The Ancient Times mod - Help Wanted

[Rosacrux]

*Attention* the same thread shall be started in the "Creation" forum - Mods please be so kind and let the double be until we get things rolling (or not) and then you can close it down. Thank you.

I was thinking of an interesting modification for Civ3. A all-ancient mediteranean (and surrounding, like middle east-fertile crescent) mod. It would be rather interesting and also very fond to those who like the ancient civilizations.

But... it's a biggie. Actually not one I could carry on, since my time (devoted to anything but my work and my wife) is quite limited. So, I am looking for people who like this idea and care to join an effort to actually make a workable Ancient Times mod.

There are numerous issues - which civilizations to include, work on cities, leaders, heros and then the big one about the artwork... huh, so many things to do...

But we could work with some of the included civs (Greeks, Roman, Babylonian, Egypt, India and Persian are there, with some flaws but nothing that can't be corrected - as Indias leader of course should change) and add more by ourselves.

Like... ok, let's see. A good line-up for the ancient med/middle east would be:

- Rome
- Greece
- Egypt
- Babylon
- Persia
- India
- Karthago (and/or Phoenicia)
- Celts
- Hebrew
- Skythes
- Gauls (yes, they are Celts too...)
- Nubians
- Assyrian
- Hittites
- Ethiopians
- Etruscii

More suggestions: Illyrians, Thracians, Ionian Greeks, Italian Greeks, Medes, Parthians, Macedonian Greeks, Molloses - there are hundreds of civs we could use.

Alright, I am trying to lure some people into this project. If you like it, post here and we can discuss it.

Thanks

Rosacrux

[Wernazuma III]

Rosacrux: Of course I help you, I have time, as no one seems to want making the Artwork for the Extra Pack
Maybe if you lure some artwork guy, we can share him


OK, some suggestions for the Civs to use. That mainly depends on the map that is planned to be used. If it ends somewhere in southern egypt or Nubia, there's no need to include the Ethiopians for example.
Anyhow, I'll just post my fav. 16 civs:

-Romans
-Celts
-Etruscans
-Greeks
-Minoans
-Lydians
-Hittites
-Hebrews
-Assyrians
-Babylonians
-Persians
-Sogdians, Bactrians or Tocharians
-Indians
-Carthaginians/Phoenicians
-Egyptians
-Nubians

some more suggestions to think about: Armenians, Nabateans/Arabs, Phrygians, Hurritians

[Rosacrux]

Let's get things going

Thanks Wernazuma, we allways need another history buff to help out, and I find your suggestions for the civs better than mine. We could start off with this - which civs to include - here on the "Civs" forum and also talk about attributes and UUs (and leaders, and heros, and city names and... gosh, the list is endless) and over at the "Creation" forum we can talk about the general modification (techs, units, eras, wonders etc.).

I like your list better than mine, but I'd say there are some points to nitpick. About Sogdian, Bactrian or Tocharians - how easy it is to find info on those pre-Alexander conquest or even pre-Persian conquest? Because past Alexander conquest, those were hellenistic kingdoms (yes, the ones that lasted less...) and then... I don't really know much about those later on.

And the Lydians... They were also conquered for the most time of their existence. But they have some interesting qualities, nevertheless... I guess we have to think over it.

Keep the ideas coming

btw The artwork is truly a pain in the arse... if we can lure a guy into this we can really squeeze him out

[Wernazuma III]

I proposed the three optionis of central asian civs mainly "instead of Scythian" as Scythians were no urban civs (which, in my opinion is a crucial aspect for a CIV), whereas proto-silk-road central asia already had quite a rich urban history. I didn't conclude on a special name as my knowledge is limited too on this subject. But I think I've got some info in an exhibition catalogue, I'll look it up. And I'm pretty sure that in Alexander history there can be found sufficient city and leader names too.

And yes, Lydians are definitely the weakest part in the list and several others can compete with them. But they definitely were not as unimportant a power in the 7th/6th century

[Locutus]

Hmm, I always seem to drop in on this forum on the right moment, don't I? Or are the discussions always this interesting?

I think both lists mentioned above would be a good starting point, but I really think Ethiopia (or rather, Aksum, as it was then called) should be included as well. From a Mediterranean point of view, Aksum was far more important than India. Aksum:

(1) actually ruled over large parts of present-day Sudan and Yemen/Arabia, which both certainly fit within the scope of this scenario;
(2) controlled most of the trade between Africa, Arabia, Rome, Persia and India (all very relevant for this modpack);
(3) was a major empire (according to Persian prophet Mani even the third kingdom of the world, after Rome and Persia) with fabolously wealthy and important cities (such as Adulis, Matara and Aksum), which all had large Roman, Greek, Persian, Jewish, Arab and Indian minorities (again, very relevant for this modpack);
(4) it is located much closer to the Mediterranean than India and even much of Persia...

