No Spanish Civ????

[BeBro]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Name me a few great spanish scientists...any?

Very arrogant post, or why should they have no great scientists there?

[Ribannah]

The pinnacle of Spain's contribution to science:

"In 1868 because of financial problems the "ICTINEO" was seized by creditors, broken up and sold as scrap. The steam engine was re-installed in a paper mill
and later scrapped."

Point proven.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Waku
Whether u like it or not Spain was once THE superpower, and as every other power it collapsed because of ignoring its potential competitors (among other reasons), sitting on its Ivory Tower, looking down on the rest of the world. You should take good note of this (or even better, don't do it).

Bravo, Waku! While I'm ashamed of some of Apolyton's posters, I'm really proud of having you as one of my fellow posters.

[Jay Bee]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Don't you think this is an itsy bitsy exaggerated?
Like from 4% and 1 century?

40% seems too high, but much larger than 4% and for more than a century

From ascent of Charles V (1520?) till dutch revolt (1575?)

Spain, Low countries (both holland and belgium, much of Italy (lombardy, Naple, Sicily) and all of americas (except Brazil) from
the Rio Grande to the strait of magellan.

From 1575 to end of hapsburgs, 1700, all the above except holland.

For a period from about 1560 to 1620 (dates?) add portugal and its entire empire, including Brazil, Java, trading posts in africa and India.

from 1700 to 1800 spain plus spanish america, from Rio grande to straits of Magellan.


Now Im not fond of spain's pre-modern political heritage - the first spanish regime i really like is the Republic

but thats no reason to not be honest about spains accomplishments.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The pinnacle of Spain's contribution to science:

"In 1868 because of financial problems the "ICTINEO" was seized by creditors, broken up and sold as scrap. The steam engine was re-installed in a paper mill
and later scrapped."

Point proven.

Spain produced few noted scientists, but many writers, artists, musicians, and explorers. Definitely a distinctive civ, and should be included.

and as you have said elsewhere, rib, civ is an alt hist game. It would be interesting to see when and how spain went in a direction that took at away from modern science. I think the answer lies in the reconquista, when spain chose a religious nationalism as a way to deal with the reconquest of the peninsula, at the cost of establishing a culture that was hostile to science, and which tended to feed on itself, complicated by an insecurity that led to the expulsions of moors and jews, and then by a paranoid reaction to the reformation, which killed off a budding humanist culture in 16thc spain.

It would be interesting to use civ to establish an AH where this does not happen? Perhaps a faster and easier reconquista, leading to a more normal spain in the years when european culture was more cosmopolitan, and a fuller absorption of the renaissance spirit before the threat of the reformation.

LOTM
"the sephardim have preserved spanish culture more truely than the spaniards" attributed to Franco.

[Ribannah]

Spain did not even exist as a nation until 1469, and it took until 1492 to regain the entire territory from the Moors, with Granada the last region to fall.
They got rid of all Muslims and Jews, and with the estabishment of the Inquisition everyone who was not Roman Catholic quickly followed. Thus the Spanish civilization took shape, it wasn't pretty.

In 1519 Spain defeated the Aztecs and took control of Mexico. The Incas and Peru were next in 1531-1533. Around that time one could say that they took the #1 spot of world powers, ahead of the Portuguese, Ottoman Turks and others.
In 1580 they even gained Portugal by marriage. One year later the Dutch declared independence and in 1588 the decline of the Spanish empire began with the sinking of the Armada. They lost Portugal in 1640, and when the Habsburg dynasty died out in 1700 a succesion war started, won by the French who put the Bourbons on the throne in 1714. Long before 1700 Spain had lost their lead to the Dutch, the English and the French, they never had full control of the territories they had seized by force.

Spain ended their reign with less citizens than when they started, unable to be self-supporting. They made no technological discoveries whatsoever. Basically what happened was: they inherited both land and a war engine by intrigue, and used it to plunder newly discovered territories where they destroyed existing peaceful civilizations bringing nothing but terror, disease and death.

The original Spanish empire lasted from 1492-1700, with a golden age from 1519-1588.
After 1714 there still was a Spain with a bunch of colonies, but Spain never
regained the #1 spot. In fact, with continued French influence, it could hardly be called an empire. The Inquisition continued to ban one group of citizens after the other.

[yaroslav]

Hi!

