What Makes a Civilization?

[AaronTBD]

What makes a civilization? Is it building settlements and towns? Is it having written language? Is it domestication of animals and agriculture? Or is it just having a culture?

With civs in the game like Gaul, the Cree, and Scythia as civs, civs that were either consider barbarians, nomadic, or both, it seems the term "civilization" has become broader than ever.

What do you think makes a civilization?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In the game the term civilization just means one of the playable factions.

In the concept of the civs in game it's more complicated. That being said Gaul and even Scythia were known to have permanent settlements and obviously domesticated animals.

Actually the Mapuche are like the Cree as both have populations which were more nomadic while others were more "settled". Are the Cree maybe the best group of Native American's to represent a "civilization?"
Maybe not as the majority of them were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Still I think they are a better representation than the previous Sioux or the Shoshone in a game about settling cities.

 

[8housesofelixir]

With civs in the game like Gaul, the Cree, and Scythia as civs, civs that were either consider barbarians, nomadic, or both, it seems the term "civilization" has become broader than ever.

I would sincerely question your wording that calling Gaul and Cree as "barbarians".

And "civilization" does not equal to "civilized".

 

[Zaarin]

Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, not the definition used by the game developers. I think to be considered as a civilization it should have at least small-scale agriculture, permanent settlements, and a degree of specialization of the workforce. For practical reasons, it should also have a language that's well-enough attested for dialogue to be written in it OR a closely-related modern language if it must be so, and it ought to have an interesting leader (whether or not they held a formal office) who can be the face of the civ. What it does not need is to have been politically unified, so long as it was culturally unified. And IMO nation-states do not qualify as civilizations.

 

[AaronTBD]

I would sincerely question your wording that calling Gaul and Cree as "barbarians".

And "civilization" does not equal to "civilized".

Historically and I didn't refer the Cree as barbaric but as nomads.

I'm sorry if I looked like a racist!

 

[Zaarin]

Historically and I didn't refer the Cree as barbaric but as nomads.

I mean, using the historic definition, Civ has always included barbarian civilizations since that's every civilization that isn't Greece or isn't Rome or isn't China, depending on which civ's definition of "barbarian" you're using.

 

[AaronTBD]

I mean, using the historic definition, Civ has always included barbarian civilizations since that's every civilization that isn't Greece or isn't Rome or isn't China, depending on which civ's definition of "barbarian" you're using.

I mean you're not wrong

 

[8housesofelixir]

Historically

So there goes the second line of my reply (as well as @Zaarin 's): "Civilization" does not equal to "civilized". Especially when the latter was defined by a small group of people compare to the majority of human population.

Hell, in traditional Chinese view, every single ethnic group other than the Chinese are barbarians.

If anything, I would say historical influence, unique language/culture/custom, and the complexity of social structure are the major considerations used in the game.

 

[AaronTBD]

So there goes the second line of my reply (as well as @Zaarin 's): "Civilization" does not equal to "civilized". Especially when the latter was defined by a small group of people compare to the majority of human population.

Hell, in traditional Chinese view, every single ethnic group other than the Chinese are barbarians.

Yeah that's fair

 

[sukritact]

IMHO At this point, basically any cultural group or associated state whether contemporary or historical is fair game, as long there’s enough attested data to make a civ out of them.

The barbarians in game are more there for gameplay as the early game “other” than for flavor if you ask me, they probably best represent the nomadic invaders who brought down empires like the Mogols and Huns, but both of them are also civs soooo.....

 

[Zaarin]

IMHO At this point, basically any cultural group or associated state whether contemporary or historical is fair game, as long there’s enough attested data to make a civ out of them.

The barbarians in game are more there for gameplay as the early game “other” than for flavor if you ask me, they probably best represent the nomadic invaders who brought down empires like the Mogols and Huns, but both of them are also civs soooo.....

I'd love to see barbarians made more flavorable and minor-civ-like in the future, whether representing hunter-gatherers, pastoral nomads, splinter states, or whatever. I'd also like to see a better way to handle non-urban civilizations like the Mongols and Scythians. Both changes would be so sweeping, though, that we're definitely talking about Civ7, not the future of Civ6.

