Why Mecca?

[BlackBarook]

Evening Civ-fanatics. I have always wondered why is it that the Arabian civilization in the many reincarnations it underwent in the Civ-series has always had its capital in the Muslim holy city of Mecca/Mekkah.
I wonder this since the idea of Mecca as the capital of any Muslim empire is, well strange and slightly uncomfortable. Medina as the capital of the early caliphates makes perfect sense, so does Damascus and Baghdad. Hell I’ll even accept Cordoba. But Mecca? It makes no sense. Mecca has always served as a religious center to the many Muslim empires, but never political.

I guess the suggestion would be to have Baghdad act as the capital and Mecca serve the function of a holy city-state in the expansion.

 

[mitsho]

Pseudo-Knowledge > Historical Truth

Civ isn't about History, it's at first a game playing with bits here and there of what we know of History. That's why we have the Zulu or the Aztecs as well. Or just look at the English city list, kept that way since someone created it in a haste for Civ1 or 2, doesn't really make sense though. Or why do we always need Isabella and Elizabeth, because we need more female leaders to suit our need for political correctness. Was Isabelle really that much of a religious nut? The Superiority of German Tanks is also debateable, but it's a cliche that stuck and there are of course "abbreviations" that need to be made for a game where the gameplay trumps everything else.

The list goes on and on, I think you get the idea. With the Arabs, I guess it's the idea that they are religious (Harun and the economic focus in Civ5 is the first deviation from that rule, but let's wait for the expansion...) and that they didn't want to put one country first. Also, with Baghdad, Hammurabi of the babylonians has always been associated with modern Iraq in the civ series (changing leader pics... can't find a picture though, so it's from memory), don't ask me why though...

 

[Louis XXIV]

Mecca was the original political capital. As in the capital under Muhammad and Abu Bakr. After that, it obviously wasn't. I personally would prefer Baghdad, but I don't think Mecca is wrong depending on the starting point for the Civilization.

 

[BlackBarook]

Mecca was the original political capital. As in the capital under Muhammad and Abu Bakr. After that, it obviously wasn't. I personally would prefer Baghdad, but I don't think Mecca is wrong depending on the starting point for the Civilization.

I have to respectfully disagree. Mecca was never the political capital of any Islamic state or empire be it under the prophet Muhammad or Abu Bakr. A cultural, religious and economic center yes, but not political. Never political. Medina was the political capital of the fledgling Muslim state.

With the Arabs, I guess it's the idea that they are religious (Harun and the economic focus in Civ5 is the first deviation from that rule, but let's wait for the expansion...) and that they didn't want to put one country first.

See I have a major problem with this, not enough to stop playing but annoying enough that I can't stop myself from rolling my eyes. Every single time the Arabs are brought over it is either religion, or commerce. It feels like our whole civilization is defined by 'Western' perceptions. Either those people with the religion and sword, or those oil sheiks with the huge sovereign wealth funds. Never the scientists, or the cultural patrons, not diplomats or explorers. Why is it that most of the leaders selected are those featured in the Arabian Night fables?

Also, with Baghdad, Hammurabi of the babylonians has always been associated with modern Iraq in the civ series (changing leader pics... can't find a picture though, so it's from memory), don't ask me why though...

What of it? Arabia shares a lot of land with the Persian, Ottoman, Greek and Roman empires. In fact a lot of civilizations from Europe overlap, like the Greeks and Byzantines, but they're still included (Which is fantastic!)

Overall I believe that Mecca should be a religious city-state as opposed to the capital.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Medina was the place Muhammad went after fleeing Mecca because he got offered the leadership there. However, when he marched on Mecca from Medina, he started leading from there instead.

I'd also argue that Mecca was the more important of the cities before Muhammad, although there obviously wasn't a unified Arabia. Still, that's another explanation for why Mecca.

 

[mitsho]

To be fair, them chosing Harun was them trying to get away from the cliche Even if it's 1001 Nights, it's a good story though

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you totally. But it is a game made by Americans, so you just gotta deal with it. Nobody outside of England has ever heard of Boudicca either, but she (and that's the point I guess) has been leading the Celts for quite some time now in civ. It's a game, it doesn't have to be fair and balanced, they can chose what to implement themselves

 

[Louis XXIV]

I like Harun. He's actually Arab (as opposed to Saladin who was Kurdish) and he's non-controversial (as opposed to Abu Bakr, who I believe Firaxis ran into a few problems with because you're not really supposed to show an image of him either). However, with Harun, it would make sense to move the capital to Baghdad.