What Civ Would You Have Included?

[nato]

I'm surprised Arabs is semi-controversial, or hard to define. Here are my arguments for them.

First who do we mean by Arabs or Turks or whatever? I mean those guys who founded Islam, conquered everything from Spain to western India, and then built a highly advanced and and cultured civ.

Those guys. (which I will use to refer to them)

Since the whole those guys thing that I'm talking about is so big, I think they deserve some definite representation. I say this because of three things:

1. They were unique, no one else like them
2. They were highly advanced, developed, and cultured
3. They had a huge impact on history and other civilizations

No other missing civ is as strong in all three of those criterion as those guys. Just my opinion, and yes others are worthy too - but I would argue none so worthy as those guys.

I guess the problem with defining who we mean is that a lot of different peoples contributed towards making all that happen. However, to my limited understanding, there were three main groups:

1. The Arabs - who started the whole thing
2. The Persians - who converted and joined up
3. The Turks - who started as outside mercenaries but liked the
place so much they decided to run it

There is some quote that those 3 are the heart, the head, and the soul of Islam, but I forget who was what.

Persians are in the game, but representing more the guys who fought Alexander than the Muslims. I think the Persians were over as an independent group (until Iran much later) around like the 5th century AD or something. They certainly aren't who I think of when I say those guys.

Egyptians are in the game, but representing ancient Egypt. I don't think that has much relation to Arabic Egypt at all. I specifically remember my history professor saying that, and that ancient Egypt is totally gone.

Babylonians are in the game, and in the right geographic area, but I think that is all they have to do with those guys.

That leaves Arabs or Turks.

I would be happy with either Arabs or Turks. I personally prefer Arabs, because they were the founders and the original source of dynamism. But Turks were probably bigger, more powerful, and more advanced (they were building upon the Arabs work, after all) so they are fine too.

Of course adding both would be best, but if there is limited room for addition, and I had to pick one, I would personally pick Arabs. Just because they, to me, really capture who I mean by those guys.

You could combine Arabs, Turks, and Persians into one uber-civ, perhaps named the "Caliphate" or "The House of Peace". However that would be like combining France, England, and Germany into one uber-civ "The West" or something. It would be preferable and simpler to just create the Arabs or the Turks.

So my vote is for the Arabs!

Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

[molly bloom]

I'd like to second what nato said. The missing civs of Turks and Arabs are important not just in and of themselves, as distinct civilizations, but also for the effect they had on other civilizations.
The Turks (not just Seljuk or Ottoman Turks) are important as being representative of steppe horse riding civilizations such as the Timurids and the Tatars, and Sarmatians and Pazaryks and Kurgans, and so forth. Their impact on the more urban centred civilizations of Asia and Europe is profound, in terms of development of defences, trade routes, tactics, culture (on China, Russia, Persia, India and so forth) and so on.

The Arabs could even be seen as being responsible for the growth of nationalism, or national identity as we know it today, and of course, for the conquest and colonization of the Americas. Although some historians have argued that early Mediaeval Normandy can be seen as the first 'nation', you could see the Reconquista as a struggle between nations based on opposing ethnicities and religions (although this is a little like blaming the victim).

This is without the Arab contribution to science (al gebra), trade, astronomy, textiles (Gaza- gauze, Damascus- damask) and so on.

Curiously enough, for those who argue for purity of civilization based on state/nation, which Persia are they in favour of? Pre-Islamic Persia? And if post-Islamic Persia, which one? As far as I can tell, we have a huge mixture of Parthian/Sassanian/Seleucid/Islamic eras to represent Persia.

[DarkCloud]

First off, thank you for the correction about Saladin, Ethelred.

Originally posted by molly bloom

'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 don't know... I believe that I know what you are saying- but exactly how would you define Celtic 'culture' as independent of the Saxons, Normans, Angles, Picts, etc.?

'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.

Yes, I do agree, in that aspect, you are correct.

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.

I believe that a few Viking rulers ruled Ireland for 30-100 years, but as you say, yes, they did not control Ireland long enough to really take it over- they merely did as such as the Mongols.

