05-11-2001 05:51									#1
	Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: Zulu Remove this text

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)

	06-11-2001 16:34									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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).

	06-11-2001 16:50									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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

	06-11-2001 16:54									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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Nubians with them though, I'd love nothing more than to have the Mali in (they're one of my personal favorites, only superceded by the Mongols)...

Last edited by Locutus on 06-11-2001 at 17:00

	06-11-2001 17:56									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	06-11-2001 19:35									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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).

	06-11-2001 20:52									#7
	Got spare money?

http://ngilegacy.com/power1.htm

quote: 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

	07-11-2001 01:42									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Replace the Zulus with the Boers and add the Mali.

	07-11-2001 01:58									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Replace the Zulus with the Boers and add the Mali.

	07-11-2001 04:50									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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 Kushite 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

	07-11-2001 05:47									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

Last edited by Ribannah on 07-11-2001 at 05:58

	07-11-2001 18:22									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	07-11-2001 18:44									#13
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	07-11-2001 19:04									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	07-11-2001 19:42									#15
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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!

quote: 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.

	08-11-2001 02:14									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah But I didn't say that Boer = Dutch, I said Boer <= Dutch.

Exactly! And therefore, as the most powerful civ in southern Africa (maybe second to the unknown builders of Great Zimbabwe though), they being in instead of the Zulu, isn't a problem.

	08-11-2001 21:39									#17
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by 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).

Good point, very interesting hypothesis. That could very well be the case.

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Exactly! And therefore, as the most powerful civ in southern Africa (maybe second to the unknown builders of Great Zimbabwe though), they being in instead of the Zulu, isn't a problem.

LOL, the Boers the most powerful civilization in southern Africa? I think you're underestimating the influence of the Swahili Kingdoms, the Kingdom of Kongo, the Luba-Lunda states and the Zimbabwean empires (the one that built the Great Zimbabwe was only one of several empires that centered on what is now Zimbabwe) here.

	08-11-2001 22:01									#18
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: LOL, the Boers the most powerful civilization in southern Africa? I think you're underestimating the influence of the Swahili Kingdoms, the Kingdom of Kongo, the Luba-Lunda states and the Zimbabwean empires (the one that built the Great Zimbabwe was only one of several empires that centered on what is now Zimbabwe) here.

I don't doubt these were powerful kingdoms. But Africa is big, and Transvaal is far from Kongo and Tanzania, so we can easily make space for both the Boers, the Swahili and perhaps the Kongo. My point is that it is more correct to include the Boers than the Zulus.

	09-11-2001 00:59									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually, while the most important centers of the the Swahili Kingdoms were located in Tanzania, their empire stretched along the entire African east coast, it pretty much bordered Transvaal in the south. Kongo's influence extended deep into Angola and the influence of some of the Rhodesian Plane civs even reached deep into South Africa (IIRC Natal is actually Shona in origin). Though I'd love to have all these and more African civs in Civ3, there are only 31 slots available so more than 4 African civs would be too much. Egypt, Ethiopia and Mali were IMHO far more important than the Boers. If there would be room for a 4th African civ (and I'm afraid there's not), I would select any of the aforementioned examples over the Boers (though I would indeed chose the Boers over the Zulu).

	09-11-2001 01:33									#20
	Kingdom of Benin Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well, personally I'd be just as pleased with the Zulu, as I think they probably were (next to the Kingdom of Benin) the most important South African tribe around. But I must also say that another good one would be the Kingdom of Benin, which was strongest in Nigeria between AD 1450 and 1850. Benin was the capital, and the army conquered a nice chunk of South Africa in their time, and made a bunch of cultural advancements too. Eventually the Portugese took over, but for a time Benin was the top banana of South Africa. They even had a great leader-- Oba.

	09-11-2001 18:03									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The Zulu might have been one of the mayor tribes in what is now the country of South Africa, in Africa as a whole they were merely a tiny blimp on the map. From http://minotaur.marques.co.za/clients/zulu/indexorg.htm:

quote: Under their famous chief, Shaka, they became the rulers of KwaZulu-Natal from the Tugela River in the south to the border of Mozambique in the north

So at its height, the Zulu empire was roughly the size of present-day Austria (the Tugela flows near Durban), maybe slightly larger. Impressive for such a fairly primitive tribe but we're looking for civilizations here, not primitive tribes. Zimbabwe, Swahili, Kongo, the Lunda-Luba states, all are civs from southern Africa (roughly Africa south of the river Congo) that covered a vastly greater territory. Most, if not all, of these actually lived in large cities, had some form of writing, had a large trade network, built great monuments, etc. The Zulu had/did none of these things. The Zulu as a civilization are a total joke, so many other African civs qualify much more.

Benin, although from West Africa (Southern Africa doesn't mean 'everything south of the Sahara', you know), was one of these civilizations that was indeed far superior to the Zulu. It was indeed a mayor empire in present-day Nigeria, I would definitely put it in my top 10 of most important African civs, but it can't really measure up against Mali, Ethiopia, Egypt. Personally I would roughly put them on the same level as the Swahili kingdoms or Zimbabwe (but in this case I would favour Zimbabwe as it's further to the south and thus has more room to expand on a world map scenario).

Edit: BTW, where I put 'Nigeria' as example for 'other African civs' in the poll, I should have put 'Benin' of course, that is the more appropriate name for that civ.

	11-11-2001 21:51									#22
	Remove this text

One last bump before this thread falls off the first page... Unless the outcome of this poll changes radically over the next few days, it has been decided that the Zulus will be replaced by the Ethiopians (less than 20% of the voters want to keep the Zulu, Ethiopia is by far the most popular replacement). Now is the time to act if you object...