What constitutes a civilization?

[Mustakrakish]

*Sigh* Please re-read my posts. I think a bunch of you get too offended and emotional to understand what am I saying. Thank you for your consern, but I do know that "most of the world isn't European", I don't need to "open my eyes" or "get real" as I never stated that Europe is where all civilization happened and nowhere else. I quite clearly stated "Europe is where history was written", you know the whole victor writes history thingy? And then you go and basically prove it by elaborating/explaining my post in more detail and yet act as if it's your counter argument against mine. The difference is I embrace/don't mind that position. I'm confused and slightly amused by this... Aren't we talking about the same thing, but in different tone?

With that hopefully past us, I'd like to know about "those countless non European civs" that deserve being in the game waaaaaaay before say Sweden/Austria/Netherlands that aren't already in. I do like history, always did, but I can't quite manage to list more than 3-4... and mostly to add flavor.

 

[Stefanskantine]

To me "civilization" implies a body politic exhibiting civilized behavior. A fine appreciation for art, culture, philosophy, civic life etc. Everyone besides ancient Greek city states are hereby disqualified.

 

[CoolLizy]

I quite clearly stated "Europe is where history was written", you know the whole victor writes history thingy?

Europe is where Western history was written; not world history, except for a short span following the Age of Discovery, which itself is but a small sliver of human history. Alas, it's the only bit anyone ever seems to care about. Such a pity.

As for worthy civs, just looking at the fertile crescent off the top of my head:
- Assyria
- Hatti
- The Akkadian Empire
- Sumer
- Israel/Judea

One could argue that they're just a niche that's already occupied by Babylon and Persia, but that's already the case for most of the European powers. I mean, do we really need Denmark and Sweden? And then there's India, which gets all lumped in together. This is almost akin to adding a European Union civilization to the game; the region was only united as we know it in the past hundred years or so. Before that it was a hodgepodge of empires, kingdoms, and tribes that rose and fell over the years (kind of like Europe, go figure). Thus we'll probably never get the Mughal Empire or Maratha Confederacy, which I would consider about as worthy to be in the game as, say, the Celts.

*shrugs*

 

[Gucumatz]

Tibetan Empire, Huari/Tiwanaku Empires (Two favorite empires in South America of me and CivOasis), Kongo, Morocco, One of the Silk Road Empires or Khazars, would all be good additions.

Tibetan Empire facilitated spread of Buddhism throughout Asia and expanded throughout China settling and expanding forms of writing and culture throughout Asia.

Huari/Tiwanaku one of the two would be a nice additional empire in South America. Again ruled for hundreds of years and the "Cold War" between these two empires led to centuries of warfare, splits in religion, tech, trade etc. The two empires established a lot for the Inca. Or the Trading Chachapoya Civ which occupied a more different Northern Andean/Amazonian Niche and spread trade throughout S. America and was key in Religion.

Morocco and its influence both in North Africa and Spain over the centuries. The advances in technology, architecture, etc flourished under Morocco.

Again the Silk road is an entirely ignored era and area of the world. There are plenty of empires that add a ton to trade/religion. Khazars is a fascinating empire that acted as a hub of trade and movement of technology from Christian Europe/Byzantines to the Ottomans and then to the Silk Road empires. Coupled with borders with Russia they became a vital trading empire. Plus them being the only other Jewish Nation/Empire in the world other than Israel coupled with Tengriism adds a couple other niches.

Kongo both for the trade, influence in Southern Africa and how it was able to shape Southern/Central Africa's destiny by its actions.

And those are only a couple that would have been great additions.

 

[eris]

Whether or not history itself is Euro-centric can be open to debate and viewpoint, but I want to put in that it is inappropriate to the game Civilization.

The idea is that we are writing a new history. In the one we live in, Europe did grow to become dominant in a lot of history. In another world, that could be very different. Perhaps the various fractions of an African continent would expand and grow and dominate. Perhaps there is no Africa or Europe at all, just groups with interestingly similar cultures or groups with interesting different cultures.

Deliberately adding non-European and non-currently-dominant civilizations allows the game to fulfill its potential of creating endless histories, not just constantly reflecting the one we happen to live in.

As to what is a civilization in anthropology, I like following the geeky discussions more than the nationalistic ones. It's fussing over stuff like that which leads to obsessive games like Civilization in the first place.

 

[Mustakrakish]

The idea is that we are writing a new history. In the one we live in, Europe did grow to become dominant in a lot of history. In another world, that could be very different. Perhaps the various fractions of an African continent would expand and grow and dominate. Perhaps there is no Africa or Europe at all, just groups with interestingly similar cultures or groups with interesting different cultures.

Deliberately adding non-European and non-currently-dominant civilizations allows the game to fulfill its potential of creating endless histories, not just constantly reflecting the one we happen to live in.

I like your post.

 

[Zipa_DH]

Yes, but they didn't really leave a mark in history or influenced anyone... that I know of anyway. Were their feats of travel adopted by many other peoples? Did other people even know of their existence? I know I sound quite simplistic and silly, but... Does that really makes them a civilization worthy being on the list with other already included civs? If the criteria is representing the region then sure... But I don't see how they notably distinguished themselves or left a mark in history. Were they even "one" at any point? Or were they just a system of independent islands trading with each other?