And yes, you are correct about Cerdic- but I still maintain that the beginning of his assimilation into the Celtic culture spelled the end for Celtic civilization, meaning that the Celts truly did not survive very long, and were in fact, influenced at least as much or more than they did influence.

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/~dves...html#peregrini

For some reason that URL didn't work???
I'll try it again later, but you may want to check it.

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).

Welsh is a first language in Argentina? I thought it was Spanish?
About the dealing with the Greeks/Romans/Phoenicians- I never knew about that- I had assumed that the Romans did not deal with them much, but merely conquered many of the southern nations... Not the Scots, or the Irish, but possibly the Welsh (sorry, but my memory of ancient british historical maps is quite lacking)

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

Halloween- I could always argue that since it was adopted by the Christians it is unique, however Although I do agree with you.

'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.

Thus, they were not truly united for most of the time... They were sort of Nation-States, but leaning more towards the Nation part, correct?
From what I see- they began as a nation, but as new areas were conquered, the nations split off into smaller nations, correct?

I sort of fail to see how that proves that the Arabs governed spain, however?

Also, didn't the Western Caliphate not fall until 1492, when the Moors were kicked out of 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.'

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.

My definiton of state allows many different religions, I never mentioned One religion as a requirement for a nation.

But the Ottomans were united... whereas other 'arab' groups frequently were not.
I seem to be missing your argument here... What I think you are saying is that because they tolerated other ethnicities, they were a nation, but not like the one I defined, correct?
-
Thus, I support a Turkish civilization; possibly 2; Sejiulk and Ottoman, but not an Arab civilization.

[Tuberski]

I]1. They were unique, no one else like them [/I]
2. They were highly advanced, developed, and cultured
3. They had a huge impact on history and other civilizations


In all the posts on this site no one mentions the jews, why is that?

Do not all of the above apply to them as well?

I believe they do so, why not a jewish state? Israel maybe

How about palestine for the arabs?


Just two cents from a newbie.

[Ethelred]

In all the posts on this site no one mentions the jews, why is that?

They were never a large empire. The small empire of Solomon lasted for only a short time. The rest of the time they were frequently the conquered not the conqueror.

Might as well ask why the Romany aren't in the game.

Do not all of the above apply to them as well?

No. There were not highly advanced. Chariots and spears were not exactly the cutting edge of science. Are you claiming slings were unique to the Israelites?

They are unusual in their long term survival but not much more unique than the Rom or other ancient groups that are more prevelent in the East than in the ever changing cultures of the West.

The impact they had was largly due to one set of religous writings. Not much else. Significant writings but not exactly of the breadth of the writing of the Greeks or Romans.

Without Romanized christianity they might have had little effect at all on modern civilization. Even Islam might not exist without christianity to amplify the writings of the Jews.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by DarkCloud


'I sort of fail to see how that proves that the Arabs governed spain, however?

Also, didn't the Western Caliphate not fall until 1492, when the Moors were kicked out of Spain?'

'The conquest of 711, staged in Morocco and carried out mainly by Berber horse cavalry under Arab command, is, for a phenomenon of such transcendence, poorly understood. Its most salient actors, half-legendary, half-real, conquered nearly the entire peninsula and subjugated its massive population in a matter of five years and without much resistance. The old legend has it that the last Visigothic king, Roderick, had forced the daughter of Count Julian, Byzantine governor of Ceuta, a casus belli which led to Julian's asking for Muslim help in coming to the aid of Roderick's domestic enemies. It was relatively common, of course, for medieval people to explain social and political phenomena whose motives were incomprehensible to them by imputing events to the personal quirks of one leader or another. In any case, according to Arabic and Christian sources alike, after a small reconnoitering expedition led by Tarîf in the summer of 710, a party of 7,000 Berbers under the command of Târiq ibn Ziyâd landed near Gibraltar (Jabal Târiq, "Târiq's mountain") on or about April 28, 711. Târiq then occupied the area around Algeciras, sent a request for 5,000 additional troops to the governor of Islamic North Africa, Mûsa ibn Nusayr, and proceeded along the Roman road towards Seville. Meanwhile Roderick, away in the north fighting Basque rebels, hastened southward, gathering a host of "100,000" men. The two armies did battle on the banks of the Guadalete between July 19 and 23, resulting in an Islamic victory and the rout of the Visigothic army, capped by the death of Roderick.

