Why are the Zulu always in Civilization

[dannythefool]

If for you brazil is portugal, and most south america is spain, why north africa and half north america isn't french?
I am not sure the answer can be found with this kind of logic...

I think the logic is fine, and the French flag is really missing in Western Africa and on Madagascar. For a civ in the game, you need both a civilization that had some measurable impact, and a name and face you can put next to it as a great leader. The problem with former European colonies is that even those who had something that qualifies as a civilization had not produced any leaders. There are very few notable exceptions, and several of them are in the game.

No leaders before colonialisation, that is, but I'm pretty sure that picking for example Nelson Mandela as the leader of a Native African empire would receive some criticism, even though he is descendant from a line of kings of his people. Shaka fits that role much better.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

I think the logic is fine, and the French flag is really missing in Western Africa and on Madagascar.

North Africa? North America? India? ... but anyway that was not my point... I think LM gets it right, it's about commercial revenues, far more than historical point of view.

For a civ in the game, you need both a civilization that had some measurable impact, and a name and face you can put next to it as a great leader. The problem with former European colonies is that even those who had something that qualifies as a civilization had not produced any leaders. There are very few notable exceptions, and several of them are in the game.

No leaders before colonialisation, that is, but I'm pretty sure that picking for example Nelson Mandela as the leader of a Native African empire would receive some criticism, even though he is descendant from a line of kings of his people. Shaka fits that role much better.

Agreed with those points .

 

[volbound1700]

Ok about some of my civs:

Germany has accomplished A LOT more then the Zulu, no offense. Bach, Beethoven, numerous technological inventions. GREATEST Military power in the world from 1880-1942.

HRE is Austria so you were right about that.

Israel is pretty much responsible for a lot of the American and European legal system and for all the religion in the West.

Also religion was a motivation factor in the start of Democracy (the Bible was even the first book to recognize equal rights for women and a democratic system in the way church decides matters) and for abolition and human rights movements. So in a way a lot of our legal system, philosophy, and other ideas can be dated to the Hebrew Civilization.

Not to mention the Bible if you take it for literary and historic value.

Assyria was actual more powerful and lasted longer then either Babylonian Empires, they just do not have the name recognition.

Aborigines were the natives to Australia.

Mali and Ethopia should have been in the game before the Zulu IMO. (Basically instead of Zulu in Civ1, 2, 3, either of these two would have been more proper).

Nubia was famous for building Kush, a major trade and cultural center in ancient times.

Fatamid Caliphite started in Tunisia, not Egypt and ruled more then Egypt. They were the first horsehockyte Islamic nation.

Minoans invented plumbing, calenders, and started full-scale naval trade. They were believe to be the rumored Atlantis.

Carthage WAS NOT the leading Phoenician city. Tyre was. Sidon and Byrut were also bigger then Carthage. Carthage was a colony of Phoenicia. The homeland of the Phoenicians is modern day Lebanon.

 

[volbound1700]

I really get a kick out of these threads. I'm going to sidestep the religion thing altogether because as one of those horrible, hateful Catholics, the OP isn't going to listen to me anyway.

There was a big huge thread about this last year, and it was pretty funny, but of course it got locked. Somebody (I can't remember whom) said something about every civ being in the game for a specific reason. I thought about this, and I think that I've figured it out.

Marketing!

Yes, that's right. Every civ is in the game because it fits into at least some of the following criteria:

1. It has been a significant player on the world stage, or it's omission would have people upset and they simply can't leave it out. (America, China, Russia, the UK.)
2. It has significant historical value, either recently, or in the past.
3. We all learned about them in grade school, and for most of them we at least recognize the name of the civ, or perhaps it's leader.
4. The civ represents a region of the world which Firaxis felt was underrepresented in the game, and thus chose a country to flesh out that particular geographical area.
5. The inclusion of the civ or leader does not provoke a hot-button, knee-jerk, controversial response. The included civ offends the fewest amount of people. This is why Hitler and Pol Pot aren't in the game, for instance.

