Unoffical Civ VI poll. Vote for your 3 civs you would most like to see. Part XI : Modern Nations

[Phrozen]

Why are people objecting to the Goths? Yes, they started off as nomadic tribesmen, then became the backbone of the late Roman army, rebelled, sacked Rome, and in the peace treaty took Iberia as theirs. When they settled down in Iberia, they actually had a highly centralized government much more so then the other territories in Western Europe. That is the reason they fell to the Moors so quickly as the Moors attacked in the middle of a succession crisis and the individual princes didn't have large armies like that of what would become France, Germany, and England.

 

[IgorS]

Why are people objecting to the Goths? Yes, they started off as nomadic tribesmen, then became the backbone of the late Roman army, rebelled, sacked Rome, and in the peace treaty took Iberia as theirs. When they settled down in Iberia, they actually had a highly centralized government much more so then the other territories in Western Europe. That is the reason they fell to the Moors so quickly as the Moors attacked in the middle of a succession crisis and the individual princes didn't have large armies like that of what would become France, Germany, and England.

My only objection to the Goths is that they overlap too much with Spain, France, and Rome city-names-wise. I mean, this is not like the Turks and Byzantines who have the same cities, but with different names, so it is OK, with the Goths the city names are pretty much the same. Other than that, they could be interesting. But this is really off-topic.

 

[Morningcalm]

I'm surprised people care that much about Canada. "None of the above" was my choice, we can manage with Brazil and USA, but no more of these "modern" options before staples like the Ottoman Turks, Carthaginians and Maya have been added to the game.

I also voted for "None of the above" and added in a vote for Gran Colombia. Australia was an abominable choice to add to Civilization in my opinion--their influence on world history being frankly rather small, and their being a very young nation is also grounds for objecting. I don't like America being in the game either (even though I am American)--but at least their immense world influence and power are incontestable. Australia, on the other hand....why not have civs that are interesting instead, like the Maori? While they arguably influenced the world less too, I think they add more diversity than yet another modern Western postcolonial nation.

Agreed re: Civ staples.

Of course I’m oversimplifying, but the difference between America and Colombia is that America worked. If the US had fallen apart after ten years into New England and the Republic of Virginia or what have you, I’d be arguing against their inclusion too

Gran Colombia would have been a powerful state, had it survived. It’s not surprising that people like Quincy Adams talk it up, because Bolívar’s vision was a version of South America that resembled the United States.

I would say the difference is that Mapuche and Scotland are designed around the idea of an encroaching empire on an indigenous people. Gran Colombia was about the colonial state breaking away from the empire that created it. That is not a mechanic that currently exists in a Civ 6.

So if IgorS wants to revise his nation-centric approach to argue that only nations that lasted a certain period of time get to be in Civ, so be it--but he did not state that initially. He said Gran Colombia was not a nation because it did not last long enough. Which is not one of the aspects of how a nation is defined, either by dictionaries worldwide or any historical authority.

The difference you cite between Gran Colombia and Mapuche and Scotland has no impact on gameplay, leaving aside the historical implications of your statement which I consider frankly erroneous (Gran Colombia was no more created by the Spanish Empire than the United States of America created by the British Empire--obviously the empires influenced their underlings--but to argue they "created" them is to not understand what "independence" means from a political and cultural standpoint). It is easy to make mechanics alluding to a colonial state breaking away from the empire that created it. Similarly, America in Civ V had minutemen which came from the time America declared independence. Loyalty is an easy way to model such "breaking away from the empire" mechanics. And in any event, Simon Bolivar and his leadership style present numerous opportunities for agendas and bonuses in accordance with his military status.

Basically, Uberfrog has answered for me.
When I talk about a nation, I want to see it actually become that - a nation, not just a political entity. Gran Colombia was only a political entity, no matter how strong it was or how influential its leader was, it did not create a Gran Colombian people. The same way that the Holy Roman Empire was nothing but a collection of various peoples living under some strange political entity.
The Mongol and Ottoman empires were not that. The Ottoman Empire included many other non-Turkish territories, yes, but who ruled the empire? It was the Turks. The Ottoman Empire was ruled by Turkish leaders from their capital in Turkey. The Janissaries being non-Turkish has nothing to do with it, it is just one feature of the empire that makes them unique in their own way. I am not saying that such facts should be ignored. I am just saying that each of those empires still revolved around a certain nation that had founded it. The Ottoman Empire ruled areas outside Turkey because they were conquered. You said that the Mongols had to be unified, but this means there was a nation that had to be unified. Genghis Khan did not simply gather a bunch of tribes based on some random criteria, he gathered the Mongol people. The same thing happened with Germany in the 19th century. And some nations were not united, like the Maya, but this is why I say each case should be looked into separately, because the Maya have other reasons for being included in the game, something that still makes them a nation despite never being a unified state (in this case - their major influence over the region and their common features, like culture, language, religion, and ethnicity). I am also not against the inclusion of the Goths.

For me the criteria for a civilization are as follows:
1. They have to be a nation with common features - culture, language, religion, ethnicity. Having a common culture is a must, but not all the other boxes have to be ticked. Thus, a nation can be modern, like the Americans, Australians or Argentines.
2. They must occupy or have occupied a certain common territory.
3. They must have influenced at least the region they have inhabited.
4. They must have at least one notable leader, however the civilization must not revolve solely around that leader (this is why I don't like Macedon as designed in Civ VI).
5. They must have unique features - units and buildings (well, this is how the game works).
6. They must have a city list. The cities don't have to be actual cities, of course, but there has to be a list of settlements (like in the case of the Iroquois, for instance). This is also necessary for gameplay purposes.

