Heh, thanks for the spelling tip, Dinorius. I always try to spell in proper Anglo-Australian English.
You make a good case, and I think our differences lie merely in at what point a way of life is defined as a 'culture' in itself. Yes, I wouldn't want to see Australia as an extra culture on the XP version either. The only reason why I would ever rename my civilisation the 'Australians' is often just the silly notion of being able to point out where I, their immortal leader, lives on the civ map!
And you have to realise, I live in the capital of Aussie Rules Football, really almost a culture and way of life in itself! Yes, yes, it's also a derivative of soccer and rugby, European sports...British hooliganism (!)...oh well.
On to some other issues raised in this thread:
metalhead's idea for a Byzantine civilisation sounds interesting. Anyone who played AOK would remember the Byzantine UU, the Cataphract, cavalry units raised from men and horses supplied in Asia Minor (Turkey) until the late 11th century. I don't know too much about them, but the way they were used in AOK was to give a bonus against infantry units.
Despite all I said, I agree with the omission of a Byzantine civ. Their culture and history ties in too closely with both the Romans and by the turn of the millennium, they had regained their Greek language and culture. The Byzantines even tended to call themselves 'Romans' for quite a long time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
I've read another discussion somewhere on keeping out the Mongols. I see two sides to this. One is that Genghis Khan was a ferocious conqueror who tended to destroy cities, not build them. Throughout their period of Eurasian conquest, the Mongol people remained a nomadic group of tribes on the arid steppes of Mongolia. Hardly a 'civilisation' in the sense of a nation-state. On the other hand, cities in Civ may be seen not as an area of urban settlement, but rather as a base of power from which to raise armies. Also, it has to be remembered that following the initial period of devastating raiding and conquest, Mongol leaders settled down in the conquered territories, China (for a while) and the Mughal Empire in India being two examples. To shoot down my own argument though ( :die!: ) , it has to be said that they were eventually assimilated into the local cultures, the eastern Mongol leaders converting to Islam, for example. You decide!
On Portugal. Previous comments on their power in the 15-16th centuries are fair enough, but realise that:
1. It was an empire often based on trade, not a sphere of Portuguese culture (Excepting Brazil).
2. This 'world empire' was fairly short-lived. The Dutch quickly usurped their critical position of dominance in Indonesia (minus East Timor), leaving the Portuguese with Brazil and a few trading posts on the coast of western and eastern Africa. Compare this with the conquests, resettlement and partial 'Spaniardisation' of South and Central America (again excluding Brazil). I can't argue about Portugal's role in exploration though.
On a Middle Eastern civ: With risking the wrath of Babylon-lovers, I'd opt to drop Babylon for a later civ, such as the Ottoman Empire, or simply the original Muslim caliphate that exploded onto the world scene in the 7th century. Yes, Babylon was a great ancient civilisation, but it crumbled nearly 2500 years ago. I do like Babylon, but it doesn't seem to fit up there with the world's greatest civilisations. Please don't hurt me, Babylon-lovers!
, modern Ireland