Civ was really made for those of us in the western world, and particularly North America, because that's where the money is. It's geared toward western culture and what most of us know of it from our history classes in school as children. Those of us who have gone on to higher learning may have had courses in history which filled out the details of the less than stellar accomplishments of Stalin and Mao for instance. Some of us are history buffs and know a bit more. Those are the people who ask the question "Why is civ x in this game and not civ y?" And they can give good reasons for each. Most people probably don't care, and the designers know it.

I honestly believe that Firaxis set out to offend no one, but still tried to give the game a "worldly" flavor, and a sense of historical importance. As an example: The Khmer. They were at one time the second largest empire in southeast Asia, but I'll bet that a lot of us had to look them up in Wikipedia or something. I'm willing to bet that they were included because the designers found a "hole" in the game. A region that had little or no representation. "Hmmm. We can't use Viet Nam, the Americans will freak out. Cambodia's a no-no as well. Hmmm." So they chose a civ to represent that actually did have some historical accomplishments, and were able to flesh out the region.

As for the Zulu, well, why not? Africa is poorly represented in the game. That might be because of what a couple of people mentioned above. Small, loose empires, or basically tribal societies with little or no cohesion, and that completely makes sense. Everybody has heard about the Masai, for example. I personally would like to see them included because their culture is interesting, their reputation for bravery is well known, and currently they are doing a number of things to help with the conservation of wildlife in the African habitat. They won't be included because their contribution to history is not enough, they are basically a tribal society, and they don't have a well recognized leader. Shaka has been in a few western movies, and many of us learned about the problems the British had in South Africa during the Colonial period. Most of us have heard of the Zulu wars. It's just brand recognition.

And remember, the game's designers have to submit the list of civs to the legal department before the game goes out to the store shelves. Given the fact that anyone will sue anybody for anything these days, I'm surprised that we have a game at all.

I didn't call Catholics hateful. I just stated that they were responsible for 90% of the "truthful" violence people talk about when they talk about Christianity and that was back in the Middle Ages and most the times the violence was not condoned by the real church leaders (such as the Pope and Bishops) but by Kings and Queens.

Khmer was Vietnam/Cambodia and they deserved a spot in the game.

IMO, the Zulu are not as recognizable as the Aborigines in Australia. They represent an empty area of the world and yet they are not in it. Also in the main game you use just random maps and not world maps. Why do we need to represent an area of the world in that scenario.

I do believe that they did not mean to be offensive with religion, it is just common culture to assume "bad history" about Christianity/Western Culture in our world today. Open your eyes and see all the negative assumptions about this today even the ones that are false. I believe in taking credit for bad things when they are do but when the stuff is blantently false history it bothers me. I do not hear actual Historians getting things wrong about society but when I pick up books not written by historians or turn on the news and they give a quick overview of history, it bothers me how wrong they get history. Sorry about my crusade on stuff.

BTW, when I consider the value of a civilization you have to measure the following:

1. Power
2. Size
3. Inventions
4. Art-Culture (Musical works, paintings, architecture, world wonders, etc.)
5. Technology
6. Innovation

When I look at the Zulu, they were powerful in South Africa until they ran into British but in world wide perspective they achieved very little power and were nothing more then unruly natives to the international community

They controlled some of Africa so size has a little value

They invented nothing for the modern world

They produced very little major works of art, music, etc. and build no wonders

They were not advanced technologically at all.

They did not form a unique view of society, philosophy, or governmental form.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Why is Shaka always there? Cause everyone in America knows who Shaka Zulu is. I think it's fairly excellent that they got Mali and Ethiopia in there, cause I'd never heard of Mansa or Zara before Civ.

 

[Malachi256]

It seems there are a couple pertinent questions:

1. What criteria define a "civilization"? Winning wars, inventing stuff, amassing land/wealth, lasting a long time, etc?? I'm sure there's a thread about this somewhere, but I don't see a problem in re-discussing it here (that's what forums are for).

2. Why do people in the U.S. have name recognition for Shaka of the Zulus? Or in other words, why did someone bother making movies about him/them? Obviously someone thought the Zulus were movie-worthy, perhaps the same criteria could be applied to being a notable civ.

 

[Gooblah]

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

Lemme go the down the list, m'kay.

