What constitutes a civilization?

[EMT]

Basically, posting a new thread so as to not derail another thread. If it's in the wrong forum, then can it please be moved.

I said:

Why do people nominate modern-day countries for Civilization? The game is called civilization, not country or nation-state last that I checked. I don't see any thing distinguishing that would merit Argentina being its own civilization. And this goes for other modern countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. Other than an independence movement that succeeded, Latin America has nothing in its favor when compared to other civilizations in the game(not that Latin America is in and of itself a civilization anyway), and I say this as a Latin American as well.

If you want Bolivar, then nominate a Bolivarian Empire, because Gran Colombia is in no way a civilization. We have Huns, don't we?

Mango Elephant said:

Several things. You say Latin America has nothing when compared to other civilizations. As a Latin American, I'm a bit offended that you can lump all our cultures together into ... nothing. Because Latin America has no civilizations as of yet, so we're very underrepresented (The Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca do not speak a Romantic language and so they aren't Latin American). If I may be so forward, our lack of inclusion gives us an edge over almost every other region in the world because of we can diversify a game that's already so Euro-centric.

Secondly, how would you define civilization? I shall tear asunder your arguments after you have answered this crucial question.

Liex said:

I have to endorse Mango Elephant's question. What is Civilization to you? Is Sweden "its own civilization"? What about the United States (and most of the currently featured civs)? Does the game have to stick to the concept of 'civilization' you have in your mind?

So, let's get the show on the road.

To Mango Elephant:
I lump all our cultures to together because, while unique and different from other modern countries, we have done zilch to merit a position. While you may view pre-Colombian civilizations as not representative of Latin America, the thing is, we don't see an Italian civilization because Rome is there, or a Safavid, or Mughal civilization, because Persia and India are in. Civilization likes to take the broad approach, from what we've seen from the developers. Hence why there is a Mughal fort for India, or Landsknecht for Germany.

You also give Latin America too much credit in being different from Europe as well. We're different, but we're European-derived and influenced, and only recently has Latin American culture embraced its own unique twist rather than trying to adapt what we can from Europe and America, culturally. Even then though, regardless of how close or different we are, being different doesn't mean inclusion either, or we'd see an Australian Aboriginal civilization.

Finally, I define a civilization as a society that has distinguished itself exceptionally, whether this be culturally, politically, economically, scientifically, or what have you. At least, in terms of what merits game inclusion. Otherwise I would be lumping America into England. Latin America, while culturally unique, is modern, very modern, and has had little time to age and become distinguished. It is also HEAVILY derived from European culture as well, so that's a knock against us collectively, if we go by your anti-Eurocentrism stance. Politically, we've been a joke for most of our history save for a short but glorious wave of independence that led into decadence and insignificance globally. Economically, the same can be said. Scientifically, we have very rarely ever been pioneers in anything I can think to name off the top of my head.

While I believe given a century or two Latin America will become a cultural and economic pillar of the world, calling for it now is to come knocking way too soon. We have had very gifted writers, artists, and actors both past and present, but other than that, what do we really have?

Liex, I believe my post covers your question. Anyway, if we WERE to represent Latin America, what would you choose? Nothing comes to mind to me at all.

 

[AbbieRevo]

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.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Here's my personal list of qualifiers. Please note that it would exclude some that have been made civs already, one that is in G&K, and most ironically Greece.

1) political unity: a civilization must have a central governing authority, be it a dynasty, a timocracy, or a constitution.

2) homogenous cultural identity: all the people falling under the central authority must be more similar to each other than different and more similar to each other than to external groups. Exceptions are made for empires that held actual, real authority over lands outside their own contiguous borders.

3) durability: the central authority must be able to last for multiple generations. No flash-in-the-pan dictatorships need apply.

4) external influence: the civilization must be shown to have influenced events happening outside its borders, either regionally or globally

 

[CGPanama]

I have always felt that the definition of Civilization (at least for the purposes of this game) can be placed on a sliding scale in regards to the historical ages. If you think of the advancement of mankind, the early periods (i.e. bronze age, iron age) lasted many centuries during which the arts and sciences progressed at a particular pace. By the time that we reached the middle ages/renaissance that pace was accelerating to the order of a century or two. And now in the modern era the ages seem to leap by in the matter of decades. In the past century or so man has achieved technological advances far exceeding what came before in the previous 10,000 years.

In my mind that translates to civilizations. What once was achieved over many centuries of dynasties and expansions by the great civilizations (Egypt, China, Rome), then in a few hundred years by the empires of the last 12th to 19th centuries (England, Russia), can now be achieved one or two centuries by the modern nations (USA, Germany).

