What Civ Would You Have Included?

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Re: Netherlands

Originally posted by aahz_capone
What about the dutch? OK, you could complain about there being too many euro countries, but the dutch had colonies in the carabian, africa and the far east and fought the other colonial powers at one point or another. Hell, the dutch invented the marines (not the machine-gun-totting kind, but the swashbuckler kind). They were also the only nation allowed to trade with Japan for a couple of centuries until america opened up japan at gun point.

Many prominent scientists came from holland too: huygens, vlacq, beekman, escher etc.

The fell of Antwerp, by Alexander Farnese of the Spanish, led to a massive migration from Flemish workers/leaders/artists to Holland. Also thanks to their imput, the Netherlands experienced their golden age (these facts are historically proven, don't make me look into an encyclopedia to prove these points).

So my friendly, neighbouring suggestion is this: let's create a civ
Belgo-Dutch, or Low Countries. After all, the Belgians colonized the rich region of Congo and Flandres throughout history has always been highly developped and industrialized. Culturally, our painters are as famous as yours. And last but not least, Belgium goes to the World Cup.

So I guess my plee is not that 'fantastic' isn't it?

VLAANDEREN, GIJ SCHOON LAND.
WAT HEBT GIJ TOCH TE BIEDEN
AAN DIE NOORDERBUUR DIE
MET HEBBEN EN HOUDEN
ALLES ACHTERLAAT OM ZICH TE
VESTIGEN IN HET LAND WAAROM
HIJ SMALEND LACHT?

AJ

[kailhun]

I think the choice of civs is too 'western'. I'd have preferrd to a larger mix of cultures.

In no particular order:

1. Roman
2. Egyptian
3. Greek
4. Chinese
5. Japanese
6. Indian
7. Charlemagne (Germany/France?)
8. Russian (Slavs)
9. Native American (Iroquis/Sioux?)
10. Aztec (Inca/Toltec?)
11. Zulu (Black African culture; Great Zimbabwe-people?)
12. Inuit (cold zone peoples)
13. Arabs (still deciding on culture-name)
14. Mongols (Nomadic tribesmen)
15. Javanese
16. Maori (Island tribes)

Having different cultures allows for significantly different AI's and unique units.

I see no reason to have the Americans in it. And one major European country will do. Babylonians and Persians? Too similar for my tastes.

Robert

[Hagbart]

The Vikings is important!

[Miznia]

my $.02

Spanish are necessary.
Incas would be nicer than Iroquois.
Turks are pretty sweet, close to being necessary.
Koreans would be nice, to flesh out Asia a little.
Thai would be nice if there's still room.
Mali is the best sub-Saharan civ choice, I would say, above Nubians, Aksum, Songhay, Kongo, Zimbabwe, and Zulus, although Civ has made me too attached to Zulus to want to dump them...

The Vikings and Celts were among my least favorite Civ2 civs... They just don't seem to fit, possibly because I have trouble imagining their borders...

Something seems not quite right about "Arabs," but what about those first couple of regimes, Umayyad and Abbasid, those are highly noteworthy, aren't they?

I don't care too much for the Babs, but somebody's gotta represent the Tigris-Euphrates civs, I think.

I didn't care for Persians until I recalled that their religion can be Zoroastrianism, and that adds some pretty sweet color.

I'm happy with the decision to axe the Mongols. We can call them Chinese, or else perhaps lump them together with the Turks. There are Turkic peoples throughout Central Asia, and I believe the Mongols' language group is the same as Turkish (i.e. Altaic).

Tupi or Arawaks, anyone?

[the-elf]

[SIZE=1][FONT=arial][COLOR=darkblue]
So far so good with the civs already present in the game, but I agree that some other noneuro civs might have been included. A few ideas:

Arabs: I wholeheartedly agree with those who have proposed this one. True, there was no historical state called "Arabia", but this is because (1) the original arabs were nomads without a country per se and (2) their Muslim descendants viewed church and state as two branches of a single entitiy. However, there was an "arab world" ruled for several centuries from the caliphate of Baghdad. This was a powerful imperial capital that extended control over a number of smaller Muslim kingdoms. Perhaps their most important legacy was the expansion of Islam as a world religion across three continents, the majority which took place within a single century!

Turks: As for the Turks, this is "putting the cart before the horse" as the Arab calipahtes did exist first, though the Turkish state managed a number of significant acheivements. These include centuries of rule across diverse peoples and thousands of miles of strategic territory spanning portions of Africa, Asia, and even Europe... deep incursions by a noneuro power into Europe, as well as as successfully checking and repulsing the Mongol Invaders.