1. Israel/Hebrew - Judaism. Done.
2. Austrians - Europe is already over-represented.
3. Pueblo - While I agree that Native America is wayyyy too broad, other tribes come to mind - specifically, the Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee
4. Songhai - How many people have honestly heard of the Songhai? For pure marketing reasons, they shouldn't be in. Also, Mali kind of claims a lot of their territory (a stretch, though).
5. Libyans - see above
6. Nubians - see above
7. Hittites - did control a broad swath of mesopotamia and basically invented irong working for war, but Middle East is already overcrowded
8. Assyrians - see above
9. Phoenicians (probably should take Carthage place since they FOUNDED Carthage)
10. Macedonians - Dude. Really? Alexander the Great wasn't Greek, I agree, but the culture he spread was hellenistic, not macedonian.
11. Hungarians - Same as Austria.
12. Cherokee - Should be in.
13. Anazi - Who? See Songhai.
14. Goths - A Barbarian tribe split among several different groups whose main achievement was taking down Rome. Not exactly Civilization quality.
15. Huns - See above.
16. Poland - Oh good lord, this again? There are like fifty threads devoted to this. Just go to OT and vent about Poland there.
17. Aboringine - Again, really? a scattered people who never founded a true empire and lived in isolated villages or waged nomadic lives?
18. Polynesians - Same as above. Too fragmented to be called a single empire.
19. Brazil - A mix of Mesoamerican and Portuguese culture. Hasn't had much impact on modern history.
20. Tibetans - same as above, but instead a mix of Buddhism (in-game religion), India, and China (both in-game Civs)
21. Mitanni (Ancient Syria) - see Hittites
22. Philistines - see Huns
23. Lombardy - hasn't had much impact on modern history, and zero marketing value
24. Bulgaria - see above
25. Fatamids Caliphite - Arabia kind of representes all the various caliphates and dynasities. There's quite a few scenarios with them included, at any rate.
26. Ghana - see Lombardy
27. Any Civilization currently in Civ4 - I'm going to ignore this one (it's like saying that chocolate shouldn't be a flavor of icecream because you don't like it)
28. Iroqouis - should be included, but same status as Zulu
29. Apache - Tie between these guys and Sioux; sadly, most of their name recognition comes from the combat helicopter.
30. Mississippian - not long-lasting/memorable enough to have major impact on history
31. Olmec - see above
32. Minoans (Crete) - see above
33. Italian City States (Venice, Pisa, & Genoa) in Middle Ages - Culture represented through Holy Roman and Roman Empires IMO
34. Scotland - No. Too little impact on world.
35. Ireland - see above
36. Medea - see Songhai
37. Bactrans - see Songhai
38. Vandals - see Goths
39. Parthians - see Songhai
40. Dacia - see Songhai

I believe I do now hold the record for most ethnic prides disturbed.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Brazil went to war largely unprepared as a response to something that really shouldn't have concerned them. Who wants to play incompetents...

Uruguay should have really be left alone, but it was just a country then due to British intervention. It was claimed by both Argentina and Brazil who had a huge influence on its domestic policies. Paraguay tried to get into business as well and the war started. That's true that at the beginning of the war all countries were unprepared, except for Paraguay. However that didn't remain true during the last of the conflict when the Allies' strategy changed from a land campaign to a navy invasion based on the River Plate. Besides, that seeded the grounds for the abolishment of slavery in Brazil when the Army officers started to refuse to pursue the runaway slaves.

Oh, that must be why the Chinese are in Civ. Because they built the Three Gorges Dam! Now I finally get it. It has *nothing* to do with their other achievements. You just have to build a dam.

True, building a wonder is not a criterion for inclusion. Besides, Cristo Redentor is Brazilian.

In 1942? Resulting in German submarines sinking a large number of Brazilian merchant ships? They only declared war after that. Brazil even sent a stack to Italy with some reasonable success. But did that leave a lasting impression? No. The war would have been won by the allies regardless. In other words, Brazil officially remained neutral until the war was decided and then they picked the winning side.

True again. The Brazilian president at the time was somewhat of a fascist himself and wanted to join the war with the Axis. The Brazilian labor law up to now is still based on the Carta del Lavoro of Mussolini. The Americans insisted on having the permission to build a base in the Northeast of Brazil and that is what allowed the control of the South Atlantic. Not that Brazil itself played a major role on that. The main reason for not getting more involved in the war effort, i.e. sending more troops, was the lack of enough healthy men at the time.