On a side note, I don't really understand the anti euro-centrism... What is wrong with that?

Polynesia was the biggest country in history, more than Russia, Canada, and the Roman empire, just compared with the Mongol empire, polynesians were the most succesful navigaitors in history, and they tried to unify the region culturally and politically, that's why Kamehameha was choosen for leader, they stablished the mamalahoe, that become in the base of the human rights laws, specially in times of war, and the Incas meet them and traded with them... well, I think that's enoguh to consider them a civilization and put them in game

eurocentristic people still thinking that before colonization, the rest of the world was in the stone age, and most of the eurocentristic people doesn't know much about history, civilizations or archaeology, so, most of them talks based in their prejudices, and not in some scientific-based information, that's why people hates eurocentrism

 

[CoolLizy]

Polynesia was the biggest country in history, more than Russia, Canada, and the Roman empire, just compared with the Mongol empire, polynesians were the most succesful navigaitors in history, and they tried to unify the region culturally and politically, that's why Kamehameha was choosen for leader, they stablished the mamalahoe, that become in the base of the human rights laws, specially in times of war, and the Incas meet them and traded with them... well, I think that's enoguh to consider them a civilization and put them in game

Um... Great Britain was the biggest country in history, followed by Mongolia under the khans. And Polynesia was never a single united entity, much less a country.

Your points about their navigating skills and cultural spread stand, however. That, and the name of the game is Civilization V, not Nation V. (Personally, I've been pulling for them to be included since Civ III.)

 

[Zipa_DH]

Um... Great Britain was the biggest country in history, followed by Mongolia under the khans. And Polynesia was never a single united entity, much less a country.

Your points about their navigating skills and cultural spread stand, however. That, and the name of the game is Civilization V, not Nation V. (Personally, I've been pulling for them to be included since Civ III.)

British empire had 31.700.000 km², Polynesia had 30.000.000 km², Mongolia was the biggest with 33.000.000 km², however, if you say that nations must not be in game, so, americans must be in game? they aren't an empire, and their race and part of their culture are british, greeks must not be in game??? ancient Greee wans't an empire, was a league, or a confederation, the most close to a modern-day nation, so, beacuse they weren't an empire, they musnt not be in game? that's the reason of this theme, what is civilization? what could be defined as civilization, and wat not?

 

[CoolLizy]

British empire had 31.700.000 km², Polynesia had 30.000.000 km², Mongolia was the biggest with 33.000.000 km²

30 million square kilometers of... what exactly? Ocean? If we're counting that, then Britain more or less ruled the entire planet. They were the empire on which the sun never set, after all. Also, I'm seeing ~33.7 million square kilometers of land area for Britain at their greatest extent listed on Wikipedia. The Mongols were 24 km² and Imperial Russia rounds out the top three at 23.7 km². Where are you getting your numbers?

And, again, Polynesia was never a single entity.

so, americans must be in game? they aren't an empire, and their race and part of their culture are british, greeks must not be in game???

Their inclusion does continue to baffle me to this day, yes. But my point was that Polynesia shouldn't be excluded on the basis of not being a unified state.

 

[Sotof]

Well reasoned I'd say.

Something to add though, is that while the game is called "Civilization" the Civs are always referred to as Empires. I think this may have something to do with what qualifies inclusion. Not only having a distinct culture, but having spread that culture having had that culture influence the development of other cultures.

Which is why Denmark and Sweden might deserve spots (Denmark as the Vikings who were so influential in pre-1066 England, and Sweden as the center of multiple attempts to form a pan-scandanavian empire) while no Latin American culture has of yet had this impact, mostly because it's regrettably been under the heel of various other Empires for so much of it's history.

Just so you know... Denmark was the nation who were closest to creating a Scandinavian "empire". Such a shame that the queen's heir was nothing like the queen, so it all crumbled to pieces.

On topic: I am somewhat against adding colonial nations to the game. I actually find USA to be quite a silly addition. I think it would serve Civ better to have rebel states instead of them - and from that we could have a lot of the colonial nations form from a discontent empire.

 

[JFD]

An exception to the rule that colonial civs won't/shouldn't be in the game must be made for the United States. The reason is obvious.

...and the Incas meet them and traded with them... well, I think that's enoguh to consider them a civilization and put them in game.


eurocentristic people still thinking that before colonization, the rest of the world was in the stone age, and most of the eurocentristic people doesn't know much about history, civilizations or archaeology, so, most of them talks based in their prejudices, and not in some scientific-based information, that's why people hates eurocentrism.

I have to admit I've never heard that Polynesians made contact with the Incans. Atlantis is supposed to be near the Andes, but Polynesians contacting them? Fascinating if true.

Also, to be fair, you cannot damn those who think European culture is preeminent when it is their culture, and categorise them along with those who think this and are racist in their manner. Eurocentrism is not an inherently racist stance. Eurocentrism may work both internally and externally.

 

[GenjiKhan]

An exception to the rule that colonial civs won't/shouldn't be in the game must be made for the United States. The reason is obvious.