Again, I want to beg your pardon for my rather bad english: it's crappy! (thank for the word, Waku). I think that the Spanish Gold era extend more time that somebody in this thread are writing. I think that FACTS from historians and not our opinions (because any opinion must be wrong, and mine first!) must be the subject of our posts, so I quote Francis Bacon that says, in 1624, that Spanish was more powerful then that in Armada's days and that England must be prepared for a destrucction from Spain. And he speak about Spain with this words:

<< I have marvelled sometimes at Spain, how they clasp and contain so large dominios with so few natural Spaniards; but sure the whole compass of spain is a very great body of a tree; far above ROME and SPARTA at the first... >>

So, we cant extend the Golden era of Spain to 1624, at least. And think about Spain's supremacy on his territories.

But, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, we can read (I think that the link http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...er%20habsburgs must show it)

<< The wars of the 17th century, though they had weakened Spain's power in Europe, had left it still the greatest imperial power in the world >>

So a Golden era can be from 1492 to the medium-later 17th. And Spain was very importan until Napoleon, with his colonies in America...And, yes, there is not many scientifics from Spain, and that it's no very good for us. All South America and many parts of North America (Philip II was king of Spain and Portugal), along with all the colonies of Portugal, Naples, Milan, Spain are many km. I don't know if this is 40%, but I think that it can be 20%, at least... So, a country that have a fifth of the earth have very good points to be in Civ3, in my opinion.

I think that there are not only very powerful historical reasons but marketing reasons too. The game will be translated to Spanish... this means a very important amount of money spend in actors, translators, localization, etc. So I think that Firaxis must include Spanish, because a game that is localize but not include any Spanish's civilization (and perphas Spanish's Muslim can be a good one) is lesser atractive to many spaniards: If you play a game that is not in your langauge but in English and don't see your country, you think that it's normal, but if you see it in your language, can be awesome...

All countrys have a rich and interesting history, from Spain to Australia, from Canada to Argentina. I think that are historical (more important) and marketing (less important) reasons to include Spain, but I can we wrong because I am very far from be perfect...

[Jay Bee]

Yaroslav, citing Francis Bacon is totally unappropriate. We all know he was a Spanish spy at the service of the Spanish Empire. Just like Machiaveli in the Republic of Florence .

Everybody knows as well that The Encyclopedia Britannica is not to be trusted. An example? On the same page you quoted it says it was France, not the Netherlands, not England, the biggest threat to Spanish hegemony in the 17th century. Bunch of liars!

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Yaroslav, citing Francis Bacon is totally unappropriate. We all know he was a Spanish spy at the service of the Spanish Empire. Just like Machiaveli in the Republic of Florence .

Everybody knows as well that The Encyclopedia Britannica is not to be trusted. An example? On the same page you quoted it says it was France, not the Netherlands, not England, the biggest threat to Spanish hegemony in the 17th century. Bunch of liars!

Thank you, Jay. Well, my profersors quote the Britannica many time a few years ago, so I always think that this was important. But I can offer other sources if the aboved offered dislike you, for example, my Encarta (but I dislike this encyclopededia) tells me that Spain crisis began in medium 17th. My history book extend this to Cateau-Cambrays (near 1655). And I don't quote Francis Bacon for myself, I am only using his words in the same way that Julián Marias ("La España Inteligible"), a spanish historian, does it. Bacon wrote a report to this governement with reasons to attack Spain, because Spain was very powerful in his time. Doesn't matter that he was a spy (and I am not secure of he was a spy), he was clever and his reasons are interesting.

[Jay Bee]

Yaroslav please check your personal messages

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by yaroslav
Spain's crisis began in medium 17th

That much is true. Portugal regained its independence in 1640, and in 1648 the Dutch had their final victory over the Spanish. But that crisis didn't come from nowhere. As with other empires, between the Golden Age and crisis was a period of constant decline.

Meanwhile, the year 1602 marked the start of the Golden Age of the Dutch, when the Dutch East Indies Company was formed. It took until sometime in the 18th century before the English took over. But the Dutch never fell back as the Spanish did, they were (and are) simply fewer in numbers than most rival European powers, even though they welcomed many refugees.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Spain did not even exist as a nation until 1469, and it took until 1492 to regain the entire territory from the Moors, with Granada the last region to fall.
They got rid of all Muslims and Jews, and with the estabishment of the Inquisition everyone who was not Roman Catholic quickly followed. Thus the Spanish civilization took shape, it wasn't pretty.