 

[Krajzen]

The problem with the term 'civilization' is the fact that historically there is near universal tendency of settled, urban societies to discriminate against peoples they perceived 'uncivilized and therefore greatly inferior'. Though maybe I should rather write 'near universal tendency of all human societies', because even very 'primitive' (another very unpleasant word ) societies had their own category of 'barbarians' and 'uncivilized savages'. Therefore, it is impossible today to describe any historical group of people as 'uncivilized' without sounding like a jerk. I have encountered Australian articles on some Aboriginal sophisticated hunting techniques as a proof of 'Aborigines being the oldest continuous human civilization'. With all respect, if we can describe Australian hunter - gatherers as a 'civilization' then we may as well throw this word out of the window, as any and all human societies become Civilizations from similarly humanist perspective.

Personally I am quite attached to the classical definitions of 'civilization' as a settled, urban, agricultural society with a non - tribal government and social hierarchy. Writing is quite silly requirement of a civilization, because there were some very big and advanced societies without confirmed writing systems (most notably in Andes, but also some Subsaharan civilizations). Similarly 'organized religion' is a weird requirement which smells of some eurocentric visions of what is deemed to be the 'proper' religion (especially as even beliefs of very small and native human groups tend to be very poetic and sophisticated). Currency is obviously not required either, as it was only discovered in 6th century BC.

This would immediately disqualify Maori, Mapuche, Cree and generally all Native American tribes. Personally I'd be perfectly fine with this, as I have always felt Native American tribes just feel awkward on this scale. Generally I don't think a group of people should be in this game if its description in encyclopedias is more anthropology rather than history.

Then we get some problematic cases which are hard to classify using the classical binary notion of "civilizations vs tribes". Mongols are an interesting example, because they were basically nomadic tribes which due to very specific factors were capable of becoming an enormous power on the "macro civilizations" scale, so they get a special pass. What helps here is the fact they actually were capable of governing cities and states once they conquered them. Scythians, Huns and Manchu probably also get a special pass for similar reasons - if a group of nomads was so big, so long living and so powerful that it terrified empires, then it is an acceptable exception from the rule.

Then we get cases like Celts/Gauls, where they seem to be in the very interesting "proto civilization" stage, halfway between "tribes" and "civilizations". They lived in a countless mass of tribes, but those tribes had population centres comparable with large cities; they had roads, mines, diplomacy, organised armies, advanced metallurgic industries, irrigation, long range trade and some of them even minted their own coins. Such peoples seem legit for me to arrive into games like this one. There were many Subsaharan cultures similar to Gauls in that they didn't really fit the classical criterias of a 'civilization' but were still big enough to be clearly different from, let's say, Inuit tribes.

But in the end it doesn't matter, because today every group of human beings is a 'civilization' in discussions like this one, because we don't wanna offend anybody due to the unfortunate implications of calling anybody 'uncivilized'.

 

[AaronTBD]

The problem with the term 'civilization' is the fact that historically there is near universal tendency of settled, urban societies to discriminate against peoples they perceived 'uncivilized and therefore greatly inferior'. Though maybe I should rather write 'near universal tendency of all human societies', because even very 'primitive' (another very unpleasant word ) societies had their own category of 'barbarians' and 'uncivilized savages'. Therefore, it is impossible today to describe any historical group of people as 'uncivilized' without sounding like a jerk. I have encountered Australian articles on some Aboriginal sophisticated hunting techniques as a proof of 'Aborigines being the oldest continuous human civilization'. With all respect, if we can describe Australian hunter - gatherers as a 'civilization' then we may as well throw this word out of the window, as any and all human societies become Civilizations from similarly humanist perspective.

Personally I am quite attached to the classical definitions of 'civilization' as a settled, urban, agricultural society with a non - tribal government and social hierarchy. Writing is quite silly requirement of a civilization, because there were some very big and advanced societies without confirmed writing systems (most notably in Andes, but also some Subsaharan civilizations). Similarly 'organized religion' is a weird requirement which smells of some eurocentric visions of what is deemed to be the 'proper' religion (especially as even beliefs of very small and native human groups tend to be very poetic and sophisticated). Currency is obviously not required either, as it was only discovered in 6th century BC.

