Thread Tools
Old September 30, 2001, 22:01   #1
Lumpkin
Prince
 
Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London
Posts: 571
The Educated Civer's Guide to Voting for Expansion Pack Civilizations
I was complaining about the choices of civs in the votes for expansion pack civs thread and MacTBone said I should make a new thread to air my views. So here goes:

Looking over the top 16 civs i was quite surprised by some of the choices.

I don't see why everybody is so keen on the Mongols. IMHO they were just a very sucessful barbarian horde. They briefly took over half the world, and then immediately collapsed into lots of little, rapidly distintegrating fiefdoms. They didn't found any cities and they didn't lead to any progress.

I also don't think the Celts or Vikings should be civs for the same reason. The Celts is just very loose term used to a very widespread culture which never come close to being united. The Viking is just a word which means "pirate" and applies to two seperate, rival cultures - the Norwegians and the Danes. These cultures formed independant fiefdoms which usually quickly dissapeared so I don't think they can be considered proper civs either.

I don't know enough about Arab history to say whether they should be included but as far as I'm aware when people talk of "the Arabs" they are referring to a culture not to any historical, unified empire. So I don't think they should be included either.

The one that surprised me as the Byzantines. They are just the eastern-half of the Roman Empire after it split in two. We may as well have another civilization called "the Roman Empire in the West".

The criteria I would use for selecting for civs would be:

1) Must have been a unified, organised state.
2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
3) Must have represented a distinct culture.
4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.
5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.

According to these principles, I reccomend voting for the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch and the Ottamon Turks. I simply don't see how these civilizations can be ignored considering what a gigantic impact they have had. The Spanish and the Portuguese are essentially the creator's of the whole of Latin America and also conquered regions many times bigger than their won size in Africa and Oceania. The Dutch were less sucessful but still managed to create a very significant world empire. The Ottamon Turks meanwhile created an empire that included the Balkans, North Africa and most of the Middle East and which easily rivalled the Roman Empire in size. For the entire imperial era they were a vital component of world politics and were the main bloc against Russian expansionism in Asia and the Middle East.

As for my other votes, I made sure they were all non-European civilizations. Although countries like Italy, Austria and Poland were all signficant forces with strong cultures I feel there is already more than enough European civs in the game. The Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese cannot be ignored due to their massive impact on world history but on the scale of world, rather than european, history, the central and eastern european civilizations were pretty unimportant.

With this in mind I would reccomend voting for the:

The Incas - South America should have at least on civ and the Incas represent an entirely unique, highly sophisticated (certain in comparison to surrounding cultures) and powerful civilization. The speed with which they were crushed by the Spanish suggest they were pretty insignificant but this ignores the fact that the Spaniards arrived in the midst of a civil war and the Incas had essentially decided to be defeated because they astrology-obsessed civilization had predicted it would come to an end at around this date.

The Mayas - Same reason as for Incas. I don't they were a properly unified state but since there were only three city-based cultures in the Americas, allowances have to be made.

The Ethiopians - Sub-Saharan Africa has relatively few viable candidates and Ethiopia stands out because its Christianity and ancient imperial dynasty makes it stand out and because it managed to resist European conquest for so long.

The Koreans - Because they forged a long-lasting, distinct and sophisticated culture.

The Khmers - The Khmer Monarchies of South-East Asia also represent a culturally distinct, relatively advanced civ in a region which needs a few more civs

Mali - Africa needs more civs and the Mali empire fits the credentials of a proper civilization

Assyria - The Assyrians were very powerful ancient empire and they help populate the Middle East, which historically was very important.

But please, please, please don't vote for the Celts, Vikings or Byzantines! They aren't real civs and Europe has too many as it is!

So here's my reccommended voting strategy for everybody who wants genuine major historical civilizations and doesn't want Europe to be too overcrowded (remember that means homogenous-looking city styles and leader faces):

Spanish: 5
Inca: 5
Turks: 5
Maya: 5
Dutch: 20
Ethiopians: 20
Portuguese: 20
Koreans: 20
Mali: 20
Assyria: 20
Khmer: 20


I gave the Spanish, Incas, Turks and Mayans only five points because since they are very popular already they didn't need much help staying in the top 16.

