The New Capitals

[Alexander I]

Okay...

Let's confirm some information on the new civs for all of us who don't have Conquests yet.

What are the capitals for the new civs?

My assumptions are:

Byzantines: Constantinople
Dutch: Amsterdam
Portuguese: Lisbon
Incans: Cuzco
Mayans: Tikal or Chichen Itza
Hittites: Hattusas
Sumerians: Uruk
*Austrians: Vienna

[kring]

From the Editor for Epic Game, and Napoleonic Europe (for Austria):

Byzantines: Constantinople
Netherlands: Amsterdam
Portugal: Lisbon
Inca: Cuzco
Maya: Chichén Itza
Hittites: Hattusas
Sumeria: Ur
*Austria: Vienna

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by kring
Byzantines: Constantinople
Netherlands: Amsterdam
Portugal: Lisbon
Inca: Cuzco
Maya: Chichén Itza
Hittites: Hattusas
Sumeria: Ur
*Austria: Vienna

Aha! Very interesting. My only objections are to the Sumerians' and Mayans'.

Sumerians

You see, Gilgamesh's seat of power was Uruk, Ur being a very important coastal port and the home of Abraham, but not the capital of Sumer, as far as I can tell.

Mayans

Chichen Itza was a very important Mayan metropolis, but I was under the impression that the capital was at Tikal. Perhaps I am misinformed.

The others appear to be correct. What do all of you think?

[lockstep]

Re: The New Capitals

Originally posted by Alexander01
*Austrians: Vienna

Correct.

[nuther]

I don't think the Mayans actually had a capitOl. They just had several major cities. I would have picked Tikal, though. Because Chitzen-Itza was built later on during their history.

[Alexander I]

Thanks for the information.

What are everybody else's thoughts?

[The Slayer]

I also thinked Tikal must be the capital for the Mayans. I'll ask for this to some Mexican friends, they must knew about this better than me.

An the another ones.. correct! .. Specially my beloved Cuzco (did you know that Cuzco also could be written like "Cusco" or in Quecha - the inca's language - "Qosco" ?? )

[vovan]

Originally posted by Alexander01
What are everybody else's thoughts?

http://www.historyamericas.com/Tikal_An_Illustrated_History_of_the_Ancient_Maya_Capital_0781808537.html

I don't think the Mayans actually had a capitOl.

capitol
capital

[Alexander I]

Very good work. Excellent research, all! Keep up the good work.

[Louis XXIV]

The Sumerians were never an empire. They were indepenant City-States. The closest you could come to calling their capital would be the most important city. Babylon was the unquestioned leader of Babylon, Ashur was the top city of Assyria. But Sumer was different.

While we're on the subject, someone want to list the cities for Babylon and Sumeria?

[Alexander I]

That's true enough. I always did think they should have included Assyria instead. But no matter. I'm content with Sumeria.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Thanks for the information.

What are everybody else's thoughts?

Vanilla Coke tastes bad.
My girlfriend looked really hot yesterday.
The Eagles will win MNF tonight vs. Packers.

That's about it off the top of my head.....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
The Sumerians were never an empire. They were indepenant City-States. The closest you could come to calling their capital would be the most important city. Babylon was the unquestioned leader of Babylon, Ashur was the top city of Assyria. But Sumer was different.

While we're on the subject, someone want to list the cities for Babylon and Sumeria?

More or less. There was a unified "Sumerian" empire of sorts when Sargon I of Akkad created his empire, but since he was Akkadian, it's not really considered a "Sumerian" empire (though that seems to be quibbling, IMO).

Regardless, I think that the original poster was thinking that since Gilgamesh is the Sumerian leader, and he was king of Uruk, the capital should logically be Uruk.

However, Ur is regarded as the first city, so I see the logic of making it the capital. I think, if anything, they should have rethought making Gilgamesh the civ leader. Alulim might have been better, though he is only known through mythology (but since he supposedly ruled 28,800 years, he'd be a good choice for Civ!). He was king of Eridu. The first king of Ur on record is Mesannepadda.

I still think it should have been Sargon, because he was Mesopotamia's number one ****-kicker for a long time, and his name is cool.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Feephi

Vanilla Coke tastes bad.

I like Vanilla Coke

My girlfriend looked really hot yesterday.

Pictures?

The Eagles will win MNF tonight vs. Packers.

E-A-G-L-E-S
Eagles!!!

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


More or less. There was a unified "Sumerian" empire of sorts when Sargon I of Akkad created his empire, but since he was Akkadian, it's not really considered a "Sumerian" empire (though that seems to be quibbling, IMO).

Regardless, I think that the original poster was thinking that since Gilgamesh is the Sumerian leader, and he was king of Uruk, the capital should logically be Uruk.

However, Ur is regarded as the first city, so I see the logic of making it the capital. I think, if anything, they should have rethought making Gilgamesh the civ leader. Alulim might have been better, though he is only known through mythology (but since he supposedly ruled 28,800 years, he'd be a good choice for Civ!). He was king of Eridu. The first king of Ur on record is Mesannepadda.

I still think it should have been Sargon, because he was Mesopotamia's number one ****-kicker for a long time, and his name is cool.

Since Akkad is right next to Babylon, he'd be a better candidate for the Babylonians.