I think it is interesting how people with very little knowledge about military history accuse others of being “narrow minded” or “Eurocentric” as soon as these others do not want to add such and such South-East Asian political entity to the game.
Let’s imagine that this game wasn’t about military power, but instead about ancient philosophy. A game called Age of Ancient Schools of Philosophy or something like that.
Obviously such as game would include many political entities from all around the world, from Ancient India, to Ancient Egypt and Ancient China. However, no serious analyst would claim that the Ancient Greeks wouldn’t be overrepresented in this fictional game.
You can then make a forumpost and argue that the game needs this or that tribe from Africa, because “scientists have found some stones in a cave with some writing on it”.
“And if you disagree you are just very narrow-minded and Greek-centric”
Seriously though. This is the type of reasoning that is often being used.
“Hey, I am open-minded and therefore I want the Maori added to the game and put them on par with the French and the English and if you disagree you are just narrow-minded and Eurocentric”
Perhaps it would be useful for some people to realize a few things:
- Even during the period called “The Middle Ages” (which some people like to look down upon), European political entities were overly invested in military progress. Europe was a horribly violent place, with a strong honor culture. For a man, the chance of dying as a result of a steel object being rammed into the body was ridiculously high.
- Because no political entity every united Europe under a single banner, the culture of strong competition was never ended and went on for 1000+ years! This is something that is unique in world history and also something that had consequences for the way that Europe developed in comparison to other places in the world. Europe ended up with such a strong advantage in the area of military in comparison to the rest of the world that they could colonize much of the world.
So yes, even during the Middle Ages, European political entities were powerhouses, despite of their small size in comparison to empires outside of Europe. It isn’t as if it is a coincidence that no power from outside of Europe ever successfully conquered Europe, despite of continuous attempts by the Jihad from the South and the Steppe Nomads from the East.
Now, am I claiming that there weren’t any strong political entities outside of Europe? No, not at all.
I, in fact, DO think that there should one or two additional Indian civs; but not more than that. Also, other known non-European powers should be added to the game, such as Turks and Japanese. YES, the game should include ALL military powers around the entire world, but ONLY those who live up to a certain military strength. Just like the fictional game Age of Ancient Schools of Philosophy should only contain nations that live up to a certain standard in this specific area!
But I also think that adding much from Africa, the Americas or Oceania is basically nonsense. The counter argument is then often: “But such and such civilisation was very powerful! They had elephants and warriors and this and that”. The problem with this type of reasoning is that literally every political entity that ever existed for a length of time had SOMETHING to defend themselves against their neighbors. However, If their neighbors weren’t of the military caliber of the the French or the Chinese, it means nothing. And No: winning one battle against the Persians or the Turks isn’t enough.
