Mali Delenda Est

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's hard to justify europe having more than one, maybe two, civs given the small size of europe in the world, the similarities between the "different" civs represented in the game, and their dependance on other civilization's achievements.

While Asia, Africa, and South America all have a much more diverse selection of civilizations which are completely neglected.

That particular argument was settled over the last few hundred years by force of arms. Maybe in one hundred years if Europe has expired then you can put in Brazil or Nigeria. The criteria which are used to qualify a civ into the game include great leaders and great achievements. As much as I'd like to leave the French out, they did produce Napoleon. Napoleon earns them a spot in the game. Ditto Mongolia. Mongolia isn't great any more, but they produced Genghis Khan. Genghis brings them into the game.

Spain, I'll give you. They need to be dropped. Spain never built anything that they could be proud of today. They were a bunch of thugs who looted the American civilizations, to ultimately finance... nothing. Let's catalog their acheivements: the Spanish Inquisition, the Reconquista, Fascist Francisco Franco, wait a minute, we were looking for achievements... no, nope, nothing. Maybe for the first expansion we could bring them back in, same with Mali. On the other hand, where is the outrage over the Ottoman Empire being left out? I'd say drop Mali for them in a heartbeat (and thus I'd appreciate everyone laying off the white boy comments, I do appreciate non-Western civs).

As for South America, I think it tragic that the Incas could possibly be left out. Yes, Spain may have destroyed them, but they had a long run as the dominant power of a continent. They were destroyed after they had passed their prime, that is nothing to be ashamed of, Rome fits that mold after all. So, Spain should be dropped to insure the Incas a spot.

And Asia neglected? Mongols, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Persians, Arabs, Babylonians... though I guess you could call the last three Middle Eastern... but still they have 4 which is as many as Europe should have: England, France, Germany, and Russia.

Greece and Rome, last I checked, had empires spanning Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. I don't think they can be considered "European" in any real sense. They didn't consider themselves Europeans by our modern standards.

In any event, Europe may be geographically small, but they have done things worth remembering. Africa is huge, but has no lasting acheivements... other than Egypt, which should count as Africa's token civ.

Moreover, Mali ought to be destroyed.

P.S. Moreover, Spain ought to be destroyed too.

How about this for a civ list? Every civ on this list has lasting influence on the world today or its region in its time.

1. Romans
2. Americans
3. Greeks
4. English
5. Chinese
6. Egyptians
7. Russians
8. Babylonians
9. Indians
10. Mongols
11. Arabs
12. French
13. Japanese
14. Germans
15. Aztecs
16. Persians
17. Ottoman Turks
18. Incas

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Odin
Mali:

Alexander01's Euro-centrism:

Where do you get off calling me Euro-centric for saying that Mali should not be in? I haven't said anything Euro-centric. Just because I don't think Mali is on par with the rest of these civilizations doesn't mean I hate them, or that they should be replaced with a European civ, because they shouldn't. They simply don't stand up to the likes of China, India or Japan, or honestly to the Incas or Aztecs either. Who would you back in a cage match? The Malinese have no lasting influence in the world today, unlike, for instance, the Ottoman Turks or the Arabs, whose achievements changed the world. And yes, England, France, Germany and Russia fit those molds too. Just because they did, doesn't make me Euro-centric. It's the facts of history. Historically, who could Mali beat, one on one? And not just militarily either. Economically, culturally, scientifically, etc. So yes, Europe is over-represented and should lose Spain. But so is Africa, and should lose Mali.

If I were Euro-centric, I would say that Poland, Austria, Portugal, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Ireland, and Italy, the Papacy and San Marino (on top of the Romans) should be added to the Civ List. Rubbish! That is Euro-centricism! However, saying Mali should be replaced by a more qualified candidate is not.

Moreover, Mali ought to be destroyed. I would be willing to throw Spain under the bus too.

[General Ludd]

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 .

[Ecthy]

Zimbabwe has been in Civ before (Zulu)

Peoples that never got civilised / built empires shouldn't be included (Inuit, Maori).

Also, Carthago delenda est means "Carthage must be destroyed", not "is destroyed" ("deleta est").

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by General Ludd

If you want a lame list of civs, go play Call to Power. You can be the Jamaicans all day long.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Alexander01


If you want a lame list of civs, go play Call to Power. You can be the Jamaicans all day long.

Originally posted by Bob Marley
"None but ourselves can free our minds"

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Aro

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Aro

What do you say to something like this?

[sophist]

If you're going to be pedantic about it, you'd probably have to include multiple Chinese and Indian civilizations. After all, the Manchu were pretty different from the Mongol Yuan and the Zhou. And the Mughals in India were pretty different from the Gupta and the Maurya.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Alexander01


What do you say to something like this?

Two words: Haile Selassie

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by sophist
If you're going to be pedantic about it, you'd probably have to include multiple Chinese and Indian civilizations. After all, the Manchu were pretty different from the Mongol Yuan and the Zhou. And the Mughals in India were pretty different from the Gupta and the Maurya.

Who's being pedantic?

[DerSchwarzfalke]

The fact of the matter is that the Civ series has been rightly criticized as excessively Eurocentric, and the inclusion of Mali would be a step in the right direction. It has a great leader, as listed above, and it has a great history that is too often ignored because no one in the West knows anything about Africa except "that's where AIDS and starving people are."

Sure, Mali is nothing right now. But riddle me this: what effect has Babylon directly had on your life? How about the Incas? Modern influence is not necessarily a requisite for being a respectable civ.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
The fact of the matter is that the Civ series has been rightly criticized as excessively Eurocentric, and the inclusion of Mali would be a step in the right direction. It has a great leader, as listed above, and it has a great history that is too often ignored because no one in the West knows anything about Africa except "that's where AIDS and starving people are."

