Mali Delenda Est

[Mr. President]

Yeah, that survey was majorly %#@$ed. I bet they conducted it in California.

California

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Charles_Bronson
Give mali's a chance.

Set to the tune of Lennon's "Let's give peace a chance".

Originally posted by Mace
7 pages of a foregone conclusion...

Now 8 pages.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Odin
, People put REAGAN as the greatest American, ahead of LINCOLN, WASHINGTON, MLK, AND FRANKLIN! Dubya was 6th I beleive, tons of celeberties (including Michael Jackson ), and no people like Twain, Emmerson, etc

That's because many people are poorly educated, and don't even know much, if anything, about Twain, Emerson, Edison, etc. Let's face it, a lot of Civ players have more historical learnin' than your average person...

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Solver


Would be an interesting list of civs. Egypt, Greece, Vikings, Thai, Japan, China, Arabs, Zulu, Mali, Inca, Nasca, Anasazi, Inuit, Russia, Maori .

I thought about criteria for inclusion and non-inclusion of civs. And I think those MUST be
1) length of existence (e.g. Babs do not exist, but existed for long time)
2) presence of state (i.e. no Iroquois, Sioux, Nasca, Anasazi, Inuit, Maori)
3) relatively populated state (i.e. no Bulgarians or Paraguayans)
Items below are a great PLUS:
4) Great Wonders present
5) Unique units available
6) Known Leaders exist
7) The area of the world is decently represented (i.e. no blank areas on map)

Please also note, that the fact that civ currently does not exist is not a factor in the list above.

Based on this I would like to have some additional civs in non-Europe area. These would be

1) Africa: Mali, Yoruba, Aksum (Ethiopia), Zulu.
2) America: Aztec, Inca, Maya, USA, Brazilians, Mexicans.
3) Asia: Cambodians, Thai, Indonesians, Koreans, Arabs, Ottomans, Malays.

Why are Carthaginians more important than Majapahit empire? I think this is not correct. When my Dutch sailors discover Indonesia I must not find empty arable land. Not at all.

The presence of those civs helps us to eliminate the risk of empty spaces where those should not occur.

And it would be good to have some non-European wonders too. Like Angkor Temple, Borobodur, Great Zimbabwe, Great Canal of China, Erie canal, Transcontinental railroad, Pyramid of the Sun, Great Inca Road, etc.

Please also note, that there are no Iroquois, Sioux, and Polynesians in this list. As well as Maori, Anasazi, and Nasca. They did not have states of significance.

[Solver]

Sorry, that's a laughable list based on your own criteria. The USA exists less for 300 years, and is a formidable power for less than a 100 years, which is nothing in historical terms. The Mexicans, what civilization are they? They are currently descendants of former native inhabitants of Yucatan and European, mostly Spanish, people. There's no huge things by this new "Mexican civilization".

The criteria of having a state is also, well, objectionable. There can be other types of a state, not just the Western state we're used to. Who is to say that what the Maori or various Native American tribes had is not a state? It's definitely not a state by our definition, but still...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Solver


The criteria of having a state is also, well, objectionable. There can be other types of a state, not just the Western state we're used to.

Yes, quite-

" The culture of the Maya of Mesoamerica, like that of Khmer Cambodia in the eleventh century a.d. has sometimes been called a 'civilization without cities' . Conversely early settlements of large size, such as Jericho and Catal Huyuk, may not show accompanying features such as to justify the term 'civilization'. "

'The Emergence of Civilization' Colin Renfrew in 'The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Civilizations' edited by Arthur Cotterell


The game is after all called 'civilizations' and not 'states'.

[Solver]

Yes, and diversity is good - Civ4 includes many European civs, which are all fairly similar, at lest they have far less differences than if you compared Maori, Mali, Anasazi and the Vikings. The Inuit also have a pretty advanced social structure, although it's of course not a state in the Western sense.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Alexander01
You've still not convinced me of Mali's worthiness, because rather than responding to my thoughts, you've simply dismissed them.
Moreover, Mali ought to be destroyed. The End.

Not all civs are worthy. But if they exist in their unworthiness for quite some time, maybe they should be represented.

I am not against seeing some unworthy civilisations on the map. They can be conquered (Mali delenda est) as unworthy, or they can be a tough choice for experienced player (having for example "unscientific" feature with libraries being built at 150% cost).

The problem is that empty terrain is good for Infinite City Sprawl, which I do not like. Therefore I would enjoy some "unworthy" civilisations populating Africa.

Originally posted by Alexander01 My point has been that the inclusion of civs in Civ4 should be based on merit alone, not on race, creed, or color.

