Why are the Zulu always in Civilization

[volbound1700]

They have done very little in history to deserve to be in the game. The following civilizations deserve a spot over the Zulu

1. Israel/Hebrew
2. Austrians
3. Pueblo
4. Songhai
5. Libyans
6. Nubians
7. Hittites
8. Assyrians
9. Phoenicians (probably should take Carthage place since they FOUNDED Carthage)
10. Macedonians
11. Hungarians
12. Cherokee
13. Anazi
14. Goths
15. Huns
16. Poland
17. Aboringine
18. Polynesians
19. Brazil
20. Tibetans
21. Mitanni (Ancient Syria)
22. Philistines
23. Lombardy
24. Bulgaria
25. Fatamids Caliphite
26. Ghana
27. Any Civilization currently in Civ4
28. Iroqouis
29. Apache
30. Mississippian
31. Olmec
32. Minoans (Crete)
33. Italian City States (Venice, Pisa, & Genoa) in Middle Ages
34. Scotland
35. Ireland
36. Medea
37. Bactrans
38. Vandals
39. Parthians
40. Dacia

I cannot think of any great achievements the Zulu accomplished other than get their butts kicked by a couple of British regiments.

Also I think it is a MAJOR travesty that the Jews have never made it in as a civilization. They have their own religion in the game but no civilization.

 

[Xellos-_^]

They have done very little in history to deserve to be in the game. The following civilizations deserve a spot over the Zulu

1. Israel/Hebrew
2. Austrians
3. Pueblo
4. Songhai
5. Libyans
6. Nubians
7. Hittites
8. Assyrians
9. Phoenicians (probably should take Carthage place since they FOUNDED Carthage)
10. Macedonians
11. Hungarians
12. Cherokee
13. Anazi
14. Goths
15. Huns
16. Poland
17. Aboringine
18. Polynesians
19. Brazil
20. Tibetans
21. Mitanni (Ancient Syria)
22. Philistines
23. Lombardy
24. Bulgaria
25. Fatamids Caliphite
26. Ghana
27. Any Civilization currently in Civ4
28. Iroqouis
29. Apache
30. Mississippian
31. Olmec
32. Minoans (Crete)
33. Italian City States (Venice, Pisa, & Genoa) in Middle Ages
34. Scotland
35. Ireland
36. Medea
37. Bactrans
38. Vandals
39. Parthians
40. Dacia

I cannot think of any great achievements the Zulu accomplished other than get their butts kicked by a couple of British regiments.

Also I think it is a MAJOR travesty that the Jews have never made it in as a civilization. They have their own religion in the game but no civilization.

The Zulu's got in because they have a movie

 

[phungus420]

Name recognition, especially in the context that there really aren't any other Sub Saharan cultures with anywhere near the name recognition that the Zulus have.

With regard to Israel, that may be correct, but given the fact they seem hellbent to emulate their former oppressors and force the occupied Palestinian people into atrocious ghettos, illegally and immorally annexing their territory with settlements and opressing them with structural legislation, the fact they are denied admission into Civ is apropriate.

 

[Ramesses]

Also, they defeated the British in a decisive battle with nothing but spears. That's got to count for something.

 

[civverguy]

There's already been tons of threads like this. "why is x civ in the game and y civ not?" There should be some kind of megathread for this discussion.
Phungus is right though, they need a civ for every part of the world. There's already a lot of middle Eastern and European civs

 

[Palindrome]

Why feed the trolls? Should we argue about Sub-Saharan Africa needing to be represented, and the relative merits of the Zulus or the Songhai?

No! Instead I offer anecdotal evidence! I'm playing with the BUG Mod, (essential, IMHO,) and the BAT Mod. The BAT MOD is awesome, it replaces some graphics to make each civ unique. I'm playing my second game now, and chose Zulus, so the BAT mod replaced my generic Axemen with black people. I thought it really looked great.

Then my first Great General appeared. "Arminius" has a sculpted chest, a leopard cape, tribal gear, and he's wearing wrap around sunglasses. I howled. Imagine Shaft or Morpheus or Luke Cage playing a great general.

