Tweet
KrazyHorse,
Well, if you think Beijing isn't an important city, I guess you might be right
Conquered cities like Samarkand, Bokhara, Baghdad, Kiev, etc. indeed played an important role in Mongol history but cities actually founded by the Mongols themselves were at least as important, probably more important (Karakorum, Ta-tu/Cambulac/Beijing, Shang-tu, Sarai Batu, Sarai Berke, etc). The Mongol empire was much more than just a military empire: trade, science and diplomacy have always been important factors as well. The most obvious example of this is that many Chinese inventions reached Europe during the rule of the Mongols: gunpowder, compass, printing, to name but a few. These and many other advances were also exploited by the Mongols themselves once they had come in contact with them (most notably siege warfare). Caravans could travel freely and unrestricted through the vast Mongol empire (something which isn't as trivial as it may seem, just look at France, Germany and Greece). The Mongols also maintained diplomatic relationships with all major and many minor Eurasian nations, many more than any nation before them AFAIK.
They were no more or less unified then the Greeks. Not even Alexander the Great ruled over all Greeks, many Greek colonies in Spain, Italy, France, Northern Africa and at Cremea remained independent from Alexander. And apart from Alexander, when were the Greeks ever united under one ruler? Greece consisted of many city-states who almost always remained independent from each other, though they felt they were part of the same culture and were often allied. The same is the case with the Mongols: the Yuan dynasty, the Golden Horde, the Il-Khanid dynasty, the Chagatai and to a lesser extend the Moghul dynasty and other smaller khanates, they all had a fairly high degree of independence but they were all Mongols and in that sense united and most of the time allied with each other. Contrary to the Greeks though, most of the time the Mongols *did* have a single 'supreme' leader, and Genghis and Kublai (among others) both held this position for most of their lives.
Your point about Kublai reigning over the Chinese makes no sense. When the Romans conquered Gaul, Gaul became a Roman province and Roman laws and culture were enforced on the Celts living there, even though the Romans tolerated Celts who wanted to maintain their own livestyle, as long as they payed taxes and accepted Roman rule. The same was the case in China: when Kublai had conquered China, it became part of the Mongol empire and Mongol rule, laws and culture were enforced on the Chinese, while the Mongols kept much of their own culture and customs. The Chinese were allowed to continue to speak their own language and maintain their old lifestyle, but they had to accept Mongol rule, pay taxes and accept a new social hierarchy in which the Mongols were on top of the social ladder and the South-Chinese at the bottom. Important government functions were for a good part in the hands of Mongol aristocrats (though they hired many Chinese advisors because they simply didn't have the necessary experience to rule a vast empire themselves). It's true that the Mongols adapted themselves to and were even assimilated by the nations they conquered but again, the same was true for the Romans (think Greece or Christianity, for example). Like the Romans, the Mongols never lost their identity over it, they always remembered who they were and where they came from.
Your two most important arguments against the Mongols counting as a civilization seem to be that they didn't rule for long enough and that they were nomadic warriors rather than settled-down rulers. I did a little research and even the most 'pessimitic' historians say the Mongol empire ruled the Eurasian continent for 185 years (other sources and I myself disagree and add a few centuries to that). This is from the rise of Genghis Khan to the (almost simultaneous) decline of the Il-Khanid, the Yuan and the Golden Horde. If we go back 185 years and look at the state of the USA in the early 19th century we have to conclude that the Mongols were a significant worldpower longer than the Americans were, yet noone disputes them being a 'valid' civ. So IMHO your first argument doesn't hold. As far as the second argument goes, yes, the Mongols' traditional lifestyle has been one of nomadic existance, but the Mongols have also always had fixed settlements. In order to be able to support trade, warfare and other social, political and cultural systems, it's simply necessary to have at least some fixed settlements. Also, Mongol aristocrats have always prefered the luxury and comfort of palaces and houses over the uncomfortable and primitive life in yurts. Long before and long after Genghis Khan & Co came around the Mongols have lived in towns, cities and other fixed settlements. It may not have been the most characteristic part of Mongol culture, but it did happen. Add to that the great cities that the Mongols founded and inhabited in the time of their (first) 185 years of supremacy (the names of which I mentioned earlier in this post) and I think your second argument a weak one to say the least.
If you consider the enormous impact they had on the history of mankind, I think you can't dismiss the Mongols off-hand as a possibility for a civilization in Civ3, esp. not since they *were* indeed a civilization by any definition I can come up with for that word. IMHO they are even a must-have civ but that's just my personal opinion, whether or not Firaxis agrees with that is something that only time will tell (but they did think so in the past).