This would immediately disqualify Maori, Mapuche, Cree and generally all Native American tribes. Personally I'd be perfectly fine with this, as I have always felt Native American tribes just feel awkward on this scale. Generally I don't think a group of people should be in this game if its description in encyclopedias is more anthropology rather than history.

Then we get some problematic cases which are hard to classify using the classical binary notion of "civilizations vs tribes". Mongols are an interesting example, because they were basically nomadic tribes which due to very specific factors were capable of becoming an enormous power on the "macro civilizations" scale, so they get a special pass. What helps here is the fact they actually were capable of governing cities and states once they conquered them. Scythians, Huns and Manchu probably also get a special pass for similar reasons - if a group of nomads was so big, so long living and so powerful that it terrified empires, then it is an acceptable exception from the rule.

Then we get cases like Celts/Gauls, where they seem to be in the very interesting "proto civilization" stage, halfway between "tribes" and "civilizations". They lived in a countless mass of tribes, but those tribes had population centres comparable with large cities; they had roads, mines, diplomacy, organised armies, advanced metallurgic industries, irrigation, long range trade and some of them even minted their own coins. Such peoples seem legit for me to arrive into games like this one.

But in the end it doesn't matter, because today every group of human beings is a 'civilization' in discussions like this one, because we don't wanna offend anybody due to the unfortunate implications of calling anybody 'uncivilized'.

How to like a post twice

 

[Zaarin]

Personally I am quite attached to the classical definitions of 'civilization' as a settled, urban, agricultural society with a non - tribal government and social hierarchy. Writing is quite silly requirement of a civilization, because there were some very big and advanced societies without confirmed writing systems (most notably in Andes, but also some Subsaharan civilizations). Similarly 'organized religion' is a weird requirement which smells of some eurocentric visions of what is deemed to be the 'proper' religion (especially as even beliefs of very small and native human groups tend to be very poetic and sophisticated). Currency is obviously not required either, as it was only discovered in 6th century BC.

This would immediately disqualify Maori, Mapuche, Cree and generally all Native American tribes. Personally I'd be perfectly fine with this, as I have always felt Native American tribes just feel awkward on this scale. Generally I don't think a group of people should be in this game if its description in encyclopedias is more anthropology rather than history.

Two points. First, it would not disqualify all Native Americans because there were quite a few chiefdoms (which is more sophisticated than a tribal government) in North America, including the Powhatan and the (unfortunately poorly attested) Mississippians and possibly also including the poorly-understood Neutral (but I'm inclined to believe that that was a French misunderstanding and that the Neutral had a tribal government like all the other Northern Iroquoian peoples). Second, I broadly agree with all of your criteria except non-tribal government, which feels arbitrary. Again, there are a good number of Native American civilizations who clearly meet all of those criteria except non-tribal government, most prominently the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois.

Then we get cases like Celts/Gauls, where they seem to be in the very interesting "proto civilization" stage, halfway between "tribes" and "civilizations". They lived in a countless mass of tribes, but those tribes had population centres comparable with large cities; they had roads, mines, diplomacy, organised armies, advanced metallurgic industries, irrigation, long range trade and some of them even minted their own coins. Such peoples seem legit for me to arrive into games like this one.

I mean, strictly speaking, Celtic governments (broadly speaking, including not only the Gauls but also the Celtiberians and Britons and for that matter including the Irish pretty much into the early modern period) were chiefdoms and paramount chiefdoms. Again, I see no reason to exclude such peoples.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Two points. First, it would not disqualify all Native Americans because there were quite a few chiefdoms (which is more sophisticated than a tribal government) in North America, including the Powhatan and the (unfortunately poorly attested) Mississippians and possibly also including the poorly-understood Neutral (but I'm inclined to believe that that was a French misunderstanding and that the Neutral had a tribal government like all the other Northern Iroquoian peoples). Second, I broadly agree with all of your criteria except non-tribal government, which feels arbitrary. Again, there are a good number of Native American civilizations who clearly meet all of those criteria except non-tribal government, most prominently the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois.

I think being ruled by a chief to some equals tribal government, at least it's a common thing to think. Even so the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee primary government was run by a governmental council. Granted it was made up of chiefs from the different tribes but nonetheless it was a confederacy on a very large scale in Pre-Colombia America.