No, I'm not black, I'm painfully white, and don't really need to fan the flames. I was playing Shaka for the leader attributes. But Arminius, thanks to the BAT Mod, really made my day.

 

[volbound1700]

Also, they defeated the British in a decisive battle with nothing but spears. That's got to count for something.

Actually the Zulu had some guns they got through trade, conquest, etc. Also the British forces are misleading because 60-70% of the British fighting in the battle where local "black" Africans just loyal to the British (or mercenaries).

Go read about it in the anglo-zulu war.

 

[volbound1700]

Why feed the trolls? Should we argue about Sub-Saharan Africa needing to be represented, and the relative merits of the Zulus or the Songhai?

No! Instead I offer anecdotal evidence! I'm playing with the BUG Mod, (essential, IMHO,) and the BAT Mod. The BAT MOD is awesome, it replaces some graphics to make each civ unique. I'm playing my second game now, and chose Zulus, so the BAT mod replaced my generic Axemen with black people. I thought it really looked great.

Then my first Great General appeared. "Arminius" has a sculpted chest, a leopard cape, tribal gear, and he's wearing wrap around sunglasses. I howled. Imagine Shaft or Morpheus or Luke Cage playing a great general.

No, I'm not black, I'm painfully white, and don't really need to fan the flames. I was playing Shaka for the leader attributes. But Arminius, thanks to the BAT Mod, really made my day.

There are other African tribes that can be represented (Ghana, Songhai, and Congo for example).

Zulu didn't really even have viable cities. They are better suited to be barbarians then an actual civ.

Israel - I am looking more towards ancient Israel (obviously David or Solomon would be their leaders) and the fact that a huge part of Western and Middle East culture is derived from Jewish culture (such as our religion and legal systems).

 

[volbound1700]

I also found it offensive that all Civilopedia could talk about Christianity and Islam was violence and sects. In fact the entire Church of Nativity background is wrong. Since when did Protestants or any other Christian sect outside the Catholics invade and conquer Bethlehem/Israel in the name of their religious sect?

The only time the Christians invade Israel was during the Crusades which were just as much politically motivated as religiously (hence seeing marriages between Muslims and Christians and Muslims nations sided with Christians against other Muslims and vice versa).

However, they conveniently left out Buddhist and Taoist murdering Christian and Muslim missionaries in China and Japan or the Boxer Rebellion. Buddhism and Hinduism has its share of violence and sects to but Civilopedia makes it sound like Christianity or Islam are just violent annoying religions.

 

[Xellos-_^]

I also found it offensive that all Civilopedia could talk about Christianity and Islam was violence and sects. In fact the entire Church of Nativity background is wrong. Since when did Protestants or any other Christian sect outside the Catholics invade and conquer Bethlehem/Israel in the name of their religious sect?

The only time the Christians invade Israel was during the Crusades which were just as much politically motivated as religiously (hence seeing marriages between Muslims and Christians and Muslims nations sided with Christians against other Muslims and vice versa).

However, they conveniently left out Buddhist and Taoist murdering Christian and Muslim missionaries in China and Japan or the Boxer Rebellion. Buddhism and Hinduism has its share of violence and sects to but Civilopedia makes it sound like Christianity or Islam are just violent annoying religions.

Can't speak for the Japanese sect of Buddhism but during the boxer rebellion the Christian and Muslim missionaries weren't kill because of their religion. They were target because they were symbols of West and Foreign oppressors.

And comparing between the various religions how many crusades or holy wars were declare in Christianity or Islam vs Eastern (China/Korea/Japan) Buddhism/Taoism vs Indian Hinduism/Buddhism.

 

[volbound1700]

Can't speak for the Japanese sect of Buddhism but during the boxer rebellion the Christian and Muslim missionaries weren't kill because of their religion. They were target because they were symbols of West and Foreign oppressors.

And comparing between the various religions how many crusades or holy wars were declare in Christianity or Islam vs Eastern (China/Korea/Japan) Buddhism/Taoism vs Indian Hinduism/Buddhism.

