Analysis of Civ3 Civilizations

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah

The Iroquois had trade, democracy, freedom of religion, and quickly learned gunpowder by which they were able to stay on par with the imperial powers.

"on par" Laughing Out Loud!!!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Personally I would replace ... the Aztecs with the Hopi

You must be joking. (Though I suspect you are either grossly uninformed or just trolling.) What could possibly lead you to this nonsense?!

Of all the amerindians, the most advanced, widespread, and long-lasting (in terms of civ II, at least) were the Maya, the Inca, and the Aztecs. Yes, many other tribes survive to the present, but few could come close to these three. The Sioux outlasted all others in the face of the American onslaught, but were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The Iroquois also were advanced and held out for a long time, but there has been enough virtual ink spilled on this forum about the general opinion of their game worthiness. I'll not add to it.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Mark L


I'd say that the Arabs are part of the Persian civ.

Oh my, no.

The Persian Empire became of note after overthrowing the Medeans in the 6th century BCE. This is contemporary with the Semitic kingdoms of Maan and Sheba. Persian religion was Zoroastrianism, although the empire was tolerant of subject peoples' religions.

Neither Persia nor its geographic successor under Alexander the Great (nor his successors Seleucus or Ptolemy, nor the later Parthian-***-second-Persian empire) ever occupied Arabia; indeed, trade beween these and Arabia was controlled by the (Semitic) Nabateans (principle city: Petra). The Nabateans were eventually conquered by Rome, which nevertheless did not press on into Arabia.

Islam is built upon Judaism and Christianity, not Zorastrianism; the Arab people are Semites, not Iranians; their culture distinct; and a succession of Arab caliphates (Arab, Umayyad, Abbasid) completely controlled the Persian heartland from ca. 650 CE until the emergence of the Buyid Emirates (ca. 1000 CE). The Buyids were ethnically Iranian but not culturally Persian.

Arabia was only first fully occupied by non-Semites when the Seljuk Turks overran most of the peninsula in the 11th century. Then the Mongols showed up in the 13th century and ... well, you get the picture.

At its greatest extent, the Abbasid Capliphate (and its allied Umayyad Emirate in Iberia) controlled some 80% of what is now Spain and Portugal; all of North Africa and Arabia; Asia Minor in a line running from near Cyprus to the eastern shore of the Black Sea; from there to the Aral Sea in the north and the Gulf in the south and east into India ... and (friendly advice) NEVER call it the "Persian" Gulf in an Arab country!

Delighted if you've actually read this far,

Ozymandias

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
"on par" Laughing Out Loud!!!

OK then, I change it into "ahead of", as they conquered land with the imperial powers already there - bwahahahahahaha!!

Marquis de Sodaq: It might help if you list some achievements by the Mayas, the Aztecs and the Incas.

The Hopi (= peace) excelled at Agriculture (dry farming, cultivation), Irrigation (the Paaqavi Garden Terraces qualify as a Wonder of the World), The Calendar, Pottery, Masonry (pueblos), Trade, Arts and Education (kachinas). So what if they didn't wage war on their neighbours, except defensively against the Spanish - very successfully despite the smallpox - and the Navaho. They still prospered and have been around as a civilization, descending from the Anasazi, since 500 BC when they migrated north from Mexico. At one time the Hopi empire covered over 18 million acres.
The Hopi are not just still around today, they are largely independent and have kept their own culture and religion. The village of Old Oraibi has been inhabited since at least AD 1150 and is thought to be the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the USA.

Hopi agriculture

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah

OK then, I change it into "ahead of", as they conquered land with the imperial powers already there - bwahahahahahaha!!

Hehehe.

Ok. " The Iroquois conquered land with the imperial powers already there. "

1) An empty statement to boot. Surely you do not mean that the Iroquois managed to expand their territory while the imperial powers were as it were omnipresent, guarding each square meter so as to not allow the Iroquois to conquer any. If indeed you do not -then the 'achievement' is not so big after all.

2) I don't think a territorial gain that lasted for so little time is worth much on this 'scale'.

