What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?

[Pangur Bán]

What is a barbarian but an "uncivilized" person. And what is "uncivilized" but a purely social construct, defined by the cultural context as to where a person lived and grew up.

What is truly uncivilized is a society without any social constructs, without a definition of what is the "right" way of living. Hence there are no such things as uncivilized societies.

Of course, the "right" way is not always a "good" way. Roman civilization was more comfortable than Gaelic civilization, yet both were civilized in their own ways.

"Barbarian" is really just an elevated way of saying "foreigner" or "outsider"; e.g. in the early and high middle ages the Welsh called the English barbarians, and the English likewise called the Welsh that, though from our point of view in the modern world their civilizations were identical in developmental levels.

A Roman living as an aristocrat in Rome or Antioch was of course more comfortable that a Gael from central Scotland or Ireland, but of course 99.9% of Romans led lives just about as comfortable as 99.9% of Gaels. Of course the Gaels were the most literate people in the early medieval West (who were the Frankish emperors turning to for instance?), so if they were "barbarians" in our sense, the French, Germans, Spanish and Vikings were "savages".

 

[flyingchicken]

Yep. So everyone's a barbarian ROAR I'M GONNA DRINK YOUR BLOOD

 

[WingedPaladin]

Not really comparable.Polynesians share a common origin and to some extent even today a common culture and language group, to a much greater extent than Native Americans or even "Celts". As it appears the Native Americans will be a civ, and the "Celts" (in fairness the developers meant Gauls rather than Celts) are already are one, I wouldn't go too much by this logic.

BTW, the civilization franchise is at the lowbrow end of the historical simulation market; it is intended as a fun strategy game .. which it is; it is not and never has been an in depth historical simulation. If you want higher brow historical simulation, play paradox games like Europa Universalis II, Hearts of Iron and Crusader Kings.

Anyways, on the Polynesians again, no individual Polynesian culture is significantly more important than the rest. Polynesians should only get in the game in my POV only as Polynesians; the only possible exception to that I'd say would be Maoris, but even then I would regard this a an imperfect waste.

Europeans share a common origin don't they? Asians too? Many of them look the same and have similar customs. Is any one European culture "significantly more important than the rest"? I have mentioned in a previous post how some civilizations in Polynesia had a greater impact on the world than others. I've also mentioned how the civilizations in Polynesia look different from one another. Many Native American tribes on the continental US didn't have a government that the world recognized as an established government when the Europeans invaded. Many of the civilizations of Polynesia did. "Polynesians" never existed as a civilization and government called Polynesians but as Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, etc. What I am suggesting is that Civ IV be true to form in recognizing the civilizations and their leaders and not glop it together according to region which advances the ignorance of the distinct civilizations and cultures within Polynesia.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Europeans share a common origin don't they? Asians too? Many of them look the same and have similar customs. Is any one European culture "significantly more important than the rest"? I have mentioned in a previous post how some civilizations in Polynesia had a greater impact on the world than others. Many Native American tribes on the continental US didn't have a government that the world recognized as an established government when the Europeans invaded. The civilizations of Polynesia did. "Polynesians" never existed as a civilization and government called Polynesians but as Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, etc. What I am suggesting is that Civ IV be true to form in recognizing the civilizations and their leaders and not glop it together according to region which advances the ignorance of the distinct civilizations and cultures within Polynesia.

Most of the world didn't know about Native Americans, as most of the world were peasants in Asia. All native Americans had government! Sorry to tell you, there was no utopian anarchist fantasies in operation in the Americas. Countries ... or rather local commanders from European countries ... "recognized" the states it was convenient to "recognize"; Polynesians such the Maori were treated little differently from, say, the Nez Perce or Chinook peoples of the Pacific north-west (Native Americans encountered at roughly the same time and in the same circumstances as these Polynesians).

Of course Europeans have common ancestry. Polynesians can be compared to Romance peoples, French, Spanish, etc; difference is no individual Polynesian island or archipelago culture is very important individually; but the Polynesians, colonizing so many oceanic islands at such distance are important. Simple as that. That's the difference.

