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln won the Civil War and managed to keep the nation from splitting apart! Wilson successfully managed America's actions in World War I, and he founded the League of Nations, which, if the U.S. had joined, would have probably prevented World War II!

3. Yes - The U.S. Constitution has been the model for many other national constitution worldwide!

4. Yes -

Spoiler :

5. Yes - Is it not obvious that America is a world power?



SCORE: 5/5

Spoiler :

The Aztec Empire
1. Yes - Tenochtitlan. Back in the day, it was just another ordinary city-state. If it hadn't existed, Itzcoatl would have never become a ruler, so he wouldn't have been there to form the Aztec Triple Alliance. That's right! No Aztec Empire!

2. Yes - Itzcoatl and Ahuitzotl. Itzcoatl founded the Aztec Triple Alliance, which unified the city states of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan; because of this, the Aztecs were able to defeat the Azcapotzalco, which was the dominant tribe at the time. Ahuitzotl expanded the empire's territory to the point where it reached coast-to-coast, along with rebuilding Tenochtitlan into the grand supercity it was when the Spanish first discovered it.

3. Yes - Although Aztec culture isn't extremely apparent today (except for Mexican pesos), these guys probably spread their culture through all the different tribes that they conquered. I'd imagine that the Mixtec, Zapotec, etc., were heavily influenced by the Aztecs.

4. Yes -

Spoiler :

5. Yes - After kicking Azcapotzalco butt, the Aztecs went on to defeating the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Totonacans, Nahuans, Chontales... must I go on?



SCORE: 5/5

Feel free to grade your own civ suggestions with this, 'cause I sure ain't going to do it for you!

 

[Ahovking]

And what contributions might those be? The only thing I know about Australian achievements is that they played a minor role in the World Wars. That's certainly not eneough to qualify them on that criteria. Canada doesn't cut it on that score either, even though we invented the telephone and discovered Insulin. Both countries are just minor players on the world scene and don't deserve special status as unique civilizations. They are nations, nothing more.

lol yeah my bad Australia has UU cultural, and we have been in every war since 1800s, we are a christian society with more than 60% of us Christian but all our politicians don't believe in God, and architectural ..... well only Ancient Civ can clam that since we are most modern Nations are identical to Us

 

[CMKMStephens]

This took me several hours, so I hope you guys like it!

GigaNerd's Civworthiness Test:

I think the qualifications might be a little loose, most civs would probably get 3-4/5 at least. People with historical knowledge about groups that most others wouldn't share would naturally be able to fill in the qualifications. From me, Maori and Polynesia would get a 4, only failing on the major city thing.

From others however, they might get 0-2 out of five.

- Most people would know what a Maori or a Polynesian is and be able to associate some images (though still, some wouldn't),

- but people who could name two notable figures from either of them would be much fewer. Outside of NZ, how much history about NZ is taught?

- As for significant influence on foreign civs, that is kind of a value judgement that on the one hand some would not be qualified to make, and conversely people might claim that 'I' with a knowledge of it have a vested interest.

- The local power one is somewhat of a given, being the only powers...

Just for the record, I would state that the Polynesians and Maori had an enormous impact on European (though specifically English and French) conceptions of 'Civilization' and 'Savagery', the concept of 'the Noble Savage' as well as ethnography and anthropology. For the French, the island of Tahiti and the Pacific in general also had a massive influence upon art produced in the late 19th and earliest 20th century, the chief figure being Paul Gauguin. For the English, Irish, and Scottish, New Zealand became the destination for those seeking 'a better Britain', a 'classless society', and to make their lives better -except of course there were people already here, the Maori.

To use myself as an example, without a cursory visit to Wikipedia, I know almost nothing about the Songhai. I know their geographical extent, that Timbuktu was within it (though whether or not it was their capital I don't know), and obviously that they were a local power. I expect that they probably interacted with Spain or Portugal. I can't name two leader however, or associate any specific imagery.

So 2-3/5?

 

[frekk]

My criteria were as follows:

1. Did the Civ in question make major contributions to human society (cultural, religious, architectural, military, etc.)?

This is one aspect I disagree with. Alot of people look at it from this perspective, but I disagree with it.

We're generally immersing ourselves in different time periods, yes? That's the premise of the game. There are alot of civs that had very little relevance in their own time, but made some major contribution to later cultures. On the flip side of that coin, there are many major civilizations whose influence was massive in their own time and region, but left relatively few contributions to later cultures.

Essentially, judging things from by what they left takes a too-modern perspective and really distorts the relative importance of different groups in ancient times. Take the Hebrews and the Aztecs as classic examples. The Hebrews could not have been a more minor power in their own time - they were a tiny hill-kingdom, eclipsed by the wealth, technical and cultural sophistication, and raw power not just of the mighty civilizations that surrounded them (Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian/Mesopotamian) but even by their immediate neighbours - the Phoenicians. Apart from a brief apex of very local power (still a rather small and modest kingdom by global standards), they were no more important than dozens and dozens of small kingdoms at the time. They became, like so many other small kingdoms of their time, the playthings of great empires.

But ... they are important to us today because of the legacy they left, Judeo-Christianity. That's a huge legacy.

Now let's take the Aztecs ... other than a few loan-words, some foodstuffs, a few Mexican holidays, and some genetic contribution in the form of the mestizos who make up most of the population in Mexico, they haven't left us much. Yet ... they were one of the mightiest and most sophisticated powers on two continents, with millions of citizens and a vast empire. Their capitol was in a centre of lake in the middle of a valley, which they called the Navel of the World (today we call it the Valley of Mexico) and, if you lived in that time and place, you could be forgiven for thinking so. Because it would certainly seem like it was.

I like to take a more period-specific look at the relevance of a civ. Basically my criteria is more like - how much influence did they have among contemporary nations they were in contact with? If they were never an empire or powerful confederacy, they are pretty much out of the top 30 or so, regardless of whatever legacy they left. This means Canada, Poland, and the Hebrews are going to have wait a while.