Again, you seem not to understand that a nation IS a political entity, so your animosity towards "political entit[ies]" needs to be better defined. I never said Genghis Khan gathered a "bunch of tribes based on some random criteria" lol. I pointed out that the Mongolian Empire was very different from the "Mongolian people" you cited as being "essentially the same" as those in the Mongolian Empire. This is patently untrue. Similarly, Janissaries being non-Turkish has every bit to do with this discussion--their existence cuts directly against your argument that the Turkish Empire was "essentially the same people" as those who began it. The Turkish Empire was led by Turks and non-Turks (albeit not in the primary role of sultan, though some have suggested Roxelena as an Ottoman female ruler given her immense influence on Suleiman, and she was definitely *not* Turkish), and soldiers Turkish and non-Turkish both fought for the Empire. A "nation that had to be unified" you say. Sounds like what the Holy Roman Emperors saw as their duty. Mehmed II saw himself as the heir to Rome, as did Charlemagne, who saw himself as the heir to Justinian who saw himself as the heir to the Romans. The "Holy Roman Empire" was based on Roman cultural influence, typically led by non-Romans (like the Frankish Charlemagne), and nevertheless, despite such diversity, maintained a cultural identity and political cohesion which allowed it to last well into the Renaissance and beyond. To me that is a nation. Similarly, America has such diversity and is not even led by "Americans" as such when considering the immigrant background of many of its (European-descended) leaders, and its (in many cases not European-descended) soldiers and workers. America has every bit as much inconsistency as a "nation" given the factors you cite as the Holy Roman Empire or Gran Colombia for that matter.

I'm glad you brought up "each case should be looked at separately"--to me, that's far more reasonable than arguing for a nation-centric approach, particularly given inconsistencies as cited in the examples you like and dislike. You cite common "culture, language, religion, ethnicity" but not many empires had more than one of those for their entire duration, if that. A nation can be modern, you say, and you cite America, Australia and Argentina. Gran Colombia checks similar boxes as its own form of modern nation. If you object to it simply because it didn't last long enough, that's a different objection than the one you originally cited, which is the (incorrect) statement that they weren't a nation because they didn't last long. Gran Colombia also hecks boxes 2-6 easily. So again, I have to wonder why you cite the principle of a nation-centric approach when some civs you strongly dislike actually meet your cited criteria.

My only objection to the Goths is that they overlap too much with Spain, France, and Rome city-names-wise. I mean, this is not like the Turks and Byzantines who have the same cities, but with different names, so it is OK, with the Goths the city names are pretty much the same. Other than that, they could be interesting. But this is really off-topic.

A different name for the same city is still an overlap. Romans and Byzantines shared many of the same cities, but that's not an insurmountable problem. Simply remove cities with overlapping names and incorporate those with different names. But logically you still have an overlap problem when Byzantines and Ottomans play the same map and have "Constantinople" and "Istanbul" as capital cities. So I don't think objecting to Goths on those grounds is consistent with Civilization's continual tolerance for the coexistence of Byzantines and Romans and Ottoman Turks all together.

 

[IgorS]

Again, you seem not to understand that a nation IS a political entity, so your animosity towards "political entit[ies]" needs to be better defined.

A nation is a nation, and a political entity is a political entity. I do not mean nation as a state, but rather as a people. In some cases nations create political entities for themselves (Mongolia, for example), in other cases political entities create nations (the United States, for example). Colombia is a nation, Venezuela is a nation, Gran Colombia is merely a political entity that did not have enough time to create a nation. So I'd rather have Bolivar lead Colombia or Venezuela with Gran Colombia a period in their history, just like the Soviet Union is a period in Russian history, and Great Britain a period in English history. And the Holy Roman Empire a period in German history (this is why we have a Holy Roman Emperor as leader of Germany in Civ VI).

I pointed out that the Mongolian Empire was very different from the "Mongolian people" you cited as being "essentially the same" as those in the Mongolian Empire.

Never said this.

Similarly, Janissaries being non-Turkish has every bit to do with this discussion--their existence cuts directly against your argument that the Turkish Empire was "essentially the same people" as those who began it. The Turkish Empire was led by Turks and non-Turks (albeit not in the primary role of sultan, though some have suggested Roxelena as an Ottoman female ruler given her immense influence on Suleiman, and she was definitely *not* Turkish), and soldiers Turkish and non-Turkish both fought for the Empire.

Never said this. What I said was that the Mongol Empire was Mongol. The Ottoman Empire was Turkish. The nations that made those empires were the Mongols and the Turks, respectively. Yes, the Mongol Empire controlled Persia and Russia, but it does not make it Persian or Russian. The Ottoman Empire controlled Serbia and Greece, but it does not make it Serb or Greek, no matter how important and involved these nations were. Or are you saying that, say, China should not be in the game because it is already represented by Mongolia? I mean, Mongolia did conquer China and rule it as the Yuan dynasty, so why do we need two Chinas? Or maybe we don't need Indonesia because we have the Dutch in the game? What I am merely saying is that when choosing civilizations we should start with the people and then look at the political entities they created. The Mongols are in the game because they created an empire, not because there was an empire that bore their name.

You cite common "culture, language, religion, ethnicity" but not many empires had more than one of those for their entire duration, if that.

That is why I say a civilization does not have to have all of these. Only culture is a must.

A nation can be modern, you say, and you cite America, Australia and Argentina. Gran Colombia checks similar boxes as its own form of modern nation. If you object to it simply because it didn't last long enough, that's a different objection than the one you originally cited, which is the (incorrect) statement that they weren't a nation because they didn't last long. Gran Colombia also hecks boxes 2-6 easily. So again, I have to wonder why you cite the principle of a nation-centric approach when some civs you strongly dislike actually meet your cited criteria.

I did not say Gran Colombia did not meet criteria 2-6. It does. But Gran Colombia does not meet my first criterion. Who are the Gran Colombians? Is there a Gran Colombian culture? There are such things as American culture, Australian culture, Argentine culture. What about Gran Colombia? We have Colombia, we have Venezuela, and they have both went their own separate ways.

 

[Xandinho]

I need to confess that a civ called "Gran Colombia" would be rather strange to have in civilization (after all, it lasted only 10 years), but to lessen this feeling, they can name it for "Colombia". It would still be strange, after all Gran Colombia was more than Colombia, since it included Venezuela, Ecuador...