 

[WingedPaladin]

Most of the world didn't know about Native Americans, as most of the world were peasants in Asia. All native Americans had government! Sorry to tell you, there was no utopian anarchist fantasies in operation in the Americas. Countries ... or rather local commanders from European countries ... "recognized" the states it was convenient to "recognize"; Polynesians such the Maori were treated little differently from, say, the Nez Perce or Chinook peoples of the Pacific north-west (Native Americans encountered at roughly the same time and in the same circumstances as these Polynesians).

Of course Europeans have common ancestry. Polynesians can be compared to Romance peoples, French, Spanish, etc; difference is no individual Polynesian island or archipelago culture is very important individually; but the Polynesians, colonizing so many oceanic islands at such distance are important. Simple as that. That's the difference.

Not important to you I would say. Come to the Pacific Rim. Then it becomes extremely important. To say that the Hawaiians individually weren't important to the US or the British or the Japanese or that the Maoris individually weren't important to the Australians would be ignorance.

Yes, I know all of the Native Americans had a government. However, most of them were disregarded by the Europeans due to the lack of documentation recognized, land boundaries, and seen as roaming barbarians. Due to the distinct land boundaries held by the civilizations in Polynesians being islands this distinction between civilizations could not be missed.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Not important to you I would say. Come to the Pacific Rim. Then it becomes extremely important. To say that the Hawaiians individually weren't important to the US or the British or the Japanese or that the Maoris individually weren't important to the Australians would be ignorance.

It's nothing to do with me ... there are only 7 civs in the new xp. Are you seriously arguing that any Polynesian archipelago or island culture is important enough in the international historical context to take one of these places? Not feasible. The Polynesians in general are feasible however.

Not important to you I would say. Come to the Pacific Rim. Then it becomes extremely important. To say that the Hawaiians individually weren't important to the US or the British or the Japanese or that the Maoris individually weren't important to the Australians would be ignorance.

Yes, I know all of the Native Americans had a government. However, most of them were disregarded by the Europeans due to the lack of documentation recognized, land boundaries, and seen as roaming barbarians. Due to the distinct land boundaries held by the civilizations in Polynesians being islands this distinction between civilizations could not be missed.

What is the point of this in relation to your general argument?

 

[WingedPaladin]

It's nothing to do with me ... there are only 7 civs in the new xp. Are you seriously arguing that any Polynesian archipelago or island culture is important enough in the international historical context to take one of these places? Not feasible. The Polynesians in general are feasible however.

What is the point of this in relation to your general argument?

Well, the Celts were feasible, the Zulus were feasible. With the large impact the Hawaiians have had on the countries of the Pacific Rim, why wouldn't they as a civilization be feasible? If "Polynesians" is feasible, then "Asians" and "Europeans" should be feasible as civilizations. I'm saying the idea of "Polynesians" as a civilization to someone living in Polynesia is funny.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, the Celts were feasible, the Zulus were feasible. With the large impact the Hawaiians have had on the countries of the Pacific Rim, why wouldn't they as a civilization be feasible? If "Polynesians" is feasible, then "Asians" and "Europeans" should be feasible as civilizations. I'm saying the idea of "Polynesians" as a civilization to someone living in Polynesia is funny.

Not the same. Asians and Europeans are geographically based concepts. An Indian has almost nothing to do with an Israeli or Mongolian. The Polynesians are not a geographical concept ... but a cultural concept, a people who in the west's middle ages spread from a common origin point and settled in island environments all over the Pacific.

The Zulu are an idiosyncrasy kept in the game because they've always been there. Not sure you can compare the Celts to the culture of Hawaii ... a fitting comparison would be Lordship of the Isles, similar in size and regional impact. The Celts as a whole dominated most of western and central Europe for more than half a millenium, and remained in Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Wales and western England into the middle ages and beyond ... though the "Celts" in Civ 4 refer only to the Gauls. And no, I don't think the Gauls should be in Civ 4 ... but there you go, it's already done.

 

[WingedPaladin]

Not the same. Asians and Europeans are geographically based concepts. An Indian has almost nothing to do with an Israeli or Mongolian. The Polynesians are not a geographical concept ... but a cultural concept, a people who in the west's middle ages spread from a common origin point and settled in island environments all over the Pacific.

The Zulu are an idiosyncrasy kept in the game because they've always been there. Not sure you can compare the Celts to the culture of Hawaii ... a fitting comparison would be Lordship of the Isles, similar in size and regional impact. The Celts as a whole dominated most of western and central Europe for more than half a millenium, and remained in Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Wales and western England into the middle ages and beyond ... though the "Celts" in Civ 4 refer only to the Gauls. And no, I don't think the Gauls should be in Civ 4 ... but there you go, it's already done.

