The New Capitals

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 14:16

Okay...

Let's confirm some information on the new civs for all of us who don't have Conquests yet.

What are the capitals for the new civs?

My assumptions are:

Byzantines: Constantinople
Dutch: Amsterdam
Portuguese: Lisbon
Incans: Cuzco
Mayans: Tikal or Chichen Itza
Hittites: Hattusas
Sumerians: Uruk
*Austrians: Vienna

kring · November 10, 2003, 14:23

From the Editor for Epic Game, and Napoleonic Europe (for Austria):

Byzantines: Constantinople
Netherlands: Amsterdam
Portugal: Lisbon
Inca: Cuzco
Maya: Chichén Itza
Hittites: Hattusas
Sumeria: Ur
*Austria: Vienna

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
Byzantines: Constantinople
Netherlands: Amsterdam
Portugal: Lisbon
Inca: Cuzco
Maya: Chichén Itza
Hittites: Hattusas
Sumeria: Ur
*Austria: Vienna

Aha! Very interesting. My only objections are to the Sumerians' and Mayans'.

Sumerians

You see, Gilgamesh's seat of power was Uruk, Ur being a very important coastal port and the home of Abraham, but not the capital of Sumer, as far as I can tell.

Mayans

Chichen Itza was a very important Mayan metropolis, but I was under the impression that the capital was at Tikal. Perhaps I am misinformed.

The others appear to be correct. What do all of you think?

lockstep · November 10, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander01
*Austrians: Vienna

Correct.

nuther · November 10, 2003, 15:24

I don't think the Mayans actually had a capitOl. They just had several major cities. I would have picked Tikal, though. Because Chitzen-Itza was built later on during their history.

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 15:50

Thanks for the information.

What are everybody else's thoughts?

The Slayer · November 10, 2003, 15:55

I also thinked Tikal must be the capital for the Mayans. I'll ask for this to some Mexican friends, they must knew about this better than me.

An the another ones.. correct!

.. Specially my beloved Cuzco

(did you know that Cuzco also could be written like "Cusco" or in Quecha - the inca's language - "Qosco" ?? )

vovan · November 10, 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander01
What are everybody else's thoughts?

http://www.historyamericas.com/Tikal...781808537.html

Quote:

I don't think the Mayans actually had a capitOl.

capitol
capital

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 15:59

Very good work. Excellent research, all! Keep up the good work.

Louis XXIV · November 10, 2003, 16:10

The Sumerians were never an empire. They were indepenant City-States. The closest you could come to calling their capital would be the most important city. Babylon was the unquestioned leader of Babylon, Ashur was the top city of Assyria. But Sumer was different.

While we're on the subject, someone want to list the cities for Babylon and Sumeria?

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 16:28

That's true enough. I always did think they should have included Assyria instead. But no matter. I'm content with Sumeria.

Brundlefly · November 10, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander01
Thanks for the information.

What are everybody else's thoughts?

Vanilla Coke tastes bad.
My girlfriend looked really hot yesterday.
The Eagles will win MNF tonight vs. Packers.

That's about it off the top of my head.....

Boris Godunov · November 10, 2003, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
The Sumerians were never an empire. They were indepenant City-States. The closest you could come to calling their capital would be the most important city. Babylon was the unquestioned leader of Babylon, Ashur was the top city of Assyria. But Sumer was different.

While we're on the subject, someone want to list the cities for Babylon and Sumeria?

More or less. There was a unified "Sumerian" empire of sorts when Sargon I of Akkad created his empire, but since he was Akkadian, it's not really considered a "Sumerian" empire (though that seems to be quibbling, IMO).

Regardless, I think that the original poster was thinking that since Gilgamesh is the Sumerian leader, and he was king of Uruk, the capital should logically be Uruk.

However, Ur is regarded as the first city, so I see the logic of making it the capital. I think, if anything, they should have rethought making Gilgamesh the civ leader. Alulim might have been better, though he is only known through mythology (but since he supposedly ruled 28,800 years, he'd be a good choice for Civ!). He was king of Eridu. The first king of Ur on record is Mesannepadda.

I still think it should have been Sargon, because he was Mesopotamia's number one ****-kicker for a long time, and his name is cool.

Louis XXIV · November 10, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Feephi

Vanilla Coke tastes bad.

I like Vanilla Coke

Quote:

My girlfriend looked really hot yesterday.

Pictures?

Quote:

The Eagles will win MNF tonight vs. Packers.