Being late to the party is grounds for inclusion in Civ how?
Brazil certainly had a deep impact on the modern world, being one of the more important economic powers these days. But it were the Portuguese who laid the foundation for that. Anyway, personally I'd certainly like to see Brazil or Canada or Switzerland in Civ, but this thread was started to question the Zulu's inclusion and I can see countless reasons why they should be included before Brazil - I already wrote that I think they're in there for Shaka, who certainly did distinguish himself as a great leader (or not so great if you were one of his enemies or even a child born in his lands, but the same is true for the Romans).

Again, my point was not for the inclusion of Brazil in Civ, it was only trying to point out that the most important part of its history happened after the Independence and not before it.
BTW, it just feels wrong to be represented by Portugal because there are huge differences between both the cultures and current status in the world. Nowadays most Portuguese can understand Brazilians speaking Portuguese due to the cultural presence Brazil has in Portugal in the form of TV shows and music; and Brazilians have to try really hard to understand a Portuguese person speaking because the current influence Portugal has on Brazil is insignificant.

Lemme go the down the list, m'kay.
19. Brazil - A mix of Mesoamerican and Portuguese culture. Hasn't had much impact on modern history.

Not much impact indeed. (Well, maybe except for the market of elevator music, in which Brazil is dominant. ) But Mesoamerican culture is really, really unimportant in Brazilian culture nowadays. Demographically, the Native Americans hold less than 6% of its population. Culturally there are not many traces of their previous culture either, except for some foods.
It would be way more accurate to describe Brazil as a mix of Portuguese and African culture. It is the second largest black country in the world, only Nigeria has more black inhabitants than Brazil and Nigeria is in Africa. Brazilian Portuguese has almost 6000 words that come from Africa, there are two religions based on African spirituality - Umbanda and Candomblé. The African captives were the ones with most responsibility for spreading Portuguese as the dominant language, for the Portuguese used to mix slaves from different parts of Africa in the same places to avoid rebelions and they had to find a way to communicate. The Portuguese themselves only attempted briefly to assert their language in Brazil in the XIXth century when the Marquis of Pombal was ruling Portugal and that was as brief as his rule.

There is also a strong accent of Italian, German, Arab and Japanese culture in the southern part of Brazil. I don't know if you're aware of that, but São Paulo is the biggest Japanese city outside of Japan as well as the biggest Italian city outside of Italy and the biggest Lebanese city outside of Lebanon.

Besides all that, the only reason that Brazil is not considered entirely Western by some people is the color of the skin of most Brazilians. In the end of the day, Brazil is a branch of Europe in South America.

 

[RRRaskolnikov]

Well, maybe except for the market of elevator music, in which Brazil is dominant.

All soccer lovers agree that brazil is a major civilization

 

[Lemon Merchant]

@volbound1700:

Hmmm. Let me point out a few things...

I didn't call Catholics hateful. I just stated that they were responsible for 90% of the "truthful" violence people talk about when they talk about Christianity and that was back in the Middle Ages and most the times the violence was not condoned by the real church leaders (such as the Pope and Bishops) but by Kings and Queens.

Your statement of responsibility is, while accurate, slightly irresponsible. You are giving the impression that the Catholic Church, and Catholicism in general is responsible for the "truthful violence" that you speak of. This is an inaccurate statistical comparison because until the late Middle Ages and the advent of Protestantism, Catholicism was the de facto branch of Christianity, and controlled almost, if not all, the religious activities and political climate of the early Christan world. Hardly surprising that Catholics were responsible for most of the violence, I think. But it's easy to point the finger of shame when there are no other significant players in the game.

It doesn't really matter what religion is mentioned. They all have problems in this area. More harm to our fellow humans has been done in the name of God, that any other reason in our history. And it doesn't matter what god we talk about. If you do not believe what I believe, you are the enemy, and you must be set right. Look at the Crusades. "We simply can't have those unbeliever's sullying Bethlehem! We must eliminate them!" On the Muslim side: "Those infidels want our land! They do not believe! We must kill them!" See how stupid this thinking is? We have plenty of examples of bad religious thinking. War after war after war, the Spanish Inquisition, the afore-mentioned Crusades, the suppression of scientific knowledge because it didn't agree with, or threatened Church doctrine, effectively prolonging the Dark Ages and delaying the Renaissance. I could go on.

