A Native American Peoples (such as the Sioux)
A Post-Colonial Power (such as Brazil or New Zealand)
A Mesopotamian Civ (such as the Sumer or the Hittites)
A Southeast Asian Civ (such as the Majapahit or Indonesia)
The Zulu or the Kongo
Too many factors would have to be taken into account.
Geographically speaking, the Ottomans probably would've had a harder time after that battle, seeing as Vienna, Austria would've been completely surrounded on the North, East, and Western fronts.
But who knows, maybe it would've been a different map.
I'll make an updated poll, now that we know all the new civs for G&Ks, and that Austria, Ethiopia and Sweden made it, so I think it's appropriate.
There may or may not have been a real person behind the myth. Or several. One common version is that he was a Roman-Briton.
Note that the difference between Briton and Britain is important. The mythic Arthur is generally called "King of the Britons", which is, of course, cognate with Breton. The Britons were celts. Confused yet?
So no, it's not a distinction without a difference. It's more like saying DC is part of Maryland (or Virginia, if you prefer) - it's wrong, and there are legal consequences to the fact it's not the case.
Alright fair enough. I concede the point. But my other point stands: none of this is worth getting upset over when people don't care to be specific about it.