What's the deal with Buganda?

[Krajzen]

I like that Buganda made it, because it is a very good representative of Subsaharan states/cultures which are outside of the usual endlessly repeating list of "rare worthy African civilizations" which have already entered popular history.

I don't know much about Buganda in particular, but in my uni we had some readings about the society and history of precolonial Rwanda and it made me realize just how very interesting civilisations are still completely under the radar of Internet and documented in detail on the pages of academic research. Great Lakes were very interesting due to being essentially its own microcosm mostly cut off from the outside world barring very sparse trade routes and developing very unique social institutions because of that and Bantu peoples mixing with Nilotic peoples.

That being said, Buganda in the "modern age" feels somewhat off. I think Ethiopia would be the best choice for modern African civ, or if we want to go by the most succesful ones - Ghana, Senegal or Kenya, even if they are postcolonial.
Really don't understand why didn't they go with Ethiopia, seems to be the obvious non problematic choice while leaving unorthodox options for other eras.

I am not very fond of Nigerian civ because Nigeria is sadly an excellent study in postocolonial African country crashing burning and decaying as a result of putting way too many too powerful and distinctive civilizations under one roof - I'd much rather see Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Benin etc as separate cultures.

 

[Giskler]

This is the one I found that I think is Bugandan architecture.

 

[Krajzen]

I do admit there is a visible problem when given civ's technological advancement level was behind chronological era's world average

Buganda is one of those civs which would feel way better in a normal system - their straw huts etc would be in place in the early eras, while some other aspects felt appropriate in the modern ones...

It's hilarious given Firaxis rationale that it makes no sense when colonial civs are in the ancient eras etc - the new systems generates just as bad disconnect in a different way

 

[Lord Lakely]

As noted earlier in the thread, the Bugandan structure Giskler posted could be their wonder.

As the Egypt => Songhai => Buganda pipeline goes; Lake Victoria and the source of the White Nile is located inside present day Uganda, so it would not be too far a stretch that Buganda itself also interacted with Navigable Rivers and supercharged them further (as per Egypt's and Songhai's inherent Civ abilities).

Overall, I'm pleased Firaxis are researching new Civs (certainly enough to find Uniques to a kingdom I had personally never head about before the showcase), especially in subsaharan Africa which is often underrepresented in Civ. Makes me hope to see other interesting cultures from the region (Ashanti, Swahili/Kilwa, Benin, Zimbabwe) finally make their débuts in Civ 7 as well.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Why not just African cities?

It's not like modern cities all look the same. As someone mentioned previously, you can't mistake Paris for Huston, Kyiv or Tokyo. Skyscrapers and nothing else is more of a US/Arabic oil state aesthetic.

A lot of modern infrastructure is eurocentric.
I mean most of the differences between Cities nowadays has little to do with the modern infrastructure and very much to do with the legacy infrastructure.

So like obviously Paris is different to London, they were built different in the past. But you can't honestly tell me that NEW structures in London and Paris look too different...

(EDIT: I mean YES they are different, but not COMPLETELY different directions which is what I'm suggesting would be cool)

Anyway, what I'm suggesting is like a totally new style of architecture.
Mainly fictional, but based on the historical architecture of the Civilisation and where it would have gone in the future (so, ignoring the real life influence of European cultures and imagining it solo).

I'm not an architecture or history buff so I'm basically imagining Wakanda when I say this:

What kind of sucks is because of a lack of Antiquity-into-Modern in Civ7, we can't have Futuristic Ancient Rome or Futuristic Incan architecture, because they'll simply use the Modern equivalent cities, so Rome will just look like Italy and we'll have Mexico city instead of something totally new and alt-history.

 

[FishFishFish]

Victoria and the source of the White Nile is located inside present day Uganda, so it would not be too far a stretch that Buganda itself also interacted with Navigable Rivers and supercharged them further (as per Egypt's and Songhai's inherent Civ abilities).

Perhaps. I know that Buganda did use fleets of canoes to control lake Victoria. So a naval unique unit could be possible.

(Illustration of Buganda's war canoes as described by Henry Morton Stanley)

 

[Mudokon Pop]

The choice of Buganda is an interesting one - I had heard of it but didn't know much about it. They were definitely known for their war canoes in the region.

I know there was a mythogical kingdom in the Great Lakes region that Buganda claims descent from. The Bunyoro-Kitara kingdom reportedly existed as far back as the either the 11th or 13th centuries depending on the source I can find. I've seen this kingdom referred to as the 'Empire of the Moon'

I wonder if there will be an exploration era civ based on this kingdom too. perhaps not.

 

[Krikkit1]

Which is why I think cities should have some

A lot of modern infrastructure is eurocentric.
I mean most of the differences between Cities nowadays has little to do with the modern infrastructure and very much to do with the legacy infrastructure.

So like obviously Paris is different to London, they were built different in the past. But you can't honestly tell me that NEW structures in London and Paris look too different...

(EDIT: I mean YES they are different, but not COMPLETELY different directions which is what I'm suggesting would be cool)

Anyway, what I'm suggesting is like a totally new style of architecture.
Mainly fictional, but based on the historical architecture of the Civilisation and where it would have gone in the future (so, ignoring the real life influence of European cultures and imagining it solo).

