Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: Zulu

[Locutus]

Read my first post in this thread for an elaborate introduction: if we make an Apolyton Pack for Civs, should we change the existing Zulu civ in any way? (At the risk of overstating the obvious, if you want FE the Mali to be used instead of the Zulu, you should vote for #5, not #6)

[Locutus]

My, my, the Ethiopians are popular. Very understandable of course. One thing to consider though: if Ethiopia replaces the Zulus, Ethiopia and Egypt will most likely be the only African civs in the Pack: no Zulus anymore and, as it currently stands, the Mali just don't make the cut either (let alone any other African civ).

[Ribannah]

Since Mali / Ghana / Songhai are of Nubian origin, why not combine votes in favour of Nubia?

[Locutus]

Huh what? Did I miss a whole episode in history? The Mali et al are from west Africa (Sahel, Gold Coast) while Nubia is from East Africa (Sudan). AFAIK the Nubians never migrated to the west (or at least not that far). Correct me if I'm wrong though, I haven't been 'into' African history for all that long.

I personally would find it interesting to merge the Nubians with them though, I'd love nothing more than to have the Mali in (they're one of my personal favorites, only superceded by the Mongols)...

[Ribannah]

It much depends on the time period. If you go back far enough, the African peoples are all related, and migration and mixing took place during all ages.
We could also have the Bantu represent both West Africa and Zululand.

AFAIK the origin of Great Zimbabwe is disputed and claimed by (at least) the Swahili and the Lemba.

[Locutus]

Duh! If you go back far enough all European, American and Asian people are also all related and migration and mixing took place in all ages on those continents as well. This in fact goes for all human beings. With reasoning like that we only need two civs, don't we? One called Adam and one called Eve

As much as I'd like to find some justification for merging a bunch of African civs together to get one more African civ in the top 31 (preferably under the name Mali), the Ghana/Mali/Soghai were Mande in origin, not Bantu (although the early founders of Ghana were actually Berbers). The Bantu languages developed in what is now Nigeria and spread out mainly to the south and east. It *was* spoken in the coastal regions of the West Africa (in present-day Cote d'Ivoire, Benin, Togo, Ghana - NOT the same as ancient Ghana) but the great West African empires we're talking about here lay deep inland, in present-day Mali/Senegal/Burkina Faso. They we definitely not Bantu. (http://www.afriquepluriel.ch/atlas10.jpg)

As far as Zimbabwe goes, it rose to greatness around the same time as the Swahili kingdoms, it would seem very unlikely to me that Zimbabwe was Swahili in origin. I never heard of the Lemba claiming to have founded Zimbabwe either (they're too busy claiming to be Jewish ). Not much is known about the origins of Zimbabwe (or most other African civs for that matter) but it's generally assumed to be Shona in origin (Shona being more of a language group than a 'real' civilization). The Swalihi, Lemba and Zimbabweans/Shona were (are) all neighbours and all Bantu in origin so of course they are distant relatives but to say that Zimbabwe is Swahili or Lemba in origin makes little sense to me. But even if it's true, most people have any problem with the Spanish being Roman in origin or the French being Celtic... (BTW, do you have any sources which report of this Zimbabwean origin? I never heard it before, I would be very interested in learning more about it).

[Ribannah]

http://ngilegacy.com/power1.htm

Ghana, Mali, and Songhay were Sudanic civilizations created by people who migrated from their aboriginal abode in Ancient Nubia. The Sudanic culture was an extension of Nile Valley culture.

Here is a link regarding Great Zimbabwe and a.o. the Lemba claim:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/zimbabwe.html

[Gangerolf]

Replace the Zulus with the Boers and add the Mali.

[Gangerolf]

Replace the Zulus with the Boers and add the Mali.

[Locutus]

Ghana, Mali, and Songhay were Sudanic civilizations created by people who migrated from their aboriginal abode in Ancient Nubia. The Sudanic culture was an extension of Nile Valley culture.

