Xian for the capital of China

[SkippyT]

I think Xian deserves to be the capital of China, because it was the capital of Qin Shi Huang and the dynasties before and after and so on ... because China has so magnificent ancient history and the modern city Beijing [Peking] has been the capital much much shorter than Xian

If history shall rule:
Make Xian the capital of China!

 

[Sohan]

I agree for the most part. Historically, Xian makes a much better capital for China than Beijing. Beijing only very recently became important to China. For the world map this would shift China's starting location more to the southwest, farther away from the Mongols.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

For one thing, it should be Xi'an. There is a difference; in Pinyin, "Xian" would be read as one syllable: "shyan" and could be misinterpreted as meaning, for example "first" (先）, whereas "Xi'an" is read as two "shee-an" (西安）.

For another, Beijing has been the capital of China for at least seven hundred years now, and is more familiar to everyone.

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

I dont think it should, purely for the reason that most people wont be familiar with the city ever was the capital.

 

[RogerBacon]

It's easy to change if you want to. Just go into the civilizations XML file and make Xian the first city in the city list. I did that for Japan, making Tokyo the first city.

Roger Bacon

 

[KelvinWong]

Dynasty ......................................... Capital

Xia ............................................. Always change, mainly in Henan province
Shang ........................................... Always change, later at Yin
Western Zhou .................................... Hao, west of Xian
Eastern Zhou .................................... Luo, i.e. Luoyang
Qin (Qin Shi Huang) ............................. Xianyang (Xian Yang), i.e. Xi'an
Western Han ..................................... Chang'an, i.e. Xi'an
Eastern Han ..................................... Luoyang
3 Kingdoms ...................................... Luoyang (Wei), Chengdu (Shu Han), Jianye (Wu, i.e. Nanjing)
Western Jin ..................................... Luoyang
Eastern Jin ..................................... Jiankang, i.e. Nanjing
Southern & Northern Dynasties ................... Many
Sui ............................................. Chang'an, i.e. Xi'an
Tang ............................................ Chang'an, i.e. Xi'an
5 Dynasties & 10 Kingdoms ....................... Many
Northern Song ................................... Kaifeng
Southern Song ................................... Hangzhou
Yuan (Kublai Khan) .............................. Khanbaliq (aka Dadu), i.e. Beijing
Ming ............................................ initial at Nanjing, later at Beijing
Qing ............................................ Beijing
Republic of China ............................... Nanking (i.e., Nanjing), then Taipei after 1949
People's Republic of CHina (Mao Ze Dong) ........ Beijing

 

[KelvinWong]

Should China in Civ be called as Han?

If we call China as China in Civ, Kublai Khan could be considered as one of Chinese emperor... Since China contains many nations: Han is the largest, Mongol is one of them... also Manchu, which founded Qing dynasty....

Well.... Mongol has 2 leaders: Genghis Khan & Kublai Khan,
China has 3 leader: Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan and Mao Ze Dong

 

[otomik]

Should China in Civ be called as Han?

If we call China as China in Civ, Kublai Khan could be considered as one of Chinese emperor... Since China contains many nations: Han is the largest, Mongol is one of them... also Manchu, which founded Qing dynasty....

Well.... Mongol has 2 leaders: Genghis Khan & Kublai Khan,
China has 3 leader: Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan and Mao Ze Dong

That would be interesting, one way of increasing the choices of leaders, like if I wanted to play Persia one of the leaders would be Alexander the Great. Both these leaders created a combined empire and were very integrated into their adopted civ. There's a few leaders like that, Brennus was a Celtic Gaul, he would make a good leader for France as well.

 

[Veteranewbie]

That would be interesting, one way of increasing the choices of leaders, like if I wanted to play Persia one of the leaders would be Alexander the Great. Both these leaders created a combined empire and were very integrated into their adopted civ. There's a few leaders like that, Brennus was a Celtic Gaul, he would make a good leader for France as well.

A good idea, though it is controversial and may become topic of heated arguments easily

 

[Kushluk]

For one thing, it should be Xi'an. There is a difference; in Pinyin, "Xian" would be read as one syllable: "shyan" and could be misinterpreted as meaning, for example "first" (??, whereas "Xi'an" is read as two "shee-an" (???.