I do believe that they did not mean to be offensive with religion, it is just common culture to assume "bad history" about Christianity/Western Culture in our world today. Open your eyes and see all the negative assumptions about this today even the ones that are false. I believe in taking credit for bad things when they are do but when the stuff is blatantly false history it bothers me. I do not hear actual Historians getting things wrong about society but when I pick up books not written by historians or turn on the news and they give a quick overview of history, it bothers me how wrong they get history. Sorry about my crusade on stuff.

For the most part, the "bad history" that you talk about is largely accurate, and no branch of Christianity is immune, just as every other religion in the world has it's less than shining moments. Since you were defending Protestantism earlier, let me hold up a few shining examples of "goodness" from your own sect: Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart - both disgraced by a sex scandal. Pat Robertson blatantly shilling for money "God will take me unless we raise X million dollars." - remember that? Jerry Falwell's outrageously morally bankrupt and corrupt Moral Majority. Protestantism was unfortunately smeared and made to look ridiculous by all of that, making good, decent people look foolish.

You tell us that it's common culture to be negative about Christianity, and to an extent, that is true. But it's true of ALL sects of Christianity. The problem you speak of is that many devout Christians see the world through rose colored glasses, and conveniently ignore the evidence of their own faults. These are the people who rail against the totalitarian dictatorships of the world, and how they suppress the freedom of religion, when they would just as happily sieze power and impose morality upon all of us in order to "save us" from ourselves, thus denying us the freedom of thought, worship, and scientific study. These are the people who cheer our social and political freedoms, but seek to tell me what I can read, watch on TV, or see in my local theater, and how science must conduct itself. I would not want to live in that world, thank you, and I am a Christian. The separation of church and state exists for a reason. Power corrupts, and even the most well meaning person is not immune. I'll bet that even Gandhi had a few off days.

I personally care nothing for another person's religious beliefs. To me, they are private, personal matters, and I try very hard to respect someone's commitment to their God, and I try even harder to avoid telling anyone what they should believe. I believe in freedom of choice, thought, and expression. That means that if you say something that I disagree with, I have the right to voice my objection, which is simply what I am doing here, but my responsibility as someone with religious beliefs ends there. Sometimes I watch these people on TV, or read in the newspaper, about how we are all going to Hell in a hand basket, and how that person knows the truth, if we would only follow. I watch as many people take up the cause and pressure our governments to deny us a freedom or two. In those cases, I remember a line from one of my favorite songs:

"Quick to judge. Quick to anger. Slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear walk hand in hand."
- Rush "Witch Hunt"

And I open my eyes.

 

[xchen08]

2. Why do people in the U.S. have name recognition for Shaka of the Zulus? Or in other words, why did someone bother making movies about him/them? Obviously someone thought the Zulus were movie-worthy, perhaps the same criteria could be applied to being a notable civ.

Simple. They were a stone age tribe that inflicted a stinging defeat on the British at a time when aboriginal tribes were easily ground under by rifles and artillery. Further, this directly led to the battle of Rorke's Drift, one of those inspiring last stands like Thermopylae or the Alamo, except the defenders actually won, an obvious target for a movie; and the one made was an exceptionally good one that imprinted itself on the national psyche.

Then as people grow more politically correct, they started identifying less with the white British soldiers in an imperialistic war of expansion and more with the courage (or possibly brute stupidity) displayed by the Zulu. Basically, the Zulu as an independent tribe achieved just one thing of note, the victory at Isandlwana. They were portrayed in film not because of anything to do with the Zulu, but rather because of the courage and tenacity of 139 British soldiers that held off 30+ times their number of Zulu, many armed with rifles taken from the British dead at Isandlwana.

That said, I really don't mind the inclusion of the Zulu. They are fun to play, and they are easy to portray thanks to the movie, and give a Civ for an underrepresented part of the world.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

That said, I really don't mind the inclusion of the Zulu. They are fun to play, and they are easy to portray thanks to the movie, and give a Civ for an underrepresented part of the world.