For me the outliers are the Iroquois, who were a league of tribes that were at times loosely affiliated over a period of several centuries before colonization by europeans (forgive me if my historical memory is off on this) and Ethiopia, for which my greatest problem is a selection of a modern national figure to represent a civilization which had a lengthy history preceding.

 

[GenjiKhan]

By the way,does Brazil is consider to be part of Latin America or are you talking about the Spaniard side of Latin America,which does not include Brazil,Suriname,Guianas and most of Caribbean?

 

[EMT]

By the way,does Brazil is consider to be part of Latin America or are you talking about the Spaniard side of Latin America,which does not include Brazil,Suriname,Guiana(not confuse with French Guiana) and most of Caribbean?

I personally include Brazil under Latin America due to the large amount of similarities, geographical location, and similar history(in a broad sense), and the modern-day ties in place.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Does it include Belize as well? It was only nominally a part of the Spanish Empire and was colonized by British Privateers?

 

[EMT]

Does it include Belize as well? It was only nominally a part of the Spanish Empire and was colonized by British Privateers?

Really, it's all up to personal opinion. Although, a large portion speaks Spanish nowadays, so I would say, peripheral Latin America? I don't think that Belize would be able to sway the developers in favor of a Latin American state in Civ though

 

[GenjiKhan]

I personally include Brazil under Latin America due to the large amount of similarities, geographical location, and similar history(in a broad sense), and the modern-day ties in place.

Brazilian history should be consider different from the other Latin American countries . In first place,it was colonized by Portuguese,which Language and culture are different from Spain . Second,their history(and their Independence) happened in a very different way from every other country in America(for example,while most of the countries in American continent were republics,Brazil decided to be a Constitutional Monarchy until the end of slavery there,which happened around 1888) . And third,their ties with other Latin American countries are merely because of the geographical location(it's roughly equal to the ties of USA with other Latin America countries) .

 

[EMT]

Brazilian history should be consider different from the other Latin American countries . In first place,it was colonized by Portuguese,which Language and culture are different from Spain . Second,their history(and their Independence) happened in a very different way from every other country in America(for example,while most of the countries in American continent were republics,Brazil decided to be a Constitutional Monarchy until the end of slavery there,which happened around 1888) . And third,their ties with other Latin American countries are merely because of the geographical location(it's roughly equal to the ties of USA with other Latin America countries) .

I never said it wasn't different. It's unique amongst other Latin American countries, but I think people exaggerate how different Spain and Portugal are. Culturally, they are very similar relative to other European countries. Yes, their history is different, but the 20th century was very similar for most Latin American countries. Heavily agricultural, relied on one crop, around comes the World Wars resulting in trade barriers popping up, country goes into an economic decline, rinse and repeat. In Argentina it was cattle, in Brazil coffee, in Central America, fruit, etc.

And Brazil has been heavily involved in the politics of South America and with its neighbors. That's like saying France and Germany are only tied due to being in Europe. Comparing it to the US is also inaccurate, since the US meddled in Latin America, while Brazil has functioned as a part of it.

 

[GenjiKhan]

And Brazil has been heavily involved in the politics of South America and with its neighbors. That's like saying France and Germany are only tied due to being in Europe. Comparing it to the US is also inaccurate, since the US meddled in Latin America, while Brazil has functioned as a part of it.

The kind of tie you're talking about is the cultural tie,the similarities between their cultures,which creates strong ties between the countries . Brazil's ties with their neighbors is very similar to the USA ties with their Latin neighbor(Mexico) . For example,both countries(USA and Brazil) had fought wars against their neighbors and grabbed a piece of land of them(in Brazil's case,it was the territory where the state of Acre is now located) .

 

[That nerdy kid]

In my opinion:

A Civilization is a group of people that have a specific culture and heritage. They must have formed at least a Kingdom (no tribes), and have discovered agriculture.

Many people have suggested the Inuit as a civ. They never formed a united kingdom, and had never discovered agriculture. I am not saying that they shouldn't be respected. I think they are awesome. However, they do not fit into the definition of a civilization.

 

[seasnake]

Civilization is like porn: Hard to define but I know it when I see it!

 

[Mango Elephant]

I lump all our cultures to together because, while unique and different from other modern countries, we have done zilch to merit a position.

How does one go about meriting a position? We're unique, is that not enough? This is very vague.

While you may view pre-Colombian civilizations as not representative of Latin America, the thing is, we don't see an Italian civilization because Rome is there, or a Safavid, or Mughal civilization, because Persia and India are in. Civilization likes to take the broad approach, from what we've seen from the developers. Hence why there is a Mughal fort for India, or Landsknecht for Germany.

