Why upset for European Civs?

[Zipa_DH]

The funny thing is that most of cultures you use for comparison are not even nearly as close as Denmark and Sweden. Sweden and Denmark are more comparable than different regions of north-eastern China, far less north and south China, far less still Korea and China. Denmark and Sweden is Castile and Leon, France and Normandy, Tuscany and Lombardy at a stretch. China and Korea is France and Russia, Greece and the Arabs, etc.

We have to be clear, it takes an astronomical level of parochialism to see Sweden and Denmark, even in different eras, as different "civilizations" let alone sufficiently distinct to occupy two places among a few dozen selected civilizations drawn from all the civilizations ever in history from anywhere in the world.

and for this reason, Denmark and Sweden would be one civ that could represent them easily, however, the problem isn't they put or not more european civs, the problem is that they ignore the rest of the non european civs, there's much cultures that never were considered, and is because people still thinking that in Africa and America, just existed a bunch of little people in loincloth that sacrificed themself in straw houses, whitout scientific, social, cultural and economic achievements

 

[PhilBowles]

there's a lot of cultures outside the andes: the tupi, the carioca, the caribes, the araucans, the guarani, etc... and another pre-incan civilizations like the nazca, the moche and the muisca, the problem with all south american civilizations, is their oral tradition, pre columbian civilizations of all the continent (except fot the great empires) doesn't be interested in written or visual traditions, this is why people always think in aztec-mayan architecture and clothing when think in incas, caribes, muiscas or another south american civilizations, by other side, there's the latin american civs, that are cannot be taken like european or native american civs, because they aren't, in part, all americas have lots of civs that would be put in game, just the people doesn't know, they did it in civ colonization, they would do it again in future DLC or expansions

Very little is known about most of these groups - the Nazca, for example. The Tupi and most of the others you mention (other than the Moche) were/are tribal societies, often without fixed settlements and generally without any kind of centralised government (the defining features of a civilisation). And it's not really relevant whether a culture is "interested" in written or visual traditions - it's a simple observation that without them no later investigators can learn any detailed information about a society, let alone such things as leader names or city names that Civ would require to include them. In the Old World we can learn a lot about pre-literate societies or those which have left little or no surviving written material from their literate neighbours - we know more about groups like the Phonecians, Hittites and Minoans from neighbouring cultures than we do from those societies, as very little has survived in writing from the Hittite period and the Minoan script that has been found can't be deciphered. Herodotus, Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta and others provide detail on societies in Asia and Africa for which we would otherwise have no records.

There's nothing equivalent for South America. No one south of the Yucatan appears to have had a developed written tradition, and the Maya appear not to have had many contacts further south, or at least to have kept any records of them. Who built Guayabo? What culture constructed the stone balls found on Cano Island, and for what purpose?

Colonization is a case in point - the only groups included were (due to the setting) ones that had European contact, and that we can therefore know something about. This is also why you don't find many games set in the Americas any earlier than the colonial period.

As I mentioned, the more recent, predominantly European-derived civs are simply unlikely to have much popular appeal outside the region. No one wants to play a game that spans 6,000 years so they can play as Suriname, a country that only came into existence in 1975 (although it does have the advantage of being the one South American state without primarily European heritage). Except in all likelihood the country's inhabitants.

 

[Gucumatz]

There are plenty of civs in South America that created large cities, new styles of weapons, calenders, etc. The Huari, Tiwanaku, Chachapoya, Nazca, the Moche, the Chimu.

Some of them more/less known than others. And each of these established fairly well defined either empires or confederations. (Nazca is still somewhat speculated) The distinct styles of architecture and regions give plenty of potential in theory.

There are murals, architecture, various cities, and potential leaders for some of the civs I listed above. And some of these cultures created impressive monuments and influenced the region a ton.

For example the Huari Invaders that attacked so many other civs and tribes coalescing into their empire that led to a historic stalemate tension between the Northern Andes (Peru) vs Bolivia/Chile/Southern Peru. This led to a type of almost Cold War between the two empires of the Huari and the empire of Tiwanaku. Or Puma Punka a potential World Wonder on its own right being so intricately carved that currently archaeologists have no idea how to reconstruct it without lasers (A Tiwanaku Monument).

======

A Civ I personally have talked about often in South America is the Chachapoya. Unlike the other civs mentioned afore, they would have a leader, unique unit(s), unique buildings, large city lists, and potential UAs. Language is the most problematic for the Chachapoya, but Quechua could still be used.