3) Taking candy from your little sister while both are being savagely beaten by their older brother is not brave enough an act to declare you were 'on par' with your older brother.

4) If we then take into account that soon after taking this candy the Iroquois were to be quickly *decimated* and finally put away behind steel wires on the most worthless pieces of land, I think we can agree that your statements regarding them being 'on par' are invalid.

[Ribannah]

1) By that standard the achievement of the imperial powers was not so big either
2) The time of Iroquois territorial gain lasted quite a bit longer than the entire existence of the USA. But this was not their main achievement.
3) The Iroquois were never savagely beaten, and their little sisters were much bigger than themselves, in fact one of them was called Britney - err, Britania
4) The Iroquois were never decimated. Of course the "on par" ended at some point - when they foolishly allied with the British - but that happened to many tribes included in Civ3. That doesn't imply that they never were (taking into account their small numbers, of course)! Read the links I provided in the Iroquois thread.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Marquis de Sodaq: It might help if you list some achievements by the Mayas, the Aztecs and the Incas.

The Hopi excelled at Agriculture, Irrigation, The Calendar, Pottery, Masonry, Trade, Arts and Education.

As did almost every amerindian tribe from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Have you ever been to the Hopi rez? Have you ever been to any of scores of sites in Peru, Mexico and Guatemala? I suspect not. (Fairly said, I've never been to Peru) While the Paaqavi terraces are impressive, they pale next to the constructions of the Maya and Incas. Mayan mathematics was very advanced, all 3 had very advanced astronomies, in particular the Incas. The Mayan calendrical system is worthy of books full of discussion. Central American agriculture techniques are more productive (calories/ha, nutrition, volume/ha) than even the pre-chemical european techniques! Terracing and irrigation!? Even you should understand how the Inca stand on this point. All 3 had very developed road and trade networks. The Maya, thanks to geography, had extensive contact with peoples and materials from wide ranging areas. Quality pottery was a product of almost all non-nomadic amerindians. Not to belittle the Hopi, as they have an accomplished history, but they do not outshine the others.

Originally posted by Ribannah
...descending from the Anasazi, since 500 BC when they migrated north from Mexico.

The Maya can trace their own history to the same period, and their heritage thru the Olmecs another 1000+ years back. The Aztecs, although shorter-lived than the Maya in their own glory, also trace cultural heritage to the Olmecs. The Incas record their own histories to the b.c. era, too.

Originally posted by Ribannah
At one time the Hope empire covered over 18 million acres.

While that acreage is an impressive number, remember that most of it is desert, scrub, and bare rock. The Aztec, Maya, and Inca empires were each up to an order of magnitude larger, and on far more fertile lands.

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Hopi are not just still around today, they are largely independent and have kept their own culture and religion.

I play futbol with several Aztecs. They, too, are still around, and maintain the old beliefs. The Maya resisted the conquistadores until the mid 17th century, and still have their own (syncretous with christianity, as most amerindian religions are) religion, culture, and languages. As do the Incas, a.k.a. Quechua, who are still an important people in south america. All 3 number in the millions today, compared to the Hopi population of...? In short, most of what the Hopi have accomplished, the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca did on grander scale and in many cases more impressively. All that aside, it's good to see you at least cheer for somebody from the americas!

While they are less independent politically than the Hopi, they are less dependent economically. The most exemplary US rez is still a ****hole for quality of life. The traditional ways work for many, but the lands the people were forced onto do not support everyone.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Besides, the Maya invented the hammock. That should be grounds enough for greatness!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Besides, the Maya invented the hammock. That should be grounds enough for greatness!

Why, yes, that is mightily convincing. But even you should know that there is no need to go to Guatemala in person to acquire one!

While it is true that all these had advanced agriculture, the Hopi - precisely because they lived in the desert - stood out. Even today they have a shared project with Israel to rediscover their old knowledge about irrigation, in the hope that Israel can use that technology in the Sinai.

However, the Maya (who traded with the Hopi on a regular basis) were more advanced in the fields of Astronomy, Mathematics and Construction. They would be my first choice, but there is a problem with the world map if they were to be included in the game. Climatic changes turned their their fertile land into jungle, which was the main reason they left their cities, rather than the conquistadores.
The civ3 world map would either give them fertile lands, or jungle, for the entire history. It would make for a great scenario though if climatic change could be an event!