I still prefer Argentina, because it makes more sense to be in game than Gran Colombia, at least for me. But as civ6 has a design very focused on the leader, I would not be surprised to see Gran Colombia (or only Colombia) in the game. Bolivar has the personality that developers seem to be looking for, he is easily thinkable in unique ability and agenda. And he also seems to carry a great deal of significance for the people of those countries. He is probably the greatest leader that has ever been in South America, let us not forget that iconic leaders are being decisive in the inclusion of a civilization.

 

[Uberfrog]

The difference you cite between Gran Colombia and Mapuche and Scotland has no impact on gameplay, leaving aside the historical implications of your statement which I consider frankly erroneous (Gran Colombia was no more created by the Spanish Empire than the United States of America created by the British Empire--obviously the empires influenced their underlings--but to argue they "created" them is to not understand what "independence" means from a political and cultural standpoint).

I apologise, clearly “created” was the wrong choice of word. Obviously Spain did not create Gran Colombia, but it certainly was responsible for the founding of the colonies that would become that nation.

It is easy to make mechanics alluding to a colonial state breaking away from the empire that created it. Similarly, America in Civ V had minutemen which came from the time America declared independence. Loyalty is an easy way to model such "breaking away from the empire" mechanics. And in any event, Simon Bolivar and his leadership style present numerous opportunities for agendas and bonuses in accordance with his military status.

This is where I disagree. Taking advantage of loyalty, or liberation (similar to @Alexander's Hetaroi ’s concept) would have Bolívar “liberating” other civs cities effectively by stealing them for himself, which isn’t exactly thematic. I think he's better suited as a Great General, perhaps with a more interesting ability. Sure, he would be a great leader personality, but then there are lots of great personalities who will never make the cut as a Civ leader.

 

[IgorS]

I also think that making civilizations based on them having a cool or very important leader is wrong. I mean, Macedon is in the game just so they could add Alexander. It is the same with Attila in Civ V and Charlemagne in Civ IV. Something tells me this is also the case with Tomyris in Civ VI. I doubt we would get the Scythians if they did not have her as a leader.

So as much as Bolivar would be cool in the game, I just don't think Gran Colombia deserves to be a civ. Neither do Colombia and Venezuela. Especially with the Muisca coming from the same region, and being the native population. And unlike the Mapuche, they actually had an empire going on.

 

[Zaarin]

I would tend to agree except in being annoyed that Australia made it in, I now want Gran Colombia as a mollifier.

I'd rather have the Muisca.

 

[Zaarin]

Something tells me this is also the case with Tomyris in Civ VI. I doubt we would get the Scythians if they did not have her as a leader.

Such a shame, too, given how suspect her historicity is--virtually every source but the Tomyris story (including elsewhere in Herodotus) tells us Cyrus died peacefully in bed of old age. Even Herodotus himself, that ancient purveyor of half-truths and bald-faced lies, questions the authenticity of the Tomyris story. That should be telling...I love the idea of having a horse-raiding Iranian civ in game, but it should have been the Parthians, who have better attested leaders, cities, language, better attested just about everything really. Plus the whole Parthian shot thing makes them pretty iconic. (That being said, visually I love Tomyris' design--she's one of the best leader models in the base game IMO.)

 

[Morningcalm]

A nation is a nation, and a political entity is a political entity. I do not mean nation as a state, but rather as a people. In some cases nations create political entities for themselves (Mongolia, for example), in other cases political entities create nations (the United States, for example). Colombia is a nation, Venezuela is a nation, Gran Colombia is merely a political entity that did not have enough time to create a nation. So I'd rather have Bolivar lead Colombia or Venezuela with Gran Colombia a period in their history, just like the Soviet Union is a period in Russian history, and Great Britain a period in English history. And the Holy Roman Empire a period in German history (this is why we have a Holy Roman Emperor as leader of Germany in Civ VI).

If you mean as a people, then say as a people. "Nation" automatically implies nation-state, and is inherently more ambiguous because it can mean "people" or "nation-state". And your example of the Holy Roman Empire is exactly why the Holy Roman Empire can fit your criteria (which puzzles me as to the arguments against it). The "Holy Roman Empire wasn't a "period in German history" anymore than it was a "period in French history" or European history at large for that matter. Same for Gran Colombia, which wasn't a "period in Venezuelan history" alone. Simon Bolivar is, as Xandinho put it correctly, "probably the greatest leader that has ever been in South America". Note, "South America" not just Venezuela. And this is because Gran Colombia was a collection of numerous South American peoples united (however briefly) under the bold visions of an ambitious and highly talented leader who would, as Xandinho also points out correctly, fulfill Civ VI's focus on big personalities with agendas. Was the Roman Empire just a "period in Italian history"? "America as a political entity that became a nation" is too nebulous to mean much. You mean it started as a purely political entity that later became a people? Not quite true--the original American founding fathers at least were quite British-influenced in culture and thought and inherently tied to the motherland (which is why many Americans actually supported the British in the Independence struggle, rather than the American minutemen and shoeless campaigners who joined Washington and somehow won).

Never said this.

Never said this. What I said was that the Mongol Empire was Mongol. The Ottoman Empire was Turkish. The nations that made those empires were the Mongols and the Turks, respectively. Yes, the Mongol Empire controlled Persia and Russia, but it does not make it Persian or Russian. The Ottoman Empire controlled Serbia and Greece, but it does not make it Serb or Greek, no matter how important and involved these nations were. Or are you saying that, say, China should not be in the game because it is already represented by Mongolia? I mean, Mongolia did conquer China and rule it as the Yuan dynasty, so why do we need two Chinas? Or maybe we don't need Indonesia because we have the Dutch in the game? What I am merely saying is that when choosing civilizations we should start with the people and then look at the political entities they created. The Mongols are in the game because they created an empire, not because there was an empire that bore their name.

You did say that (though you didn't use the word "essentially"; that was my memory being faulty--you used the word "basically", which essentially/basically means the same as "essentially". To quote you from page 2 of this thread:

The Mongol and Ottoman empires were Mongol and Turkish. Yes, they did comprise various nations and territories eventually, but initially they were just that - Mongols and Turks, who built an empire. This is the same with every nation that we can call "ethnic" (as opposed to the "non-ethnic" civs, like the Americans or Australians, who are nations nonetheless). This should not be ignored, of course, but a civ should revolve around a nation, not a political entity.