There are a ton of South American Possibilites. Odds on the other hand...

 

[Cía]

At issue here is the differences between "Sweden" and "Denmark" in a world history context. But comparing Sweden and Denmark to France and Germany shows not only that you don't actually have much understanding of your own country's history, but that you do not understand France and Germany's either.

OMG. Dont want to start flaming but its hard...
Both France and Germany comes fron the Frankish Empire, after Charlemagne's death the empire splitted into three parts, the western parts would evolve into nowadays France and the eastern parts became the Holy Roman Empire. Modern Germany became a nation after the unification of the different states that the Holy Roman Empire got divided into. We know that nowadays France and Germany was one people 1200 years ago. But we dont know anything like that about Sweden and Denmark. 1200 years ago Sweden and Denmark were already two different people.

 

[Domen]

There actually was a pretty impressive civilization in the Amazon river (as would make sense with a major river), but the jungle reclaimed them (I believe there have been some excavations, though).

But they never formed a state or city-states, rather their political organization was chiefdom (or multiple chiefdoms). Quite similar to Mississipian Culture's chiefdoms (and they had also some large civic centers - like Cahokia - maybe in the Amazon river there were similar ones) in North American woodland.

There were quite a lot of civilizations in Americas, even by the time of European arrival (but for example Hernando de Soto's expedition in late 1539 - 1542 encountered the last bastions of the Missisipian Culture, but in 17th century it was already gone). Here is a map that I once made as a proposition of Mod for Medieval 2 Total War (starting in 1493):

Spoiler :

What about the Iroquois Confederacy? They would also be good for a civilization (North American one).

They once controlled a very large territory and remained an important power long after European arrival - up to early 19th century.

Or Mapuche Tribes in South America - they resisted European colonization for 300 years.

 

[Domen]

More to the point, Sweden was regarded as a Great Power amongst European states, an accomplishment few civs that have yet to be included have achieved.

So was Poland and Lithuania (later Poland-Lithuania) and maybe also Hungary - each at their own time.

Sweden was regarded as a great power later in time (and closer to modern times) than the 3 nations mentioned above.

But for example in mid-16th century Sweden was still regarded as a complete backwater, and at that time - rightly so.

And at the beginning of its rise, Sweden was a great power only in terms of having successful military. But in terms of material culture - it was still a backwater. Sweden pretty much "got rich" from plundering other countries - especially Holy Roman Empire at first and later Poland-Lithuania and Denmark.

"War feeds war" or "war feeds itself" - are good maxims in case of what Sweden did. But they don't apply to defensive wars, sadly.

Plus, under Gustav Adolphus, Sweden became the largest nation in Europe after Russia and Spain. That's certainly nothing to scoff at.

This quite of intrigued me - are you talking about landmass?

But landmass in Europe, or landmass in total (with colonies in case of Spain)?

So what was the landmass of Sweden under G II A ?

 

[bcaiko]

I'm not upset about any one particular Civ's in the game, but it does bother me that *so many* European Civs are in the game (and this Expansion in particular). There are so many worthy Civs from around the world are out there, even Civs that might never have been "great powers" but would make for fun to rollplay. Would it have killed the developers to spread the love around a little more?

 

[Zipa_DH]

Very little is known about most of these groups - the Nazca, for example. The Tupi and most of the others you mention (other than the Moche) were/are tribal societies, often without fixed settlements and generally without any kind of centralised government (the defining features of a civilisation). And it's not really relevant whether a culture is "interested" in written or visual traditions - it's a simple observation that without them no later investigators can learn any detailed information about a society, let alone such things as leader names or city names that Civ would require to include them. In the Old World we can learn a lot about pre-literate societies or those which have left little or no surviving written material from their literate neighbours - we know more about groups like the Phonecians, Hittites and Minoans from neighbouring cultures than we do from those societies, as very little has survived in writing from the Hittite period and the Minoan script that has been found can't be deciphered. Herodotus, Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta and others provide detail on societies in Asia and Africa for which we would otherwise have no records.

There's nothing equivalent for South America. No one south of the Yucatan appears to have had a developed written tradition, and the Maya appear not to have had many contacts further south, or at least to have kept any records of them. Who built Guayabo? What culture constructed the stone balls found on Cano Island, and for what purpose?

Colonization is a case in point - the only groups included were (due to the setting) ones that had European contact, and that we can therefore know something about. This is also why you don't find many games set in the Americas any earlier than the colonial period.