I am much less impressed with the Incas and the Aztecs. In contrast to the Maya and the Hopi, they were quickly overrun by the Spanish. The Aztec empire was very short-lived (from 1325 when the nomads settled and 1428 when they started their conquest until 1521) and except for their applications of obsidian they added little to the development of human civilization.
The history of the Inca empire is strikingly similar, compared to the Aztecs they had better organizational skills, but in most other areas they were slightly behind. Their vast road network was only intended for officials. Inca astronomy was not more advanced than Hopi astronomy, all the meso-Amerind tribes worshipped the sun, watched the skies, knew about solstices etc.

[Alfonsus72]

I fail to apreciate the greatness of the iroquis tribe (lets say civilization).
The idea that the inhabitans of the 13 colonies learned democracy from the iroquises is quite inconsistent. Doesn´t the english settlers knew the greeks? I guess the democracy concept of the american constitution has a greek/roman, plus influence of the ilustration writers (mainly Rousseau). Has the iroqueses concepts like "property" or "civil rights" (or even "civil")?. Probably the only iroquese influence in american constitution was the "right to carry weapons". I guess this is an argument from american ultra nationalist to negate the influence of the old Europe in their country.
The bigger meso-american civilization, in terms of time, territory, population, science and culture, I guess is the Mayas, followed by the Incas and the Aztecs.
In North America, the most advanced was the PUEBLO, while most of the tribes were nomadic, the Pueblo sucessfully settled. If english colonization should have started from the west, the Pueblo should has been much more famous than the iroquis, cause in fact they were more advanced. Unfortunately, they falled soon to the pressure of the agresive nomadic tribes from the north and the diseases imported from the europeans.

[Transcend]

I think Firaxis included Iroquois primarily as a template for other "aboriginal" civilizations. The artwork, building style, and several other Iroquois characteristics could then be applied to these civs. Because the Civ3 is a highly customizable game, players unhappy with Firaxis's decision always have the opportunity to create their desired civs. Even though there are several more "deserving" civs than Iroquois, I think Firaxis made the right decision to put Iroquois in in terms of game mechanics.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
I fail to apreciate the greatness of the iroquis tribe (lets say civilization).
The idea that the inhabitans of the 13 colonies learned democracy from the iroquises is quite inconsistent. Doesn´t the english settlers knew the greeks? I guess the democracy concept of the american constitution has a greek/roman, plus influence of the ilustration writers (mainly Rousseau). Has the iroqueses concepts like "property" or "civil rights" (or even "civil")?.

Read the Iroquois thread and especially the Iroquois constitution - I would provide a link but at the moment it takes 30 minutes for a page to load ... :banned:.

In North America, the most advanced was the PUEBLO, while most of the tribes were nomadic, the Pueblo sucessfully settled.

Like the Hopi . Who did, however, not "fall soon to the pressure ...", on the contrary. All the pueblo tribes came from the south though, while the Iroquois live(d) way up north. They were not nomadic, but lived in permanent houses, and were more advanced than the pueblo tribes in several important areas, less advanced in others.

[DarkCloud]

The English colonies took their Constitution from the Mayflower Compact/ Jamestown House of Burgesses/ Representative Goverment- not the Iroquois league.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was just added to make the Indians feel good- they accomplished a good Constitution... ahead of its time... but its doubtful that the settlers took anything from it.

Beat the English! ha. (this was only before the english numbered about 1/2 of them) In fact it is impressive that the English stood up to any civs... it is mostly because of disease that they won.

[datakodin]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

*Cough* RUS- is UKRANIAN, not Russian. It lasted until about 1000 when Vikings came. Then in 1200 the Mongols took over. The RUSSIAN civilization is Mongol-Finnish-Rus.

The Russians truly Start as a civ in 1600's...They Start in 1400's very small... (As independent civ, yes twice as long )

LOL!