Are you kidding? Your post is oozing with ignorance. The points of the Polynesian Triangle are Hawaii, New Zealand and Easter Island.

Thus the civilizations within that triangle are in the geographical Polynesian region.

Hawaiian diplomats traveled to the US, Asia, and Europe and to other countries around the globe before the United States government took over. Hawaiians didn't go to war with outside countries, but the cultural impact is huge. Japanese have hula competitions in Japan for crying out loud! The Chinese want their own polynesian cultural center. Where do you think the Californians got their idea to surf?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Are you kidding? Your post is oozing with ignorance. The points of the Polynesian Triangle are Hawaii, New Zealand and Easter Island.

Thus the civilizations within that triangle are in the geographical Polynesian region.

Erm ... the triangle is named after the Polynesians, not the other way around.

Are you kidding? Your post is oozing with ignorance.

Ok, goodbye. I'm not gonna talk to you any more if you're gonna be like that.

 

[WingedPaladin]

Erm ... the triangle is named after the Polynesians, not the other way around.

"Polynesia" is a Greek word meaning "many islands"

Ok, goodbye. I'm not gonna talk to you any more if you're gonna be like that.

I'm sorry to offend you. I am a Hawaiian and I'm being told my culture and heritage is insignificant. I am also Chinese, English, Irish, Scottish, and French. My husband is also Hawaiian AND Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, Portugese, etc. and I'm being told Hawaiians are insignificant internationally.

 

[JuanM]

For starters, we need:

Polynesians
Indonesia
Siam
Burma
Viet Nam
Babylon
Byzantine Empire
Lydia
Phrygia
Hittites
Armenia
Phoenicia
Israel
Mahgreb
Ethiopia
Kongo
Zimbabwe
Portugal
Switzerland
Italy
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Hungary
Serbia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Romania
Scotland
Ireland
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Ukraine
Lithuania
Poland
Bohemia
Mayas
Canada
Australia
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia

 

[WingedPaladin]

Remember, Polynesia is a region not a civilization so split Polynesian into:

Hawaiian
Maori
Tongan
Samoan
Tahitian
Fijian

Above are what I'd consider to be the most dominant civilizations in the Polynesian region. Others include:

Marquesas
Cook Islanders
Kiribati
Rapa Nui

 

[seasnake]

I think everybody has a lot of regional pride, and wants to represent. My theory as that if they can have a "Native Americans" civ, why not have a "Pacific Islanders" Civ as well?
My guess is there are going to be two leaders for Native Americans, Sitting Bull and Hiawatha, so you can sort of play as Sioux and Iroquois, in a way. Why not have two leaders from opposite ends of the Polynesian triangle, maybe New Zealand and Hawaiian?
It isn't as great as having a distinctly Hawaiian Civ, but that's what mods are for. I think if Pacific Islanders are in there, it'd be a step in the right direction.

Sorry to horn in on a private conversation, obviously not too sorry ...

 

[JuanM]

Yes, some of those islands were cut off from each other, but they do share a number of cultural characteristics. Besides, you could also dismember every other civ down to cities and towns if you were to apply the same principles to them. "Polynesians" is the only reasonable way to include them in the game.

 

[WingedPaladin]

Yes, some of those islands were cut off from each other, but they do share a number of cultural characteristics. Besides, you could also dismember every other civ down to cities and towns if you were to apply the same principles to them. "Polynesians" is the only reasonable way to include them in the game.

Hawaii, Tonga, and New Zealand are not "cities and towns" but were/are countries. They aren't as similar as you assume them to be.

 

[seasnake]

WingedPaladin,

What would the UU/UB be for Pacific Islanders? My wife is a huge rugby fan, she wants it to be a rugby pitch instead of a colliseum (she says rugby is the sport in the Islands, I wouldn't know myself). As for UU, I can't think of anything.

 

[JuanM]

Hawaii, Tonga, and New Zealand are not "cities and towns" but were/are countries.

As were Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, Brandenburg, Palatinate. Or Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples. Or Athens, Sparta, Syracusse, Crotona, Ephesus.