The conquest of Spain appears to have been a walk-through. After the first decisive battle, few more challenges of any serious dimension arose. The Muslim columns followed the Roman roads, obtaining the surrenders of key towns, and in many cases leaving Jewish garrisons behind. In most cases, the Muslims demanded full submission to their authority, although in some cases pacts were made with Visigothic lords, guaranteeing them substantial autonomy. Such was the case of the arrangement made with Theodomir in the Murcian district (later called by the Arabs Tudmir, after its former leader), whose early administration therefore probably continued a pattern of local autonomy prominent in late Visigothic times.

4. The Curve of Conversion
[...]
It follows from this analysis that in Umayyad times Islam was a "smallscale affair" characterized by the rule of vast non-Muslim populations by a tiny Arab elite for whose social and political needs traditional Arab tribal structure was sufficient. Arabs, and therefore Islam itself, was first concentrated in the towns, and the early chronicles reflect this urban Arab milieu. '

from: http://libro.uca.edu/ics/ics1.htm

You can also visit : http://www.xmission.com/~dderhak/index/moors.htm

for more on the glories of Mozarabic Spain.

Abd ar Rahman, the Ummayyad survivor of the Abbasid putsch, was an Arab- culturally, linguistically, in terms of the ruling elite- the Cordovan Caliphate was Arab.

'But the Ottomans were united... whereas other 'arab' groups frequently were not.
I seem to be missing your argument here... What I think you are saying is that because they tolerated other ethnicities, they were a nation, but not like the one I defined, correct?'

My point is- the Ottomans and Seljuks were a ruling elite- their concept of a state was based on religion not ethnicity- the Sultan assumed the power of the Caliphate, and thus acted as the successor to the righteous caliphs. An Ottoman ruler could be the son of an Ottoman Turkish father and a Russian or Greek or even French mother. Mentioning other Turkish rulers,such as the Turkish rulers in Central Asia and India was to show that whilst one may have a Turkish ruler, it does not imply the state/nation he or she rules is Turkish.

The Ummayyad Caliphate, before the Abbasid putsch, united the Arab conquests through faith and culture. Although the peoples/nations conquered by the Arabs were of numerous faiths and ethnicities, it was a unitary state based on submission to an Islamic Arab elite and civilization.

As for the Celts:

'I don't know... I believe that I know what you are saying- but exactly how would you define Celtic 'culture' as independent of the Saxons, Normans, Angles, Picts, etc.? '

Mediaeval Welsh texts:

http://jade.ccccd.edu/grooms/ydcam.htm

Celtic Christian sites:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/celtic/mapsindex.html

Celtic missionaries:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/celtic/mapsindex.html

Celtic Ireland: http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/celtic/mapsindex.html

Celtic kingdoms in the British Isles:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/celtic/mapsindex.html

Celtic design:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/celtic/designindex.html

A virtual exhibition of Celtic culture and art and history:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/art111/celtic/topicsindex.html

You will note- the Anglo-Saxons never conquered Wales or Cornwall, let alone Ireland or Scotland, and Cornish, for instance, survived as a living language until the 18th Century. It has undergone revival, as have many aspect of the Celtic cultures.
Breton, Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Erse are all living languages today.

Celtic Christianity was different from Anglo-Saxon Christianity (as the Synod of Whitby showed)- the centralizing forces of Rome based Christianity were not happy with the independent minded Celtic monasteries- some of them even had the temerity to have women heads and scholars. As far as Celtic culture being distinct from Norman, Saxon and so on- different languages, music, literature, artistic designs, styles of architecture- how many other kind of differences do you want?

'I believe that a few Viking rulers ruled Ireland for 30-100 years, but as you say, yes, they did not control Ireland long enough to really take it over- they merely did as such as the Mongols. '

There were no Viking rulers of 'Ireland'- the Battle of Clontarf saw the defeat of the Norsemen and their assimilation into Irish culture/society. They were based around defended positions such as Dublin and Wexford and Cork, but never imposed their rule on Ireland as a whole.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by molly bloom


'I sort of fail to see how that proves that the Arabs governed spain, however?