FireDragoon,
We've discussed this extensively before but I'll explain it again. A number of those previews specifically stated that 16 is the total number of civs, not the number of civs per game. Some of these previews even mentioned that the number of civs per game was 7 or 8, but others haven't said anything about this (only 1 preview so far claimed that the number of civs per game is 16). I have not seen the number 32 anywhere before, so unless you can give me a more or less reliable source for that number I have to assume that it's sheer speculation, not based on any facts. And again, this thread is about facts, not about speculation. (In fact, even numbers from previews are speculation, only Firaxis can give us the real numbers, but these previews could be a good indication of what the real numbers will be.)
hetairoi22,
You're right, I read that about the English too somewhere, I'll add that to the list. As far as the Zulu cities are concerned, we already knew of those for a very long time but apparently no-one remembered to add them to the list. I'll add that to the list after all. Thanks for the heads up on these issues!
So far, based on our evidence, we know that:
100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:
1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names, Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer). Multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed)
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG)
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed)[color=red], (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)[color=red]
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%)- or JAPANESE?(50%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese), possibly Japanese Unique Unit
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (100% Native American, any ideas on who? Hiawatha?), city names, text references Unique Unit (75% Native American Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) ** (see below)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great; City name (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites) *** (see below), text referenc, video reference.
** There are two clues that this Native American civ in fact isn't the Iroquois: the houses behind the leader picture are small and round rather than long and square and the unit is a horseman while the Iroquois lived in woods and didn't rely heavily on horses. All other clues (text references, hair cut, city names) point to Iroquois.
*** In the screenshot Athens is building Hoplites. In greek «OPLITES» means "men-at-arms". This word is still in use today in Greece and it still means the same thing as it did in Ancient Greece.
EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS (which means they could be in or not):
14. PERSIANS - City names (capital)
15. SPANISH - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
16. BABYLONIANS - City name
17. AZTECS - City names
18. JAPANESE - instead of the Mongols; open for debate, please see the Samurai(?) unit here
* Also see this picture: Gheghis Chan of the Mongols or a Japanese leader? (Most votes go to Genghis)
SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES (weak clues but we report them):
19. VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?
20. ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.
21. CANADIANS. City name (Montreal). The city name is NOT on the map, but on a civ 3 window.
22. CONFEDERATES. As refered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Many other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American, among other reasons because (as joseph1944 pointed out) he served for the American Army before joinging the Confederates.
23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.
--------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is categorized as such:
Leader= We have a picture of the leader of the corresponting civ.
Unique Unit= We know that the particular unique unit belongs to the corresponding civ
Text reference= The civ has been mentioned by Firaxis in their web site or in interviews by their CEO
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are included in scrrenshots of the game
All other clues= All other clues are reported next to the civ name.
-------------------------CIV FACTS-----------------------
+ Firaxis said the made NO official announcement regarding the number of civs that may or may not be included in the game.
+ In a Gamespot article its says that civs will be 16.
+ An israeli site says that civs will be 16
+ In an IGN preview it says that there will be 16 civs.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.
--------------------------POINTERS-------------------------
* The city names in the screen shots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots doesn't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan & Huntsville, possibly others.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.
Well, if you think Beijing isn't an important city, I guess you might be right
Conquered cities like Samarkand, Bokhara, Baghdad, Kiev, etc. indeed played an important role in Mongol history but cities actually founded by the Mongols themselves were at least as important, probably more important (Karakorum, Ta-tu/Cambulac/Beijing, Shang-tu, Sarai Batu, Sarai Berke, etc). The Mongol empire was much more than just a military empire: trade, science and diplomacy have always been important factors as well. The most obvious example of this is that many Chinese inventions reached Europe during the rule of the Mongols: gunpowder, compass, printing, to name but a few. These and many other advances were also exploited by the Mongols themselves once they had come in contact with them (most notably siege warfare). Caravans could travel freely and unrestricted through the vast Mongol empire (something which isn't as trivial as it may seem, just look at France, Germany and Greece). The Mongols also maintained diplomatic relationships with all major and many minor Eurasian nations, many more than any nation before them AFAIK.They were no more or less unified then the Greeks. Not even Alexander the Great ruled over all Greeks, many Greek colonies in Spain, Italy, France, Northern Africa and at Cremea remained independent from Alexander. And apart from Alexander, when were the Greeks ever united under one ruler? Greece consisted of many city-states who almost always remained independent from each other, though they felt they were part of the same culture and were often allied. The same is the case with the Mongols: the Yuan dynasty, the Golden Horde, the Il-Khanid dynasty, the Chagatai and to a lesser extend the Moghul dynasty and other smaller khanates, they all had a fairly high degree of independence but they were all Mongols and in that sense united and most of the time allied with each other. Contrary to the Greeks though, most of the time the Mongols *did* have a single 'supreme' leader, and Genghis and Kublai (among others) both held this position for most of their lives.