Sure, Mali is nothing right now. But riddle me this: what effect has Babylon directly had on your life? How about the Incas? Modern influence is not necessarily a requisite for being a respectable civ.

Here's one example:

How about a minute? 60 seconds in a minute is Babylonian. How about 360 degrees in a circle? First legal code - Babylonian. Do you have laws in your town? You can thank Hammurabi.

Are you familiar with Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Where did Abraham come from again? Ur of the Chaldees. Where's Chaldea? Babylon.

By the way, that text I just wrote is written in the Latin alphabet. The Latin alphabet traces back to the Greek, the Phoenician and Hebrew, and ultimately to Egpytian hieroglyphics and Babylonian cuneiform.

I acknowledge Mali's cultural achievements. I acknowledge their rich history, legacy and great leaders. However, Civ is not about kowtowing to political correctness for adding an African civ to make people feel better. Granted, Mali is better than the Zulus. Nevertheless, I feel that Civ should reflect the civilizations with the greatest impact on the world, regardless of location, ethnicity, etc. Forget Europe. There's just as many Asian and Middle Eastern civs, and you don't hear people griping because "Aww, man, China's in there again!" Have a nice day.

Moreover, Mali ought to be destroyed.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Alexander01
And Asia neglected? Mongols, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Persians, Arabs, Babylonians... though I guess you could call the last three Middle Eastern... but still they have 4 which is as many as Europe should have: England, France, Germany, and Russia.

England and France have mattered on a global scale for about 500 years. Germany, as a single cohesive nation, has been hit or miss for 1500 years. China and India, on the other hand, have mattered for at least 3000 years, even when they were collapsing in anarchy. It's only slightly less so with Persia, but they've had a good long run as well. Equating the treatment by numbers is overly simplistic because it ignores the differences in population and longevity. European nations measure in centuries; Asian ones measure in millennia.

Originally posted by Alexander01

Greece and Rome, last I checked, had empires spanning Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. I don't think they can be considered "European" in any real sense. They didn't consider themselves Europeans by our modern standards.

Well, no, because the concept of European is a modern one.

Greece and Rome had empires touching Africa and Asia. Controlling "Super"-Saharan hardly counts as "spanning" Africa. Besides, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are all part of the same continent ;-). And judging the significance of an empire by physical size is a little narrow. Population is what matters, and in that respect, I'm pretty sure that Rome was behind India and China the whole way through (don't quote me on that, though).

Originally posted by Alexander01
In any event, Europe may be geographically small, but they have done things worth remembering. Africa is huge, but has no lasting acheivements... other than Egypt, which should count as Africa's token civ.

At least, according to Western standards and Western history books ;-).

Originally posted by Alexander01
2. Americans

Pipsqueaks. Call me when they've been a world power for at least 2 centuries.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by sophist

England and France have mattered on a global scale for about 500 years. Germany, as a single cohesive nation, has been hit or miss for 1500 years. China and India, on the other hand, have mattered for at least 3000 years, even when they were collapsing in anarchy. It's only slightly less so with Persia, but they've had a good long run as well. Equating the treatment by numbers is overly simplistic because it ignores the differences in population and longevity. European nations measure in centuries; Asian ones measure in millennia.

And African civs measure in decades, so why again should they be added?

Originally posted by sophist
Well, no, because the concept of European is a modern one.

Greece and Rome had empires touching Africa and Asia. Controlling "Super"-Saharan hardly counts as "spanning" Africa. Besides, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are all part of the same continent ;-). And judging the significance of an empire by physical size is a little narrow. Population is what matters, and in that respect, I'm pretty sure that Rome was behind India and China the whole way through (don't quote me on that, though).

Physical size is narrow? What empire able to control a huge landmass has ever been insignificant on the global scene? As for population, what kind of population did Mali have? Indonesia has a quarter of a billion people and you don't see them exerting any influence. Look at Bangladesh for Pete's sake! Heavily populated; going nowhere.

I would say that judging a civ by any single criterion is unwise in the selection process. That's I evaluate civs. Geographical size, population, longevity, cultural and scientific achievements, religious and philosophical influence, economic power, military conquest, great leaders, and overall lasting impact. Mind you, a civ doesn't need to be great in all of these, only more than others that want to be added instead (cough... Iroquois.. cough). Hence, Mali may have been great in its own time, but not comparatively on the global scene. After all, Assyria was great and rich and powerful, and they've never made it into Civ.

It's the principle of "Mali was included and ________ was left out?" If you can say that, then the other civ deserves Mali's spot. Example: "Mali was included and Jamaica was left out?" Not a problem. Mali belongs there. However, "Mali was included and Greece was left out?" That would be a problem.

When I said that Greece and Rome spanned these continents, I meant it collectively and not that they spanned each of the continents, though I wouldn't say that super-Saharan Africa is an insignificant part of that continent. As for Rome, it was on par with both India and China in its day, but the point is meaningless, no one is arguing that China and/or India should be excluded.

Originally posted by sophist
At least, according to Western standards and Western history books ;-).

And maps! Show me a map in existence that puts Egypt on any other continent than Africa.

Originally posted by sophist
Pipsqueaks. Call me when they've been a world power for at least 2 centuries.

I take by your comments that you are not American. Well, it is all our fault that you aren't speaking German or Japanese right now, or Russian for that matter. Unless of course you are from one of these areas, and then I could see why you are a sore loser. Honestly though, if for no other reason than say 70% or more of this game's intended audience is American, America will not be left out.

As for pipsqueaks, I'm sure that's what Carthage said about Rome at the beginning too.

Moreover, Mali ought to be destroyed.