Mongols: Though stopped in Asia minor by the Turks, the Mongols are responsible for the destruction of old Baghdad, conquering 90% of Asia, and numerous plunderings of Eastern Europe. This civilization was the largest empire to ever exist, rivaled only by the Soviet Union in modern times. Surprisingly, it drew its intial military strength and political leadership from what was a little known nomadic civilization only a generation before. The Mongol story has much in common with that of the Arabs- as a side note both civilizations were immortalized by modern poets: "Sailing to Byzantium" (Yeats) celebrates the old city that became Istanbul, and "Kublai Khan" (Coleridge) describes the mongol emperor of China and his capital at Chengdu- Coleridge's Xanadu.

Incas: As Newworld civs go, we already have the Iroqoius in North America and teh Aztecs in MesoAmerica. How about the powerful Incan Empire in South America? The Incas managed to string together a multiethnic empire that spanned thousands of miles along though modern Chile, Peru and Equador... without the benefit of wheeled vehicles. Incan courriers could transport the edicts of government hundreds of miles in the matter of a few days- running on foot alone through the high altitude passes of the Andes. Their chief granary in Cuzco contained enough food to feed the entire empire for a season, and the secrets of their architecture are still unknown to modern academics.

Abyssynians/Ethiopians: Africa's first Christian monarchy and the only african nation to retain its independence throughout colonialization. The early ethiopian state was largely Jewish and responsible for numerous architectural feats rivaling the Egytian civilization in scale and ingenuity. Ethiopia is perhaps the oldest continuing nation-state on earth, and was possibly home to the Biblical Queen of Sheba.

These are my suggestions, what does eveyone else think?

[Captain]

Originally posted by molly bloom
As for 'uniting' the Arabs as Turks- cart before horse (or camel) as well as being something of a slight. The Arabs brought Islam to the Turks, not vice versa, and Arabs used Turks as mercenaries/slaves. The Turks were primarily steppe dwellers, the Arabs desert and fringe desert dwellers. The Arab 'civilization' once stretched from Spain's Pyrenees to Northern Persia and the borders of Tang China in Central Asia. The Empires of the Turks were never solely 'Turkish' states, including as they did Persians, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Georgians, and so forth. Let alone Jewish refugees following their expulsion from Spain. Similarly, there was no 'arab' state, given that the area encompassed by Arab civilization included Berbers, Black Africans, Europeans (in pre-Reconquista Spain and Portugal, and Sicily and southern Italy) Persia, Kurdistan, and so forth.

The continuing omission of Arabs and Turks from the Civilization games is something of a mystery to me, as well as the lack of a representative South East Asian civilization- it's not as if that part of the globe is overcrowded with opponents.

Well said!

[Captain]

Originally posted by MonsterMan

There shouldn't be a civ called Arabs, that's just silly. Turks and Persians will do nicely.

What? You usually have good things to say, but this time, it's your statement that's silly. I expected better from you.

-edit-
sorry monsterman, I just reread my post. that was a little rude of me. apologies to you.
-end edit-

The Arabs have been very significant. As originators/spreaders of Islam to an empire far larger than anything the Romans ever had and to over a billion adherents today, they deserve to be in the game. But others have already given even better reasons so I won't repeat them here.

[Captain]

a brief timeline with dominant civs noted

The limit on civs is for gameplay reasons. The game is already really slow with 16 civs on huge map. But options for selecting 16 civs out of a pool of 64 or so would be good.

Let's go through history:

I'll list only the dominant or significant Civs that we have records of...Heterogenous regions have civs that existed but did not have regional dominance compared to any other regional powers.

Ancient & Classical: (pre-400)

Babylon(mideast)
Assyria (mideast)
Phoenicians (medit)
Persia (mideast)
Israel (mideast)
Greece (medit)
Rome (medit)
Carthage (N Africa, medit)
Egypt (N. Afric. mideast)
China (China)
India (India)

Heterogenous Regions (no civ dominant):
Russia/Siberia, Central Asia, northern europe, SE Asia, Japan, N & S Americas, Central & south Africa, Oceania

Medieval: (400-1400)
China
Japan
India
Vietnam
Siam
Mongols
Rus
Poles
Germanic Tribes, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Gauls, Angles, Saxons
Vikings & Danes
Romans
Byzantines
Arabs
HRE (Austria-Hungary+germanics+slavs)
Turks (seige of Vienna)
Moors