That being said I believe the Benin people of Nigeria consider themselves also consider themselves as a tribal government to do this day, and there is no problem with wanting them in as a civ.

 

[notNamed]

Again, there are a good number of Native American civilizations who clearly meet all of those criteria except non-tribal government, most prominently the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois.

Wouldn't Hodinoshoni fail on the urban criterion as well? I don't remember ever coming across any mentions of cities (and the associated division of labor, for instance) on their part.

 

[Zaarin]

I think being ruled by a chief to some equals tribal government, at least it's a common thing to think.

In technical terms, tribal government means being governed by big men and by consensus, whereas a chiefdom is ruled by a chief, an individual who possesses a degree of authority.

Even so the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee primary government was run by a governmental council. Granted it was made up of chiefs from the different tribes but nonetheless it was a confederacy on a very large scale in Pre-Colombia America.

Headmen, not chiefs, and the Haudenosaunee were tribal. They were governed by consensus, as seen to disastrous effect in the American War for Independence when the League could not agree on which side, if any, to support. The idea that one person could order another person--even a child--to do something without his consent was completely foreign to Northern Iroquoians. (But not to the Cherokee, who were very familiar with neighboring paramountcies like the Powhatan. The Northern Iroquoians in the ancient past had been in contact with the Hopewell civilization, but only in a limited degree.)

Wouldn't Hodinoshoni fail on the urban criterion as well? I don't remember ever coming across any mentions of cities (and the associated division of labor, for instance) on their part.

The Haudenosaunee were indeed urban, with fortified cities that could be as large as several thousand people, but they do only barely meet the criterion for specialization of labor: there were dedicated shamans, healers, traders, and certain craftsmen among the Haudenosaunee (and other Northern Iroquoians), but these individuals were also hunters/fishers and warriors.

 

[SMcM]

And IMO nation-states do not qualify as civilizations.

What do you mean by that? I understand a 'nation-state' to essentially mean a politically unified territory inhabited primarily by one 'nation' (which can be defined in terms of ethnic groups or shared culture, and very often shared language), for instance the French in France. That's certainly what was originally meant by it. It is in contrast with entities of the past such as the Habsburg Monarchy, which had culturally disparate subjects and under figures such as Metternich attempted to stamp out nationalist movements.The United States I see as slightly a blur, because though many do consider there to be a cohesive 'American' nationality based on shared values and culture, it is a place that is very much ethnically divided.

If by 'nation-state', you basically mean modern invented countries (e.g. the many former colonial countries with arbitrarily drawn borders), which claim to be 'nations', I would argue they aren't really nation-states at all in the true meaning of that. The extent of the tribal loyalties and ethnic divisions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, mean that I'd argue it's people cannot remotely feasibly describe it as a nation.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Headmen, not chiefs, and the Haudenosaunee were tribal.

Aren't the terms headmen and chiefs synonomous? Either way they were definitely tribal but obviously on a much more bigger and sophisticated scale than their counterparts.

 

[Zaarin]

If by 'nation-state', you basically mean modern invented countries (e.g. the many former colonial countries with arbitrarily drawn borders), which claim to be 'nations', I would argue they aren't really nation-states at all in the true meaning of that.

Yes, that's what I mean.

Aren't the terms headmen and chiefs synonomous?

No. A headman or "big man" is an individual who is accorded respect and may have the privilege of speaking on behalf of a set group of people (at a council or in trade/diplomatic negotiations) but who does not have any kind of binding authority and must persuade his people to do what he wants (he is first among equals, to borrow a phrase from ecclesiastical history); a chief has some level of authority.

Either way they were definitely tribal but obviously on a much more bigger and sophisticated scale than their counterparts.

More or less, yes, though the Wendat were roughly the same size in 1600. What gave the Haudenosaunee a greater degree of sophistication and a broader scale was early access to firearms and domination of the Covenant Chain (domination that wasn't always accepted by those they alleged to dominate). By the period where Joseph Brant was the leader, I would say they were beginning to transform into a chiefdom; Brant certainly wielded far more influence and power than your average headman. Another reason I continue to advocate for Brant to lead the Haudenosaunee.