E-A-G-L-E-S
Eagles!!!

Louis XXIV · November 10, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

More or less. There was a unified "Sumerian" empire of sorts when Sargon I of Akkad created his empire, but since he was Akkadian, it's not really considered a "Sumerian" empire (though that seems to be quibbling, IMO).

Regardless, I think that the original poster was thinking that since Gilgamesh is the Sumerian leader, and he was king of Uruk, the capital should logically be Uruk.

However, Ur is regarded as the first city, so I see the logic of making it the capital. I think, if anything, they should have rethought making Gilgamesh the civ leader. Alulim might have been better, though he is only known through mythology (but since he supposedly ruled 28,800 years, he'd be a good choice for Civ!). He was king of Eridu. The first king of Ur on record is Mesannepadda.

I still think it should have been Sargon, because he was Mesopotamia's number one ****-kicker for a long time, and his name is cool.

Since Akkad is right next to Babylon, he'd be a better candidate for the Babylonians.

Saint Marcus · November 10, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Dutch: Amsterdam

what other cities can they build?

Boris Godunov · November 10, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Feephi
Vanilla Coke tastes bad.
My girlfriend looked really hot yesterday.
The Eagles will win MNF tonight vs. Packers.

That's about it off the top of my head.....

Somebody's padding his post count to make Prince!

vmxa1 · November 10, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Feephi

Vanilla Coke tastes bad.
My girlfriend looked really hot yesterday.
The Eagles will win MNF tonight vs. Packers.

That's about it off the top of my head.....

Thanks for the laugh.

That was funny.

Boris Godunov · November 10, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
Since Akkad is right next to Babylon, he'd be a better candidate for the Babylonians.

Akkad (or Agade) predates Babylon by many, many centuries. It was a Sumerian city-state and its lineage of kings is given in the ancient Sumerian texts. It wasn't a Babylonian city.

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 18:11

So when it came down to it, was it to be Sumeria, "the first civilization, " or Akkadia , "the first empire" that was to be included in the new expansion?

It looks like old Sargon of Akkad didn't conquer the Sumerians this time.

I don't think Sargon would be good as a leader for Sumer or Babylon. He'd be best as the leader of his own culture, the Akkadians. Although, if any subsequent Mesopotamian culture were Sargon's heirs, it would have to be the Assyrians.

In example, we have the Assyrian King Sargon II, without any antecedent of the same name.

Give us Assyria!

Saint Marcus · November 10, 2003, 18:41

I'd prefer Assyria over the Hittites.

Louis XXIV · November 10, 2003, 18:54

I'd prefer Assyria over the Sumerians.

The Hittites had a very influential position.

Sargon the first isn't Assyrian (although the Argade (Old Akkadian) Empire did conquer the region). Since Civ3 doesn't add generations (Cleopatra, not Cleopatra VII) Sargon II would be confused for Sargon of Akkad. Tigleth-Pileser (I don't think I spelled that right), Ashurnasirpal, or Ashurbanipal would make good leader choices.

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 19:46

No, Sargon I (of Akkad) isn't Assyrian. My point was only that his "heirs" to the suzerainty of northern Mesopotamia were the Assyrians, and that this is refelected in their monarch, Sargon II.

And no, Sargon II would not be the ideal choice for an Assyrian Civ3 leader, especially when compared with Assurnasirpal, Assurbanipal, Tiglath-Pileser, or perhaps the likes of Sennacherib or Shalmaneser.

My personal choice would be Tiglath-Pileser -- the quintessential Assyrian sovereign.

Louis XXIV · November 10, 2003, 19:53

I'd have to agree, but this is getting off-topic

Alexander I · November 10, 2003, 19:57

Well, since I started this thread anyway, i'm not terribly concerned...

Sarxis · November 10, 2003, 20:36

I saw "lol" for a barbarian city. Is that new?

RobC · November 10, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Louis XXIV
Pictures?

Here you go:
http://pix2.hotornot.com/pics/HQ/HZ/...GLEZBKCBPF.jpg

...I actually know the guy who started that site (actually, I'm not sure if that's something I should admit ...

)

Brundlefly · November 12, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Somebody's padding his post count to make Prince!

Know what really sucks? I thought I automatically got to choose custom avatar at Prince (300 posts). I just found out that I have to wait until 500...

vmxa1 · November 12, 2003, 19:48

Don't worry Feephi, the avatars are often disabled anyway.

Alexander I · November 17, 2003, 14:12

So how do you find out how many posts you've made anyway?