What civilizations do you miss in BTS?

What civilizations should have been included in BTS?

  • Canada

    Votes: 114 13.8%
  • Sioux

    Votes: 116 14.0%
  • Iroquois

    Votes: 173 20.9%
  • Mexico

    Votes: 53 6.4%
  • Brazil

    Votes: 105 12.7%
  • Argentine

    Votes: 42 5.1%
  • Sweden

    Votes: 117 14.1%
  • Denmark

    Votes: 64 7.7%
  • Poland

    Votes: 208 25.1%
  • Austria

    Votes: 226 27.3%
  • Israel

    Votes: 286 34.5%
  • Hittites

    Votes: 193 23.3%
  • Morocco

    Votes: 41 5.0%
  • Benin

    Votes: 27 3.3%
  • Congo

    Votes: 42 5.1%
  • Pakistan

    Votes: 32 3.9%
  • Indus Civilization

    Votes: 50 6.0%
  • Burma

    Votes: 37 4.5%
  • Thailand

    Votes: 117 14.1%
  • Vietnam

    Votes: 120 14.5%
  • Indonesia

    Votes: 76 9.2%
  • Polynesia

    Votes: 147 17.8%
  • Australian Aboriginals

    Votes: 75 9.1%
  • Commonwealth of Australia

    Votes: 81 9.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 115 13.9%

  • Total voters
    828
Öjevind Lång;5598971 said:
Have you never heard of the Cherokee, of "the five civilized tribes" _ Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole and Creek? The Cherokee even devsied their won alphabet, which the entire tribe learned in two years.

I imagined they were just represented by the "Native Americans", where all North-American tribes who were stll around when the white man came are lumped together.
 
Vietnam's ninth! thats awesome! (remember, "Other" doesnt count)
 
you left out "Fine as it is now" I dont see anything worth adding. "Native americans" are rediculous, they were already in the game (barbs).
 
I was thinking about voting for every civ except for Poland just to stir things up again and because I'm fed up with the topic, but I decided not to! :rolleyes:

Yes, I'm a nice guy! :D

Thorbal said:
How dare you miss Lower-Saxony!! Henry the Lion, and eh... lots of sheep and frisians and...a bit of this culture-thing, too ( I do not know where I have put it, should be somewhere around here ) . Ah... just dump all the other unimportant provinces. Lower Saxony FTW!

Seconded! :goodjob: - But we might just want that because we live here, whereas Poland has several good reasons to get into the game... blablabla :deadhorse:

P.S.: I've been in Poland 2 years ago... Nice people there but obviously they're all civfanatics beyond believe...
 
I imagined they were just represented by the "Native Americans", where all North-American tribes who were stll around when the white man came are lumped together.

Yes, but I think having a "Native American Civilization" is stupid - they could have included one or two or three - Iroquois, Sioux, Cerokee, whatever.
 
Cyb - A civilisation has cities. The NAs are all barbs. Kick out all . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . diversity civs and add some civs who have cities and don't eat with their hands.

I agree about HRE though, its kind of a historical phantom, though at least they arent Barbs.
 
Cyb - A civilisation has cities. The NAs are all barbs.

i hope you're kidding. some of the Native American cultures DID have cities, or at least some kind of settlements bigger than a village. these include the Southwestern Pueblo-building people (like the Navajo and Anasazi), as well as the Missipi/Mound-BUilders, who actually had pretty huge cities, some even bigger than the European ones at the time (this was medieval age).

and anyhow, some of the other NA tribes also were considered civilized by the Europeans, like the Iroqouis, Cherokee, etc.
 
Cyb - A civilisation has cities. The NAs are all barbs. Kick out all . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . diversity civs and add some civs who have cities and don't eat with their hands.

I agree about HRE though, its kind of a historical phantom, though at least they arent Barbs.

In India, most food is eaten with the hands, so should we be removed from the game?
 
I knew someone would get pissy about the hands thing!

But yeah, NAs are all barbs. They lacked any sort of organisation to qualify them as anything more than a band of barbarians. The only reason they are important in history is they got conquered. This can also be said of a few other civs. Zulus, Celts. Whatever acheivements they had, they are minimal in comparison with real civilisations.

At the very least there are far more deserving, and actual, civilisations. I'm no Poland booster, but Poland is hella more complex/had more effect on history than Zulu hunter gatherers. Same goes for Vietnam which someone brought up I belive.
 