Just tell me - what does mean Cough RUS?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The English colonies took their Constitution from the Mayflower Compact ...

DC you are entering the Iroquois discussion a little late. I'm not going to copy my arguments in the Iroquois thread here, instead I'm inviting you to go over there, read the links I provided, and if you still think the same way make your point there.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

And the Vikings- they colonized France, England (Before 1100), Russia, Turkey, etc.

RUS- is UKRANIAN, not Russian. It lasted until about 1000 when Vikings came. Then in 1200 the Mongols took over. The RUSSIAN civilization is Mongol-Finnish-Rus.

The Russians truly Start as a civ in 1600's...They Start in 1400's very small... (As independent civ, yes twice as long )

Some notes --

1. Vikings (known in the east as "Varangians") established the cities of Novgorod, Smolensk, Rostov, and Kiev (as well as a handful of others -- Izborsk, Polotsk, Beloozero, Murom) during the 9th Century (and gave the Byzantines considerable grief).

2. Prior to this the area under discussion is usually referred to as being occupied by "peoples" -- Slavic and Balt -- without any particular rulers / governments of note.

3. The first "Principality of Russia" (Slavs under Varangian sovereignity) was in existence in the 10th century (ca. 925), and splintered into civil war in 1015 resulting in successor states (rival principalities); the Grand Duchy of Lithuania etc. indeed arose in the 14th century and had the, um, interesting experience of having the Germans, in the form of the Teutonic Knights, as their neighbors.

I would suggest Russian Civilization (in Civ terms) began ca. 1000 with (real world) defining characteristics as ethnically Slavic, religiously Eastern Orthodox, and temperamentally Viking -- making their Civ characteristics "Militaristic" and "Religious".

Regards,

Oz

[fred]

We arent about to go into the iroquios taking of detriot during the 1812 war. (May not of been iroquois but the same band of people Fraxis intended to include).

We dont have to revist the native indian defense of canada (upper and lower) against the americans with only a tiny amount of british trained regulars and a wimpy militia.

[Transcend]

Even if everything Ribannah said about Iroquois were true, they still don't "deserve" to be placed ahead of Arabs, Mongols, and the Spanish. I believe they were in to provide a template for other "aboriginal" civilizations. In this aspect, Firaxis made the right choice.

[fred]

i must agree. And the fact that the iroquois did unite a group of tribes. As well as being situated and envolved a lot with North American history they have become one of the most recognized native nations.

And I do believe that a native aboriginal people people should be in Civ III.

What i dont like is the fact civ is europe based. I wish in the expansion they include more asian and the mayan and incan civs.

And please dont doubt incan inovation. Just because they were conquered doesnt really mean much, because under that same right the romans shouldnt be included.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The English colonies took their Constitution from the Mayflower Compact/ Jamestown House of Burgesses/ Representative Goverment- not the Iroquois league.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was just added to make the Indians feel good- they accomplished a good Constitution... ahead of its time... but its doubtful that the settlers took anything from it.

How do we know that. Have you ever been to a meeting and then read the minutes after the meeting and the minutes where not complete or alter to said something other than what was said in the meeting. I have.
Keep in mind we are talking about 1770s in America. If the members of the Constitution committe used any thing from the Iroquois League, do you think they would publish that information to the public? No way, they would have been hung by the neck until dead. Remember most, not all, but most European American hated the Indians.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

*Cough* RUS- is UKRANIAN, not Russian. It lasted until about 1000 when Vikings came. Then in 1200 the Mongols took over. The RUSSIAN civilization is Mongol-Finnish-Rus.

The Russians truly Start as a civ in 1600's...They Start in 1400's very small... (As independent civ, yes twice as long )

Crikey, that's a big call. How old exactly do you think the "Ukraine" is? Ukraina is Russian for "on the border", or "frontier", i.e. the border/frontier of Russia. It was peopled mostly by Slavs ethnically and linguistically similar to the Russians.

The Rus' were a fusion of Slavic and Viking antecedents in the great rivers region of Greater Russia (i.e. the land between the Baltic and Black Seas). The city of Kiev (Kyiv) was their chief city, founded by a Varangian (Varyag, or Viking) named Rurik who was the ancestor of Ivan IV ("the Terrible") who united the Muscovite state (which became Russia).