For another, Beijing has been the capital of China for at least seven hundred years now, and is more familiar to everyone.

The ignorance of the masses is not a good reason.

Are we forgetting the Nanjing era?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The ignorance of the masses is not a good reason.

Are we forgetting the Nanjing era?

Yes it is, when the masses are buying the game.

Yes we are, because there have been so many capitals of China, it's hard to decide which. So we go with the most recent that also suits the leader. Qin Shi Huang ruled out of Xianyang, whose sole importance then was that it was the capital, and whose importance now is that it was once the capital. Oh, and it has a few good iron mines too. Hardly a good capital for a civilization.

Contrast that with Beijing, which was Mao's capital for nearly thirty years, is a large city, and is, with Shanghai, the center of Chinese culture.

Modern Xi'an is undoubtedly growing, and is one of the most important cities in central-western China. You could think of it as China's Houston or Dallas. But nevertheless, it has lost importance over the years. Meanwhile, Beijing became stronger and a center of culture.

 

[otomik]

Beijing became stronger and a center of culture.

by design, by shutting off the growth of Shanghai. Shanghai suffered from heavy taxation under the communists. It had a few other things going against it, they spoke Wu and the international (especially japanese) influences made it unattractive to Mao ideology.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Is Shanghai the capital of China? Has Shanghai ever been the capital of China for more than a few months? No. It's not in the running. At all.

 

[KelvinWong]

Shanghai was not China's capital.
Two near-by cities had been: Nanjing, Hangzhou.
But, Shanghai never been.
Yes, it was and it is cultural & financial center of China.
It has very big inferance toward China, also in terms of politics.
But, she never been China's capital.

 

[Kushluk]

Yes it is, when the masses are buying the game.

I might take the paragraphs that came after this seriously if you hadn't sunk yourself right from the get-go.

People aren't going to not buy CIV 4 becuase the capital is some historically correct city. Your point is nullified. If anything they are going to go "huh" look at the civilopedia and may actually learn somthing about the shifting political centres of the ancient dynasties.

Please, lets not take pandering to the market to the point of idol worship. Kow-Towing to the lowest common demominator in this case will get you nothing, and sew ignorance in the west about China, which there is ENOUGH of already.

As far as I am concerned, defending ignorance is a poor choice, in any arena. I mean if it's a historical game, you can't throw away the HISTORY part.

As to your other points, they have relevancy. However your little preface really spoiled it. Yes, Beijing is very important now, although I think Shanghai will probably far eclipse it (Washington and NYC/LA like). With the sort of rising star that Xi'an represents, maybe it will even get a breath of new life, who knows?

In any case, I simply can't find relevancy in the argument "Stupid people think Beijing has always been the capitol, therefore we should put it in the game".

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist the joke.

 

[Red Door]

I might take the paragraphs that came after this seriously if you hadn't sunk yourself right from the get-go.

People aren't going to not buy CIV 4 becuase the capital is some historically correct city. Your point is nullified. If anything they are going to go "huh" look at the civilopedia and may actually learn somthing about the shifting political centres of the ancient dynasties.

But there are people who will buy the game, look at the first city, which whould be Xi'an, and go . They would be angry, not buy expansion packs, and make Firaxis .

Firaxis wants to keep the masses of ignorants so they keep giving money to the Firaxis machine.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I might take the paragraphs that came after this seriously if you hadn't sunk yourself right from the get-go.

[...]

As to your other points, they have relevancy. However your little preface really spoiled it.

That's a bit of an unfair argument. A comment like that may bias you against the rest of the post (and that's perfectly understandable), but disregarding it entirely is too far. You may be more inclined to disagree with Lockesdonkey, but at least directly counter his arguments.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Again, I'd like to say that while it may not be clear from the post, I made that comment in jest. It was just such an obvious point to make that I simply HAD to make it.

 

[esnaz]

i agree...after all, Xian was the start of the Silk Road, and therefore the center of trade in China which would make it prosperous and successful, like most capitals are