At the same time neither Germany nor Russia existed as unified nation-state, not to mention Americans, Greeks, Zulu or Iroquis. I can not comprehend why some people are so fixed about nation states here - formation of nation state was a step in civilization development that occured in most cases (save for some of the ancient ones) in the second half of the second millenium of this era.
The fact that Spanish civilization was not pretty has nothing to do about them being civilization all right. Do you wish to exclude any civilization doing not pretty things from the game - than in your world frankly speaking everybody would have to go.

In 1519 Spain defeated the Aztecs and took control of Mexico. The Incas and Peru were next in 1531-1533. Around that time one could say that they took the #1 spot of world powers, ahead of the Portuguese, Ottoman Turks and others.
In 1580 they even gained Portugal by marriage. One year later the Dutch declared independence and in 1588 the decline of the Spanish empire began with the sinking of the Armada. They lost Portugal in 1640, and when the Habsburg dynasty died out in 1700 a succesion war started, won by the French who put the Bourbons on the throne in 1714. Long before 1700 Spain had lost their lead to the Dutch, the English and the French, they never had full control of the territories they had seized by force.

You can say the same about the world dominance by Germans, French or even Greeks (the Alexander's empire falling apart soon after his death). The fact is Spain has a major impact on the world, they still exist and have a culture different enough from say Germans, French or English to be considered a separate civilization (culture which comprises not only of Spain, but South America and Mexico to say the least).

Spain ended their reign with less citizens than when they started, unable to be self-supporting. They made no technological discoveries whatsoever, their only famous scientist was Machiavelli who was, of course, a political theorist. Basically what happened was: they inherited both land and a war engine by intrigue, and used it to plunder newly discovered territories where they destroyed existing peaceful civilizations bringing nothing but terror, disease and death.

Let's just say that calling Machiavelli a Spaniard shows a lot about your knowledge of history and what you are talking about.

The original Spanish empire lasted from 1492-1700, with a golden age from 1519-1588. After 1714 there still was a Spain with a bunch of colonies, but Spain never regained the #1 spot. In fact, with continued French influence, it could hardly be called an empire. The Inquisition continued to ban one group of citizens after the other.

Inquisition in the 18th century? Get real. Or better yet, get a history book.

[Alfonsus71]

Originally posted by Martinus

I fail to appreciate the reason while that particular "purpose" of the Spanish empire distinguises it so much from the English who were "civilizing the savages", ...

Guess is difficult to explain, but I mean that the spanish empire has allways legitimated its expansion. Before the colonization of the americas, Spain obtained an offcial document of papal blessing. Colonization and conquering of the aztec and inca empire was not an invasion, no regular spanish troops went to the Americas before the XVII century. That early conquers were made by private initiative of few men, some looking for gold and power, other for glory and nobility status,... And, what I mean with the "purpose", in most cases the tribes were not conquered and then forced to conversion, unarmed spanish missionaries went to the tribes to spread christianism, they made some mix beetwen local believings and catholicism (something like "Jesuschrist was the son of the Sun you adore", things that could have been called heressy in England, probably even today), and thousands of them died for that purpose. Never in world history, except in the first steps of chistianism, have been such quantity and quality of personal sacrifice in the name of God. That´s why I said colonization has some honourable "purpose".

[Alfonsus71]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Don't you think this is an itsy bitsy exaggerated?
Like from 4% and 1 century?

South America, Central and north America (up to half the current united States, California, New Mexico, and for some time Lousiana), Philippines, most of the coast of Africa and India (specially while peninsular unification), half Europe, and many pacific islands, are 4% of the world?. It´s not a question of opinion, is a measurable matter.

Originally posted by Ribannah
What's that?

National State means something like modern state, in opposition to old feudal kingdoms. Its the first step for a nation to inititate its expansion. While most Europe were old feudal territories, Spain, England and France were national states.

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Moors, who had to be defeated by the French for Spain to survive, had no similar purpose? Or the English, even today? The Soviet Union? The Romans?

The Moors were not defeated by the French to save Spain, Spain was "recovered" by spanish christians in a very long process (7 centuries) called "Reconquista", and moor legacy in Spain made our culture richer.

Originally posted by Ribannah

Most empires imposed their religion on their conquests. If you look closely, however, that was never the real purpose. They all just wanted to get ever more powerful and wealthier.

See my last post about that.

Originally posted by Ribannah
Spanish on the South Pole

Spain has a scientific base in the South Pole, called "Juan Carlos I", and its present in the Antartic Teatry. What about Holland?.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Martinus
At the same time neither Germany nor Russia existed as unified nation-state, not to mention Americans, Greeks, Zulu or Iroquis. I can not comprehend why some people are so fixed about nation states here - formation of nation state was a step in civilization development.