Also, didn't the Western Caliphate not fall until 1492, when the Moors were kicked out of Spain?'

'The conquest of 711, staged in Morocco and carried out mainly by Berber horse cavalry under Arab command, is, for a phenomenon of such transcendence, poorly understood. Its most salient actors, half-legendary, half-real, conquered nearly the entire peninsula and subjugated its massive population in a matter of five years and without much resistance. The old legend has it that the last Visigothic king, Roderick, had forced the daughter of Count Julian, Byzantine governor of Ceuta, a casus belli which led to Julian's asking for Muslim help in coming to the aid of Roderick's domestic enemies. It was relatively common, of course, for medieval people to explain social and political phenomena whose motives were incomprehensible to them by imputing events to the personal quirks of one leader or another. In any case, according to Arabic and Christian sources alike, after a small reconnoitering expedition led by Tarîf in the summer of 710, a party of 7,000 Berbers under the command of Târiq ibn Ziyâd landed near Gibraltar (Jabal Târiq, "Târiq's mountain") on or about April 28, 711. Târiq then occupied the area around Algeciras, sent a request for 5,000 additional troops to the governor of Islamic North Africa, Mûsa ibn Nusayr, and proceeded along the Roman road towards Seville. Meanwhile Roderick, away in the north fighting Basque rebels, hastened southward, gathering a host of "100,000" men. The two armies did battle on the banks of the Guadalete between July 19 and 23, resulting in an Islamic victory and the rout of the Visigothic army, capped by the death of Roderick.

The conquest of Spain appears to have been a walk-through. After the first decisive battle, few more challenges of any serious dimension arose. The Muslim columns followed the Roman roads, obtaining the surrenders of key towns, and in many cases leaving Jewish garrisons behind. In most cases, the Muslims demanded full submission to their authority, although in some cases pacts were made with Visigothic lords, guaranteeing them substantial autonomy. Such was the case of the arrangement made with Theodomir in the Murcian district (later called by the Arabs Tudmir, after its former leader), whose early administration therefore probably continued a pattern of local autonomy prominent in late Visigothic times.

Okay- I realize that allegedly the United "Arabs" did conquer spain, but as I seem to see on that second website (mentioned later), later, and not too much later they quickly split up...

4. The Curve of Conversion
[...]
It follows from this analysis that in Umayyad times Islam was a "smallscale affair" characterized by the rule of vast non-Muslim populations by a tiny Arab elite for whose social and political needs traditional Arab tribal structure was sufficient. Arabs, and therefore Islam itself, was first concentrated in the towns, and the early chronicles reflect this urban Arab milieu. '

from: http://libro.uca.edu/ics/ics1.htm

So, is that to say that the Arabs ruled many people??? And thus they were a country... I'm sorry, I'm not really following the reasoning in the directly above.

You can also visit : http://www.xmission.com/~dderhak/index/moors.htm

I found this at the site: It seems to suggest that there were many "Arab" groups- thus charging that there was not truly one "arab" nation.:

"Finally, the caliphs were eliminated and Cordova fell to other Arab forces. "In 1013 the great library in Cordova was destroyed. True to their Islamic traditions however, the new rulers permitted the books to be dispersed, together with the Cordovan scholars to the capital towns of small emirates." (Burke, 1985, p. 40) The intellectual properties of the once great Al-Andalus were divided among small towns.

My point is- the Ottomans and Seljuks were a ruling elite- their concept of a state was based on religion not ethnicity- the Sultan assumed the power of the Caliphate, and thus acted as the successor to the righteous caliphs. An Ottoman ruler could be the son of an Ottoman Turkish father and a Russian or Greek or even French mother. Mentioning other Turkish rulers,such as the Turkish rulers in Central Asia and India was to show that whilst one may have a Turkish ruler, it does not imply the state/nation he or she rules is Turkish.

Yes, but they kept their nation... and ruled over 1 nation... I seem to think that you are claiming that because they were not the same ethnicity, the Turks were not one nation, is that correct?