This is absolutely not what I am saying. Because there is another concept - continuity. Mexico and the Aztec Empire are two different nations, so are Rome and Venice, so are Ancient and Modern Egypt, Greece, Israel, etc. Yes, they are basically the same people, but in these cases we are talking about "ancestors" and "heirs".

Kublai Khan's conquest of China wasn't a case where the Mongolian Empire encompassed China only, so that argument fails. Mongolia had many cities far beyond China in that time, even if there was a civil war during Kublai's time because of a division in the Mongolian Empire. And furthermore, I have argued time and again in these forums against Kublai leading the Mongolian Empire (in part to avoid any overlap) anyway. And this example also cuts against your dislike of Goths because they happen to have cities that were in other countries. You were fine with Ottomans and Byzantines being in the same game because their cities had different names even if they were the same places, no?

To address (again) what you said in the quote above from page 2, and your argument along those lines against Gran Colombia on this page (quote below), I will answer both with more arguments about the nebulousness of what is "culture" and "people" and how despite that Gran Colombia can be said to have both a distinct personage and a distinct culture.

I did not say Gran Colombia did not meet criteria 2-6. It does. But Gran Colombia does not meet my first criterion. Who are the Gran Colombians? Is there a Gran Colombian culture? There are such things as American culture, Australian culture, Argentine culture. What about Gran Colombia? We have Colombia, we have Venezuela, and they have both went their own separate ways.

That's easy--Gran Colombians were a collected federation of South Americans led by a Venezuelan. There was a Gran Colombian culture of resistance to imperialism, which was the same spirit that suffused the colonies of Britain (c. 1776 AD) in what later became the United States of America. We know that American culture exists too--but what is that? Does any modern American have a good working definition that is all-encompassing? American culture throughout its history has been varied and its people just as varied. There was arguably as much independent spirit in the American colonies prior to its Declaration of Independence as there was anti-independence spirit. Vis-a-vis Gran Colombia encompassing multiple peoples, see the Holy Roman Empire--they certainly had a distinct culture with united peoples, and their legacy endures. This is why Charlemagne is claimed by both France and Germany as a progenitor "father of the nation" of sorts and the Holy Roman Empire had impact thereby. Odd, when you consider the Holy Roman Empire is just a "political entity".

See, political entities aren't just a collection of paper-pushers who order armies around. They have culture, they have peoples, and so on. Your narrow definition of "nation" implies the people at the top have to have been ethnically from that empire's originators. But that wasn't even true of all Roman emperors, and particularly not true of the so-called "Arabian" empires of Civ IV, V and VI. And yet we know Saladin's sultanate had distinct culture, and distinct culture--in this case, also a "liberator" esque ethnic, though under the name of jihad (though not of the modern, more extremist variety, in many cases).

Gran Colombia wasn't just Colombia and Venezuela splitting ways. That came later. Gran Colombia itself was about unity until it dissipated. But it was still a nation, no matter how short-lived, a nation is a nation. Similarly, Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire was still an empire, no matter how short-lived.

I apologise, clearly “created” was the wrong choice of word. Obviously Spain did not create Gran Colombia, but it certainly was responsible for the founding of the colonies that would become that nation.

Yes, I was a bit puzzled by that, and I appreciate your remarks in that regard.

This is where I disagree. Taking advantage of loyalty, or liberation (similar to @Alexander's Hetaroi ’s concept) would have Bolívar “liberating” other civs cities effectively by stealing them for himself, which isn’t exactly thematic. I think he's better suited as a Great General, perhaps with a more interesting ability. Sure, he would be a great leader personality, but then there are lots of great personalities who will never make the cut as a Civ leader.

Peaceful Civ IV civs did this all the time, and arguably Simon Bolivar's liberation wasn't peaceful anyhow (and to the extent that it was, cultural persuasion by loyalty is a good map gameplay-wise for a leader persuading others to join his political entity). Stealing cities vis-a-vis liberation shouldn't be too troubling either. Especially if it's more peaceful than war and just through loyalty-generating culture, say, and bonuses for having policies of different eras in government? There are numerous bonuses that could fit both Bolivar and Gran Colombia. You ought to remember that he was a military leader as well as a political one, so to the extent loyalty could interact with military actions too, that wouldn't be too untoward.

I also think that making civilizations based on them having a cool or very important leader is wrong. I mean, Macedon is in the game just so they could add Alexander. It is the same with Attila in Civ V and Charlemagne in Civ IV. Something tells me this is also the case with Tomyris in Civ VI. I doubt we would get the Scythians if they did not have her as a leader.

So as much as Bolivar would be cool in the game, I just don't think Gran Colombia deserves to be a civ. Neither do Colombia and Venezuela. Especially with the Muisca coming from the same region, and being the native population. And unlike the Mapuche, they actually had an empire going on.

Alexander being from Macedon was wrong because we already had two Greek leaders. The inclusion of Macedon by and for Alexander was only objectionable because of that. Had we had Macedonia and not Greece, but some distinctly Greek flavor in the civ, I would not have protested. Alexander's "Greek" empire was in fact a Macedonian one from a Macedonian dynasty after all. But this is also a good example of how nebulous cultural and political boundaries are. Alexander also arguably led a Greek empire because he spread Greek culture, Hellenistic culture, by which Macedon was itself greatly influenced in the beginning. Attila is not a good example--the Huns did have an empire. Charlemagne is only a good argument insofar as we already had French and German leaders and didn't necessarily need the overlap from Charlemagne (similar problem to Civ VI's Alexander really). But we don't have that issue with Gran Colombia for example. The Muisca were interesting, but overall to history Gran Colombia and Simon Bolivar had far more impact. I think that ought be a factor considered too, as we can't exactly have both (though I recognize in this regard that I have a blind spot, since I love the Haudenosaunee and would like to see them in Civ despite "America" already being in).

I'd rather have the Muisca.