What is merit? Incas had 4 million people in well-organised empire (roads, walls, buildings, quipu system, terraces and granaries), while militaristic spaniards eliminated them. Who is more worthy? IMHO both should be represented for the only reason that they existed.

Also, there was a bunch of increasingly populous indonesian states which are completely out of Civ3 making Indonesia unpopulated. Is this a merit of Civ3?

In my opinion merit is a decently populated state for a decently long period of time. No major wonders, or discoveries, or military units are required.

Also, the game must not be so Euro-centric, that all civs will only be in Europe. In Civ3 add-ons we had Portugese, Celts, Vikings, Hittites which never outdid Mali in terms of wonders or uniques units, or even population.

Originally posted by Alexander01
As yet, a Civ game has not been created based solely on merit, as all previous Sid Meier civ games have included the likes of the Zulus, Sioux, and Iroquois.

Agree completely. Polynesians (population below 1 million), Sioux (population below 50 000) and Iroquois (population below 20 000) should be out. The latter two MUST be out, as they did not have states. Hawaiians had decent state, but it was not long enough to qualify for a major Civ.

Zulu are different. If we are not "ethnic based", we may consider several ethnic groups as on civ (e.g. Indians). nder such approach Bantu of South Africa (Zulu) had wonder (Zimbabwe), UU (Impi), and lasted for over 100 years impacting territory from South Africa to Tanzania.

If we consider bantu states from Zimbabwe till Zulu as one civ, we also get over 500 years of age for this civ.

Maybe they are not as great as French, or Americans, or Egyptians, but they can be in.

[Solver]

What you are saying is pretty Western-centric. You're not speaking about civilizations that had no states, but rather about civilizations that were organized in a way different to Western states.

As I have said, most of the Europeans civs feautured are largely the same. What are the differences between the French, Germans and the English? No, of course I am well aware of the historical and cultural differences, but those are pretty similar civilizations and cultures, with similar structure of state and everything. While the Zulu, Iroquois and others are way, way different.

Also, please explain how Americans are so grand on the historical scale. USA is a new state that is the current superpower, yet that amount of time is absolutely insignificant on the historical scale. You can't compare it to, say, the Egyptian empire. Even the Aztec empire lasted longer than the USA exists to date.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW

And it would be good to have some non-European wonders too. Like Angkor Temple, Borobodur, Great Zimbabwe, Great Canal of China, Erie canal, Transcontinental railroad, Pyramid of the Sun, Great Inca Road, etc.

I absolutely agree- I've been idly researching some possibilities, and am still shocked by how under-represented the various different empires based mainly where modern day Iran is now are- and how scandalously lacking are any major wonders from the Islamic world, or Hindu or Chinese civilizations.


A few I'd thought of- an early to mid-period economic wonder, tentatively based on the idea of 'The Silk Road'.

I know it wasn't a paved road, and was in fact two main routes, a northerly and a more southerly, but it was of tremendous importance to Classical Rome, Parthia, the Sassanids, the T'ang Dynasty, the Sogdians the Mongols and northern Indian dynasties. It diffused Buddhism and Islam and Nestorian Christianity, and brought China foodstuffs commonly regarded as being Chinese, such as the sesame seed.

Then something like the schools of medicine and astronomy in Jundishapur in Sassanid Iran- where refugee Greek philosophers from Justinians closure of the school at Athens could mix with Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Nestorians, pagans from Harran, Mandaeans and so on:

After the conquest of Iran, the Arabs came in contact with the Jundishapur School of Medicine. Jundishapur was a Persian city in the province of Ahwaz with pre-historic traditions. It was founded by Shapur 1, the second Sasanian King. It became a major centre of learning when the physicians of Edess took refuge in that city. Edess was closed by order of the Byzantine Emperor after 489 A.D. It was here that Greek medicine with Zoroastrian ideas and local Persian medical practice, flourished. It was also here that the last philosophers and scientists of Athens took refuge when Justinian ordered the school of Athens to be closed in 529 A.D., as aforesaid. It was during the reign of Anushirwan the Just that Indian medicine reached Iran during the sixth century when the King sent his Vizier to India to learn the sciences of the Indians and bring Indian physicians and books to Iran. The 'Fables of Bidpai', reached there through his good self. The medicine, synthetic in nature, combining the Greek, Persian and Indian theories and practices, was already in practice at the Jundishapur School.

http://www.islamset.com/heritage/philos/The_Process_of.html

There's also the Royal Palace at Ctesiphon- which still has the remains of the world's largest unsupported brick arch.