You will note- the Anglo-Saxons never conquered Wales or Cornwall, let alone Ireland or Scotland, and Cornish, for instance, survived as a living language until the 18th Century. It has undergone revival, as have many aspect of the Celtic cultures.
Breton, Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Erse are all living languages today.

Okay, I shall concede that the Celts were at least a Regional power... But I seem to belive that 1.) They were a medium army 2.) Nonexistant navy 3.) Fairly advanced tech 4.) Fairly advanced religion 5.) Fairly good at defense

I'm not really sure that they are important enough to be included in civ... But I believe that I may be willing to cede that they are a civilization.

-
Just wondering, are you a history professor?

[GePap]

Civs

From the Americas:
Maya: Scientific, commercial
Inca: Religious, industrial

From the old world, west:
Turks: Expansionistic, militaristic
Arabs: Expnasionistic, religious

From the old world, east:
Khmer: Religious, commercial
Mongols: Militaristic, expansionistic


More fromEurope
Spanish: Military, religious
Vikings: Militaristic, expansionistic

From Africa:
Mali: No clue, really
Ethiopians: relegious, commercial
Benin: Commercial, expansionistic

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Real nice Captain!

Originally posted by Captain
...

Medieval: (400-1400)
...
Netherlands & Belgians
...

In name of -as I might hope- all my fellow countrymen, I thank you, Captain, for your sensitive kindness to include us.

I must admit though that Belgium, even if only Europe would have been included, never has been or will be a 'major' civ/power:

too, too, too small in many ways: population (10 mio.), geography, military small (but specialised), capitalism (do you know a Belgian multinational? - in contrary to the Netherlands),...

but in our littleness we were actually rather ...

GREAT !?!

The Great Caesar himself referred to the Belgians as the bravest (fighters) of the Gaul. Belgians played a very active part during the first ('successful') crusades (Godfriend of Bouillon), had among many important trade cities during Middle Ages (Bruges, Antwerp), great artists (Rubens, The Flemish Primitives), was rapidly and succesfully industrialized, Congo, ...

ZzzZzzZzz ...

Would be nice idea though if players would be able to choose a civ from the very attractive list you've compiled!

AJ

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Stand corrected

Nato,

Actually I didn't think clear headed at the time, but I wasn't trying to come up with another "America SuXors!!" (quid?) post!

That day I made a rather similar statement on another thread as well, I suppose ...

Guess I somehow felt like having to relativate certain American achievements as, in real life, I experience American politics sometimes to be rather to very ethically incorrect.

Wrong time, wrong place, wrong statement though.

I'd step in and defend certain American views too though!

Just an impulsive critic sometimes.
(though generally I will have solid arguments to state my criticizm if reflected upon)

No offense ment, none taken.


DarkCloud,

1) muslims represent SEVERAL civs (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saoudi Arabia, Turkey, go on, all peoples with a decent history and modern life.
2) if fundamentalism didn't work (did work for me though and I've played deity civ2 democrazies for many, many years), they could have modified it.

I'm not rachsuchtig (vindicative), just an impulsive critic sometimes.

But my previous statement had no real basement.

I'm not an idiot !!

AJ

[Sandman]

I know of no Celtic culture around today.

[Brutus66]

They sure can crank out the music though- ever see all the celtic stuff at the record store?

Would the Irish be considered Celtic? Or are the Gaels not part of that group? I thought they were...

[TheDarkCavalier]

Hmm... I wouldn't want to brign this up, but maybe the Arabic civs were excluded because of 9/11?

[Sandman]

They sure can crank out the music though- ever see all the celtic stuff at the record store?

It remains a minority taste everywhere, even 'Celtic' places. Anyway, I don't think that they had violins and accordions back in ancient times.

Would the Irish be considered Celtic? Or are the Gaels not part of that group? I thought they were...

Well, maybe. But keep in mind that the Celtic languages are kept alive with social engineering.

[Captain]

Originally posted by TheDarkCavalier
Hmm... I wouldn't want to brign this up, but maybe the Arabic civs were excluded because of 9/11?

see earlier posts addressing this issue. the arabic civs were excluded from civ 1 and civ 2. perhaps 9/11 did affect it, but it may just be continuing a trend they started back in civ 1.