I wouldn't make a distinction between Russians and Ukrainians when talking about the Rus', and the Rus' can be identified as early as the 10th Century. In fact it may be more appropriate to have the Slavs in as a separate Civ, in which case we can go back as early as B.C.

[Alfonsus72]

Originally posted by fred

What i dont like is the fact civ is europe based. I wish in the expansion they include more asian and the mayan and incan civs.

Acording to the list of civs included, I don´t think civ3 is eurocentric:

EUROPE: 5 1/2 (or 6 if you consider Russians only europeans): Greeks, romans, germans, english, french and russians (that could be considered half european and half asian).


ASIA: 5 1/2 (or 5 if you consider Russians only europeans): Babylonians, persians, indians, chinesses, japaneses and 1/2 Russians.

AMERICA: 3 : Aztecs, iroqueses and americans.

AFRICA: 2 : Egyptians and zulus.

OCEANIA: 0. No maories, australian aborigins or pascualites .

I think that distribution is much less eurocentric than history has been. Since the age of exploration, and specially in the age of imperialism, Europe has spread worlwide. I don´t want to judge if that´s good or bad, wrong or right, but it´s a fact.

To the question of why big civilizations like spanish, turkish, dutchs, arabs, mongols, austro-hungarians, portugueses,... that has hab very big empires are out, I guess that won´t be so important if there were no special civilization differences, as in Civ 2.

In Civ2, if you wanted to play, let´s say, the lituanians, you only have to put the name and titles of your leader and put a name of a lituanian city each time you build a new one.

In Civ3, if I want to play my beloved spanish civilization, what special unit should I take?, must I deal with the picture of Louis XVI or Elizabeth II as leader of the spanish civ?, what supositions must I do about spanish caracter (in this case is clear for me: RELIGIOUS/EXPANSIONIST). What kind of customization could we do with our custom civs?. If this is answerer, I guess we don´t have to talk anymore about what civs should be in or out now or in the expansion pack.

[Chris Horscroft]

Alfonsus72 - I sympathise - having Elizabeth I's picture as leader of the Spanish civilisation would be particularly infuriating to a Spaniard.

Maybe if the game designers weren't American, and had stuck to ancient civs only, then the Americans, the British and the Spanish would none of them be included (and the game would sell less well).

As it is, I suspect they've gone out to try and balance the map, rather than to really include the greatest civs. For my money, Spain should be in.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by datakodin


LOL!

Just tell me - what does mean Cough RUS?

The RUS are the true people of the Ukraine. The Russians are a mix of Mongolic and Finnish blood along with the true blood of Ancient Rus.

Rus was the kingdom in the time of Vladimir, he who brought Christianity to RUS around 988

Rus is the people decended from the Trypillians, Cimmerans, Scythians, and Budini mentioned by Herodotus (485-425 BC)

The two main tribes of the Sarmatians: (3rd BC-3rd AD)
-Ruskolani----The Ukrainians::: RUS means "from Rhos"
-Alanians-----Polish

The RUS are the true Slavic People. They satred theeir true civilization in 857 and lasted until 1200 when the Mongols invaded. Rus Existed before Moscow was founded in 1147. Kiev was founded in 482 AD.

Ribbannah eh, I participated in it in various threads. Yes, the Europeans feared the Iroquois, but their siding with the English was not the deciding factor in the French-Indian war.

-Hopi are Mound Builder descendants, but the Mound Builders' civilization was greater.

Ozymandis 1. I agree with you. But Kiev was founded by Shcek, Khoryv, and Lybid; the Local Polanian Princes.

The Polanians were descended from the Khazar Kaganate, turkish nomads from the east or the Antes, or the Jordanes, or the Slavs.

I would have to check about #3. But in the old days the RUS-ans were involved more with the Byzantines than the Vikings... The FIRST viking ruler of RUS was Oleh (Helgi) of Novogorod (He Ruled 882-912)

-Yes, slavs should be an original civ.