Heterogenous Regions (no civ dominant):
North & South America, Oceania

Early Imperial: (1400s-1700s)
China
Moghul India
Russia
Japan
Siam

Aztecs
Incas

Spanish
Portugese
Netherlands & Belgians
Renaissance City-states (Florence, Milan, Venice, etc...)
France
England
Poles
Austro-Hungarians

Turkey
Arabs

Kongo (Congo)
Kanam-Bornu
Asante (Gold Coast)

Heterogenous Regions (no civ dominant):
South Africa, Western N America

Late Imperial/Industrial: (1700s-1900)
GB/UK
~USA
China
France
Poles
Prussia
USA
Russia
Japan
Zulus
Abyssinia

Heterogenous Regions (no civ dominant):
None. Almost all claimed by Imperial powers. Central & South Americas did break off from Spain though with no real leader, maybe Colombia?Mexico, Peru, Venez, Brazil prevented hegemony)

Modern: (1900s)
USA
China
Japan
Russia
Germany
Turkey (WW1)
Italy (WW1&2)
France (Colonies)
GB/UK (Colonies)
India (India)
Pakistan (NW India & Stans)
Arabs (Mid East, North Africa)
South Africa (S Africa)

Heterogenous Regions (none dominant):
S America (Brazil, Argent, Chile, Colomb, Venez)
SE Asian & Oceania (Australians, Viets, Thais, Malays, indonesians, Filipinos, Burmese, etc... could be China, but no more than saying USA controls S. America)
Scandinavia (Norw, finns, Swedes, Danes?)


So what am I missing?

[nato]

I guess it's got something to do with a revival of so called 'political correctness' (after 11/9 muslims are somewhat suspicious in the eyes of certain -American- world leaders). CTP featured Turks, Civ 3 only Persians and BABS, but no real modern life representatives of muslims.

HYPOCRITE!

I'm sorry, that is just a really bad argument.

It's INCREDIBLY obvious flaw is that there were no Arabs (or Turks or other Muslims) in Civ 1 or Civ 2.

Both of which were well before 11/9, which only you brought up.

Did you even think before you typed that, or did you just try to come up with an excuse for another "America suXoRs!!" post?

Some people are so interested in one cause, they can only see things in relation to that cause ... even things that have absolutely nothing to do with it ... like the topic of "what civ would you like to see in Civ3". If all topics somehow come back to "America sucks!" for you, you are one of those people. Pretty sad.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I see no reason not to include the Celts- especially as they are still around today (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany all have flourishing Celtic language groups, Celtic history groups and host pan-Celtic celebrations). Indeed the Celtic input into Australia, New Zealand and the United States and Canada is particularly noticeable, in music, politics and the trade and industry of those nations.
Celtic Christian Ireland was also responsible for sending missionaries across Western Europe (even sending hermit monks to Iceland) and preserving the learning of the Classical Greeks and Romans during the so-called Dark Ages, along with the Arabs, of course.

Scots, and Welsh people are more british than Celtic... At least nowadays- your argument about there 'still being celtic people' is absurd- I could make the argument that there are still 'Mali' people due to the fact that people still live in that part of Africa today...

I could also argue that the "Celtic" Ireland was truly British after the year 1060 when William the Conquerer of Normady invaded.
Before that time, around 530, I could argue that Cerdic, the Saxon Invader controlled parts of the country then after that the Vikings invaded around 800-1000 numerous times... Unless of course, you claim that the Celts height of power came before that...and that the monks were not members of any of the other ethnic groups. Because after that date, they began to become marginialized as a force (sad, but true)

I'm not saying the Celts shouldn't be in, but they have about as much reason to be in as the Carthaginians (and at least on a personal note: the Carthaginians are interesting ... not to say that the celts aren't but merely that I dont' think they are [unhistorical ]

As for 'uniting' the Arabs as Turks- cart before horse (or camel) as well as being something of a slight. The Arabs brought Islam to the Turks, not vice versa, and Arabs used Turks as mercenaries/slaves. The Turks were primarily steppe dwellers, the Arabs desert and fringe desert dwellers. The Arab 'civilization' once stretched from Spain's Pyrenees to Northern Persia and the borders of Tang China in Central Asia. The Empires of the Turks were never solely 'Turkish' states, including as they did Persians, Kurds, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Georgians, and so forth. Let alone Jewish refugees following their expulsion from Spain. Similarly, there was no 'arab' state, given that the area encompassed by Arab civilization included Berbers, Black Africans, Europeans (in pre-Reconquista Spain and Portugal, and Sicily and southern Italy) Persia, Kurdistan, and so forth.