Actually there was a lot of violence by Hindus against other sects (they massacred Buddhists which started in India and forced them over into China). There has been religion persecutions of Taoism, Buddhist, and Confucists for centuries in China (usually depending on what dynasties is in charge of what area and what they believe). Communist China today persecutes Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Toaists at times.

However, take my faith for example. I am a Baptist. Name one thing that Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians have done that is violent towards another religion.

All 7 of these religions by their teachings are peaceful and loving religions, it usually comes down to royal families opposing their religion on their subjects often in opposition to the priests and very teachings of their religions (for example persecutions of Jews by Catholics throughout European history was opposied by Catholic Priest and the Pope but supported by the Kings and Queens who were the real authority).

As a Christian, I want to point out that my faith has suffered more persecution and backlash probably then any other religion if you start with the New Testament and go into the modern age. I also consider Catholicism at times to be wrong doctrine and persecution of Protestant groups by Catholics and the persecutions of Luther and his followers to me seems to be an attack by nonbelievers on believers.

 

[mushutoku]

THESE are the threads that I like! Nothing to do with the game, pure politics!
So, I have a question for you: Somebody said, more or less, "The Zulu did few in world history", but, what does "Do Something in History" mean? To wage war? To have a literature? To buld cities? What?
The fact that I do not know very much about the history of the Zulu people (or any other people, is the same), does not means that they do not "deserve" a place in the game. All the people in the world, should be in the game, but unfortunately this would be too "heavy" for the software, the hardware and the game balance. The designer had to make some choices, and they did, on the basis of the "vulgata", the mainstream history studied, teached and learned in "the West". So, that is why we have many Europeans nations included as different civilizations, whereas the difference between the French and the Spaniards is less than the one existing between the Northern Chinese and the Southern Chinese, but these two are included in the same "Civilization"...

 

[phungus420]

However, take my faith for example. I am a Baptist. Name one thing that Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians have done that is violent towards another religion.

Since baptists are primarily a US sect, the question is skewed. The US denies state sponsored persecution based on religion. Though based on your post I wouldn't be surprised if you wished that pesky seperation of church and state were removed, which is why that's in there in the first place. Religions have demonstrated that they simply can't play nice when they gain control of the state; doing so grants virtual unlimited power to the members of a dominant sect which gives them the means to persecute their fellow man, the incentive is usually confiscation of property, which is quite strong -many people became quite rich in the inquisitions having their neighbors tortured and killed and gaining their possetions. Outside of religious persecution though the KKK would be a good example of an organization created and run by baptists with the sole purpose to persecute human beings.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

However this thread is not for things unrelated to the game. It is arguing the merit of including other civs over the Zulu, and to be honest at least some on that list appear more worthy.

 

[phungus420]

However this thread is not for things unrelated to the game. It is arguing the merit of including other civs over the Zulu, and to be honest at least some on that list appear more worthy.

While this may be true (In fact I'd argue there are a number of Civilizations in Civ4 that can't even be classified as civilizations: Celts, Native Americans, etc, etc), it's irrelevant. The developers wanted to include "Civs" from all over the world, and the Zulu are probably the Nation with the biggest name recognition in sub saharan Africa. So basically I contend your's and the OP's point is irrelevant.

 

[civverguy]

I also found it offensive that all Civilopedia could talk about Christianity and Islam was violence and sects. In fact the entire Church of Nativity background is wrong. Since when did Protestants or any other Christian sect outside the Catholics invade and conquer Bethlehem/Israel in the name of their religious sect?

The only time the Christians invade Israel was during the Crusades which were just as much politically motivated as religiously (hence seeing marriages between Muslims and Christians and Muslims nations sided with Christians against other Muslims and vice versa).

However, they conveniently left out Buddhist and Taoist murdering Christian and Muslim missionaries in China and Japan or the Boxer Rebellion. Buddhism and Hinduism has its share of violence and sects to but Civilopedia makes it sound like Christianity or Islam are just violent annoying religions.

The civilopedia says it tries to not offend any people, therefore the game lumps all the different sects of a particular religion together. Some denominations get along well and some don't so you can't really represent the denominations as separate religions that hate each other.

You're talking about certain groups of Christians but you're talking about Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Taoists as a whole. There are some groups of those religions who haven't been violent at all.