Merging the Ku****e Nubians with the Sahelian Mali because they're both Sudanic makes about as much sense as merging the Ethiopians with the Arabs and the Phoenicans because they're all Semitic. But if it's an excuse to get the Mali in Civ3 you won't hear me complaining... (What the heck, throw in the Bantu as well, who cares? )

Regarding the Zimbabwe: that's more of a dispute who the descendants of the Zimbabweans are today rather than who it's predecessors were... It does not dispute the fact that the civ that was then called 'Zimbabwe' (whoever it was) was a great civilization (not as great as some others perhaps but still greater than the Zulu).

Even so, I'm not sure how seriously to take the Lemba claim. That site focuses very much on the 'Jewish' side of the story and the Jewish side is that the Lemba claimed to be Jewish in origin. The Jews would very much like to claim the Zimbabwean empire as 'theirs' of course. In reality, it's no certainty that the Lemba were Jewish. There are clues but it's by no means a historical fact (as it's presented). All other sources I've heard about the issue say the Zimbabweans were Shona. In fact, Shona is occasionally even used as synonym for Zimbabwe.

Then again, I'm by no means an expert on Zimbabwean history so my opinion doesn't mean all that much

[Ribannah]

I would not be surprised if people of the Shona, Lemba and Swahili tribes were all part of Great Zimbabwe, as it was quite strategically located. Similar things happened elsewhere. I just read about Lake Titicaca, also a prime area, where people of three different tribes became part of one civilization.
This could explain why there are no 'descendents' (although at Lake Titicaca there were: the Incas).

Gangerolf: the Boers are simply Dutch settlers, hardly a separate civ. When the
Dutch are put in they can have some African towns.

[Gangerolf]

the Boers are simply Dutch settlers

No, they mixed with some French hugenots IIRC. Anyway, the early Americans were British settlers, so I don't buy that argument.

When the Dutch are put in they can have some African towns.

Many of the Boer towns were founded after the Dutch lost control of the Cape Colony, so I wouldn't give them for example Johannesburg. They can have Cape Town though.

The Boers/Afrikaaners have had (and still have) far more influence and power in the region than the Zulus.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
No, they mixed with some French hugenots IIRC.

Just a few, but the same happened on a larger scale in the Netherlands at that time. The French Hugenots became part of the Dutch civilization.

Anyway, the early Americans were British settlers, so I don't buy that argument.

Settlers in what is now USA territory came from all of Europe, as well as China and Japan. And Africa, of course. The Spanish were the first to settle down (in New Mexico), not the British.

The Boers/Afrikaaners have had (and still have) far more influence and power in the region than the Zulus.

That much is certain. But the Boers did not add anything of significance that wasn't Dutch, culture- or otherwise.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Settlers in what is now USA territory came from all of Europe, as well as China and Japan. And Africa, of course. The Spanish were the first to settle down (in New Mexico), not the British.

I said the early Americans - The 13 colonies that became the USA. They were mainly of British descent. The fact that the USofA later captured former Spanish settlements and brought some African slaves over, isn't relevant in this context.

But the Boers did not add anything of significance that wasn't Dutch, culture- or otherwise.

So Apartheid is part of Dutch culture?
Anyway I think it's wrong to say that Boer culture/society = Dutch culture/society.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I said the early Americans - The 13 colonies that became the USA. They were mainly of British descent. The fact that the USofA later captured former Spanish settlements and brought some African slaves over, isn't relevant in this context.

The slaves came a little earlier than that, but if we only had the BUSA today instead of the USA, they might not have made the top 16 or 32 as a separate civ!

So Apartheid is part of Dutch culture?
Anyway I think it's wrong to say that Boer culture/society = Dutch culture/society.

Unfortunately, it is, or rather: it was.
Not just in South Africa, but also in Surinam and Indonesia. In all of their colonies / trading posts, I think they only considered the Iroquois and maybe the Japanese their equals. But I didn't say that Boer = Dutch, I said Boer <= Dutch.