The continuing omission of Arabs and Turks from the Civilization games is something of a mystery to me, as well as the lack of a representative South East Asian civilization- it's not as if that part of the globe is overcrowded with opponents.

But the Moors were governed by different peoples- thus the arabs were not governing in Spain.
And anyways, you admit that there was no 'arab' state; there were many states.
The Turks had one state which encompassed and rooled many different states.

In civilization, all civs are STATES and had been NATIONS. There really was no contiguous Arab nation. If, of course, in the add-on we can add the Mongols, then the Arabs begin to make "some" sense, but as I have said, they were not united. Even Saladin was Turkish, I believe (I am likely wrong, but I don't have time to look it up.)
-
AJ corp- you are an idiot... At least if you didn't realize that Civ II and I didn't have Turks or Arabs.
-
And as for Russians being slavs: They claim to be, but the Russian people are really more Mongol and Viking than Slavic. Ukrainians are more slavic, but they still have viking blood.
The True Slavs are in the regions that Venice once conquered; around Trieste to Greece; in Former Yugoslavia.

[DarkCloud]

Re: hypocrite political 'correctness'

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR

America, not a major civ throughout eras if you know what I mean, IS included, muslims aren't. Hell, FUNDAMENTALISM is excluded, whilst they got along in CIV2!!!

1.) Muslims aren't a civ.
2.) Fundamentalism was at least as characteristic of the Christian empires around the times of the Crusades as the Muslims.
3.) Fundamentalism in the game did not work- it unbalanced it. Fascism is a much better government...
4.) The game could support more govt. types, but while they are at it, why don't they add Centrism and Socialism? They don't have time to add anything.
5.) Fundamentalism was never planned for Civ III as far as I remember.

Too powerful my a..! They could have easily adjusted it, but it's clear they wouldn't. Are the producers/sellers scared that playing civ3 might lead to some ideas for potential terrorists?

Politics influencing on a game ...

Who said only fascists used the weapon of censor?????

AJ

Why dont you go make your own game
Or just patch teh game to allow fundamnetalism.
It was not taken out because of any political correctness, sorry to inform you.

The only thing taken out because of that was the spy options, and I do agree that it was excessively idiotic to remove those particular options.

perhaps you need to cease being so rachsuchtig? (vidicative) and accusatory?

I do understand why you thought those thoughts, but I am glad to have cleared them up.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
I think I agree with everything you say.
There is no country called Arabia and they don't behave like one nation. Arabians are like Europeans.

Well-ish. There _is_ a nation called "saudi arabia", that is: it is "arabia" ruled by the house of Saud. So it's inculsion as "arabia" would not be too poor a choice...

On the other wrist, most of the other currently Arabic countries (Iraq, jordan, etc) were all parts of empires that are represented by other Civs already included. Would you like to include both an Iraq and a Babylon?

[Ethelred]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by DarkCloud
Even Saladin was Turkish, I believe (I am likely wrong, but I don't have time to look it up.)

Egyptian.

Which is what is wrong with the claim that there are no Arab civs in Civ III. Egypt IS an Arab state and Egyptian Gamal Abdul Nasser tried to unite all the Arab States for a more recent example than Saladin.

Arabs existed before Islam and Egypt was an Arab nation before Nasser.


As for the Incas that many have mentioned. Well they were a bigger nation than the Aztecs but they were illiterate. Same for the Toltecs.

A better replacement for the Aztecs it would be the Mayans. They were around much longer than either the Aztecs or the Incas. In fact unlike the Aztecs they are still around. There are lots of Mayans in the Yucatan area of Mexico.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by DarkCloud


'Scots, and Welsh people are more british than Celtic... At least nowadays- your argument about there 'still being celtic people' is absurd- I could make the argument that there are still 'Mali' people due to the fact that people still live in that part of Africa today... '

My argument does not rest solely on the longevity or continuity of Celtic civilization and peoples- the point being made was that despite official harassment and oppression (in modern France against Bretons, in previous times in Britain and Ireland against Gaelic speaking Scots, Irish and Welsh speakers) Celtic culture has survived- the first pan-European culture.

