Why do people want to see Carthage as a civ?

[Stringer1313]

Other than the elephant stuff and losing to Rome why do people think they are a significant civ? I guess I’m often surprised at how often they are mentioned.

Moderator Action: Please post in English not text speak as this makes it very hard for non-English speakers, post and title edited -- NobleZarkon
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Arianrhod]

Because... they are a significant civilization?

That's like asking why anyone would want to see Spain other than the Inquisition stuff and losing their fleet to England. Not everyone can be a Civilopedia writer.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Frankly, the elephant thing is garbage. They were a significant early naval trading power. They roved over much of the coasts of Europe and West Africa.

 

[The Kingmaker]

They were a significant naval power that rivaled Rome for centuries...

...And they had one or two glamorous incidents with elephants.

 

[Returning Lurker]

“You wanna hear a joke about Carthaginian Civilization?... Carthaginian Civilization! (uproarious laughter)”- Rome

 

[Depravo]

Unlike Byzantium, which regrettably seems to be becoming a series staple despite being a clear linear development of the Roman Empire, it was a highly distinctive and self-conscious civilisation; and it had impressive reach and flexibility over a period of centuries.

Also, we definitely need something from the Maghreb. Morocco seems to have been popular with the chaps last time around. I couldn't play it because the colour scheme made my eyes bleed. Still, it beats Generic Berbers.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally I would rather see Phoenicia and leave Carthage as a city-state. On the other hand I don't think Phoenicia is possible and Carthage will be the closest thing we get. Just don't make it over the top militaristic and add in some qualities to make it like it's original founders.

 

[Krajzen]

It was big, maritime trade empire with very advanced fleet, multi ethnic army, and - unlike Phoenicia - impressive military history and few very cool leaders (Hamilcar, and especially Hannibal considered to be one of the finest generals of Western history). As opposed to Phoenicia's relatively unknown leaders.

Another Carthaginian upside over its mother Phoenicia is the fact it fills geographic void of North Africa (Tunisia), and the only other serious native North African contestant is Morocco/Moors/Berbers/however ou name it. Meanwhile Phoenicia is in already very crowded area.

I mean, Phoenicia is cool and all, but those are reasons it was Carthago so far.

Also as much as I dislike trope of adding civs because they were temporary obstacle to Rome (cough overrated Boudica cough), Carthago was veeery close to actually defeating Rome and dominating Mediterranean.

It also lasted few centuries.

 

[Duuk]

Also, because every time the Carthaginian leader's image appears on my screen, I immediately think, "Carthago delenda est."

Every. Single. Time. for Every. Single. Game.

I wish I was making that up.

 

[SirWill90]

Also, because every time the Carthaginian leader's image appears on my screen, I immediately think, "Carthago delenda est."

Every. Single. Time. for Every. Single. Game.

I wish I was making that up.

Cato got you, too!

 

[ezysquire]

So long as the great city of Tyre is in the game, city-state or otherwise I'm happy. It is truly deserving, even Alexander had trouble with it.

 

[Phoenix1595]

I am totally fine with Carthage as the representative civ of the Phoenician trade culture, but not Carthage as the representative civ of rampaging elephants barreling down the Alps towards Rome. I appreciate Carthage's martial prowness, but the previous civ titles leaned too hard on that when Carthage has a larger legacy as a successful trade empire. While we won't see Carthage as a civ in R&F, I hope they do consider a broader vision for them in any future expansion.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I am totally fine with Carthage as the representative civ of the Phoenician trade culture, but not Carthage as the representative civ of rampaging elephants barreling down the Alps towards Rome. I appreciate Carthage's martial prowness, but the previous civ titles leaned too hard on that when Carthage has a larger legacy as a successful trade empire. While we won't see Carthage as a civ in R&F, I hope they do consider a broader vision for them in any future expansion.

Carthaginian elephants are an example of Firaxis leaning too hard on pop history. I have zero faith that they will ever stop doing this, no matter how disgraceful it is.