They've been in Civilization series since the first Civilization game,so it would be very stupid if the developers tried to not release them in vanilla editions . By the way,why Post-colonial civs shouldn't be in the game?

 

[JFD]

They've been in Civilization series since the first Civilization game,so it would be very stupid if the developers tried to not release them in vanilla editions . By the way,why Post-colonial civs shouldn't be in the game?

They've been in Civilization series since the first Civilization game,so it would be very stupid if the developers tried to not release them in vanilla editions . By the way,why Post-colonial civs shouldn't be in the game?

I was thinking along the lines of because it is to the US this game is primarily intended.

Personally I don't feel post-colonial civs shouldn't be in the game, but there's been a lot of bickering over this matter throughout the forums. But I have to admit countries like Australia and Canada and Mexico don't really appeal to me in the gaming context, or feel all that flavoursome. I don't know if I'd say that they represented civs that weren't already in the game anyway, and wouldn't just be adding nations instead. Not trying to undermine these countries, but looking at Mexico, once Spain and the Aztecs are in the game, do they really bring anything new, at least on a superficial level? The same goes for other nations like that. Bearing that in mind, these ajust aren't all that inspiring or exciting, for they have yet to expierence the same life as the civs already in the game. Brazil is the only post-colonial civ that I would like in the game, but that could be abated once Portugal is included.

 

[CoolLizy]

Not trying to undermine these countries, but looking at Mexico, once Spain and the Aztecs are in the game, do they really bring anything new, at least on a superficial level?

This is how I feel about all the European Civs people want to add. Does Portugal add anything we don't already have with Spain? Do we need Denmark and Sweden, let alone adding Norway or the Vikings? There are so many notable civilizations elsewhere in the world to use, let's stop filling out Europe for awhile to add them.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Brazil is the only post-colonial civ that I would like in the game, but that could be abated once Portugal is included.

Portugal and Brazil are very different from each other,so this statement doesn't make any sense(even USA/England have a culture more similar than Brazil/Portugal) .

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Their inclusion does continue to baffle me to this day, yes. But my point was that Polynesia shouldn't be excluded on the basis of not being a unified state.

Haha, them and all of those displaced Germanics/mainlanders of "England." And, well, all of the other civs really.

There's no good definition of "civilization" (or a bunch of good ones depending on your point of view). Ten different scholars will either tell you ten different things or refuse to give you a concrete answer.

You can pretty much push around the goalposts of what is "civilization" to fit your own agenda however you like. If you want to think that Europe is superior to the rest of the world, or if you have it out for a certain "civ" for some reason, or if you just want to think your own area is fantastic, you're going to find out you're right. We're seeing it in this thread. As long as everyone understands that they're being totally biased when they're doing it, that's fine.

 

[JFD]

Portugal and Brazil are very different from each other,so this statement doesn't make any sense(even USA/England have a culture more similar than Brazil/Portugal) .

True, but you'll notice I'm strikely speaking in a gaming context, in a marketing context. Superficially speaking, the two aren't necessarily all that different. With that in mind, I'm confident I probably would want Brazil even if Portugal was in. Something about Brazil to me is quite admirable. Also, you can't rightly say it doesn't make sense, considering that it is an opinion, and not a fact, and you don't know how it was founded.

This is how I feel about all the European Civs people want to add. Does Portugal add anything we don't already have with Spain? Do we need Denmark and Sweden, let alone adding Norway or the Vikings? There are so many notable civilizations elsewhere in the world to use, let's stop filling out Europe for awhile to add them.

You're probably right there. But remember that it is an American game for such audiences, who will tend to look at European civs foremost and on a deeper level of their accomplishments than those of civs which they might not be familiar with - who they will just look at for the first image that comes to mind. Regardless, Sweden and Denmark probably are stretching it. But this isn't a game so much about including the most unique and defining of civs. If Sweden didn't serve a purpose for the expansion, primarily that of the scenario, then I wouldn't expect Sweden to be in the game at all, simply because of Denmark already. But to be fair, Sweden does inspire a different image than that of Denmark. Maybe an imagine which is a mix between other existing civs, but still one different from Denmark.

 

[CoolLizy]

But to be fair, Sweden does inspire a different image than that of Denmark.

To you, perhaps; for most of the world it's all just Scandinavia. I'd honestly view Brazil as far more different from Portugal than Denmark and Sweden from each other.

 

[Gucumatz]

An exception to the rule that colonial civs won't/shouldn't be in the game must be made for the United States. The reason is obvious.



I have to admit I've never heard that Polynesians made contact with the Incans. Atlantis is supposed to be near the Andes, but Polynesians contacting them? Fascinating if true.

Also, to be fair, you cannot damn those who think European culture is preeminent when it is their culture, and categorise them along with those who think this and are racist in their manner. Eurocentrism is not an inherently racist stance. Eurocentrism may work both internally and externally.

Well not Incans, but earlier Andean Civilizations yes.

There are plants that only grow in the Pacific Islands which have been found in/at burials in the Andes. While its not much, it suggests there may have been trade at one point for a brief period.