Civilizations in the game are obviously different from civilizations outside the game. The reason for no Italian is obviously the similarity of names between Rome and Italy, so Rome couldn't be the capital, and yet because the only time Italy became unified Rome was the capital, so choosing another capital would be bizarre. Obviously Italians form a civilization regardless of their inclusion in the game or not. The reason for only one Indian civilization in the game is obviously because of Euro centrism. The game developers assume (and perhaps rightfully) that a single Indian civilization is enough to satisfy the average player of their game. Personally, I would love different Indian civilizations in the game.

You also give Latin America too much credit in being different from Europe as well. We're different, but we're European-derived and influenced, and only recently has Latin American culture embraced its own unique twist rather than trying to adapt what we can from Europe and America, culturally. Even then though, regardless of how close or different we are, being different doesn't mean inclusion either, or we'd see an Australian Aboriginal civilization.

You're attempting the trick me. You might assume you can trick me because I'm a dark-skinned fifteen year old boy, but I ain't falling for it. Where did I give Latin America too much credit for being different from Europe? Quote me exactly, because I'm rereading what I posted, and I don't see anything. Even as you already stated, Latin America is unique in the world. Who cares if we're influenced by Europe, America was influenced by Europe and they're in, Arabia was influenced by Europe, Japan was, and yet they're civilizations in the game. As for your last sentence, I'm not going to comment on your decision to include it because I know of this forum's anti-flaming policy, so I'll just try address it without feeling my hot, Latin blood boil like the fires of my Aztec ancestors through my veins. I'm going to type easy sentences for you.

I never said being different guaranteed inclusion, even though you seem to enjoy implying that I did. I did not, and I'd appreciate your respect. I said being different gave an edge over other civilizations, which I doubt even you can deny, otherwise we wouldn't have Siam.

Finally, I define a civilization as a society that has distinguished itself exceptionally, whether this be culturally, politically, economically, scientifically, or what have you.

I agree with this definition. It's very subjective, obviously.

At least, in terms of what merits game inclusion. Otherwise I would be lumping America into England. Latin America, while culturally unique, is modern, very modern, and has had little time to age and become distinguished.

In Education, there are no class distinctions.
- Confucius

Sound familiar? It should, if you studied the Analects at all, which I doubt you have, forgive me if I'm frank about my feelings. You should know Confucius was born the state of Li during the Waring States period, which was before the Qin unified China. It was a superstitious time. Confucius thought the men who first started the Zhou Dynasty were to be revered, and it was they who came up with the legendary Mandate of Heaven, which they used to convince the former Shang elite to not oppose the Zhou.

This is just to prove how smart I am. I mean, I may not be a genius, but I pretty much am. My IQ is 160, so yeah, I doubt yours is. Not that it makes you a worse person for not having as high an IQ, I'm just stating. Moderator Action: We disapprove such trolling here.

It is also HEAVILY derived from European culture as well, so that's a knock against us collectively, if we go by your anti-Eurocentrism stance.

Um, my mother is from European, I love Europe, don't say I don't, because I do. Even though I love Europe, Europe doesn't have Salsa dancing or drug lords like us Latin Americans, therefore they are different from us and frankly, it's distasteful. Absolutely distasteful.

Politically, we've been a joke for most of our history save for a short but glorious wave of independence that led into decadence and insignificance globally. Economically, the same can be said. Scientifically, we have very rarely ever been pioneers in anything I can think to name off the top of my head.

Um, drug lords are insanely rich and insanely powerful. Our economy is great.

While I believe given a century or two Latin America will become a cultural and economic pillar of the world, calling for it now is to come knocking way too soon. We have had very gifted writers, artists, and actors both past and present, but other than that, what do we really have?

Drug lords and salsa dancing. These exist nowhere else in the world. I don't know why people think we don't have drug lords or salsa dancing, but we do, and that's fact. Does Europe have either? No. We're a civilization, they're not, and yet somehow, by some ironic twist of evil fate, they're in the game, but we're not. Distasteful. Untenable.
Moderator Action: We disapprove such trolling here.

 

[EMT]

...Are you being sarcastic at this point? Because I don't see what bringing up your IQ, salsa, or drug lords has to do with Civilization.

Also, I'm dark skinned too, but who cares? Everything was influenced by everything else, but you're ignoring the difference between being directly derived from and being influenced by.

 

[Liex]

Even then though, regardless of how close or different we are, being different doesn't mean inclusion either, or we'd see an Australian Aboriginal civilization.

Finally, I define a civilization as a society that has distinguished itself exceptionally, whether this be culturally, politically, economically, scientifically, or what have you. At least, in terms of what merits game inclusion. Otherwise I would be lumping America into England.