 

[ferretbacon]

I am totally fine with Carthage as the representative civ of the Phoenician trade culture, but not Carthage as the representative civ of rampaging elephants barreling down the Alps towards Rome. I appreciate Carthage's martial prowness, but the previous civ titles leaned too hard on that when Carthage has a larger legacy as a successful trade empire. While we won't see Carthage as a civ in R&F, I hope they do consider a broader vision for them in any future expansion.

I think this is where the leader unique ability could really shine. If Hannibal leads Carthage, you can throw him the elephants as a 2nd UU, give him some military bonus (probably something to do with flanking/ambushing), and then devote the rest of the civ to portraying a maritime/commercial culture.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think this is where the leader unique ability could really shine. If Hannibal leads Carthage, you can throw him the elephants as a 2nd UU, give him some military bonus (probably something to do with flanking/ambushing), and then devote the rest of the civ to portraying a maritime/commercial culture.

Yes, this is exactly what they should do.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Carthage was one of the ancient superpowers of it's time and were a major rival to Rome. It's no wonder why people are asking for it and Carthage has been in the last 2-3 civ games.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Carthage was one of the ancient superpowers of it's time and were a major rival to Rome. It's no wonder why people are asking for it and Carthage has been in the last 2-3 civ games.

Carthage has been in every Civ game except Civ1. And of course it's not in Civ6 yet.

 

[Karmah]

Carthaginian elephants are an example of Firaxis leaning too hard on pop history. I have zero faith that they will ever stop doing this, no matter how disgraceful it is.

Well , I'm ok with the pop aspect as long as the background is represented. In this case, I remember I played dido for the free harbor not the elephants.So my feel is that the trade aspect was the most proeminent aspect of carthage in civ5 not the elephant.

 

[Greywulf]

Other than the elephant stuff and losing to Rome why do people think they are a significant civ? I guess I’m often surprised at how often they are mentioned.

Moderator Action: Please post in English not text speak as this makes it very hard for non-English speakers, post and title edited -- NobleZarkon
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Looks like you have a new history project: Study Carthage.

For their time they were very impressive, and do deserve a place in the game. That being said, this time I would really rather see Phoenicia, and the focus not being on military, but on trade. It's kinda Phoenicia's turn anyway, as they never get a proper place in the game (outside of CS's, which barely counts). Also, Carthage was essentially Phoenicia, as they were the descendants and successors of Phoenicia, and they even called themselves "Phoenicians" (well, their word for it anyway)...Not to mention that Carthage's founder was a Phoenician princess/queen. Carthage is a fine choice for the game, but so are the Phoenicians outside of Carthage.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

I think the very existence of this thread is a testament to Rome's success at destroying/slandering Carthaginian civilization and largely erasing it from public memory.

I think this is where the leader unique ability could really shine. If Hannibal leads Carthage, you can throw him the elephants as a 2nd UU, give him some military bonus (probably something to do with flanking/ambushing), and then devote the rest of the civ to portraying a maritime/commercial culture.

Not that I want to shamelessly plug my stuff (or do I ), but I made a suggestion for Carthage in Civ VI with these traits a while ago.

By the way, a lot of focus in given to Hannibal's military prowess and not enough to his excellent and prudent management. Not only was his logistical handling of the Italian invasion impressive, but his years as Shophet (kind of a Consul of the Carthaginian republic) following the 2nd Punic war allowed Carthage to bounce back and flourish which is the reason Rome demanded his resignation and forced his exile.

 

[Josephias]

Other than the elephant stuff and losing to Rome why do people think they are a significant civ? I guess I’m often surprised at how often they are mentioned.

Because... they are a significant civilization?

That's like asking why anyone would want to see Spain other than the Inquisition stuff and losing their fleet to England. Not everyone can be a Civilopedia writer.

Now, someone from the Spanish levant (were quite a handful of cities can trace to Cartaginian origin - some others to Phoenician, Greek and Roman, but I think Carthage gets the upper hand), may get quite offended by the statement combo at the start of the thread (although we are quite used by now, and do not give it importance, plus the second post was not made in negative sense, so don't worry).

But seriously, considering what is said above, at least tree cities in Civ'6 Spain city list can be claimed as Carthage-Settled, plus 2 at least being Phoenician-Settled, then administred by Carthage, and one more (Orán), that may bear some additional relationship. I think it is much more than other city-states can claim.