Ghana, Songhai and other African civs you mentioned are not a part of southern Africa region. They are around the game area as Mali. There aren't many well know tribes in that region besides the Bantu so the Zulu are put in the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

While this may be true (In fact I'd argue there are a number of Civilizations in Civ4 that can't even be classified as civilizations: Celts, Native Americans, etc, etc), it's irrelevant. The developers wanted to include "Civs" from all over the world, and the Zulu are probably the Nation with the biggest name recognition in sub saharan Africa. So basically I contend your's and the OP's point is irrelevant.

Actually I just want to see more total civs, TBH.

 

[civverguy]

I guess I'm one of the few people who feel that there should be less civs in the game, but each civ should have more individual flavor. Like each civ gets multiple UU, UBs, and civilization powers (though Rhyes and Fall mod added it already)

 

[volbound1700]

Since baptists are primarily a US sect, the question is skewed. The US denies state sponsored persecution based on religion. Though based on your post I wouldn't be surprised if you wished that pesky seperation of church and state were removed, which is why that's in there in the first place. Religions have demonstrated that they simply can't play nice when they gain control of the state; doing so grants virtual unlimited power to the members of a dominant sect which gives them the means to persecute their fellow man, the incentive is usually confiscation of property, which is quite strong -many people became quite rich in the inquisitions having their neighbors tortured and killed and gaining their possetions. Outside of religious persecution though the KKK would be a good example of an organization created and run by baptists with the sole purpose to persecute human beings.

Based on my view? Wow you are so biased. My point was that the history in Civilopedia was bad which is true. Protestants did not invade Bethlehem to take the Church of Nativity. I do not know any Christian sects other than the Catholics that did that.

I do not believe we should have a "STATE" religion but no-state religions include China today, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. Wow that is some good company for you religion haters. The first thing totalitarians do is ban or limit religion. THAT IS FACT. Inquisition was Catholics in Spain, not Baptists/Protestants. KKK was not made by Baptists, in fact the KKK has openly criticized the church and one of the most famous KKK court cases involves the bombing of a "Baptist Church." Ever heard of the 16th street church bombings in Birmingham?

It just saddens me how ignorant people are. It was funny how the other 5 religions on civilopedia had actually descriptions of their religion. Then you get to Islam and you do get the 5 pillars then mention of violence. Christianity's civilopedia mentioned nothing about the faith other than it took over the Roman world and was violent.

A better more fairer entry could have been, "Christians believe that Christ is the Son of God. They were started by Jesus over 2000 years ago and a collection of followers who followed him. Apostles such as Paul help spread Christianity through the Roman World and beyond. Over time schism have erupted in the church causing splits into the major groups which are Protestants, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian, and Morman faiths."

It saddens me how ignorant some people are when it comes to religions and history.

 

[volbound1700]

The civilopedia says it tries to not offend any people, therefore the game lumps all the different sects of a particular religion together. Some denominations get along well and some don't so you can't really represent the denominations as separate religions that hate each other.

You're talking about certain groups of Christians but you're talking about Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Taoists as a whole. There are some groups of those religions who haven't been violent at all.

Ghana, Songhai and other African civs you mentioned are not a part of southern Africa region. They are around the game area as Mali. There aren't many well know tribes in that region besides the Bantu so the Zulu are put in the game.

I agree 100% with what you said. I know that not all Buddhists, etc. are not violent but they do not mention anything about violence in their civilopedia while almost the entire Christianity entry is about violence and sects and taken over the Roman Empire with no mention about the actual faith.
Islam mentions 5 pillars but the rest is pretty much violence blah blah blah as well.

Yes I know Islam and Christians (or people that claim to be that religion) have had done bad things. In fact I question whether the Christians that committed those acts are REALLY Christians. However, Civilopedia could have had a more fairer entry. It is expected though because everywhere I turn, I hear people bashing my religion and stating totally incomplete arguments about my faith. I assumed this community would understand because every history professor I had or have ever talked to since graduation has presented a more accurate and fairer view of religion while the media and pop culture totally makes up false history (such as the Church of Nativity article on this game) that attacks a particular faith.