As I mentioned, the more recent, predominantly European-derived civs are simply unlikely to have much popular appeal outside the region. No one wants to play a game that spans 6,000 years so they can play as Suriname, a country that only came into existence in 1975 (although it does have the advantage of being the one South American state without primarily European heritage). Except in all likelihood the country's inhabitants.

yuo're wrong, pre-incan cultures like the moche had a structured goverment, it was the only way that they could developed advanced agriculture, architecture, cities and organizated armies, barbaric societies without any leadership are unable to do it, in pre-columbian America existed organizated societies with "modern" policies, like the iroquois and the muisca, both confederations stablished laws and codes to government, defense, trade, and diplomacy with another people, this codes offers more benefits to these people than the classic monarquic system used by the american empires, however, this things aren't considered for the developers, if they do it, mongols and huns aren't in the game

 

[PhilBowles]

yuo're wrong, pre-incan cultures like the moche had a structured goverment, it was the only way that they could developed advanced agriculture, architecture, cities and organizated armies, barbaric societies without any leadership are unable to do it, in pre-columbian America existed organizated societies with "modern" policies, like the iroquois and the muisca, both confederations stablished laws and codes to government, defense, trade, and diplomacy with another people, this codes offers more benefits to these people than the classic monarquic system used by the american empires, however, this things aren't considered for the developers, if they do it, mongols and huns aren't in the game

I said specifically "except for the Moche", while the Iroquois are already in the game, and they came much later than (and had no contact with) these Mesoamerican societies - the Iroquois confederacy postdates European contact and some early settlement in North America, developing a formal structure only in the 15th-17th Centuries. The references to societies that lacked urban centres and government was in response to your specific examples like the Tupi; it's not much of a counterpoint to refer to entirely different groups (let alone much later ones on different continents) that had urbanised societies. No one's disputed that South America had urbanised societies - the point is that nothing very substantial is known about pre-Colombian urban societies, and those societies that are well-known from South America are either predominantly tribal, or were contemporary with European contact so that records of their societies and leaders could be taken.

The Muisca, I'd agree, warrant inclusion along the same lines as the Iroquois, as they were a somewhat coherent confederation of tribes. I didn't, after all, suggest there were no suitable candidates from South America that would warrant representation in Civ - merely that the numbers of such civs are sufficiently low compared with those known from other parts of the world that it makes sense for South America to have the smallest representation.

As for the Huns, I think it's widely accepted that they don't really deserve inclusion or fulfil the criterion of a civ. Mongolia was a more sophisticated society - it left a legacy of imperial rule and settlement, it had legal codes, it had a dynastic tradition that led to the creation of imperial dynasties in China and India and, through Tamerlane, gave rise to the Timurids who left an impressive architectural legacy. The Mongols of Genghis Khan were just marauders, but then to an extent so were the Greeks led by Alexander - the civilization in the game represents a broader swathe of time than the period the leader represents, and the Mongols' significance to civilization warrants their inclusion.

 

[Domen]

Early Medieval Poland had a formidable military force. Boleslav I was able to successfully fight prolonged wars against many neighbours.

According to "Passio St. Adalberti" already in year 1000 Poland had a force of 3900 druzhina's heavy cavalry (milites loricati) and 13000 shield-bearing infantry (milites clipeati). Add to this 300 loricati who were given as a gift to Otto III during the Congress of Gniezno. In total 17200 armed men.

Of course in case of extreme danger, an even bigger force could be mobilized thanks to levée en masse of peasants from a particular region.

A great military parade was organized during the arrival of Otto III to Gniezno. 16900 loricati and clipeati formed a square of 130 men x 130 men, which could easily be divided into smaller squares (for example 25 squares: 26 x 26 x 5 x 5). Each "regiment" was wearing clothes of different colour during this parade (as German chroniclers noted). Otto III was impressed by this show. He took off his Holy Roman Emperor's diadem and put it on Boleslav's head, then he gave Boleslav a replica of the Holy Spear - part of the Imperial Regalia. Boleslav gave Otto an arm of St. Adalbert and 300 of his armoured cavalrymen in exchange.

Milites loricati were further divided into units of 300 horsemen strong and milites clipeati into large units of 1000 men strong each.

And these were further divided into units of 100 men strong, most likely. They were garrisoned in gords around the country.