Your point about Kublai reigning over the Chinese makes no sense. When the Romans conquered Gaul, Gaul became a Roman province and Roman laws and culture were enforced on the Celts living there, even though the Romans tolerated Celts who wanted to maintain their own livestyle, as long as they payed taxes and accepted Roman rule. The same was the case in China: when Kublai had conquered China, it became part of the Mongol empire and Mongol rule, laws and culture were enforced on the Chinese, while the Mongols kept much of their own culture and customs. The Chinese were allowed to continue to speak their own language and maintain their old lifestyle, but they had to accept Mongol rule, pay taxes and accept a new social hierarchy in which the Mongols were on top of the social ladder and the South-Chinese at the bottom. Important government functions were for a good part in the hands of Mongol aristocrats (though they hired many Chinese advisors because they simply didn't have the necessary experience to rule a vast empire themselves). It's true that the Mongols adapted themselves to and were even assimilated by the nations they conquered but again, the same was true for the Romans (think Greece or Christianity, for example). Like the Romans, the Mongols never lost their identity over it, they always remembered who they were and where they came from.
Your two most important arguments against the Mongols counting as a civilization seem to be that they didn't rule for long enough and that they were nomadic warriors rather than settled-down rulers. I did a little research and even the most 'pessimitic' historians say the Mongol empire ruled the Eurasian continent for 185 years (other sources and I myself disagree and add a few centuries to that). This is from the rise of Genghis Khan to the (almost simultaneous) decline of the Il-Khanid, the Yuan and the Golden Horde. If we go back 185 years and look at the state of the USA in the early 19th century we have to conclude that the Mongols were a significant worldpower longer than the Americans were, yet noone disputes them being a 'valid' civ. So IMHO your first argument doesn't hold. As far as the second argument goes, yes, the Mongols' traditional lifestyle has been one of nomadic existance, but the Mongols have also always had fixed settlements. In order to be able to support trade, warfare and other social, political and cultural systems, it's simply necessary to have at least some fixed settlements. Also, Mongol aristocrats have always prefered the luxury and comfort of palaces and houses over the uncomfortable and primitive life in yurts. Long before and long after Genghis Khan & Co came around the Mongols have lived in towns, cities and other fixed settlements. It may not have been the most characteristic part of Mongol culture, but it did happen. Add to that the great cities that the Mongols founded and inhabited in the time of their (first) 185 years of supremacy (the names of which I mentioned earlier in this post) and I think your second argument a weak one to say the least.
If you consider the enormous impact they had on the history of mankind, I think you can't dismiss the Mongols off-hand as a possibility for a civilization in Civ3, esp. not since they *were* indeed a civilization by any definition I can come up with for that word. IMHO they are even a must-have civ but that's just my personal opinion, whether or not Firaxis agrees with that is something that only time will tell (but they did think so in the past).
FireDragoon,
We've discussed this extensively before but I'll explain it again. A number of those previews specifically stated that 16 is the total number of civs, not the number of civs per game. Some of these previews even mentioned that the number of civs per game was 7 or 8, but others haven't said anything about this (only 1 preview so far claimed that the number of civs per game is 16). I have not seen the number 32 anywhere before, so unless you can give me a more or less reliable source for that number I have to assume that it's sheer speculation, not based on any facts. And again, this thread is about facts, not about speculation. (In fact, even numbers from previews are speculation, only Firaxis can give us the real numbers, but these previews could be a good indication of what the real numbers will be.)
hetairoi22,
You're right, I read that about the English too somewhere, I'll add that to the list. As far as the Zulu cities are concerned, we already knew of those for a very long time but apparently no-one remembered to add them to the list. I'll add that to the list after all. Thanks for the heads up on these issues!