[datakodin]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Rus is the people decended from the Trypillians, Cimmerans, Scythians, and Budini mentioned by Herodotus (485-425 BC)

Nevermind. Rus are Trojan people who had escaped from Odyssey. It is very easy to prove - compare Rus and TRojan. Mongols did not invade to Russia because it was Tatars who did. Besides, Moscow was founded not in 1147 but one day earlier.

And by the way, do you know that Serbs shutdown 350 NATO planes?

Seriously speaking, there are many different points regarding many historical events. However, it would be better if Civ3 will be based on somehow official historical books.

About Russia. The Russian state was founded at 862 AD when Rurick, Sineus and Truvor became to be first Russian rulers. This date was given by Russian ancient writer Nestor and this date is recognized by most of researchers. Certainly, the country was named Rus' not Rossija as now.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by YefeiPi
Civ3 have cut down a drastic number of civs from civ2 and many of us agree and disagree with some of these game designers choices. Let's take a look at which current civ3 civilizations are worthy to remain in the game and which should not:

As you can see, I personally believe the Japanese and the zulus should not be included in civ3 because there are room for more recognized cultures. What do you think?

My underlining. Your assessments is openly ment to be personal and subjective, and thats OK. However, if you had the aspirations of being anywhere near objective (if thats possible) - then your viewpoints would be just plain ridicules. France and Japan not "worthy" enough? And you dont even mention Spain?

Anyway, civ-modpacks will be available - both downloadable from fansites and addable from future official expansion-packs.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by datakodin

Nevermind. Rus are Trojan people who had escaped from Odyssey. It is very easy to prove - compare Rus and TRojan. Mongols did not invade to Russia because it was Tatars who did. Besides, Moscow was founded not in 1147 but one day earlier.

Yes, that is one of many explinations for the people of Rus. But supposedly they merged with the nomadic Scythians and formed a new nation.

Seriously speaking, there are many different points regarding many historical events. However, it would be better if Civ3 will be based on somehow official historical books.

Yes, true

About Russia. The Russian state was founded at 862 AD when Rurick, Sineus and Truvor became to be first Russian rulers. This date was given by Russian ancient writer Nestor and this date is recognized by most of researchers. Certainly, the country was named Rus' not Rossija as now.

Eh, this is an opinion as my statement is an opinion. Russian, Ukrainian and Romanian historians have been arguing whether Rus was Ukrainian, or Russian for many years... And the Romanians maintain that their people are better than either of the other two lands

[Ralf]

Originally posted by datakodin
Seriously speaking, there are many different points regarding many historical events. However, it would be better if Civ3 will be based on somehow official historical books.

Civ-3 scenarios, yes.
The main-game? Forget it. History only acts like theater-props and backdrops in the main-game. And thats great.

[DarkCloud]

I retract my statement about Hopi=Moundbuilders... misread a map

The Iroquois Constitution MAY have been used as ONE model for the constitution... but it was not written down by 1776!

The Americans most likely used the writings:

Magna Carta (this was much like the Iroquois Constitution: Protects the rights of the upper class IE Parliment not to be taxed without permission)
Mayflower Compact and Judicial System
Colonial Governments wherein they pass their own laws and govern theirselves
Jamestown Government
John Locke
Rousseau
etc.

Ever read "The Last of the Mohicans"? The Iroquois league was split asunder and destroyed... In fact there was never an "iroquois" tribe... it was merely a confederation of 4-6 tribes.

-They never foolishly allied with the British.. The britis had 100,000 people in North America whereas the frenceh had 10,000... even with help, the French would likely not have won.

The Iroquois had trade, democracy, freedom of religion, and quickly learned gunpowder by which they were able to stay on par with the imperial powers.

-Anyone can learn to shoot a gun if they have long enough to try
-Freedom of Religion: where does this say so... and besides, how does that show a society is socially advanced... now it DOES show how a society is open minded...
-All civs in this game had trade.
-Democracy as much as Parliament in England, yes, Real Democracy NO.

[KrazyHorse]

Democracy as much as Parliament in England in 14th century: possibly. 17th century? Not a chance.