=============================================

All in all Poland of Boleslav I appears in sources as a heavily militarised state. This is how some historians explain the crisis which took place after his death (1025). They say that Boleslav's military campaigns considerably overexerted economic capabilities of the young state (maintaining large armies in the field during prolonged military campaigns). This combined with a less charismatic and less talented king (Mieszko II), dissatisfaction of the society (especially lower classes) and renewed conflicts with neighbours led to a crisis of power and to so called "Pagan reaction" (rebellion against Christianization of the society - Christianization started in 966 following Mieszko I's baptism) which culminated in a popular uprising in 1030s and short-lived return to Paganism in some areas of Poland.

=======================================

10th century Gniezno and 11th century Cracow:

Spoiler :

Reconstruction of 10th century Gniezno:

Link to video.

 

[awesome]

What about the Iroquois Confederacy? They would also be good for a civilization (North American one).

they're already in the game and have been since release

 

[Gucumatz]

No one's disputed that South America had urbanised societies - the point is that nothing very substantial is known about pre-Colombian urban societies, and those societies that are well-known from South America are either predominantly tribal, or were contemporary with European contact so that records of their societies and leaders could be taken.

Again I have written about several empires that existed long before Spanish Contact in South America that are famous for their culture.

The Huari again is a great Example. They were in a sense a kind of Rome or Hittite style empire conquering as they went and transforming their conquered region with a close related style of building accross their territory. Their unification of the north set the way for future large empires in South America such as the Inca continuing on styles of rule that the Huari employed.

There are a ton of Empires/Confederacies in South America that aren't primarily tribal, and thats not even including the ones like he has been mentioning (Muisica, etc). Chachapoya again primarily urbanized (Just mentioning my personal favorite a Confederacy of Cities that was focused over the years on trade and religion. Fought against many of the major empires in South America over the Pre-Colombian Years).

 

[JFD]

So was Poland and Lithuania (later Poland-Lithuania) and maybe also Hungary - each at their own time.

This quite of intrigued me - are you talking about landmass?

But landmass in Europe, or landmass in total (with colonies in case of Spain)?

Irrelevant. I had already reasoned why Hungary and Poland/Poland-Lithuania would not be in the game in my earlier post. I was not saying that Sweden was more "worthy" than Poland or Hungary because of power status, merely that they were more likely, all things considered.

I mean in Europe, hence "largest nation in Europe."

 

[Domen]

Yes but you complain about too many nations in Europe.

And after re-thinking this, Europe as a whole is not overrepresented. Only some parts of Europe are overrepresented - mainly Western Europe. Scandinavia is also overrepresented if there are 2 Scandinavian factions (out of 3 which existed in total - because Finland emerged as a state relatively recently, so I don't count it). Eastern and East-Central Europe are clearly underrepresented (no Lithuania, no Poland, no Hungary, no Kievian Rus, no Byzantine Empire, for example). If they had Germany and Holy Roman Empire as separate civilizations (which is ridiculous), why not adding Kievian Rus apart from Russia?

I mean in Europe, hence "largest nation in Europe."

I'm not sure maybe Sweden under Gustavus was bigger than PLC (PLC was formed in 1569, in 1582 it had 815,000 square km and it reached its largest size - 950,000 square km - in 1619, after victorious wars against Russia and incorporation of part of Russian lands, including the city of Smolensk).

But even if Sweden under Gustavus had more than 950,000 square km - the majority of Swedish controlled territory was still a wasteland (basically everything in Scandinavia was a wasteland / forest except of coastlines and inland areas maybe up to 150 - 200 km from coastlines).

================================================

Regarding overrepresentation of Scandinavia - I think Sweden deserves more to be included than Denmark, anyway.

Or why don't they simply add "Vikings" which later rename into "Kalmar Union" and in the end become "Sweden"?

They could do the same with Poland-Lithuania - for example add "Poland-Lithuania" which would in the beginning (when Lithuania was still just a bunch of tribes) be represented by Early Medieval Poland (leader: Boleslav I the Brave), then by Lithuania under Mindaugas (in 13th century Lithuania was growing stronger, at that time Poland was fragmented and absorbed with internal conflicts for supreme power between dukes), then for example again by Poland under Casimir the Great, finally becoming Poland-Lithuania (personal union between Poland-Lithuania - times between 1385 and 1569 - would be represented by Vladislav Jogaila, and later the post Union of Lublin of 1569 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would be represented by king John III Sobieski).