The House of Wisdom at the Abbasid capital, Baghdad:

The historian al-Maqrizi described the opening of the House of Wisdom in 1004:

" In 1004 A.D. 'The House of Wisdom' was opened. The students took up their residence. The books were brought from [many other] libraries ... and the public was admitted. Whosoever wanted was at liberty to copy any book he wished to copy, or whoever required to read a certain book found in the library could do so. Scholars studied the Qur'an, astronomy, grammar, lexicography and medicine. The building was, moreover, adorned by carpets, and all doors and corridors had curtains, and managers, servants, porters and other menials were appointed to maintain the establishment. Out of the library of Caliph al-Hakim those books were brought which he had gathered-- books in all sciences and literatures and of exquisite calligraphy such as no king had ever been able to bring together. Al-Hakim permitted admittance to everyone, without distinction of rank, who wished to read or consult any of the books. "

http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/ScienceMath/Science_and_Math.html

But equally it seems odd that Mediaeval Europe is overlooked- I could see the Pilgrimages to Santiago de Compostella being a religious/cultural wonder, since they inspired songs and hymns, church architecture, art and enriched the economy of northern Spain.

Then there's the temple complex of Madurai, the Nan Madol citadel and trilithon, the walled compounds of the Chimu city of Chanchan, the observatory at Maragha in Azerbaijan:

A star globe from the Observatory in Maragha made in 1279 and now preserved in Dresden, Germany. It is a rare example decorative art from Azerbaijan of the 13th century, designed by M. Ordi and made of bronze, inlaid with silver and gold.

http://www.ismaili.net/mirrors/29_al-Tusi/42_maragha.html

Lots, anyway. Here's the great arch at Ctesiphon:

[Alexander I]

Can't we at least let this thread rest in peace liek I was trying to do a long time ago?

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Solver
Sorry, that's a laughable list based on your own criteria.

Well, criteria are mine. You are allowed to laugh at them.

Originally posted by Solver
The USA exists less for 300 years, and is a formidable power for less than a 100 years, which is nothing in historical terms. The Mexicans, what civilization are they? They are currently descendants of former native inhabitants of Yucatan and European, mostly Spanish, people. There's no huge things by this new "Mexican civilization".

Agree. USA is an extremely nice exclusion from all rules, and should probably get under criteria of "global power". But it also has world known leaders and wonders (which is a criterion).

I do not care much about Mexicans. But I would be glad to have secessionist and laggard civs, so I care somewhat.

Originally posted by Solver
The criteria of having a state is also, well, objectionable.

IMHO this criterion is NOT objectionable, as all of the Civ actions are actually state actions (conscription, peace and war, treaties, taxes, etc.) Non-states were not able to win a single major war.

Examples: North American Indian "Wars" should be called skirmishes and annihilation, as Indians never had armies above 5000 and US never suffered a loss of over 1000 in one battle. Polynesians never one any war at all. Also how much TAXES did Iroquois collect and what scientific research did they perform in their 300 years of existence? How much TAXES did Maori collect?

Originally posted by Solver
Who is to say that what the Maori or various Native American tribes had is not a state? It's definitely not a state by our definition, but still...

But still, they did not collect taxes, did not do research, did not win major wars, and never had large armies. Iroquois total population was never above 30 000. Please compare their taxes to Indonesian ones.

Originally posted by molly bloom

Yes, quite-

" The culture of the Maya of Mesoamerica, like that of Khmer Cambodia in the eleventh century a.d. has sometimes been called a 'civilization without cities' . Conversely early settlements of large size, such as Jericho and Catal Huyuk, may not show accompanying features such as to justify the term 'civilization'. "

'The Emergence of Civilization' Colin Renfrew in 'The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Civilizations' edited by Arthur Cotterell

The game is after all called 'civilizations' and not 'states'.

IMHO State is a pre-requisite to Civilization. So, even though game is Civilisation, we perform state-like activities.

When it comes to civilization without cities, I just want to say that cities are also not states. And still, Maya and Cambodians had them, and even Mongols eventually built some of their own. 'Civilization without cities' appears where the knowledge of historian is incomplete.

Originally posted by Solver
Yes, and diversity is good

Agree completely. Let Mali live. And please add Indonesians.

Originally posted by Solver
- Civ4 includes many European civs, which are all fairly similar, at lest they have far less differences than if you compared Maori, Mali, Anasazi and the Vikings. The Inuit also have a pretty advanced social structure, although it's of course not a state in the Western sense.