I'm not an architecture or history buff so I'm basically imagining Wakanda when I say this:View attachment 701005

What kind of sucks is because of a lack of Antiquity-into-Modern in Civ7, we can't have Futuristic Ancient Rome or Futuristic Incan architecture, because they'll simply use the Modern equivalent cities, so Rome will just look like Italy and we'll have Mexico city instead of something totally new and alt-history.

Which is why city graphics for multiple civ cities should be
2 era=1/3 old, 2/3 new
3 era=1/4 first, 1/4 second, 1/2 new

So there is a mix of buildings (like many important buildings in W Europe +US have Roman derived architecture)

 

[Zaarin]

So there is a mix of buildings (like many important buildings in W Europe +US have Roman derived architecture)

There are pseudo-Roman style buildings in the US not because there were Romans here but because Americans suffer from an acute case of Hellenophilia. (I say pseudo-Roman because the originals were garishly painted, not white. )

 

[Siptah]

Roman architecture in modern cities, when it is not just ruins, but really integrated in streets or places, is usually super odd though. I mean, it would be fun if you can have a single Nîmes or Assisi like temple in your modern civ 7 city, but don't make it the norm or part of the normal district design. And let it generate tourism (if tourism is still a thing)

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I found some old maps of the Buganda capital Lubaga. In 1875, explorer Henry Morton Stanley gave the population of Lubaga at 40,000.

From wikipedia
"The journalist Henry Morton Stanley visited Buganda in 1875 and provided an estimate of Buganda troop strength Stanley counted 125,000 troops marching off on a single campaign to the east, where a fleet of 230 war canoes waited to act as auxiliary naval support".

The first two maps below were drawn by Buganda minister Apollo Kwagga depicting the city in the pre-colonial period. The second map is a map of the palace compounds - the large circular area seen in the first map. In the first map each division is a compound for a chief. The 4th map is by a colonial missionary. He only notes some of the chief divisions.

It seems the street to the palace compound was flanked by tall fences - I'm basing that on this old engraving of the approach to the palace from 1875 drawn by Stanly.

 

[Krikkit1]

There are pseudo-Roman style buildings in the US not because there were Romans here but because Americans suffer from an acute case of Hellenophilia. (I say pseudo-Roman because the originals were garishly painted, not white. )

Because “RL” American civ has Rome/Greece as an ancient predecessor (through England…see all the Latin in our law books)…predecessors don’t have to be location based

 

[Zaarin]

Because “RL” American civ has Rome/Greece as an ancient predecessor (through England…see all the Latin in our law books)…predecessors don’t have to be location based

That's the national founding myth, yes.

 

[Big J Money]

You have to remember that a lot of modern "countries" are just arbitrary lines drawn on a map by European colonials. The people who live in these places often don't see themselves as part of the European-named country, or perhaps even reject it.

Hell, even in Germany there are still regions where people have a very strong regional identity and less of a German identity -- or they feel that their neighbors are quite different from them because they come from a different region. Very early on, the various states in the USA were also this way, but US patriotism eventually won over. The point is that throughout history, Buganda has probably had just a strong -- if not stronger -- cultural identity than the current Uganda has. It was a Kingdom, and kingdoms certainly have a place in Civ.

Another way to think about this is: The Kingdom of Buganda would probably still by a primary power today if that civilization had stood the test of time. The fact that they are part of Uganda now is because they were annexed by the British and East India Company who wanted control of the Nile. Technically the kingdom does still exist, but it's more of a cultural symbol, and not the ruling power of the area.

 

[Zaarin]

Very early on, the various states in the USA were also this way, but US patriotism eventually won over.

To a degree. There's still a lot of regionalism in the US, especially in the South and New England, but also elsewhere. The American nation was a fiction created to bring the states together during the Revolution, and it's never quite become a tangible reality (even if it's more real than it was 200 years ago).

 

[Patine]

I do admit there is a visible problem when given civ's technological advancement level was behind chronological era's world average

Buganda is one of those civs which would feel way better in a normal system - their straw huts etc would be in place in the early eras, while some other aspects felt appropriate in the modern ones...

It's hilarious given Firaxis rationale that it makes no sense when colonial civs are in the ancient eras etc - the new systems generates just as bad disconnect in a different way

Funny, where are those conical, thatched huts? I think there's a few in the old royal tombs, a museum and some historical sites around the city. But this looks nothing like it

.

 

[eduhum]

Quite pathetic that insistence on inclusivity forces game devs to include a supposed 'civilization' that didn't even build STONE BUILDINGS. By this account Civ7 should also include preclassical sardinian nuraghi civilization, to make a random example. Such is the current zeitgeist, though.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

Not having stone buildings is not always a proxy for a lack of merit for being in this game though -- the Polynesians were star-following ocean-crossing pioneers and Kongo didn't really have many if any stone structures (due to a lack of supply.)

Also nothing wrong with inclusivity in and of itself -- it just depends on the execution (like the multiple... odd choices made for leaders in Civ 6. On the Civ end they were honestly not inclusive enough given some of the civs they thought were worth implementing IMO)

 

[Zaarin]

Not having stone buildings is not always a proxy for a lack of merit for being in this game though -- the Polynesians were star-following ocean-crossing pioneers and Kongo didn't really have many if any stone structures (due to a lack of supply.)

For that matter, the Chinese and Koreans overwhelmingly built with wood, which is why they have few ancient structures still standing. (I'm less familiar with Japan but suspect the same is true of them.)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Such is the current zeitgeist, though.

The Zulu have been in the series since Civ1??