So we would have 1 civilization to represent both Poland and Lithuania. And leaders of this would be (in chronological order) Boleslav I the Brave, Mindaugas, Casimir the Great, Vladislav Jogaila, John III Sobieski - and later maybe also Lech Walesa or Pilsudski (or some Lithuanian leader).

I don't think any Lithuanian or Pole would get offended by this (merging Poland-Lithuania into one civilization since the very beginning).

They would still be happy that such a civilization was added. And the same "compromise solution" could be - in my opinion - implemented in case of Sweden and Denmark, for example - i.e. representing both Sweden and Denmark by just one civilization (even though they were "connected with each other" for shorter time than Poland and Lithuania - because the Union of Kalmar was much more short-lived than Polish-Lithuanian Unions).

I had already reasoned why Hungary and Poland/Poland-Lithuania would not be in the game in my earlier post.

Yes, you said they should be added as DLCs. But I don't think it is really such a great idea.

 

[Pangur Bán]

OMG. Dont want to start flaming but its hard...
Both France and Germany comes fron the Frankish Empire, after Charlemagne's death the empire splitted into three parts, the western parts would evolve into nowadays France and the eastern parts became the Holy Roman Empire. Modern Germany became a nation after the unification of the different states that the Holy Roman Empire got divided into. We know that nowadays France and Germany was one people 1200 years ago. But we dont know anything like that about Sweden and Denmark. 1200 years ago Sweden and Denmark were already two different people.

Wrong on both counts. No, France and Germany weren't one people 1200 ago. 1200 years ago Franks ruled the most of the area occupied by both countries true, but Franks themselves were a Germanic group from around the middle Rhine who ruled other peoples like the Gall-Wallas (Gaul-Welsh, i.e. the French), with varying overlordship over Saxons, Swabians, Bavarians, Frisians and certain Slavic peoples.

1200 years ago there was probably a people called the "Swedes", and yes one called the "Danes", but these are political/tribal unit with little relevance to the modern countries; Swedes were a small Scandinavian people, one of dozens, seemingly based around to a temple-cult centred on Uppsala; the "Danes" themselves probably weren't even within Denmark (if you believe one 9th century source that puts Denmark in what later became south-eastern Norway). Most even of Norse Sweden wasn't "Swedish" ideologically until fairly recently.

 

[awesome]

what we need is a south american civilization from somewhere other than the west coast. someone brought up the mapuche once (or twice), but are there enough cities for a city list? they could maybe get some cities with native sounding names in chile and argentina?

 

[carm3]

Rex Anglorum is one of many and by no means most significant of the titles used by Athelstan, others were "English Saxon king", "King of all Britian" and "Emperor of all Britain". His kingdom was not the English kingdom ruled by Elizabeth however, as Norhtumbria was not merged into the Wessex-Merica union until after Eadred's reign. Athelstan illustrates exactly why titles don't matter that much.

Your other point expresses a view antithetical to this game. The differences between GA's Scandinavia and those of HB are exactly those you'd expect between any nation over the same period. This is a game stretching 6000+ years, and civs would be supposed to change over the period. If you are selecting new civs from the same culture just because a particular polity flourishes a few centuries later, then you make a joke of the game (of course Byzantium and Rome already do this).

What I was trying to say is that the fact of later monarchs identifying themselves in the tradition of earlier English (/Saxon/British/etc.) kings is itself very important - the title is significant, as it demonstrates continuity. This, of course, is not the only factor that should go into determining whether a state represents a continuation of another, and it is clearly possible for a title to be adopted with little or no relation to its predecessor (e.g. Holy Roman Empire). But neither is it insignificant, and I think that the development of England is more than enough to justify seeing it as a single political entity. As for how much one would "expect" civs to change over a period, I completely disagree that Viking Denmark and 17th century Sweden represent a natural evolution, but that is why a huge numbers of factors must be examined (including self-identification, political continuity, etc.). But many of the civs that people are bringing up as being more distinct form each other than any of the European nations are similarly separated from each other by a significant time period.

All this being said, it seems like a bit of a lost cause to argue - every time anyone brings up six or seven points to support their view (be it the defensibility of including lots of European civs, or the need to include ones from other parts of the world), someone else will take issue with one or two of these points, arguing that [x obscure civ] also has that going for them, ignoring the point that many people have brought up, namely that none of these factors can be taken in isolation.