I'm sure you would. And I would rather have had at least three fewer European nations, and more African/American nations. But alas.

Such a shame, too, given how suspect her historicity is--virtually every source but the Tomyris story (including elsewhere in Herodotus) tells us Cyrus died peacefully in bed of old age. Even Herodotus himself, that ancient purveyor of half-truths and bald-faced lies, questions the authenticity of the Tomyris story. That should be telling...I love the idea of having a horse-raiding Iranian civ in game, but it should have been the Parthians, who have better attested leaders, cities, language, better attested just about everything really. Plus the whole Parthian shot thing makes them pretty iconic. (That being said, visually I love Tomyris' design--she's one of the best leader models in the base game IMO.)

Well Herodotus doesn't question the authenticity of the Tomyris story as such, he in fact said of the story that "Of the many different accounts which are given of the death of Cyrus, this which I have followed appears to me most worthy of credit." https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/tomyris.asp It is true that he said it was one among many stories of Cyrus' death though.

Re: Scythia, they are a worthy nation, but the Massagetae were arguably not even Scythian but Scythian-like so Tomyris would probably not be the best choice of leader for them. Herodotus also says (see Tomyris page above) that "By many they are regarded as a Scythian race...In their dress and mode of living the Massagetai resemble the Scythians..."

And this again leads me to harp on as I have multiple times in this post about how nebulous, how commonly shared, culture is, and what long-lasting impact that can have on how we modern humans perceive these ancient "nations", "people", "empires" and "civilizations". Were the Greeks Macedonian, the Macedonians Greek, the Massagetae Scythian, the Americans British, the Holy Roman Empire French, the Holy Roman Empire German, Gran Colombia Venezuelan, Gran Colombia Colombian, etc.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I wanted to spend some time thinking about this before I voted. The way I see it, as long as we get several more of the older returning and never before seen civs, I'd be happy with getting some modern civs to help fill out the map. Some places like South America could definitely use some more civs even after getting native options like the Inca and Muisca.

I've grown quite interested recently in seeing Gran Colombia or Colombia due to the sheer amount of influence its had for the history of South America with the wars of independence. Sure, it would share a capital with the Muisca, but if the Byzantines and Ottomans can share a capital then so can the Muisca and Colombians. Plus, as many people have said here already, Simon Bolivar would be such a cool leader to have in the game. It shouldn't be hard to think of an agenda for him!

After getting at least a few more native NA civs, Canada makes sense as a worthy addition. It is one of the most prosperous modern nations and (while it has many acceptable English-speaking leader choices) Samuel de Champlain would be fun to give it more of a French and exploration focus.

To get some more South American civs in here, I also voted for Argentina. It is a fairly prosperous nation and is noted for having quite the educated populace as far as Latin American countries go. I'm not 100% certain of who I'd want the leader to be yet but some the interesting top choices to me are Jose de San Martin, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, and Arturo Umberto Illia. Eva Peron isn't my first, second, or third choice but I can understand some of her appeal as an icon and spiritual leader of the nation.


Honorable Mentions:

As far as modern African civs go, the most interesting to me is Botswana. Seretse Khama is a pretty fascinating leader who deserves more recognition. Not only did he lead the independence movement but with his presidency he transformed Botswana from one of poorest countries in the world to one of the fastest growing economies with a strong, stable democratic government and low corruption. It also helps that Botswana has a pretty cool emblem too!

Uruguay is the next modern SA civ I'd want. I like it for similar reasons to Botswana: economic growth, low corruption, being a very prosperous modern nation, etc. My leader choice would probably be Jose Gervasio Artigas.

Nigeria definitely deserves credit due to its large economy and Obafemi Awolowo's public policies. The only thing I'd be apprehensive of is if Firaxis decided to make an official Benin Empire civ but call it Nigeria.

South Africa is another strong contender. Nelson Mandela is definitely quite a leader but he did die rather recently.

Kenya lead by Jomo Kenyatta could make for an interesting choice to represent modern eastern Africa.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wanted to spend some time thinking about this before I voted. The way I see it, as long as we get several more of the older returning and never before seen civs, I'd be happy with getting some modern civs to help fill out the map. Some places like South America could definitely use some more civs even after getting native options like the Inca and Muisca.

I've grown quite interested recently in seeing Gran Colombia or Colombia due to the sheer amount of influence its had for the history of South America with the wars of independence. Sure, it would share a capital with the Muisca, but if the Byzantines and Ottomans can share a capital then so can the Muisca and Colombians. Plus, as many people have said here already, Simon Bolivar would be such a cool leader to have in the game. It shouldn't be hard to think of an agenda for him!

After getting at least a few more native NA civs, Canada makes sense as a worthy addition. It is one of the most prosperous modern nations and (while it has many acceptable English-speaking leader choices) Samuel de Champlain would be fun to give it more of a French and exploration focus.

To get some more South American civs in here, I also voted for Argentina. It is a fairly prosperous nation and is noted for having quite the educated populace as far as Latin American countries go. I'm not 100% certain of who I'd want the leader to be yet but some the interesting top choices to me are Jose de San Martin, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, and Arturo Umberto Illia. Eva Peron isn't my first, second, or third choice but I can understand some of her appeal as an icon and spiritual leader of the nation.

These were definitely my reasonings. As for the Muisca, the name for Bogota was called Bacata in their language, so they could definitely use that name while Gran Colombia would use the name Bogota. Even so they could go with another leader as there was a separate northern capital as well.
I also would like to see possibly a French speaking leader if we do indeed get Canada, since the only French speaking leader we have right now also speaks some Italian.
As for Argentina I would kind of only like it if we do get Eva Peron. I know she never officially lead, but it would be interesting. I might have the Madonna portrayal of her on my mind because I would want her defeat screen telling her people not to cry for her.

As for Africa though I would much rather them focus on pre-colonial peoples rather than modern nations. The only one I could think off the top of my head would be Nigeria, and that would only be if we don't get Benin/Ashanti or any other African West Coast people.

 

[IgorS]

If you mean as a people, then say as a people. "Nation" automatically implies nation-state, and is inherently more ambiguous because it can mean "people" or "nation-state".