I agree they were almost all barbs by the time they had to fight off the colonial powers, but when the first explorers arrived they were still quite civilized. Most of the primitive peoples of the western hemisphere are the descendants of societies that were quite advanced in some ways. The quality of life in most parts of America was significantly higher than in Europe.

Some natives of newfoundland refused to allow the first known Europeans to land, for fear of disease, but traded with them over long ropes. The first people from this region ever taken on board an explorers ship was found to posses a silver ring and a sword with the mark of a known Italian craftsman, implying that the Viking-era journeys between the continents may have never really stopped, meaning they interacted with Europe on some level for centuries.

The main reason that north eastern native americans were typically seen is primitive is that their governments were not oppressive enough to force them to construct great works. Their huts still kept out the rain better than european houses, were warmer, and the average diet had about 1000 extra Calories, and were more nutritious. Their longbowmen were able to shoot arrows strait through plate armour and a foot of wood from over twice the range of any contemporary firearms. Most of the eastern US was only lightly forested when the first colonist arrived (wide enough spaces for large carriages to travel), and was kept in such a way as to funnel the wild game through specific paths through paths, while allowing some farming in the woods.

There is evidence that the primitive slash and burn farmers in the Amazon today are descended from a prosperous society that planted the jungle. Yes, much of the jungle is made of fruit orchards gone wild. While the region has horrible soil, some parts have been fertilized with a mix of charcoal, pottery chards, and other things, to the point where such places are more fertile than any modern fertilizer could make it. Of course, these people knew no metal working, so they weren't advanced in all ways.


The Hopewell culture had petroglyphs that they carved in the land (like some south americans did) with remarkable accuracy, although they can only be seen from the air, and also seem to have used such symbols like hieroglyphs for other writing purposes. Many American tribes were on the verge of inventing writing, already having ways to record genealogies and such.

Southwestern Indians built many large desert cities out of stone, often carved from cliff sides, and connected then with excellent roads. Many of these settlements had water collection systems making desert agriculture possible. Actually, many roads and settlements were more for religious reasons than anything else. The roads aligned perfectly to solar and lunar calenders. Their greatest road seems to go due north towards nothing.

The Mississipians had several cities and many, many significant towns. De Soto said that for much of his journey they were always within sight of some settlement. The more towns probably clustered around the Mississippi than almost any european river. (it is likely that he introduced disease and more importantly pigs around this time. Pigs spread disease and quickly devour the native crops leading to starvation)


Essentially all the crops domesticated in America were more nutritious than any old world crops, but the crop yields were lower. It seems that almost all old world crops are descended from the same originals, while almost every American tribe domesticated their crops from the wild forms. On the other hand, most old world societies borrowed their crops from others, but domesticated their own animals. Contact with these animals lead to many contagious diseases, and to immunity to such diseases. These diseases where far more devastating to those with no genetic or acquired immunity (plus, NAs had far less genetic diversity, so diseases could easily decimate communities. There is also evidence that often, when a few family members of the Inca and other native american civilizations died, the others chose suicide)


Most the plains Indians were probably descened from the Mississippian and southwestern desert city-dwellers. America had many true civilizations, but the sad truth is that the most civilized societies are not the hardiest when faced with new crises. The problem with these is that they collapsed before we could find out their real strengths, or before we could identify a single leader for most of them.

Also, while the Zulu were not advanced, there were much more deserving societies in Africa
 
I don't hold the civilization versus barbarian distinction to hold any water outside the desire of certain cultures to have self-aggrandizing historical schemata. All cultures are human, and thus all have the potential to be as sophisticated as any other human culture. Thus, all large regionally important cultures should have a chance of being in the game. Just my view. The barbs in Civ 4 though are fun, and simulate the random, small-scale threat any civilization would face.
 
I'm no Poland booster, but Poland is hella more complex/had more effect on history than Zulu hunter gatherers. Same goes for Vietnam which someone brought up I belive.
The very fact that you said "Zulu hunter-gatherers" shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I agree that their are better civs than the Zulu to chose from, but to assume that they were nothing more than paleolithic primitives is ignorant and insulting.

I don't hold the civilization versus barbarian distinction to hold any water outside the desire of certain cultures to have self-aggrandizing historical schemata. All cultures are human, and thus all have the potential to be as sophisticated as any other human culture. Thus, all large regionally important cultures should have a chance of being in the game. Just my view.
Agreed- civs should represent major cultural groups, not just successful nation-states.
 