Bingo.

[10 characters]

 

[ChiefTonfa]

fact = all major religions have been manipulated to steal lots from people and kill lots of people

fact = all major religions have been used as a source of personal strength and faith for lots of people

fact = the same basic stuff would probably happen with or without religion

fact = religion is pointless

fact = getting into more details about religion than the above is a waste of time

fact = playing civ is a better waste of time

 

[ChiefTonfa]

also, although i dont believe there ever actually was a person named jesus christ, watch zeitgeist free on youtube, imagine if him or mohammed or someone like them showed up today. voices in their head, people dont understand what they do, they know the better truth! they'd probably be put in an institue and forced on meds and observed. you know its true. they just like showed up at the exact right place and right time. there's probably a lot of them in history who were at the wrong place or time. and a lot of them now who are on meds. however i would estimate that billions...BILLIONS of people who believe that jesus and mohammed were real and important...also support people today taking meds for hearing voices and weird stuff like that. its like they just dont get it. the singularity is approaching!! youtube singularity!!

 

[Kesshi]

fact = religion is pointless

ChiefTonfa,

You probably won't find someone more opposed to any type of organized religion (not the civic people ) than me, but even I cannot agree with the above statement. As much as I dislike religion en masse, even I can see that it has a point. Usually that point is hugely twisted and distorted to meet someone's personal needs, but even I can concede that there is a point to religion.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

^I agree that we should ponder more before speaking. I'm not a religious man myself. In fact, I have some strong feelings against pretty much all the religions I know. However what we need is not what other people need. I have a very close friend who was about to commit suicide and only didn't because she could find some comfort in religion. Do I still think the doctrines are fictional? Yes I do. Was there a better way to help my friend? Probably not, at least not so fast. So there is a point to religion, IMHO.

 

[oawiefga]

I am guessing that I big part of the reason the Zulu were included is because of their location in sourthern affrica. I will agree that they don't meet the measure of a great civilization but neither do the american indian tribes or the germanic tribes that you have listed.

Sure they had some impact on history and are worthy of academic study but a strong written history should be the very minimum criteria for any great civ.

 

[volbound1700]

I have said all I want to say about the religious topic other than one more point. Yes, the Catholic Church itself was often not responsible for the acts because priests apposed it but Kings and Queens supported it for political reasons. Throughout history, politicians have used religion as a means to support their agendas (in fact they still do today). The Crusades were more politically motivated then religiously motivated if you get in depth about them. Also the Crusades did start due to Seljuk Turks invasion of Byzantine territory and defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert. The Pope saw it as a means to get Europeans to stop killing each other while at the same time helping a fellow Christian nation (even if they were not Catholic). It was actually ingenius in that it stop the fighting between European nations and turned their war-like energy against an outside foe which was encroaching on Europe. It would be like a religion today rallying the Earth to battle an outside Alien force that is threatening us.

Back to the Zulu debate:

The poster that listen all my nations and put see above on half of them really hasn't read up on these civilizations.

Assyria conquered the known WORLD at one time.

Minoans invented Plumbing, the equivalent of what is harbors and seafaring on civilization since they were the first maritime civilization, they also invented on of the first Alphabet.

The legend of Atlantis and the Legend of the Minotaur both originated from the Minoans. IMO they deserve a spot over the Zulu. However, as you said Europe is crowded and Crete is really small. (BTW they were the first official European Civilization).

Israel accomplished quite a lot during their kingdom period and even beat off the powerful Greek Hellenic Dynasties in the Maccabee revolt.

 

[volbound1700]

You also criticized Aborigines for being nothing but natives in huts but that is what the Zulu were. They were not even advanced by African standards.

 

[CHEESE!]

ChiefTonfa,

You probably won't find someone more opposed to any type of organized religion (not the civic people ) than me, but even I cannot agree with the above statement. As much as I dislike religion en masse, even I can see that it has a point. Usually that point is hugely twisted and distorted to meet someone's personal needs, but even I can concede that there is a point to religion.

Agreed. Pure athiest here, but I can see a 'point' to religion.