Not so in the case of Spain or the Americans. Many different civilizations had settled there, and only AFTER they were united they began to form their own, separate civilization.

The fact that Spanish civilization was not pretty has nothing to do about them being civilization all right. Do you wish to exclude any civilization doing not pretty things from the game

No, the point was that it explains why Spain was not interested in technological development.

The fact is Spain has a major impact on the world, they still exist and have a culture different enough from say Germans, French or English to be considered a separate civilization (culture which comprises not only of Spain, but South America and Mexico to say the least).

Of course Spain had impact and it's a separate civ, but the question was whether it should be included in the top 16. I simply think the contribution to human civilization of the English, the French, the Germans and also the Dutch was greater.

Let's just say that calling Machiavelli a Spaniard shows a lot about your knowledge of history and what you are talking about.

Ouch! Made a mistake in my notes.
It has no bearing on the rest of my post though (now edited).
Actually this proves my point even more, the only famous scientist mentioned in connection to the Spanish empire was some Italian who admired the Spanish court.

Inquisition in the 18th century? Get real. Or better yet, get a history book.

Real enough!

"A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834."

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus71
South America, Central and north America (up to half the current united States, California, New Mexico, and for some time Lousiana), Philippines, most of the coast of Africa and India (specially while peninsular unification), half Europe, and many pacific islands, are 4% of the world?. It´s not a question of opinion, is a measurable matter.

But while Spain had a military presence in these parts (in some cases: waged continous war), most of these regions were never fully integrated into the empire, in the sense that a colonial government was established that effectively handled the daily affairs AND was loyal to the crown. Much unlike how the English and the French ruled their empire. (Btw HALF of Europe? Tell it to the Russians, the Vikings, the English, the Austrains, the Turks, ... )

The Moors were not defeated by the French to save Spain. Spain was "recovered" by spanish christians in a very long process (7 centuries) called "Reconquista"

Read some history books!

Spain has a scientific base in the South Pole, called "Juan Carlos I", and its present in the Antartic Teatry. What about Holland?.

Holland is only a part of The Netherlands (2 of 12 provinces).
While AFAIK the Dutch don't have their own permanent base on the South Pole, they participate fully in the research.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus71
Guess is difficult to explain, but I mean that the spanish empire has allways legitimated its expansion. Before the colonization of the americas, Spain obtained an offcial document of papal blessing. Colonization and conquering of the aztec and inca empire was not an invasion .... unarmed spanish missionaries went to the tribes to spread christianism .... and quality of personal sacrifice in the name of God. That´s why I said colonization has some honourable "purpose".

That presupposes that the Christian (read: Catholic) faith was more civilized than the existing local religion. Form a neutral point of view, there is no way you can call this a "honourable purpose".

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus71
National State means something like modern state, in opposition to old feudal kingdoms. Its the first step for a nation to inititate its expansion. While most Europe were old feudal territories, Spain, England and France were national states.

On the contrary, exactly these three countries were typical Feudal states where the local aristocracy controlled their own militia and collected taxes. In fact remnants of Feudalism can still be found in these countries today.

It also was the Spanish aristocracy that took control of the seized territories in the Americas, and ruled their private property rather independently as the Spanish crown failed to supervise.

[Alfonsus71]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Holland is only a part of The Netherlands (2 of 12 provinces)

Sorry, I did a bad translation, in spanish the Netherlands are called "Holanda".

Originally posted by Ribannah
(about the inquisition)
This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834."

It´s true that the spanish inquisition survived till the early XIX. Our liberal constitution of 1812 abolished it, but an army from the Saint Alliance (all the countries you consider more advanced than Spain at the time), called the 100,000 sons of Sant Louis, restored the absolute monarchy and the inquisition in 1823.

Spanish inquisition is surely a bad thing of our past, but has been vastly exagerated by propaganda. The frenchs killed more people in a couple of days (the hugonots massacre) than the spanish inquisition in all its history.

Many anglo-saxon, german and dutch people here negate that Spain has had influence in history. You must now that your protestant religion in its different shapes (anglicans, lutherans, calvinist) was created and imposed by the german princes and Henry VIII as a tool to opose to the spanish rule of Europe, blessed by the Pope. So see how little importance have had Spain in history, that without Her you wouldn´t have your devoted, let´s say, religion.