I said it many times. When I say nation in relation to Civ, I mean a people, not a state. I thought I made it clear.

And your example of the Holy Roman Empire is exactly why the Holy Roman Empire can fit your criteria (which puzzles me as to the arguments against it). The "Holy Roman Empire wasn't a "period in German history" anymore than it was a "period in French history" or European history at large for that matter. Same for Gran Colombia, which wasn't a "period in Venezuelan history" alone. Simon Bolivar is, as Xandinho put it correctly, "probably the greatest leader that has ever been in South America". Note, "South America" not just Venezuela. And this is because Gran Colombia was a collection of numerous South American peoples united (however briefly) under the bold visions of an ambitious and highly talented leader who would, as Xandinho also points out correctly, fulfill Civ VI's focus on big personalities with agendas.

The Holy Roman Empire was a period in German history, as well as French history, Austrian history, Italian history, and more, but since it was focused around what is now Germany and Austria we have Barbarossa as leader of Germany, and not France. As great as Bolivar was, and as influential as he was, it still does not mean Gran Colombia should be a civilization in the game. Colombia or Venezuela? OK. Gran Colombia - no.

Was the Roman Empire just a "period in Italian history"?

Yes and no. The Romans and modern Italians are distinct enough to view Rome as a separate thing. Again, as I said, every case should be viewed separately. There is a reason why it is OK to have an ancient and a modern leader for China, but not, say, Egypt. But this is getting really off-topic and has nothing to do with Gran Colombia.

"America as a political entity that became a nation" is too nebulous to mean much. You mean it started as a purely political entity that later became a people? Not quite true--the original American founding fathers at least were quite British-influenced in culture and thought and inherently tied to the motherland (which is why many Americans actually supported the British in the Independence struggle, rather than the American minutemen and shoeless campaigners who joined Washington and somehow won).

Did I say America became a nation in 1776? No, I didn't. America became a nation with time, during the 19th and 20th centuries. This is why I am saying that Gran Colombia being a short-lived entity makes them a bad choice for a civ.

And this example also cuts against your dislike of Goths because they happen to have cities that were in other countries. You were fine with Ottomans and Byzantines being in the same game because their cities had different names even if they were the same places, no?

What dislike of the Goths? I said I was OK with a possible Goth civilization, but the problem is that they would have the same cities as other civs, which could be a bit confusing.

That's easy--Gran Colombians were a collected federation of South Americans led by a Venezuelan. There was a Gran Colombian culture of resistance to imperialism, which was the same spirit that suffused the colonies of Britain (c. 1776 AD) in what later became the United States of America. We know that American culture exists too--but what is that? Does any modern American have a good working definition that is all-encompassing? American culture throughout its history has been varied and its people just as varied.

Why do you need a good working definition? You know there is such a thing. What else do you need? American culture is a thing. What about a "Gran Colombian culture"?

This is why Charlemagne is claimed by both France and Germany as a progenitor "father of the nation" of sorts and the Holy Roman Empire had impact thereby. Odd, when you consider the Holy Roman Empire is just a "political entity".

Nothing odd about that. Charlemagne created an empire that later created France and Germany. France became its own thing, Germany became its own thing. Of course they regard Charlemagne as a father of both nations. It still does not make the Holy Roman Empire a nation, just a weird political entity that had lots of political impact on various nations of Europe that lived under it.

See, political entities aren't just a collection of paper-pushers who order armies around. They have culture, they have peoples, and so on. Your narrow definition of "nation" implies the people at the top have to have been ethnically from that empire's originators. But that wasn't even true of all Roman emperors, and particularly not true of the so-called "Arabian" empires of Civ IV, V and VI. And yet we know Saladin's sultanate had distinct culture, and distinct culture--in this case, also a "liberator" esque ethnic, though under the name of jihad (though not of the modern, more extremist variety, in many cases).

I never said that it was the people at the top. It was about the people in general. The Mongol empire was the empire of the Mongols. Yes, it had many places outside Mongolia under its domain (to say the least), but a civilization in the game does not represent the Mongol empire, it represent the Mongol people, who are in the game because they have created an empire.

Gran Colombia wasn't just Colombia and Venezuela splitting ways. That came later. Gran Colombia itself was about unity until it dissipated. But it was still a nation, no matter how short-lived, a nation is a nation. Similarly, Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire was still an empire, no matter how short-lived.

Did I say that the Palmyrene empire wasn't an empire? I didn't. It was an empire, for the brief time it existed. Gran Colombia was a country, until it broke up. You keep bringing up the same names of Bolivar, Zenobia, and Charles the Great, so I think you just want to see those leaders in the game. I care more about the civilizations themselves. I'd rather have an influential civilization with a long history, but with a virtually unknown leader than a short-lived one with a super influential leader. Civilizations are about the people, not about the leaders for me.

Attila is not a good example--the Huns did have an empire.

It is a good example, because the Huns were a flawed civilization lacking city names. For me, it is a big deal and a real game breaker.

The Muisca were interesting, but overall to history Gran Colombia and Simon Bolivar had far more impact.

That is not a quite fair thing to say. It is not like they had equal conditions to influence the world.

 

[Patine]

I also would like to see possibly a French speaking leader if we do indeed get Canada, since the only French speaking leader we have right now also speaks some Italian.

As a Canadian myself, the greatest Canadian leader, in my opinion, Lester B. Pearson, was not a Francophone - (although he was very likely fluent in French as a leader of the Liberal Party of Canada) - I think William Lyon Mackenzie King, Wilfred Laurier, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Diefenbaker, and John A. MacDonald are highly overrated, often, strangely, by non-Canadians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As a Canadian myself, the greatest Canadian leader, in my opinion, Lester B. Pearson, was not a Francophone - (although he was very likely fluent in French as a leader of the Liberal Party of Canada) - I think William Lyon Mackenzie King, Wilfred Laurier, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Diefenbaker, and John A. MacDonald are highly overrated, often, strangely, by non-Canadians.