I don't think you should eliminate any civilization just because of geographical reasons (below this parallel, beyond this mountain range, whatever), you should look much more at culture instead. In this sense Aksum qualifies better than many other civilizations, even though western history books generally give it far less credit than it deserves. Playing with the Celts and Indians or Babylonians in the same game makes little sense historically (they lived thousands of miles apart and never had any contact with each other), playing with Ethiopia and any of the nations mentioned so far (except the Celts, the Etruscans and one or two others) makes perfect sense...

As far as the rest of the list goes, all the nations mentioned make sense. My suggestion: why stick to 16 civs? You can have 31, can't you? There's so many Mediterranean civs, why make it any harder than it already is (well, except for the artwork of course, that seems to cause everyone headaches). If 31 is too much, at least go for 20. My favourite list would be (roughly from west to east):

1. Celts
2. Romans
3. Etruscans
4. Greeks
5. Minoans
6. Macedonians / Thracians
7. Hittites
8. Scythians
9. Hebrews
10. Phoenicians (if absolutely necessary Carthaginians but I personally have a strong preference for Phoenicians)
11. Egyptians
12. Nubians
13. Ethiopians
14. Babylonians / Sumerians
15. Armenians
16. Assyrians
17. Arabs
18. Persians
19. Harappans
20. Indians (although I would probably rename it Maurya or Gupta)

But as said before, there's dozens of other civs that would qualify...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Locutus
Hmm, I always seem to drop in on this forum on the right moment, don't I? Or are the discussions always this interesting?

It's always so interesting, you should drop by more frequently

You're right of course, we CAN have more than 16 civs, but rosacrux will already need some time to make the first 16...

I didn't want to disqualify Aksum, I always was empathic towards Ethiopia, but it really depends on the map (just as much as the inclusion of India depends on that. I wouldn't make Harappans AND Indians, exactly for this reason. There won't be the whole subcontinent on a euro-centric ancient world map, only the Indus-valley and maybe the desert. If the map allows it, it'd probably good to replace the Lydians with Ethiopians/Aksumites

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
It's always so interesting, you should drop by more frequently

LOL, I guess I could do that The only problem is, I left for a good reason. I'm still don't know how to combine discussing history with not developing Civ3 here one Apolyton Things are so much easier on CivFanatics with it's seperate World History forum

You're right of course, we CAN have more than 16 civs, but rosacrux will already need some time to make the first 16...

Yeah, that's definitely true. Well, as far as the historic research goes, there should be enough people around here who can help with that. For many civs the properties already exist (if not for Civ3 then for CtP or Civ2), though some minor adaptations might be required, and most others are well known enough to easily find the necessary info for. If you don't insist on doing everything democratically, like with the expansion pack, things can go really fast...

I didn't want to disqualify Aksum, I always was empathic towards Ethiopia, but it really depends on the map (just as much as the inclusion of India depends on that. I wouldn't make Harappans AND Indians, exactly for this reason. There won't be the whole subcontinent on a euro-centric ancient world map, only the Indus-valley and maybe the desert. If the map allows it, it'd probably good to replace the Lydians with Ethiopians/Aksumites

Hmm, that's true. I included both since both civs were quite different and both seem to have had fairly intense contacts with Persia and the Middle East. Culturally they would both fit well but it might indeed be too much to have them both. I don't know what kind of area/map exactly Rosacrux wants to cover, 'my cultural map' of the ancient west includes a good portion of India and North-East Africa, but if you'd want to make a (square) civilization map out of that you'd get an awful lot of unused space (mountains north of Persia/India, Sahara, Indian Ocean).

[Giovanni August]

Hello! Scusme....
can i suggest a list of civ too?

So..
1Romans
2Greeks (use Pericles (???) )
3Egyptians
4Babylon
5Persia
6India
7Celts
8Phoenician
9Macedonian Greeks (use Alexander)
10Assyrian
11Sumerian
12Hebrews
13Hittites
14Minoan
15Ethiopians
16Etruscan

Saluti

[Locutus]

I've compiled a brief list of all the proposed civs so far. Two ways of doing this really: select the ones you want and go for it, however many there may be (as long as it's less than 32). Or you can set a limit first, determine how many civs you want, and eliminate the civs you don't want until you got a satisfying list. It's up to you...