I am not against an Inuit civ. But if we think realistically about adding them, we will not find the list of leaders (needed for Civ) cities (needed for Civ) and unique units (needed for Civ). If we add Inuit, than I am completely disappointed about not seeing Ukrainians, who have 48 million population, scientific track, unique unit (will be cossack, but it is more unique to Ukraine then to Russia), great leaders (Yaroslav the Wise, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ivan Mazepa), and a huge list of cities.

Originally posted by Solver
What you are saying is pretty Western-centric. You're not speaking about civilizations that had no states, but rather about civilizations that were organized in a way different to Western states.

As I have said, most of the Europeans civs featured are largely the same. What are the differences between the French, Germans and the English? No, of course I am well aware of the historical and cultural differences, but those are pretty similar civilizations and cultures, with similar structure of state and everything. While the Zulu, Iroquois and others are way, way different.

Also, please explain how Americans are so grand on the historical scale. USA is a new state that is the current superpower, yet that amount of time is absolutely insignificant on the historical scale. You can't compare it to, say, the Egyptian empire. Even the Aztec empire lasted longer than the USA exists to date.

I really have nothing against Zulu, and I am extremely for Aztecs and Incas. But I try to be realistic. Aztecs and their predecessors built a bunch of regional WONDERS (like Teotihuacán Pyramids, Tenochtitlan itself, Dams on Texcoco lakes, aqueduct of Tenochtitlan), their empire had tens of millions in population, and they had regular army, and great leaders.

They also had cultural impact on their conquerors.

But what about Iroquois? Any large city? Population? Cultural impact? Are they a civilization, or just a bunch of barbarians.

Please give your reason why Zapotecs, Olmecs and Moche are more barbarian than Iroquious (at least in Civ3). And why Mali delenda est, and Iroquious delenda est not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Can't we at least let this thread rest in peace liek I was trying to do a long time ago?

Why would it, when you stir such a hornets nest based on a very strange prejudice.

Mali deserves to be in the game the same as any other civ in the game. Better said, no civ deserves to be in the game, period.

So the question becomes, using what criteria should the designers chose civs? The game would work just as well with all European, all Asian, all Africa, all America civs, period.

One criteria needs to be diversity, if only to give the player more options- a game with only Asian, or only European civs is boring.

Then there is the fact the game covers supposedly manklinds whole history. The ONLY civ in the game than can claim complete continuity is China. India might, but depends what "India" means- as someone alreay said, there have been many civilizations in India, some very distinct.

I see no logical reason to exclude a civ like Mali. The zulu were barely urban, so there is plenty of reason to doubt the validity of them being in a game about City builders, but Mali certainly built cities.

As to the assenine assertion that the current conditions of the area mean ****: hmmm, last time I looked, if it were not for the oil then Iraq would be poorer than Central America- yes, Iraq, Mesopotamia, the craddle of civilization. of course, 7000 years of deforestation, increasing salt in the soils, and other environmental degredation caused by man is bound to reduce the viability of lands. I guess that means Babylon and Sumeria must be gotten rid off.

The situation is even crazier for Mali. I guiess those people should be blamed for the mass world climactic changes that have allowed the Sahara to keep marching on and on. If only those poor 'darkies' had invented weather machines to stop the growth of the Sahara we could let them in

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Yarco_TW


Polynesians never one any war at all. Also how much TAXES did Iroquois collect and what scientific research did they perform in their 300 years of existence? How much TAXES did Maori collect?

Not true.

Worn by men of high rank, ta 'una breastplates served both as military dress and as symbols of status. In Polynesia war was waged mainly to increase the prestige of the chiefs, and associated accoutrements were regarded as sharing the tapu (sanctity and power) of the esteemed wearer.

http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/misc/breastpl.htm

Individual societies within the larger Polynesian civilization could and did wage war- in Hawaii, on Easter Island, in New Zealand, and the Maoris against their distant offshoots in the Chatham Islands.

It would seem pointless, for instance, to have a god or goddess of war if war was non-existent or not a possibility.

Ai Tupua'i Ai Tupua'i
(Polynesia) Goddess of healing and of war.

In 1835 Maori tribes from the Wellington area arrived in the Chathams, driven south in search of new land, and claiming ownership of the Chathams. A number of Morioris were killed and others captured.

http://www.newzealand-infocenter.com/maori.htm

'Civilization without cities' appears where the knowledge of historian is incomplete.

Yarco_TW


Riiiggghhhtttt.... I take it you haven't read that encyclopaedia, then ?

[binTravkin]

The situation is even crazier for Mali. I guiess those people should be blamed for the mass world climactic changes that have allowed the Sahara to keep marching on and on.

This is sad but true.
I read that their great steads of goat is one of the main reason helping local ecosystem to turn into half-desert (Sahel) and then desert (Sahar).