Looking Back: Comparative Civ

[potoroo]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
The Aztecs, Maya and Inca are usually refered to as Mesoamericans, in part because of the perception that their civilizations were more advanced than those of the Native Americans or First Nations, but also because they were multi-national empires.

According to this the Iroquois might be seen as a modern Mesoamerican civ (oxymoron notwithstanding), rather than a Native American/First Nation civ.

The prefix meso- comes from the Greek mesos and simply means middle or intermediate. Meso-American only refers to the pre-Columbian Central American civilisations and never to any from North or South America.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by potoroo

The prefix meso- comes from the Greek mesos and simply means middle or intermediate. Meso-American only refers to the pre-Columbian Central American civilisations and never to any from North or South America.

And Mesoamerica is also the location of the largest pre-Columbian civilizations, with but few exceptions (e.g. Incans, etc.)

[ChaotikVisions]

Personally i'm hoping the Cherokee make it in as the native american civilization in the expansion. Sadly, I know thats about as likely as them including biological warfare options or improved espionage.

But to answer the original topic thats pretty interesting. I could have sworn the Turks were in more civs but I guess all my time with Civ3 got me used to them. They would be fitting for the Warlords expansion given their conquests of Asia Minor/Balkans/Middle East/North Africa. Plus who didn't love the somewhat bizarre but entertaining to watch Siphai?

[OzzyKP]

Yea, I agree on the Turks. My list is much like Alexander's, though instead of the Mayans, I think they'll put in a new civ. My Top 6 for Warlords:

Vikings
Celts
Carthaginians
Babylonians
Ottoman Turks
Ethiopia/Abyssinia or Navajo/Dinetah(probably not) or Thailand/Siam/Khmer or Hebrews/Israel

[Alexander I]

Though I think my list is the most reasonable that can be composed based on our current information, somehow I think Firaxis is still going to surprise us...

Yes, we know Celts, Vikings, and Carthage are in, but we don't know their leaders. Out of the unknown three, all I'm really hoping for is Babylon. They've been gone too long already. I mean, they're the single most popular "not in Civ4" Civ! (With Vikings as a possible exception)

[_BuRjaCi_]

Babylon *must* be in. It's a discrase it didn't make it to vanilla. We alsow need more Far Eastern civs
(read Korea).

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_
Babylon *must* be in. It's a discrase it didn't make it to vanilla. We alsow need more Far Eastern civs
(read Korea).

I think most people were shocked when Babylon was not included -- just gotta hope for the expansion. It better be the next civ announced...

[Mudhut]

Well, the leader spreadsheet shows a couple of interesting things.

Firstly, repeat occurrences. If a Civ has been in multiple versions, then whichever leader has the most appearances from Civ 1, 2 and 3 will be in Civ 4. There are 24 multiple-appearance Civs, and this holds true for all but three civilizations. So you could surmise that in Firaxis mind, there is a clear "winner" as the ruler of each of the main civs.

Second, the exceptions to the first rule above are largely to do with women leaders. The various Civ writers have always sought to include women as the leaders of particular civilizations (particularly including the Civ 3 debacle of a female-for-every-civ, even if they had to make them up....). So two of the exceptions to rule one are to do with this:
-France, where Joan of Arc has made two appearances before getting bumped for Civ 4 (Napoleon and Louis IV each had one, so they didn't really come from left field).
-Egypt, where Ramses II and Cleopatra both had two appearances before Hatsheput came from last place at the turn to pip them at the post for Civ 4 (Ramses will be in the Civ4 expansion, so this helps to readdress this).
In both of these cases my blind assertion is the reason for the inconsistency is to do with wanting to include female leaders. [This has also shown itself in several of the more left-field Civ inclusions - I mean, what was Theodora doing other than providing eye candy!!?]

Thirdly, the other exception is America - Abraham Lincoln has been a shoe-in so far, but was bumped off for Civ 4. I can't explain this, but I'm sure some of the States-bound poster will gladly jump in to explain some sort of shifting-of-the-political-views-of-the-USA reason... Abe is obviously no longer the flavour of the month.

-Mudhut.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Mudhut

-France, where Joan of Arc has made two appearances before getting bumped for Civ 4 (Napoleon and Louis IV each had one, so they didn't really come from left field).
-Egypt, where Ramses II and Cleopatra both had two appearances before Hatsheput came from last place at the turn to pip them at the post for Civ 4 (Ramses will be in the Civ4 expansion, so this helps to readdress this).

Thirdly, the other exception is America - Abraham Lincoln has been a shoe-in so far, but was bumped off for Civ 4. I can't explain this, but I'm sure some of the States-bound poster will gladly jump in to explain some sort of shifting-of-the-political-views-of-the-USA reason... Abe is obviously no longer the flavour of the month.

-Mudhut.

I think they just wanted to please the fans a bit -- people complained in the past that Joan of Arc made it in over Napoleon, so they brought Old Nap' back.

People complained that Cleopatra was Macedonian, so they did Hatshepsut instead.

People complained that the Zulus weren't a big empire so they used Mali instead.

As for Abe Lincoln, I don't know why he's not in. I mean, seriously, FDR?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Alexander01
People complained that Cleopatra was Macedonian, so they did Hatshepsut instead.

So was Alexander...

*Runs from Markos*

[padillah]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
Interestingly, the terms "Native American" and "Indian" vary according to whether they are spoken in the New World or the Old World.
...

This is because, unless I'm mistaken, most of them were mistaken for people from India.

Ships from Portugal were using the stars to find a quicker route to India, miscalculated and ran into Brasil. Misunderstanding that they were, in fact, not in India they dubbed the natives "Indian".

The Spanish, realising that the earth was round, tried to simply sail straight around and bumped into Central America. Again, misunderstanding that they were not in fact in India, they dubbed the natives, you guessed it, Indians.

It's happened more times than that too.

Tom P.

Go easy Alexander01, this is all heresay from TV shows on Discovery channel.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LordShiva

So was Alexander...

I think that's why they seriously considered Pericles, though he didn't make the final cut.

Originally posted by padillah
Go easy Alexander01, this is all heresay from TV shows on Discovery channel.

???

[padillah]

Originally posted by Alexander01

Go easy Alexander01, this is all heresay from TV shows on Discovery channel.

???

I just thought, being an actual history student you would contradict the crap out of that post.

If it's actually correct then great.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Double post.

Tom P.

[LordShiva]

Double post 7 mins apart, to be precise