Don't let the mindless Vikings and Celts win!

On a completely unrelated topic. Does the little date under everybody's name signify when they joined the forums? If so, that means I joined before the invention of the internet and a good twelve years before I was even born. Cool!
__________________
http://www.cojadate.com/
Lumpkin is offline  
Old September 30, 2001, 22:45   #2
orange
Civilization III Democracy GameNationStatesDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
orange's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: It doesn't matter what your name is!
Posts: 3,601
I definitely agree with voting against the Byzantines, but the Mongols Vikings and Celts? They're certainly respectable civs. Mongols, while militaristic and nomadic, did come to rule most of China and all of Asia for a time period. Any group that can accomplish this is impressive. The Celts give the foundation for Ireland, Scotland, and settled all of the British isles (and most of Western Europe for that matter) before the Romans came to power. Maybe they weren't completely united, but they certainly settled the region and put up a fight against the expanding Romans.

I don't think the Austrians need to be in the game, simply because it would make Europe overly crowded, and they didn't have as big an impact on the world as most of the other civs on there.

Spain not being on there was a real shocker. I think that should be first priority. But I think the Poles and Vikings would help to fill out Europe better.

In Africa, we could use the Ethiopians in the East, and the Mali in the west...but the Assyrians in the Middle East, along with the Egyptians, Babylonians, Phonecians (if not Carthaginians), Persians, and Turks would make the area overly crowded.
__________________
"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
orange is offline  
Old September 30, 2001, 23:24   #3
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Quote:
1) Must have been a unified, organised state.
2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
3) Must have represented a distinct culture.
4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.
5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.
I agree with everything except 1 and partially 4.

Why must a civilization be a unified, organized state? This game is called Civilization, not Countries. There were plenty of civilizations without unified countries for most of its history. Like Greece. It was just a collection of city-states and colonies. After a brief spell of unification under Alexander (and that didn't include Sparta) it rapidly disintegrated again. Yet no one denies that Greece is an enormous important civilization.

Or Germany. For most of its history it was either a collection of little clans (before 800 or so) and then a collection of little cities and kingdoms (800-1800). Yet it has made huge contributions to world civilization.

Thus I have wholeheartedly and without doubt thrown 20 points on the Arabs.

As for point 4. Nearly all civilizations were built on someone else's. If we vote for only the 'original' ones then we'd have Egypt, Sumeria, Hittites, India, China, Olmecs, full-stop. Of course we must draw a line somewhere. For example, i am as horrified as you are that Byzantines is in the top 16. Like hey, what about the Greeks? Aren't the Byzantines basically Greeks with a bit of Roman-ness thrown in?

So my opinion, basically, is:

1) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
2) Must have represented a distinct culture.
3) Must not have been formed as a pure off-shoot of another culture, with basically similar language, politics, and culture.
4) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.

That's why I vote for the Arabs. And I didn't for the Byzantines. Mongols... oh well, it's fun to be militaristic. So although Mongols don't really qualify, i'd love to play it...
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 06:35   #4
Solmyr
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 144
Re: The Educated Civer's Guide to Voting for Expansion Pack Civilizations
Quote:
Originally posted by Lumpkin
I don't see why everybody is so keen on the Mongols. IMHO they were just a very sucessful barbarian horde. They briefly took over half the world, and then immediately collapsed into lots of little, rapidly distintegrating fiefdoms. They didn't found any cities and they didn't lead to any progress.

REPLY: Karakorum, Sarai-Batu, Sarai-Berke are some examples of cities founded by Mongols. And if "collapsing into lots of little fiefdoms" is a basis for not choosing a civ, you might as well get rid of the Greeks, Germans, and Russians.

I also don't think the Celts or Vikings should be civs for the same reason. The Celts is just very loose term used to a very widespread culture which never come close to being united. The Viking is just a word which means "pirate" and applies to two seperate, rival cultures - the Norwegians and the Danes. These cultures formed independant fiefdoms which usually quickly dissapeared so I don't think they can be considered proper civs either.

