A Mesopotamian Civ

[Alexander I]

Okay, I know I overdid it a little bit with my pro-Babylon rhetoric a few months ago. So I'm going to take it a little easier here.

I still think Mesopotamia is underrepresented (or rather, completely unrepresented) in the game, so here's a poll to find out the consensus on which Mesopotamian civ belongs in an expansion.

[Nikolai]

Still, you got squeezed in two options for Babylon.

[Smellycowsquid]

Would the Jews be a Mesopotamian Civ?

[monkspider]

I think both Babylon and Sumeria are essential.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Smellycowsquid
Would the Jews be a Mesopotamian Civ?

I think that's Persia but I'm no expert in Middle East history so I'm more likely wrong then right.

[Nugog]

Babylonians for sure!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Smellycowsquid
Would the Jews be a Mesopotamian Civ?

Well, Canaan is not really part of Mesopotamia, but it is in the Fertile Crescent, and it was constantly dominated by various Mesopotamian cultures.

[Snotty]

Babylonians so we can make endless jokes about big Babylons

[Will9]

I voted Sumeria since I think Sargon the Great should be in civ4 since he built the first empire.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Will9
I voted Sumeria since I think Sargon the Great should be in civ4 since he built the first empire.

He was Sargon of Akkad -- you should have picked Akkadians.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Alexander01


He was Sargon of Akkad -- you should have picked Akkadians.

Akkad is a Sumerian city-state so Sargon is Sumerian.

[Louis XXIV]

IIRC, Akkad isn't exactly Sumerian, but he did conquer Sumer. A Sumerian empire would be the Third Dynasty of Ur. Not as impressive as Sargon's Empire.

All of them fall far short of what the Assyrians could do. I think the best case could be made for either them or Babylon. Obviously, if you just look at military conquests, we might as well be fine with Persia. While their military achievements (and even cultural ones) were extremely significant (I've been a huge fan of including Assyria for a long time, so I couldn't say enough in support of them), the fact that the Persians managed to do one better hurts them slightly (although not too much, since you could say the same with Greece and Alexander).

Babylon is the more obvious choice, though. People think of them first, Assyria second, anyone else third. I'd argue that the Babylonians and Neo-Babylonians can really be grouped together if you chose (yes, I know that they were Chaldean ethnically). They all learned lessons from those before them and adopted parts of their culture, but Babylon would be the logical choice (and Assyria second).

EDIT: No one voted for Assyria? I'm extremely dissapointed.

Interesting choices there, the Mittanni were a significant local power of the time (became a major rival of Egypt, along with the Hittites, and the Assyrians were subjects of them before they began to build their empire). Elamites are sort of located in Persia, which reduces the desire to include them. You could add Urartu (a political power north of Assyria), or the Aramaeans (their arrival on the region had profound political impact, but, more significantly, their language became the unofficial language of the middle east and the adopted language of the Persian empire). Still, these civilizations seem to lack some of the historical impact of Babylon, Assyria, or Sumer.

[Xorbon]

I picked Babylon because of Civ tradition, but Sumer would be fine too.

I don't think we need both though. One is enough. That would be like having the Byzantines when we already have the Romans.

[Kuciwalker]

Babylon, duh.

[Alexander I]

What do you think it is about Babylon that makes them so much more compelling than Sumer?