Is it so hard for you to simply accept that Spain was really important in the past?

[Alfonsus71]

Originally posted by Ribannah


That presupposes that the Christian (read: Catholic) faith was more civilized than the existing local religion. Form a neutral point of view, there is no way you can call this a "honourable purpose".

I don´t mean that catholicism were better than local religions, all deserve the same respect. I mean than going to the new world to peacefuly spread an ideal that you believe is the right one, as missionaries did, is much more etical than going there to kill the natives and expoil their lands, as most empires have done. And you can´t find a case like those of the spanish misionaries in any empire among history. Can you?. Even now, americans and NATO don´t send emisaries along the world to spread democracy, they simply support those dictatorships that they are interested in and bomb from the air those who are against its interest.

[kittenOFchaos]

Oh...what are they inventing in the south pole? an underwater helicopter maybe? A death trap perhaps, but he is the foremost mind of our generation!

What great Spanish comedians are there? This isn't arrogance...but you don't get jokes in all those history books I am reading

Concerning the British commonwealth...the point is that virtually all our past colonial possessions are in it, indicating clearly that they wish to retain ties with Britain (mainly economic) and that the countries parted on good terms...as for the new leaderships they were in a majority of the cases English educated.

As for well developed ex-british colonies...the white dominions certainly are well developed (hey canada), the whites in SA did ok...India is the worlds highest population democracy (a legacy of british rule) and the ex-patriot farms a la' Zimbabwe generate most the wealth in their countries (now MUG is causing trouble the Zimbabwe health service has now the lowest efficiency rating in the world, the economy has gone to crap...when he previously took lands from the white farmers he gave them to his cronies in high office...now it is merely his desire to hold power by any means). In ww2 the self ruled white dominions ALL provided troops to help Britain (from day 1)...THEY didn't have to but the blood link was there and the political ties were there.


As for this thread, the point is that with only 16 slots in the main game there is a choice to be made...and someone in fraxis made it with the Spanish. I personnally would have not had the zulus, nor the americans and the iroquis would have to ask permission. Distinct civilisations are what matter more and ones whose importance over a long time period. Western european civilisations get unfair representation as they exterted themselves over the rest of the world (and the game doesn't allow for transition of empires...)...

Fraxis have obviously sought to limit the number of civs whose geography overlapped...thus we are missing the ottoman as their geography overlapped with the greeks...we are missing the celts as they covered most of europe with their culture (civ2 had them as welsh? CARDIFF???? -the celts are fighting in greece
To win a place in the game, importance, distinctiveness (the british legacy HAS shaped the world MANY times greater than the spanish...as the British LEFT a legacy and in 1812 the treaty of Ghent secured peace with the USA that has not been unbroken since between America, Canada and Britain...3000 miles of unmanned frontier!...a frontier a line on the map!). Had Spain been capable of colonisation, with instituations to RUN an empire except by the threat of force PLUS some science (I blame the papacy) then maybe spain could have fought for a place in civ3's 16.

The arguements should rage over the inclusion of the Zulus (why are THEY IN? above so many other african civilisations...) and the americans (for them recreate the breakaway of colonials in the game). The japanese are in the game...yet their influence was RATHER minor till this century (due to cutting themselves off!) BUT they at least can point to a distinct racial context and civilisation.

Could Spain really consider themselves more important than the Arabs that brought islam alive and kicking to the middle-east, northern africa and the frontiers of europe? That is the level of competiton in terms of justifying your inclusion.

As for Harlan...do you want me to post my quaifications to post? jeez...what are yours! I design scenarios??? (admittedly wonderful...did you see my edited version of your "lord of the rings" scenario?...had it so you could play both rohan and gondor...rohan as A.I didn't help vs mordor...try it...it is probably easier to hold gondor in my version, but the ringbearer has it harder...my brother also worked it that gollem was vital!).
Unless we start putting up qualifications etc instead of merely a ranking on post number then the comment you made was vain and frankly wrong.


As for the reality moders, your mods will be chosen how people WANT to view the history they place in...the civ3 game is a take it or leave it to a greater degree...which is a more accurate version...neither as transition, death and rebirth or civilisations is not present and can't be (unless a "history of the world" type mechanism was introduced.)