REPLY: IMO Vikings also represent the Normans, who most certainly didn't "quickly disappear", but actually left a very lasting impression on the history of many countries.
The Celts are most likely meant to represent later countries like Wales, Scotland, and Ireland.

I don't know enough about Arab history to say whether they should be included but as far as I'm aware when people talk of "the Arabs" they are referring to a culture not to any historical, unified empire. So I don't think they should be included either.

REPLY: This really hinges on what you consider a "civ" as included in the game. You seem to imply that a civ should be a distinct country. Whereas IMO a civ in the game is meant to represent a particular culture, regardless of whether if founded one country, many, or none at all.
That said, the Arabs certainly did have a historical unified empire, in their Caliphate which lasted for over 600 years.

The one that surprised me as the Byzantines. They are just the eastern-half of the Roman Empire after it split in two. We may as well have another civilization called "the Roman Empire in the West".

REPLY: The Byzantines may be a continuation of the Roman Empire, but I'd argue that they are a very distinct cultural entity, worthy of inclusion in the game. If you think they are just ancient Romans with a different name, you are quite mistaken.

The criteria I would use for selecting for civs would be:

1) Must have been a unified, organised state.

REPLY: Which the Byzantine Empire certainly was.

2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.

REPLY: I think a better one would be "must be a city-based civilization". Many civs inherited a lot of their cities from earlier ages and weren't engaged in major city building as such. Most particularly the civs in the Mediterranean/Roman empire area (like the French or the Spanish) got most of their cities from earlier rulers of the same area. That would be true of the Byzantines too.

3) Must have represented a distinct culture.

REPLY: The Byzantine Empire did, most certainly.

4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.

REPLY: I'm not sure I agree with this criteria. If you use it you might as well drop the Americans (a political and cultural "offshoot" of the English). The Byzantine Empire formed more as a successor state to ancient Rome than an offshoot. Its political structures were heavily modified, to the point of becoming unrecognizable. And its culture was quite different, as already pointed out. In fact I would argue that the Byzantines were more different from ancient Romans than Americans are from English.

5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.

REPLY: Which the Byzantine Empire certainly did, while civs such as the Iroquois and the Zulus did not.

The Khmers - The Khmer Monarchies of South-East Asia also represent a culturally distinct, relatively advanced civ in a region which needs a few more civs

REPLY: I agree that SE Asia needs at least one civ representing it.
Solmyr is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 06:37   #5
Solmyr
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan

1) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
2) Must have represented a distinct culture.
3) Must not have been formed as a pure off-shoot of another culture, with basically similar language, politics, and culture.
4) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.

That's why I vote for the Arabs. And I didn't for the Byzantines. Mongols... oh well, it's fun to be militaristic. So although Mongols don't really qualify, i'd love to play it...
Just curious, why didn't you vote for the Byzantines if the above 4 points are your criteria? The Byzantines fulfill all of them, even #3.
Solmyr is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 06:57   #6
JellyDonut
Prince
 
JellyDonut's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Köln, Deutschland
Posts: 500
Re: The Educated Civer's Guide to Voting for Expansion Pack Civilizations
Quote:
Originally posted by Lumpkin

1) Must have been a unified, organised state.
2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
3) Must have represented a distinct culture.
4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.
5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.
You voted for Spain. Doesn't that violate #4? They are an offshoot of the Romans. According to these criteria, the French, Iroquois, and Zulus should be out.
__________________
"Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!" -- Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
"If you expect a kick in the balls and get a slap in the face, that's a victory." -- Irish proverb

Proud member of the Pink Knights of the Roundtable!
JellyDonut is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 09:44   #7
Ubik
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Greece
Posts: 67
The term "civilization" is definitely not that strict as to fullfil four criteria. Let's say there about three dozens of criteria and if a certain ethnic group (or whatever) is ok with half of them, it is considered as a civilization.

Under that light - and having in mind what a civlization really is - we have to consider these facts:

- More civilizations have risen in Europe- Middle East area than in the rest of the world.