So far, based on our evidence, we know that:
100% CONFIRMED. These civs ARE in CIV 3:
1. AMERICANS - Leader (Abraham Lincoln; 100% confirmed), city names, Unique Unit (F15)
2. GERMANS - Unique Unit (Panzer). Multiple text references, video reference
3. CHINESE - Leader (Mao Zedong; 100% confirmed)
4. ROMANS - Leader (C. Julius Ceasar, city name (capital), unique unit (Legion), video reference
5. FRENCH - Leader (Joan of Arc(?); 100% confirmed), dialogue window of the French (Unique Unit: Musketeer?)
6. RUSSIANS - Unique Unit (MiG)
7. ZULUS - Unique Unit (Impi), city names
8. ENGLISH - Leader (Elisabeth I; 100% confirmed)[color=red], (Unique Unit: Man-at-Arms?)[color=red]
9. EGYPTIANS - Leader (100% pharaoh, does anyone know who this is?), definite text reference
10. INDIANS - Leader (Mahatma Ghandi; 100% confirmed)
11. MONGOLS (50%)- or JAPANESE?(50%) Leader * (see civ 18, Japanese), possibly Japanese Unique Unit
12. IROQUOIS - Leader (100% Native American, any ideas on who? Hiawatha?), city names, text references Unique Unit (75% Native American Unique Unit - 25% Military Leader) ** (see below)
13. GREEKS - Leader (Alexander the Great; City name (capital), possible Unique Unit (Hoplites) *** (see below), text referenc, video reference.
** There are two clues that this Native American civ in fact isn't the Iroquois: the houses behind the leader picture are small and round rather than long and square and the unit is a horseman while the Iroquois lived in woods and didn't rely heavily on horses. All other clues (text references, hair cut, city names) point to Iroquois.
*** In the screenshot Athens is building Hoplites. In greek «OPLITES» means "men-at-arms". This word is still in use today in Greece and it still means the same thing as it did in Ancient Greece.
EVIDENCE ABOUT OTHER CIVS (which means they could be in or not):
14. PERSIANS - City names (capital)
15. SPANISH - City name: Salamanca (which historically was once a Roman city)
16. BABYLONIANS - City name
17. AZTECS - City names
18. JAPANESE - instead of the Mongols; open for debate, please see the Samurai(?) unit here
* Also see this picture: Gheghis Chan of the Mongols or a Japanese leader? (Most votes go to Genghis)
SUGGESTIONS BASED ON CLUES (weak clues but we report them):
19. VIKINGS (?) Very weak clues. See above mention URL for the boat: Viking Longboat?
20. ISRAELIS. Apolytoner Eli has pointed out that according to a israeli site, Israel is in.
21. CANADIANS. City name (Montreal). The city name is NOT on the map, but on a civ 3 window.
22. CONFEDERATES. As refered to in a swedish article, a Great Military Leader in Civ 3 could be Stonewell Jackson. Apolytoner Arator argued that this leader is impossible to be in the same civ as Lincoln (=100% confirmed leader of the Americans). Many other Apolytoners disagree though, arguing that he's more likely to be an American, among other reasons because (as joseph1944 pointed out) he served for the American Army before joinging the Confederates.
23. PHOENICIANS. Based on a single text reference in a preview.
--------------------------------------------------------
The evidence is categorized as such:
Leader= We have a picture of the leader of the corresponting civ.
Unique Unit= We know that the particular unique unit belongs to the corresponding civ
Text reference= The civ has been mentioned by Firaxis in their web site or in interviews by their CEO
Video reference= The civ was seen in Firaxis demo movie from E3.
City names= The names of cities that clearly belong to the corresponding civ are included in scrrenshots of the game
All other clues= All other clues are reported next to the civ name.
-------------------------CIV FACTS-----------------------
+ Firaxis said the made NO official announcement regarding the number of civs that may or may not be included in the game.
+ In a Gamespot article its says that civs will be 16.
+ An israeli site says that civs will be 16
+ In an IGN preview it says that there will be 16 civs.
+ By now, many other sources have also claimed that the total number of civs in Civ3 will be 16.
--------------------------POINTERS-------------------------
* The city names in the screen shots can be from an extra city names list or could have been arbitrarily written be members of Firaxis. So city names in screenshots doesn't guarantee that a civ will be in. Examples: Kerplakistan & Huntsville, possibly others.
* Another problem could be scenarios. Though city names alone are not enough evidence to include a civ on the 100% certain list and scenario-specific graphics are not likely to be made public until the game is in late beta (if they even exist at all), it's quite possible that some of the evidence we used in this list is based on scenario specific information and not be valid for the regular game.
).
Lot's of new info out I see, haven't had much time yet to process all of it but I too spotted those things, Adm. Naismith & Gramphos.
Comment