Yet we don't have a civ for each of them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

"Polynesia" is a Greek word meaning "many islands"

Yeah ... ?

I'm sorry to offend you. I am a Hawaiian and I'm being told my culture and heritage is insignificant. I am also Chinese, English, Irish, Scottish, and French. My husband is also Hawaiian AND Filipino, Chinese, Spanish, Portugese, etc. and I'm being told Hawaiians are insignificant internationally.

You didn't offend me, just don't wanna talk to people with those kind of manners. Anyways, no-one said Hawaiian culture is insignificant, just not significant on the kind of stage many see as needed for inclusion in Civ 4. Plenty of Canadians are arguing on different threads that Canada shouldn't be a civ, but they aren't complaining that their nation is being disrespected.

Hawaii is just smaller than, for instance, the medieval mormaerdom of Ross, and being geographically isolated until Europeans came, had no significant impact on any other county's history, never mind world history in general (if arguably influencing a few aspects of modern pop culture and diplomatic contact with a few countries hungry to eat it up is the limit of Hawaiian contributions to civilization, then there'd be more argument for a Cuban civilization). Native Hawaiians are happy to be regarded as Polynesians (e.g. here), and I'm afraid no Polynesian island or island group is quite got the historical muscle to get into such a limited list on any traditional argument. I think you're being over ambitious on this one. The only more localized Polynesian culture I might approve of for the game is, like I said, the Maoris, but even then I'd much much rather prefer the Polynesians.

As to UU, some kind of boat would be good. That was the UU in some of the civ 3 mods. I remember that in at least one it was an ocean going ship available very early, but one that only moved one square per turn. That wouldn't be too overpowered for civ 4, would it?

 

[WingedPaladin]

Yeah ... ?

You didn't offend me, just don't wanna talk to people with those kind of manners. Anyways, no-one said Hawaiian culture is insignificant, just not significant on the kind of stage many see as needed for inclusion in Civ 4. Plenty of Canadians are arguing on different threads that Canada shouldn't be a civ, but they aren't complaining that their nation is being disrespected.

Hawaii is just smaller than, for instance, the medieval mormaerdom of Ross, and being geographically isolated until Europeans came, had no significant impact on any other county's history, never mind world history in general (if arguably influencing a few aspects of modern pop culture and diplomatic contact with a few countries hungry to eat it up is the limit of Hawaiian contributions to civilization, then there'd be more argument for a Cuban civilization). Native Hawaiians are happy to be regarded as Polynesians (e.g. here), and I'm afraid no Polynesian island or island group is quite got the historical muscle to get into such a limited list on any traditional argument. I think you're being over ambitious on this one. The only more localized Polynesian culture I might approve of for the game is, like I said, the Maoris, but even then I'd much much rather prefer the Polynesians.

I'm saying Europeans named the region Polynesia, not the people whom they found there.

During the 18th century, Hawaii became a major source of Sandalwood until that source was depleted. As a result of this export, many Hawaiians starved to death since they were ordered to leave the fields to cut down and drag the Sandalwood from the mountains. Hawaii was also a stop used by many whalers and sailors.

During the 19th century and early 20th century, Hawaii became a major exporter of sugar and pineapple. Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Portuguese and others from Southeast Asia sailed to Hawaii to work in the fields. Due to Hawaii's key location, millions of people from all over the world have come here and continue to come here and experience the culture of the Hawaiian people.

I grew up in the town in which the Polynesian Cultural Center is located. Presidents of the US, leaders and diplomats of China, Japan, Korea, Kings of Tonga, religious leaders, and leaders and representatives from many other countries come here. They apparently don't consider us to be so tiny and insignificant to their country.

We Hawaiians do consider ourselves Polynesians just like Chinese consider themselves Asians, but we see ourselves as a distinct race, culture, nation and history and not the same as others in Polynesia. That is why the Polynesian Cultural Center is broken up into sections according to the nations and not jumbled up into one mass group.

Now many Hawaiians are striving to be recognized as a nation since we have been politically oppressed having had our government overthrown over a century ago.

I'm not understanding why you say you are bent on just the Maoris. I'm guessing this could be because Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand or that might be the country you visited so that is what you are most exposed to. It just seems from your comments that you have been focused on your side of the world and haven't been aware of the influence we have had on this side.