Alphabet:
http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/art/meroit.jpg
Art:
http://library.thinkquest.org/22845/res ... lery.shtml

Raffaele

FYI There are two Kush of ancient history... one in Nubia and one Kushan in northern Iran. In the game we are playing with the one in Iran.

Ach! Miss!

Raffaele

Hi, I'm new to this forum, but I have got a small question.

Shouldn't the asian civilization be called "Kushan"
and the Nubian civilization "Kush".

No.

As far as I know (and I might be in error here, if so please correct me), the people in northmen Iran was named the "Kush", with the geographic area being named "Kushan" after them. And the Nubian and the other "Kush" civilizations was two completely different civilizations, just occupying partly the same land at different times. And of those two the Nubian civilization was by far the greater.

I want to second that Kushan argument. Wikipedia shows an article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushan

I agree with Kushan instead of Kush, but Nubia should be Punt not Kush, that is the oldest name for Nubia.

Should the Minoans then be Caphtoria?

Carthage is descended from Minoan historically - Minoa, Phoenician, Phillistine, and Carthage all related from the same people.

I can understand not having Phoenicia, but both Minoa and Carthage?
There were Arkadians after the Assyrians, and Sumerians before Babylon, why not these?

OK, so I got to thinking about this from a game design perspective. For the naming of these 18 civilizations you need to come up with a set of criteria. I would start with a date range say 8000BC to 600BC (that would include Rome, but maybe not Parthia?) You have the geographical area that they have to exist in, so make a complete list of civilizations that fall into that realm of possibilities. From that list you can throw out the ones that AH used in their game, or use a different name like Hatti instead of Hittite. But I don't think AH can claim copyright to the names of these civilizations. From the master list I would come up with liniage trees for civilizations that had off shoots - Minoa a good example, The greeks also created Parthia as one of their eastern empires I believe. Using the root civilizations, you can then put the list to a vote from the visitors to this site, because they are the ones that really care about it the most. From a game perspective, it doesn't matter what the names are, you could just use letters from the Greek alphabet if you wanted. If you are going to change the civilizations in the game, lets descide quickly, I'm trying to get counters made up with historically accurate artwork, and I kinda need to know.

Well, it's not only a matter of age, but also of historical greatness and general recognizability. On both these points Nubia wins over Punt.


I've never heard of "Caphtoria" and Google only finds a forum nickname and a fictional nation simulation....


Well, some quick research (mostly Wikipedia) finds that Phillistine was related to the Mycenaean Greece (eg Hellas), not Minoa (The Minoans was not Greeks, though the Greek culture did replace the Minoan culture of Crete after the Minoan culture declined). And the connection between the Phoenician and the Minoans is speculative at best. Carthage was originally a Phoenician colony, but it soon developed it's own individual culture.
The Phoenicia and Phillistine isn't part of the game, as we can't fit another nation in that area game technically, and both Assyria and Babylon wins over them on both historical greatness and general recognizability.
Minoa is part of the game because they was one of the two major cultures in the area (the other being the historically later Mycenaean Greece, represented by Hellas).
Carthage is part of the game because there is no other as historically great or generally recognizable ancient civilization in the area that could take their place. (And Carthage is way better than "Africa", a Roman province AD...)


Arkadia is a province in Greece. I'll assume you mean Akkad. Akkad and Sumer was forerunners to both Babylonia and Assyria, All four civilizations are really just different dynasties in a greater "Mesopotamian" civilization.
Sumer was never a single nation, similar to how Hellas never was. It was a civilization of city states. It's quite well known because it was the first real civilization. Akkad, Babylon and Assyria was really just successful Sumerian city states that managed to rule over other cities. Akkad was first of the three, but also the smallest and least known. Babylon and Assyria divided the Mesopotamian area between themselves for quite some time, during which they got written into the bible and thus got some fame in the modern Christian world. Later Assyria conquered Babylon and became quite a large and well known empire.

So if there only was to be one civilization in that area, it would definitely be the Sumerian, but if it has to be split into two (and for game dynamics it has) I think Babylonia and Assyria is quite obvious choices.

Actually, we just picked famous and historically great civilizations that existed during the game timespan (8000 to 250 BC) which fit approximately where we needed a civilization due to game balance issues. Whether they existed in AH Civilization is a non-issue (you can't copyright a name. You can trademark it, but not if it is a generic name, or already a general name, so trademarking a civilization name is out of the question). If someone has a better name for a civilization we use, or a good replacement civilization, I'm all ears, but I'm not about to restart from scratch).

As for Hatti vs Hittites, the Hattians and Hittites was two different people living in the same area. The Hattians was there first, but was later "replaced" by the Hittites, which was of Sumerian origin. Hatti was the name of the Hattian Empire. Neither is very famous, but I guess the Hittites is somewhat better known than the Hattians, so perhaps we should switch.
Note that neither name is what AH Civilization used, they called it "Asia" after "Asia Minor", a Roman province in AD.

Why not Hyksos instead of Hatti?

The Phillistines came from Caphtor, the egyptians refer to the Minoans as the Keiftu. These are the same people, having the same root homeland. I think the Minoans were more wide spread than most people think.

Should the Parthians even be listed? I like them, but they came a bit late to the party didn't they?

I think Nubia is fine, and I'm happy for resistance to changing these because that makes creating the counters easier if I don't have to change them frequently.

So is it Kush or Kushan?
I'm assuming everything else is going to stay the same.

Yes, the Parthians was a bit late, missing the time span of the game by 3 years.
If you have a better suggestion I'm all ears.


Right now it's Kush, but as soon as I have the time to update all the components, it'll be Kushan...


Until someone comes with better proposals, yes they are.

good to see, all is historically well researched.

Working on the advances and calamities, I learned a lot more about many civs, which I wouldn't be learning an other way.

Made me decide to explore the ancient minoan culture on Crete itself this summer. Looking forward (besides teh fact Crete is a sunny island)

I'm for Nubia staying Nubia. Kush is just a horrible idea (even if it is accurate) just because of the Kushans. Ætheopia, Nysa, Nehasyu, and Medjay would all be at least as appropriate as Punt. But again, Nubia is what people know, and is one of the era correct names for the people. At least the book I'm reading right now rejects the idea that the people represented by Hatti could be the Hyskos but doesn't provide an alternate explanation.

Nubia is staying Nubia. Period.

Kush however, is going to be renamed to Kushan. Originally the civilization was called Kush in some components and Kushan in other. When we solved that mess we standardized on Kush, which in hindsight was the wrong option, so now I'll correct that mistake by renaming it to Kushan.