Why have the Mughals never been in the game?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

and ofc at the forefront of western education about india is gandhi, hence why early civ games, which range from leaders who have nothing to do with a civ to persia being led by the fictional princess in 1001 nights, featured gandhi without really going any further.

Now that you mention it Nur Jahan would have at least been a more inspiring choice than Indira Gandhi for the female leader of Civ 2, if they had to keep the other one.

 

[Prester John 2]

Or Razia Sultana who ruled the Delhi Sultanate.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Or Razia Sultana who ruled the Delhi Sultanate.

the most iconic woman leader in indian history for me is rani lakshmibai, queen of jhansi

Rani of Jhansi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

closest person indians have to boudicca or joan of arc, and twice as bada**

 

[bbbt]

I think you're making a good point why we need the civ switching/changing mechanism: To allow the representation of more diversity.
The old civ games always had "India" as a civ. Most people here will know that there are plenty of cultures within India, which were important at some point in history. Separating them from "India" would not be warranted though, and picking only one of the many cultures would be inappropriate too.
Now that we have the option to have the same area represented my more diverse options, it is rather simple to add the Mughals.

Tho I do I wonder if there will be some controversy the other way as it looks like they are the only option for "Modern" India. Iirc they were a primarily Islamic empire, and the current Indian government is pretty big on Hindu nationalism.

 

[Patine]

I believe a Mughal LEADER has been in Civ as an alternate choice of a blob Indian civ leader to the ubiquitous Nuclear Gandhi mascot.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I believe a Mughal LEADER has been in Civ as an alternate choice of a blob Indian civ leader to the ubiquitous Nuclear Gandhi mascot.

No, there has never been a Mughal leader in the game.

I could have sworn Akbar was an alternative Indian leader in Civ4, but I was wrong. Weird Mandela effect

 

[AntSou]

No, there has never been a Mughal leader in the game.

I could have sworn Akbar was an alternative Indian leader in Civ4, but I was wrong. Weird Mandela effect

Did you ever play Civ 3? The name Abu Bakr could have played a trick on your memory.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Did you ever play Civ 3? The name Abu Bakr could have played a trick on your memory.

No, never played it

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Until Civ6's Chandragupta, of course

Sigh.

He wasn't the first non-Gandhi Indian leader, that was Asoka in Civ IV.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sigh.

He wasn't the first non-Gandhi Indian leader, that was Asoka in Civ IV.

I think they meant that India was portrayed as a primarily pacifist civ, until Chandragupta appeared, considering both Ashoka and Gandhi still played similarly in that role in Civ 4.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I think they meant that India was portrayed as a primarily pacifist civ, until Chandragupta appeared, considering both Ashoka and Gandhi still played similarly in that role in Civ 4.

Ok, fair enough - I didn't catch that.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Sigh.

He wasn't the first non-Gandhi Indian leader, that was Asoka in Civ IV.

technically Indira gandhi in civ 2 as well, but i don’t really count her since leaders back then didn’t really mean anything

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Tho I do I wonder if there will be some controversy the other way as it looks like they are the only option for "Modern" India. Iirc they were a primarily Islamic empire, and the current Indian government is pretty big on Hindu nationalism.

there’s already quite a few hindu nationalists trying to convince the poor people on r/civ who aren’t familiar with indian history that the mughals were colonial invaders just as bad as the british and that this is “disrespectful to indian history”, *sigh*

we all know history is political in how it’s portrayed and discussed but it’s always so frustrating when people very explicitly make their political intent in talking about history clear. At least it’s easier to point out than more subtle preconceived notions tjat are political in nature (like thanksgiving/pocohantes in the US)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

technically Indira gandhi in civ 2 as well, but i don’t really count her since leaders back then didn’t really mean anything

Well, going by the name, she's still a Gandhi.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well, going by the name, she's still a Gandhi.

her father, to be fair, would be perhaps the best choice to lead modern India. a lot of people, unfortunately, think her father is the Gandhi that’s been shown in the game before

 

[Thormodr]

there’s already quite a few hindu nationalists trying to convince the poor people on r/civ who aren’t familiar with indian history that the mughals were colonial invaders just as bad as the british and that this is “disrespectful to indian history”, *sigh*

we all know history is political in how it’s portrayed and discussed but it’s always so frustrating when people very explicitly make their political intent in talking about history clear. At least it’s easier to point out than more subtle preconceived notions tjat are political in nature (like thanksgiving/pocohantes in the US)

I can understand their position, although I am not at all fond of Hindu nationalists. Where I live, there are many Sikh nationalists.

Hopefully there will be many more options for playing India. They are attempting to de-blob India and they shouldn't go just halfway.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I can understand their position, although I am not at all fond of Hindu nationalists. Where I live, there are many Sikh nationalists.

Hopefully there will be many more options for playing India. They are attempting to de-blob India and they shouldn't go just halfway.

Knew you were from Vancouver BC before even looking at your profile after that comment what’s up fellow PNWer

that being said, totally agree with this. I think it’s understandable to an extent but it’s also rooted in islamaphobia. pretty much every ethnic group in India except for the adivasi forest tribes has their roots in the subcontinent through invasion. the mughals (and delhi sultanate), who settled and integrated into indian culture, are the only ones get this treatment of “they were invaders who ruined india”, because they were muslim.

 

[Thormodr]

Knew you were from Vancouver BC before even looking at your profile after that comment what’s up fellow PNWer

that being said, totally agree with this. I think it’s understandable to an extent but it’s also rooted in islamaphobia. pretty much every ethnic group in India except for the adivasi forest tribes has their roots in the subcontinent through invasion. the mughals (and delhi sultanate), who settled and integrated into indian culture, are the only ones get this treatment of “they were invaders who ruined india”, because they were muslim.

Not sure if it is Islamaphobia or just not wanting modern India to be represented by a one single "faction." (Probably not the right word.) Of course, they would want their "faction" represented, just the same.

Of course, you might have the same problem for Canada. French into Canada or English into Canada? I personally don't think it is a problem as both contributed to the building of our country but invariably some people are going to get bent out of shape.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Of course, you might have the same problem for Canada. French into Canada or English into Canada? I personally don't think it is a problem as both contributed to the building of our country but invariably some people are going to get bent out of shape.

Why not both with the Normans?

 

[Zaarin]

Of course, you might have the same problem for Canada. French into Canada or English into Canada? I personally don't think it is a problem as both contributed to the building of our country but invariably some people are going to get bent out of shape.

That seems easy enough when the answer to "are the Normans French or English in this game?" is yes.