I just think it would make Canada more unique than America and Australia. I agree Pearson could be a good choice as well. Maybe letting him speak some French would work.

 

[Zaarin]

As a Canadian myself, the greatest Canadian leader, in my opinion, Lester B. Pearson, was not a Francophone - (although he was very likely fluent in French as a leader of the Liberal Party of Canada) - I think William Lyon Mackenzie King, Wilfred Laurier, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Diefenbaker, and John A. MacDonald are highly overrated, often, strangely, by non-Canadians.

I think Champlain is appealing, though, because 1) it prevents Canada from being yet another Anglophone former British colony (I mean, why don't we just add New Zealand, South Africa, the Bahamas, the Isle of Mann, and Belize while we're at it... ) and 2) giving Canada a 17th century leader prevents it from being yet another modern nation (even though it's still too modern, IMO).

 

[Morningcalm]

I said it many times. When I say nation in relation to Civ, I mean a people, not a state. I thought I made it clear.

Not quite. Because one of your examples of a civ that is ok is America--which is defined by its statehood more than its peoplehood--because, unlike other examples you gave, i.e. Mongols/Ottoman Turks, the Americans most certainly were not led by "basically the same people" throughout their history.

The Holy Roman Empire was a period in German history, as well as French history, Austrian history, Italian history, and more, but since it was focused around what is now Germany and Austria we have Barbarossa as leader of Germany, and not France. As great as Bolivar was, and as influential as he was, it still does not mean Gran Colombia should be a civilization in the game. Colombia or Venezuela? OK. Gran Colombia - no.

The Holy Roman Empire was not "focused around what is now Germany and Austria" except in terms of modern-day territory. In actual substance, the Holy Roman Empire then was not any more like modern-day Germany than it was like modern-day France, Italy or Spain. Not just due to the gap in years, but due to the gap in culture. Barbarossa never knew an entity as "Germany" in his time, let alone command U-boats. I think your view that Simon Bolivar must necessarily lead Colombia or Venezuela but not both is also narrow in a rather silly way. Just as the Roman Empire encompassed territory in what are now many different countries, so too did Gran Colombia.

Yes and no. The Romans and modern Italians are distinct enough to view Rome as a separate thing. Again, as I said, every case should be viewed separately. There is a reason why it is OK to have an ancient and a modern leader for China, but not, say, Egypt. But this is getting really off-topic and has nothing to do with Gran Colombia.

And along that line of reasoning re: ancient Rome and "modern" Italians, how on Earth is the Holy Roman Empire and modern Germany not distinct enough to view them as separate civs? I fail to see how this is off-topic. We are discussing modern nations. That the discussion happens to look to ancient ones for contrast and comparison (and even then, only to counter arguments that civs must be based on "nations" is hardly "off-topic".

Did I say America became a nation in 1776? No, I didn't. America became a nation with time, during the 19th and 20th centuries. This is why I am saying that Gran Colombia being a short-lived entity makes them a bad choice for a civ.

America, however, cuts against your overall narrow description of only nations being fit to count as civs, because, as I mentioned earlier, America was never led by "basically the same people". Being a short-lived entity doesn't make any civ a bad choice. We've had plenty of interesting civs in Civilization that were short-lived.

What dislike of the Goths? I said I was OK with a possible Goth civilization, but the problem is that they would have the same cities as other civs, which could be a bit confusing.

No, what you said is this: "My only objection to the Goths is that they overlap too much with Spain, France, and Rome city-names-wise. I mean, this is not like the Turks and Byzantines who have the same cities, but with different names, so it is OK, with the Goths the city names are pretty much the same. Other than that, they could be interesting." In my view, regardless of any potential confusion, Goths are as worthy a civ as any other. Particularly since you are fine with Ottoman Turkey and Byzantium and Rome and they all have plenty of overlap between the three of them.

Why do you need a good working definition? You know there is such a thing. What else do you need? American culture is a thing. What about a "Gran Colombian culture"?

Asked and answered. As I said earlier: "Gran Colombians were a collected federation of South Americans led by a Venezuelan. There was a Gran Colombian culture of resistance to imperialism, which was the same spirit that suffused the colonies of Britain (c. 1776 AD) in what later became the United States of America. We know that American culture exists too--but what is that? Does any modern American have a good working definition that is all-encompassing? American culture throughout its history has been varied and its people just as varied. There was arguably as much independent spirit in the American colonies prior to its Declaration of Independence as there was anti-independence spirit. Vis-a-vis Gran Colombia encompassing multiple peoples, see the Holy Roman Empire--they certainly had a distinct culture with united peoples, and their legacy endures."

Your inability to provide a working definition of what American culture or people or what a "nation" is points exactly to my argument that you should drop this narrow "nation" definition of a civilization--too narrow, unworkable historically, and way too difficult to explain how one civ seems right while another doesn't. If you can't define the American people or culture but are ok with them, I fail to see how anyone's inability to define the Gran Colombian people or culture would make them somehow excluded from civ status either (and more to the point, I provided a definition of Gran Colombian culture and people anyhow.) And this is why I prefer your idea that we should look at civs on a case by case basis rather than insisting they must be based on a "nation" (whether you prefer to use that as an ethnic term i.e. Mongolia or a nation-state term like with America is now murky to me).

Nothing odd about that. Charlemagne created an empire that later created France and Germany. France became its own thing, Germany became its own thing. Of course they regard Charlemagne as a father of both nations. It still does not make the Holy Roman Empire a nation, just a weird political entity that had lots of political impact on various nations of Europe that lived under it.

So Charlemagne's empire was a "weird political entity that had lots of political impact on various nations of Europe that lived under it"? No, it was an empire with dynasties like any other. And certainly at least as much an empire as the Persian Empire, which wasn't even quite an empire in the strict sense given that it was more a "confederation of allied states". According to historian and writer Tom Holland, "The Roman approach, of course, was to encourage those they had conquered to identify with their conquerors, so that ultimately everyone within the borders of the Roman Empire came to consider themselves to be Romans. Persians went for a very different approach, in that the method that the Persian kings liked to employ with those they conquered was to encourage the elites, in particular, to collaborate. So as long as you paid your taxes, and you didn't revolt, then you'd pretty much be left alone." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/art...sode-transcript-episode-26-oxus-chariot-model So what was the Persian Empire if not a "weird political entity that had lots of political impact on various nations" that lived under it, too?