Edit: Re: the point about various places in China being more different than each other than are European nations, none of these has been an independent power for a long time, with the possible exception of the Manchu/Qing (but even they had become highly integrated with Chinese culture, and styled themselves as successors to the kingdom of China).

 

[Zipa_DH]

I said specifically "except for the Moche", while the Iroquois are already in the game, and they came much later than (and had no contact with) these Mesoamerican societies - the Iroquois confederacy postdates European contact and some early settlement in North America, developing a formal structure only in the 15th-17th Centuries. The references to societies that lacked urban centres and government was in response to your specific examples like the Tupi; it's not much of a counterpoint to refer to entirely different groups (let alone much later ones on different continents) that had urbanised societies. No one's disputed that South America had urbanised societies - the point is that nothing very substantial is known about pre-Colombian urban societies, and those societies that are well-known from South America are either predominantly tribal, or were contemporary with European contact so that records of their societies and leaders could be taken.

The Muisca, I'd agree, warrant inclusion along the same lines as the Iroquois, as they were a somewhat coherent confederation of tribes. I didn't, after all, suggest there were no suitable candidates from South America that would warrant representation in Civ - merely that the numbers of such civs are sufficiently low compared with those known from other parts of the world that it makes sense for South America to have the smallest representation.

As for the Huns, I think it's widely accepted that they don't really deserve inclusion or fulfil the criterion of a civ. Mongolia was a more sophisticated society - it left a legacy of imperial rule and settlement, it had legal codes, it had a dynastic tradition that led to the creation of imperial dynasties in China and India and, through Tamerlane, gave rise to the Timurids who left an impressive architectural legacy. The Mongols of Genghis Khan were just marauders, but then to an extent so were the Greeks led by Alexander - the civilization in the game represents a broader swathe of time than the period the leader represents, and the Mongols' significance to civilization warrants their inclusion.

the mongols just found one dinasty in northern China, the Yuan dinasty, but in game, are Genghis Khan's mongols represented, not Kublai Khan's mongols, so, it's before their imperial organization and culture assimilation. The constant fights between the clans, even after the unification was an constantly problem, and even after the fall of their empire, and all of their architecture, science, even their fleet, was stealed to the chinese, the indians, the persians, and the east Europe people

the first civilization in the continent appeared in the south, Caral, in the XXX b.C. century, I have lots of reasons to include a buch of pre-columbian civs in game that have all the features to "define" them as civilizations, I just say that is not fair that these cultures don't be included in game, just because people thinks that thet aren't too cool, or too "civilizated" to put them, when easily, we can put cultures very underrated like the Muisca side to the Vikings, or the Mongols, the Iroquois or the Songhai, basically there's no reason to any civ must not be in game, except if you want neanderthals or aliens

 

[PhilBowles]

the mongols just found one dinasty in northern China, the Yuan dinasty, but in game, are Genghis Khan's mongols represented, not Kublai Khan's mongols,

No, Genghis is just the leader. The empire represents Mongolia throughout its history.

Greece has Alexander as its leader - and yet although Alex never ruled Sparta, this is the Greek second city in the game. Because Sparta was an important part of Hellenic civilisation despite never being part of a unified 'Greece'. So it's not "Alexander's Greece" being represented.

England is led by Elizabeth I. While certainly a very capable and politically astute leader Elizabeth ruled a nascent England only a few decades away from civil war, and which controlled a smaller land area than at most major junctures in the country's history - long after it had lost its territories in mainland Europe, before the major British period of colonialism, before union with Scotland, and before the subjugation of Ireland. However its unique ability is 'Sun Never Sets', a phrase coined to describe the vast Victorian-era British Empire, and it provides a naval bonus while Elizabeth's England was not a naval power, although it started down that route during her reign.

America is led by George Washington, and yet the capital city is Washington. Washington governed from Philadelphia and sometimes from New York; although he did move to Washington shortly after its completion at the very end of his term, it did not become the national capital until 1800, three years after his second term ended and a year after his death. His city list includes Chicago, which didn't exist until 1837. Several cities in the American city list - such as San Francisco and New Orleans - belonged to Spain during Washington's tenure as president and, of course, were founded by the Spanish and French respectively, not by the Americans.

Russia is led by Catherine the Great, whose capital is Moscow. During her reign, the Russian capital was St Petersberg.