'I could also argue that the "Celtic" Ireland was truly British after the year 1060 when William the Conquerer of Normady invaded.
Before that time, around 530, I could argue that Cerdic, the Saxon Invader controlled parts of the country then after that the Vikings invaded around 800-1000 numerous times... '

Yes, you could argue that, but factually you would be in error. The first Norman invasion occurred in 1169, the country was granted to Henry II by an English Pope (some surprise there) but even so, the great Plantagenet was unable to exert substantial control over any areas outside the Eastern seaboard. The phrase 'beyond the pale' in English stems from the Pale of Settlement centring on Dublin, outside of which the English had little authority. Only Oliver Cromwell was able to exert a semblance of control over all of Ireland, and even so- Celtic culture/civilization carried on.

Cerdic King of Wessex never controlled Ireland, Wales or Scotland, and the Vikings, although contributing greatly to Irish culture and intermarrying with Celts, again didn't control Ireland, or replace Celtic culture.

'...and that the monks were not members of any of the other ethnic groups.'

I'm unsure what you mean by this, but you need to do some reading up on Celtic monasticism and the Celtic Church, and its influence on Christianity in Scandinavia, Britain and Western Europe as a whole:

http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/celtic/celtic.shtml#peregrini

As far as the Celts not being interesting... well I can't speak to your personal preferences or prejudices, but I would say any people that operated trans-european trade routes before the Greeks or Romans, that dealt with Greeks, Romans and Etruscans and Phoenicians as equals, that had their own alphabet (Ogham), distinctive and continuous culture (Gaelic is spoken not only in Scotland and Ireland but also Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, and Welsh is spoken as a first language in Mid and North Wales and also Argentina) endowed women with property rights, the right to bring law suits, teach, rule (a few things lacking from Graeco-Roman culture) and exert a political and cultural influence out of all proportion to their numbers today, definitely deserve to be in (you might want to consider the influence of Irish writers on English literature for instance- Beckett, Joyce and Yeats, Wilde Synge and Heaney) and Scots such as Rennie Mackintosh who greatly influenced the Sezession/Jugendstil art nouveau movements in architecture and the fine arts).

When you celebrate May Day- it's a Celtic festival- the Beltane. When you celebrate Hallowe'en it's a Celtic festival- Samhain.


'But the Moors were governed by different peoples- thus the arabs were not governing in Spain.'

After Ali's death, Muawiya became caliph and founded the Umayyad dynasty (661-750), chiefly by force of arms. Its capital was Damascus. In 750 the Abbasid family, descended from the Prophet's uncle, led a coalition that defeated (749-50) the Umayyad family. The Abbasid dynasty (749-1258) is sometimes called the caliphate of Baghdad. One Umayyad, Abd ar-Rahman I (an Arab), escaped the general massacre of his family and fled to Spain; there the emirate of Córdoba was set up in 780. This later became the caliphate of Córdoba, or the Western caliphate, and persisted until 1031. A third competing contemporaneous caliphate was established by the Fatimids in Africa, Syria, and Egypt (909-1171). After the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols under Hulagu Khan in 1258, the Abbasids fled to Egypt. The Ottomans captured Egypt in 1517 and Selim I assumed the title of caliph by questionable right. The Ottoman sultans, however, kept the title until the last sultan, Muhammad VI, was deposed.

Tariq the Berber (after whom Gibraltar is named) invaded Spain as part of the Islamic conquest originating in Arabia. The Cordoban Caliphate was an Arab Caliphate- the Arab conquerors permitted Arab men to marry non-Arab women, but did not usually allow Arab women to marry out.

'And anyways, you admit that there was no 'arab' state; there were many states.
The Turks had one state which encompassed and rooled many different states.'

Neither the Arabs nor the Turks would have recognised your definition of a state- in Ottoman Turkey the three great monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all permitted, along with their many and ethnically varied adherents- Greek Orthodox, Copts, Maronites, Druzes, Spanish and Portuguese Sephardim, Armenians, Shi'ite Arabs and Sunni Arabs, Roman Catholics from Genoa and Venice- the point being that the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic Empire, not an empire based on ethnicity. Besides which, there were other Turkish ethnic states in Central Asia, and even Turkish ethnic rulers of Delhi in India.

Salah ud Din was Kurdish- but is a hero to Arabs.

[Ethelred]

Salah ud Din was Kurdish- but is a hero to Arabs.

I stand corrected.

Sultan of Egypt is not the same as actually being Egyptian. I wasn't aware that he was a Kurd first.

Thanks