[Tingkai]

repeat message

[Tingkai]

repeat message

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

As for well developed ex-british colonies...the white dominions certainly are well developed (hey canada),

Canada is most certainly not a "white" dominion. Canada prides itself on being a multicultural society of all races. I also dislike your implication that economic development is limited to former colonies ruled exclusively by white people. Hong Kong is doing quite well without the Brits. Please keep your racist adjectives to yourself.

[Harlan]

Kitten,
I don't know why all of the sudden you're going off about me complaining about you. I haven't even posted in this thread for a while, and I haven't mentioned you by name yet. You are of course free to post whatever you please, and so is anyone else. Its certainly not my position or anyone else's to deny freedom of speech. But just the same, we're also all entitled to disagree with comments anyone else makes.

As a matter of fact, I do disagree with some of yours. When you say things like the Spanish were "grimy EVERYWHERE they went without exception" or that the Spanish were not "capable of colonization", I'm going to disagree with that. Let's try to keep this discussion civil, base arguments on facts, and not say things that might be construed as racist.

Yes, the Spanish did some incredibly evil things as colonizers at times, probably worse than some other countries' colonial efforts. But what does that have to do with anything? Just about every civ either in the game or being bandied about for possible inclusion did horribly cruel things at one point or another. Should we limit the civs in the game to only "nice" ones, and leave out the Aztecs, Mongols, Vikings, and British?

(The last is a bit of a joke, since you seem to like the British so much, especially the white ones)

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
No, the point was that it explains why Spain was not interested in technological development.

Is interest in technological development instrumental in determining the civilization? That's why not all civilizations get "scientific" ability. Besides is a caravel or a globe not enough as a technological development for you?

Of course Spain had impact and it's a separate civ, but the question was whether it should be included in the top 16. I simply think the contribution to human civilization of the English, the French, the Germans and also the Dutch was greater.

But not Zulu and Iroquis. Still dont get me wrong. I am not saying any of the 16 civs should go. Just that Spanish should have been in as well (I got an impression you believed to the contrary).

Ouch! Made a mistake in my notes.
It has no bearing on the rest of my post though (now edited).
Actually this proves my point even more, the only famous scientist mentioned in connection to the Spanish empire was some Italian who admired the Spanish court.

As a matter of fact he was admiring Borgia court in Italy.
But it doesnt matter - Spanish had many great painters, writers etc. It is a fact their culture was (and is) really religiously oriented, but so what: let's give them "religious" ability.

"A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834."

Sorry my mistake.
Anyway, I do not like Spanish style very much myself (but Aztecs or Hindu were much more cruel in their religions). The fact I do not like it does not prevent their culture to be one of the most influential in the world. Much more than Zulu, Japanese or Iroquis (but I think including those civs was justified as well) for that matter.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Martinus
As a matter of fact he was admiring Borgia court in Italy.

As a matter of a fact the Borgias (original name: Borjas) were Spanish too. But, anyways, Machiavelli also admired greatly the Spanish court and the diplomatic ways of Ferdinand the Catholic King were repeteadly praised and taken as an example by him in The Prince.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Fiera


As a matter of a fact the Borgias (original name: Borjas) were Spanish too. But, anyways, Machiavelli also admired greatly the Spanish court and the diplomatic ways of Ferdinand the Catholic King were repeteadly praised and taken as an example by him in The Prince.

I DO know Borgias were Spanish
Yet Cesare and Lucretia were born in Italy and only ethnically half-Spaniards. Machiavelli was admiring Cesare, as he served as original "Prince".

As for Ferdinand, I read Il Principe (I admit a while ago), but I do not remember many references to the Spanish King - then again my memory may be failing on that one.

My point was: Spanish do not have to resort to Machiavelli, who was Italian, to show they had great minds in their civilization. I think we both agree on this.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Martinus
Is interest in technological development instrumental in determining the civilization?

It is an important part of a civ's contribution to human civilization as a whole.

Besides is a caravel or a globe not enough as a technological development for you?

The Caravel was invented long before there was a Spanish civilization. I don't know what you mean by "a globe", but major work on this subject was done by the Flemish (ie Dutch civ) scientist Mercator. The dateline was later discussed by French and Flemish/Dutch scientists, but the Arabs were already aware of the concept several centuries earlier.

But not Zulu and Iroquis. Still dont get me wrong. I am not saying any of the 16 civs should go. Just that Spanish should have been in as well (I got an impression you believed to the contrary).

I put the Spanish in the second batch of 16. I agree with you about the Zulus, they should be replaced with the Ethiopians. But a case could be made for the Iroquois inventing (modern) Democracy which had a great impact on the world.