Civs that everyone pretty much seems to agree on (i.e. they occur on at least 3 of the above lists):
1. Celts
2. Romans
3. Etruscans
4. Greeks
5. Minoans
6. Hittites
7. Hebrews
8. Carthaginians / Phoenicians
9. Egyptians
10. Nubians
11. Babylonians
12. Assyrians
13. Persians
14. Indians / Maurya / Gupta

Civs about which there is no consensus but have some popularity (appear on at least 1 list):
15. Gauls
16. Macedonians
17. Thracians
18. Lydians
19. Scythians
20. Ethiopians
21. Sumerians
22. Armenians
23. Arabs
24. Sogdians
25. Bactrians
26. Tocharians
27. Harappans

Other civs (civs from the 'other suggestions' section):
28. Phrygians
29. Hurritians
30. Illyrians
31. Medes
32. Parthians
33. Ionian Greeks
34. Italian Greeks
35. Molloses
36. Pontus (just tossing it in to get nice round numbers)

(Re: Molloses: Never even heard of them, quite frankly, and according to Google they don't even exist, who the hell are they?)

You're gonna have to elimate between 5 and 20 civs from this list (assuming you don't add more)...

[Rosacrux]

What to pick?

Quite a list there, Locutus. Yes, I've noticed that there are many options. Here are some thoughts of mine:

1. Celts OK
2. Romans OK
3. Etruscans OK if we go without a standard map
4. Greeks OK but with a possibility of leader change if the Greek Macedonians go in
5. Minoans OK
6. Hittites OK
7. Hebrews OK
8. Carthaginians / Phoenicians OK i'd go with Phoenicians as well
9. Egyptians OK
10. Nubians OK
11. Babylonians OK
12. Assyrians OK
13. Persians OK
14. Indians / Maurya / Gupta OK and Wernazume takes the call on the name we use

Civs about which there is no consensus but have some popularity

15. Gauls - Not a primal choice, since they are Celts.
16. Macedonians - A good choice but as Macedonian Greeks, if you don't mind.
17. Thracians - Not really a significant civ, but provided the Greek city states with the famous peltastes, a very effective light infantry
18. Lydians- I think we are ruling those out, right?
19. Scythians - I like them but, yes, they were not an urban civ.
20. Ethiopians - Still a good choice, if we don't go with a standard map
21. Sumerians- another fertile crescent civ... well, it's your call
22. Armenians - Wouldn't be my primal choice
23. Arabs - This is not their prime era. Save them for the Apolyton expansion pack
24. Sogdians - I have stated my objections to those, but if one of you can find enough info I'd be glad to have them in.
25. Bactrians - see above
26. Tocharians - see above
27. Harappans - I don't know enough to comment.


btw Locutus, Molosses were a later hellenized (and even later Romanized) tribe in Hepirus (Hepiros). Their kings fought numerous wars with the Macedonian Kingdom, until Alexandros subdued them. King Pyros, although Greek, was king of the Molosses. Some of them lived inside the borders of the Macedonian kingdom.

[Wernazuma III]

OK, my take on the "some popularity civs":

15. Gauls - Nah, Celts are enough Celts
16. Macedonians - An obvious possibility although they'd be definitely the "youngest" of the Civs. If necessary they can be called Macedonian Greeks to make it more clearly, but from Philipp onwards, it's obvious that they were greeks anyway...
17. Thracians - No, not urban, not specifically important
18. Lydians - Well, I kinda like them but probably not No.1 choice even to me
19. Scythians - No (stated above)
20. Ethiopians - In with them I say
21. Sumerians - Good pick, but then maybe really get rid of Babylonians to evade Civ-crowding. (Close to a tie)
22. Armenians - A possibility, but not in the first 16, similar as for Lydians
23. Arabs - Well, semitic peoples from Arabia have some urban history and the Nabateans were quite important too, but yet, I wouldn't give them place in the first 16
24. Sogdians
25. Bactrians
26. Tocharians - Obviously, if one of those three is included, give away the others. I'd put them in the game, will see to provide some info.
27. Harappans - A possible civ, yet also only in an expanded list, otherwÃse I'd let them remain subsummed under "Indians"

[Locutus]

Okay, time for my comments:

15. Gauls - Celts are Celts, so thumbs-down on this one
16. Macedonians - identifiable civ from 7th century onwards, just as the Romans, and important and unique enough to include as a seperate civ (the 'Greeks' suffix is correct but IMHO ugly, but do whatever you want)
17. Thracians - They *did* have numerous cities but *were* a tribal civ in nature; not important enough anyway
18. Lydians - I'd only include this one if you have room to spare, don't care much for them myself
19. Scythians - were nomadic, thumbs down (I just think the name is )
20. Ethiopians - renamed Aksum, definitely thumbs-up (only downside is the map)
21. Sumerians - oldest civ in Fertile Crescent, should be in but overlap with Babylon might be too large (both in city names and on a map), very tough choice... I'd say keep 'm for now but prepare to ditch one of them if too troublesome (I for one would choose Babylon, based on their fame; though Sumer probably deserves it more)
22. Armenians - good choice but not for the top 16 (if you go with 20 they should be in)
Sorry, Nabateans and Arabs should have been a seperate options, I was confused with the Sabeans (but for finding enough city names merging the two might not be a bad idea)
23a. Arabs - were important long before the Islam came around (since 1000 BC); they long had a monopoly on Africa-India trade, they were the sole supplier of spices for Europe, and controlled a good portion of India-Europe trade; combined with advanced irrigation technology and a favourable climate (in Yemen at least) this made Arab city states important and extremely rich; not as big as Ethiopia or Macedonia, but I'd include them if possible
23b. Nabateans - a good choice but not for the top 16, problem is that little is known about them so finding necessary properties might be tricky
24. Sogdians
25. Bactrians
26. Tocharians - I think having one civ in Central Asia wouldn't be a bad idea but properties might be hard to determine. Perhaps the Pathians and even the Medes should be considered as an alternative next to one of these three (since more info exists on them)?
27. Harappans - a good option, India is extremely diverse, one civ representing all of it wouldn't give the Indian sub-continent the credit it deserves; however, I wouldn't put these in the top 16... (Rosacrux, you might know Harappans better as Indus Valley People, good descriptions can be found here and here)

My conclusion from all this: to fill the top 16, the two civs next to the 14 already agreed upon should be Macedonia and Ethiopia. Would you want to include more civs, the most obvious choices are (in the order of my personal preference):

- Sumerians (if at all possible)
- Arabs (possibly merged with Nabateans)
- Central Asians (Sogdians/Bactrians/Tocharians/Parthians, whatever is most desirable/convenient)
- Armenians
- Harappans
- Nabateans
- Lydians

So *if* you want more than 16 civs, 20 or 22 would be nice numbers. We seem to more or less agree that the other civs don't really qualify (unless you want more than 22 civs but I don't get the idea that you do).

BTW, thanks for the info on Molosses, Rosacrux.

[Giovanni August]

I agree with Locutus for the civs to pick!
But i'd really try to put in the Sumerian!
Some Historian think that they were probably older than the Egyptians! But i agree that there woulhd be a problem of overlapping with the Babylonians!

But i will really enjoy having them in the Mod!

Saluti

[molly bloom]

About the Celts not reaching the Indians/Chinese- don't be so sure-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html

Channel 4 in Britain showed a fascinating documentary about 2 years' ago, in its Secret History strand, I believe, on the well-preserved mummies of the Takla Makan. They had been dried in a similar way to the mummies of Peru, and their clothes, a woven woollen tartan-like cloth, their Caucasian appearance, fair skin, red/blond hair, do seem to indicate affiliation with one branch of the Celts. Needless to say, the present day Chinese authorities are reluctant to allow too much investigation into the mummies antecedents, keen as they are to keep promulgating the idea that knowledge flowed only east to west.....

As regards the Scythians, Sarmatians, Thracians, Kurgans, Pazaryks, etc... why not rename the barbarians? Given the restless nomadic nature of the steppe peoples, this would be historically more accurate than having one of the horse cultures start from a city base.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by molly bloom
About the Celts not reaching the Indians/Chinese- don't be so sure-

Yes, basically you are right. However:

1) This was a very small and isolated group of people, not a large-scale movement of people who maintained many contacts with other cultures.

2) These people settled in the extreme North-West of China (in what is now Uygur territory), still about equally far removed from the Chinese and Indian centers of civilization as e.g. Nigeria is from Egypt (and the terrain seperating them was at least as uninhabitable as in Africa, probably worse).

3) These finds are 3,000-4,000 years old, while the oldest Celtic remains in Europe are from 1,200 BC. Consider also the time it must have taken to travel thousands of miles through the uninhabitable mountains, deserts and turndra of Russia, Kazakhstan and China and the gap between the Hallstatt Celts and 'Roman' Celts and you will realize that the two peoples were at best distant cousins.

So although it indeed true that it's quite possible that some Celt-like people migrated to China around 4,000 BC (I guess they just didn't like their starting position ), the Celts are still very far removed from Indian or Mesopotamian history.

As regards the Scythians, Sarmatians, Thracians, Kurgans, Pazaryks, etc... why not rename the barbarians? Given the restless nomadic nature of the steppe peoples, this would be historically more accurate than having one of the horse cultures start from a city base.

Do you mean should we the Barbarians be added as an extra civ or should the city-list simply be adapted to reflect these Ancient Mediterrean names (or something else altogether)? I would agree on the latter but don't think I would feel much for the former...

Edit: spelling (stupid Germans with their double l's and t's everywhere )