I had a hard time coupling these sentences together. Please correct me if I didn’t get your point, but you seem to condition a civilization’s inclusion to its exceptional distinction in culture, politics, economics, science etc. “Being different” would not be enough; only those who have distinguished themself “exceptionally” should be featured in the game. I think it’s a fair reasoning, but it is also too arbitrary. Moreover, this logic fails to explain why some of the civs were included in the game. Why are we getting Austria? Is Austria exceptionally distinct from Europe while Latin America isn’t? I think we’d agree that it’s not the case, but your explanation would probably be that Austria has more globally known ‘great persons’ than Latin America as a whole. And I would agree with that.

In fact, your argumentation goes down that way:

Scientifically, we have very rarely ever been pioneers in anything I can think to name off the top of my head.

I agree with you, but I do so with some reservations. Brazil had (and have) several inventors and scientists, some of them widely known internationally. Santos Dumont is a good example, as is César Lattes, among others. We're also pioneers in alternative energy, but that's "too modern" even to me.

Latin America, while culturally unique, is modern, very modern, and has had little time to age and become distinguished. It is also HEAVILY derived from European culture as well, so that's a knock against us collectively, if we go by your anti-Eurocentrism stance.

You’re overestimating the European cultural impact in Latin America. I’ll restrain myself to the Brazilian case: Brazil received more African slaves than Portuguese immigrants, and more slaves than any other country in the Americas. While its indigenous elements did not remain strong as in Bolivia and Paraguay, they still can be felt in a daily basis. Our architecture and language may be derived from the Portuguese, but the same could not be said about general arts (painting, music, dance, martial arts, culinary, literature etc.).

Politically, we've been a joke for most of our history save for a short but glorious wave of independence that led into decadence and insignificance globally.

the US meddled in Latin America, while Brazil has functioned as a part of it.

GenjiKhan already pointed out that in Brazil the opposite occurred: there wasn’t a glorious independence movement, but through a political innovation the Empire oversaw relative stability. About Brazil role in the region, that’s inaccurate. Please take a look at this post if you got the time.

Economically, the same can be said.

This is the least important element; every country has its economic ups and downs, be it industrialized or not. If a civ have an exceptional economic performance, then its Unique Features could represent it - take Netherlands as an example.

Very well. Synthesis: Your definition of civilization is nice, but it’s also limited and arbitrary. Personally, I don’t think every currently featured “civilization” in Civ V (and in the series) achieves those prerequisites. Also, some outsider “civilizations” may merit their inclusion, despite popular knowledge.

Conclusion: I really want to see the responses for that “What would you like to know from the dev team?” thread. Quoting Greg: “(…) what I'm looking for is questions for the devs about what they do. ‘How did you decide which civs to include’ is a great example (and already on my list!)”. I guess I already know the answer, though.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The main problem with a 'civilisation' is that it is a racist 19th century construct to fit with industrial European powers and romanticised ancient empires they were trying to emulate. It was designed to imply those that aren't of a European model are tribal and inferior.

 

[Trias]

Here's my personal list of qualifiers. Please note that it would exclude some that have been made civs already, one that is in G&K, and most ironically Greece.

1) political unity: a civilization must have a central governing authority, be it a dynasty, a timocracy, or a constitution.

2) homogenous cultural identity: all the people falling under the central authority must be more similar to each other than different and more similar to each other than to external groups. Exceptions are made for empires that held actual, real authority over lands outside their own contiguous borders.

3) durability: the central authority must be able to last for multiple generations. No flash-in-the-pan dictatorships need apply.

4) external influence: the civilization must be shown to have influenced events happening outside its borders, either regionally or globally

I think it is fair to say that any list of criteria that would exclude greece as civilization is fundamentally flawed.

I think of your criteria, only 2 & 4 are trully relevant from this game, since that is what gives a civ flavour. 1 & 3 are much more in the realm of "what ifs" that is the corner stone of the franchise.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think it is fair to say that any list of criteria that would exclude greece as civilization is fundamentally flawed.

I think of your criteria, only 2 & 4 are trully relevant from this game, since that is what gives a civ flavour. 1 & 3 are much more in the realm of "what ifs" that is the corner stone of the franchise.

I agree that my criteria has some flaws, but the "what-if" civs and leaders truly annoy me. It's my own opinion. I don't expect other people to adhere to it. I'm not going to play the stop-liking-what-I-don't-like card.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think it is fair to say that any list of criteria that would exclude greece as civilization is fundamentally flawed.

I think of your criteria, only 2 & 4 are trully relevant from this game, since that is what gives a civ flavour. 1 & 3 are much more in the realm of "what ifs" that is the corner stone of the franchise.

2 is in direct conflict with China, Russia, America and India. India perhaps most of all. America is clearly not the same in the north and the south, or in the mid west and everywhere else. Russia only exists in practical terms west of the urals and Chinese is taught as a foreign language in most of china.

NOTHING defines a civilisation other than being put on a pedestal