And for that matter, isn't America just like that--a "weird political entity that had lots of political impact on various nations"?

I never said that it was the people at the top. It was about the people in general. The Mongol empire was the empire of the Mongols. Yes, it had many places outside Mongolia under its domain (to say the least), but a civilization in the game does not represent the Mongol empire, it represent the Mongol people, who are in the game because they have created an empire.

I contest you saying "I never said it was the people at the top". You did, actually. When I pointed out how multiethnic and diverse the Ottoman and Mongolians Empires were, you struggled to then fit them into your (seemingly ethnic) definition of a nation and said this: "The Ottoman Empire included many other non-Turkish territories, yes, but who ruled the empire? It was the Turks. The Ottoman Empire was ruled by Turkish leaders from their capital in Turkey. The Janissaries being non-Turkish has nothing to do with it, it is just one feature of the empire that makes them unique in their own way. I am not saying that such facts should be ignored. I am just saying that each of those empires still revolved around a certain nation that had founded it."

So you *do* (at least in that quote) seem to care about "the people at the top". And for the record, so do the Civ VI designers. The designers literally came right out and said the game would involve "big personalities".

Did I say that the Palmyrene empire wasn't an empire? I didn't. It was an empire, for the brief time it existed. Gran Colombia was a country, until it broke up. You keep bringing up the same names of Bolivar, Zenobia, and Charles the Great, so I think you just want to see those leaders in the game. I care more about the civilizations themselves. I'd rather have an influential civilization with a long history, but with a virtually unknown leader than a short-lived one with a super influential leader. Civilizations are about the people, not about the leaders for me.

Right, so the Palmyrenes should be in, and the Gran Colombians should be in. Both empire and country fit working definitions of nation in those cases. And you yourself admitted Gran Colombia checked off all but one of the criteria you listed anyway. I think having important or influential leaders is key to Civ, but not required--one of those things we ought to seek where we can, but not at the expense of common sense, though there are few cases where some civ idea based on a historical people or political entity wouldn't make some kind of sense.

It is a good example, because the Huns were a flawed civilization lacking city names. For me, it is a big deal and a real game breaker.

The Scythians were definitely a nation in terms of "people" (however loosely organized they ever were), and yet also lack city names. Doesn't mean they didn't have them historically--just means that in pure gameplay terms they are somewhat tricky. But that makes them no less a nation than any other entity. Greeks. Mayans. "Americans". "Arabians".

That is not a quite fair thing to say. It is not like they had equal conditions to influence the world.

Neither did Gran Colombia and ancient China, or any two sets of peoples really. I think it's undeniable Gran Colombia had far more impact. If you find historical arguments stating otherwise, I'm all ears. I love Native American tribes, but in this case I think Gran Colombia takes priority over the Muisca. It is too fundamental and influential on the nations that now occupy Gran Colombia's territories, and on their people too. The Muisca, by contrast, were an interesting but ultimately uninfluential people, at least as far as I can see so far (and I've researched them admittedly only a bit).

 

[Patine]

I think Champlain is appealing, though, because 1) it prevents Canada from being yet another Anglophone former British colony (I mean, why don't we just add New Zealand, South Africa, the Bahamas, the Isle of Mann, and Belize while we're at it... ) and 2) giving Canada a 17th century leader prevents it from being yet another modern nation (even though it's still too modern, IMO).

Champlain was NOT a leader of Canada, as a nation - he was the French colonial governor of New France and a vassal (read employee, or servant - much more literally than British, Canadian, and Australian politicians and civil servants today being "in Her Majesty's Service,") of the King of France. This would be no more appropriate or true to the theme or view of the nation than having John Winthrop as an alternate leader for the American civ.

 

[Patine]

Neither did Gran Colombia and ancient China, or any two sets of peoples really. I think it's undeniable Gran Colombia had far more impact. If you find historical arguments stating otherwise, I'm all ears. I love Native American tribes, but in this case I think Gran Colombia takes priority over the Muisca. It is too fundamental and influential on the nations that now occupy Gran Colombia's territories, and on their people too. The Muisca, by contrast, were an interesting but ultimately uninfluential people, at least as far as I can see so far (and I've researched them admittedly only a bit).

But the Musica had some interesting elements that would make them more interesting for Civ game purposes than Gran Colombia. I mean they're early salt trade (by skimming swamp water, not by mining), their mummification ritual, their early almost federal system of governance where local city and town caciques shared power with the zipa and zaque at the national level, their advanced city planning, etc. could be great grist for UI, UU, and other unique factors for the civ. Gran Colombia, in THOSE ways, wasn't a lot different than Brazil or Mexico, in their day and age.

 

[Morningcalm]

But the Musica had some interesting elements that would make them more interesting for Civ game purposes than Gran Colombia. I mean they're early salt trade (by skimming swamp water, not by mining), their mummification ritual, their early almost federal system of governance where local city and town caciques shared power with the zipa and zaque at the national level, their advanced city planning, etc. could be great grist for UI, UU, and other unique factors for the civ. Gran Colombia, in THOSE ways, wasn't a lot different than Brazil or Mexico, in their day and age.

Certainly the Muisca would be interesting; I just think the Gran Colombian state represents interesting political/government/military/loyalty bonus possibilities (which to me seem more interesting than any possible Muisca bonuses). Gran Colombia also has the benefit of a tie to an amazing, iconic leader whose influence in South America is still felt today in a way arguably more potent than even Charlemagne in France and Germany. As far as salt trade, we have Mali, for advanced city planning, many civs are possibilities, and frankly their leaders, while certainly interesting (and discussed in other threads) don't seem as iconic or "big" in terms of personality as Simon Bolivar. I think if ever he was to appear as a leader in a Civ game, it should be in Civ VI which focuses on big personalities and agendas.