The very fact that you said "Zulu hunter-gatherers" shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I agree that their are better civs than the Zulu to chose from, but to assume that they were nothing more than paleolithic primitives is ignorant and insulting.


Agreed- civs should represent major cultural groups, not just successful nation-states.

No, the Zulu were pastoralists. They were more advanced than the Mongols, in fact, but then, almost everybody was. Even so, I want the Mongols in the game. And I want Shaka in the game - He is *fun*. I don't think P-l-nd would be.
 
The very fact that you said "Zulu hunter-gatherers" shows that you don't know what you're talking about. I mean, I agree that their are better civs than the Zulu to chose from, but to assume that they were nothing more than paleolithic primitives is ignorant and insulting.

I can't see them building a Spaceship, just spaking spears and what not. Given a million years to develop they'd just stagnate the way most parts of Africa stagnated. Even devloped or relatively developed parts seemed to constantly take steps forward only to shortly thereafter fall back behind. Much like Africa today. Zulus of course were primitive, not just absolutely but relatively. Zulus can't be compared to Mongols becuase they didn't manage to take over the world (or learn forgien technology for that matter), all they had was a war were they got beat.

As to Celts they are dirty barbs, they had no real economic basis in CITIES nor did they have much literacy. When they did turn towards more refined persuits it was Latin influence and Germanic bullying in combination that did it. Celts, like the Zulus, without someone to civilise them would have run around with their spears and loincloths forever doing nothing of importance or either themselves or others.

We can do all this historical revisionisim, however during world history there are fairly clear deliniations between socities with laws and cities and economies and the disorganised fringe between them - that is barbarians like Zulus and NAs, people who lived far away from well regulated cities and beauacracies like those in London, Beijing, Constantinope..etc.

These people are barbs, they are the losers of history in almost all cases. However that dosen't mean that they deserved to be valorised as anything else than what they were - the unorganised, uncivilised fringe of humanity. Nor should they be catagorised as the same as real Civilisations.

The whole concept of "NA" is rediculous first of all, and reeks of modern polticial accomodations. Its a title SO vauge it's totally meaningless.
 
The whole concept of "NA" is rediculous first of all, and reeks of modern polticial accomodations. Its a title SO vauge it's totally meaningless.

that we can agree, but remember, civ is about Alternative History. it is quite pssible these people you consider "barbarians", though in truth they were quite capable of "civilzed" things, it is quite possible they could've ended up being... well, quite "civilized".
 
I knew someone would get pissy about the hands thing!

But yeah, NAs are all barbs. They lacked any sort of organisation to qualify them as anything more than a band of barbarians. The only reason they are important in history is they got conquered. This can also be said of a few other civs. Zulus, Celts. Whatever acheivements they had, they are minimal in comparison with real civilisations.

Do you even know the history the Iroquois? They had an organized government structure, a written constitution, fortified cities. They made treaties with other Native American nations. They conquered territory. They had trade agreements. They were significant because, for 200 years, nothing happened between the French and British territories in the new world without the Iroquois agreeing to it. They were significant because the French tried to conquer them and, not only lost terribly, but watched as their Indian ally was wiped out. They didn't discover gunpowder (that happened in China), but they made excellent use of firearms when they gained access to them. They were farmers who used fairly sophisticated techniques for farming. And, if it wasn't for small pox, their numbers would have been far greater than the numbers of Europeans and they would have resisted eventually being conquered (although they did last for a long time).

Granted, you could take all these things and still think another civ is more deserving, but you need to realize that the history of American Indian tribes are far more complex than the picture people often think of.
 
I think the Argument with the Zulu not being as advance as europeans is solely to the fact:

There were more Europeans at the time in Europe and the ME which isn't the biggest place on earth. Which means more empires, and Wars. Which means to survive you have to advance and adapt faster then other people in africa and the americas for example. Similar things probably happened in China and SE asia.

While in a bigger space, not as much population less empire etc. Natives in africa didn't have to advance as quickly in order to survive. So they wouldn't be as advance as the Europeans. Give them another 1000 years without European Intervention and they'd be at the same stage the europeans were in the Early Industrial Age.

That's just a hunch/idea that i have. Not sure it is true.
 
Each civer should read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, where the causes of inequality between the world's peoples are explained.

Seems like Israel has taken the lead, by the way.
 
Back
Top Bottom