Most civs, of course, have UUs/UBs that are partially or wholly not contemporary with the leader - possibly most strikingly, the Songhai Mud Pyramid Mosque (like the game's colosseum, a unique structure in reality that's turned into a generic building in the game) is more commonly known by another name - the Tomb of Askia. Fairly obviously, it did not exist during the lifetime of the Songhai leader in the game.

And so on and so forth. The civ isn't defined by its leader figure, who is often anachronistic. Samarkand (spelled Samarqand in Civ V) has always been a Mongol city in Civ games - yet Genghis Khan sacked the city, he didn't settle or rule it. The first Mongol ruler to govern the city was - yes - Tamerlane, founder of the Timurid empire. Which indicates the Mongol civ represents Mongol power at least up to the period of their Timurid successor state. The Timurids themselves gave rise to the Mughal Empire of India.

 

[JTWuest]

As a historian specialized in the study of the Atlantic World I have found this thread to be highly entertaining!

I agree with the opinion that the Civilization series should have much more ethnic and geographic diversity. I have a number of complaints about Africa, North and South America, and Europe. I am much less familiar with Asian history and so I yield to the voices of others regarding specific civilizations to add from there.

It was not until after the conquests of the Aztecs and the Incans that European civilizations obtained real, long-term advantage over other Old World civilizations in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Spain flooded Europe with gold and silver from the New World and though Spain itself never really managed its economy very well, suddenly wealthy Spaniards, eager to spend on consumer goods, ultimately provided the funding necessary for the growth of manufacturing in other European countries that eventually led to very significant technological advantages over the rest of the world. After the Spanish Reconquista and despite the Inquisition Spain was the dominant power in Europe. For 700 years Spanish soldiers had fought against Muslims and by 1492 they were pretty darned good at doing things like laying siege to towns. New World armies had difficulty competing against them. Even still, smallpox and a host of other Old World diseases had much more to do with the beginnings of European hegemony in the New World than any advantage that the Europeans possessed in technology or resources.

I begin with Europe because my objections with how that continent has been portrayed in the game are smallest. Let me put this out first - I like the fact that lots of European civilizations are in the game. Super, really! But not if it comes at the expense of all other continents in the world. Let's make one thing clear right off the bat - in its present configuration (as well as CIV III and IV and likely before that but I wasn't playing) Civilization is blandly and almost pointlessly Euro-Centric. Still, with that said, I do not fully understand why Portugal is not represented in Civ V. The accomplishments of the Portuguese Empire quite frankly demand their inclusion in the game as a fully playable civilization. I do not believe this point is debatable.

Why no Zulu? Southern Africa deserves at least one civilization! The history of West Africa is very interesting and the inclusion of Mali would make a pretty neat scenario when paired with Songhai. Perhaps even a broader West African scenario might include the many African empires that fought for control of the slave trade? Perhaps this theme might be a bit too dark - but powerful kingdoms like Ashanti, Dahomey, and Kongo helped shape the modern world and would enrich the Civilization franchise with or without a scenario. However, labor systems in and of themselves have played a crucial role in history among all cultures and civilizations and would make for interesting content for another expansion or VI.

The lack of diversity in the Americas is absolutely atrocious. One argument against further inclusion has been that the peoples of the Americas were somehow not meeting the criteria for being labelled a civilization. This is preposterous and ample archeological evidence and the historical record refuse this out and out. Primarily as a result of massive depopulation due to disease, Native societies changed to become less sedentary post-contact in much of the Americas and until then a number of powerful polities and cultures existed in the Americas.

Examples abound - Mississippian culture is completely missing from the game. What a waste! The American southeast should somehow be represented - here again, archaeology and the historic record, most notably the account of the De Soto expedition show that the Mississippian peoples who became Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, Chickasaw, and Seminoles in response to disease epidemics deserve inclusion. They aren't called the Five Civilized Tribes for nothing and should be represented somehow in the game. Native resistance to US removal policies in the American Southeast sounds like another awesome scenario to me! Too, in the American west and mid-west options abound! I can see the Sioux with a very powerful cavalry UU and imagine a culturally or religiously focused Navajo civilization with bonuses in deserts! Moving to Canada - apparently completely devoid of civilization - how about the Inuit, maybe they can travel or even settle on ice. Algonkians? Chippewas? Hurons? Could make for a really cool cross-Atlantic fur and musket trade scenario. Before I go off on too much of a rant, I will end by saying simply that South America cannot be represented solely by the Incas.

Oh, and nobody in the Caribbean? Or Australia for that matter?

Give us more choices!!!