- The first civs we have some significant evidences of their existence, have formed in the Middle East.

- Asia in general has the lion's share. Between Asia minor and mesopotamia have bloomed half of the worlds civs.

- Europe is second only to Asia. And it has been a ground of radical changes throughout the history - therefor more interesting.

Civ specific:

The Byzantines
Someone else said it already - as long as the Americans are in, why neglect the Byzantines? It is like saying "ok, since the English are in, we don't need the americans". Wrong. The Byzantine Empire was one of the most long-lasting (1100 years) empires (even though it was the Eastern Roman Empire) and had a distinguish (Greek-Orthodox, with strong Roman and eastern influence) civilization.

The Mongols
Pardon, but when talking about the Mongols, we are not just talking about the hordes of Genghis and Kublai Khan. Of Mongol or Mongol/Turkic origin are several nations - just count: Mongols, Kirgiz, Turks, Bulgarian, Abhaz, Kazak, Tazik etc. Not to mention those lost in the history process: Hazar, Avar, Seljuk etc. etc. etc.
And the "genuine" Mongols have had the second largest empire the world has ever seen, second only to the 18th century british empire. And Mongol rulers had power in China and India for centuries.


The Celts
I would agree with your points. Celts are not really an ethnic group or a nation - certainly not a civilization.


The Vikings
I disagree once more. They were a civilization that shaped the form of Europe for a large time span. They invaded both France and England, they ruled those countries, they established kingdoms as far as the Italian peninsula. So, why weren't they a civilization?


The Arabs
Another very distinct civilization. The Arabs had a civ when most Europe was just a playground for sem-barbaric hordes. They had established themselves (in several Khalifats, after the first break up) from the Pyrenee to Hindu river. They were cultururally distinct, build several (marvelous, try to visit some of them) cities, progressed science and literature... And they weren't a civ? Come on, gimme a break


The Ottoman Turks
Another civ that should make the expansion (if any...) just don't abolish the Arabs in favor of the Turks. The only thing they share is the religion - the Arabs are of semitic origin, the Turks of Mongol/Turkic/Turanic.


SE Asia
I do agree that we need at least one more civ to represent that part of the world - and the Khmer with their very interesting history seem just perfect.
Ubik is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 11:54   #8
Patriqvium
Prince
 
Patriqvium's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hysteria Arctica
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally posted by Ubik
The Byzantines
Someone else said it already - as long as the Americans are in, why neglect the Byzantines? It is like saying "ok, since the English are in, we don't need the americans". Wrong. The Byzantine Empire was one of the most long-lasting (1100 years) empires (even though it was the Eastern Roman Empire) and had a distinguish (Greek-Orthodox, with strong Roman and eastern influence) civilization.
The problem with the Byzantines is that the Greeks and Romans (who are already in the game) overlap them quite much by location... and besides, the Renaissance Age Alexander may be dressed like a Byzantine emperor

Quote:
The Vikings
I disagree once more. They were a civilization that shaped the form of Europe for a large time span. They invaded both France and England, they ruled those countries, they established kingdoms as far as the Italian peninsula. So, why weren't they a civilization?
The lack of Vikings in Civ3 was my greatest disappointment... they were fantastic traders, explorers and shipbuilders... besides, the Russians and English are just off-shoots from them.
__________________
Wiio's First Law: Communication usually fails, except by accident.
Patriqvium is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 13:36   #9
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
I have two questions.

1. Is it assumed that we cannot make civs for the game? If we can, then the answer would be all of the above, so why the limit?

2. As far as historical representation, why are some of you keen on having a specific civ that acts in a specific manner? Wouldn't that make Civ3 more predictable to play and thus limit replayability? I'm all of specific historical civs in a scenario, but not for the main game.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 16:00   #10
Lumpkin
Prince
 
Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London
Posts: 571
Quote:
The term "civilization" is definitely not that strict as to fullfil four criteria. Let's say there about three dozens of criteria and if a certain ethnic group (or whatever) is ok with half of them, it is considered as a civilization.
I'm sorry if I was misunderstood but I'm making a distinction between the term "civilization" as defined by the dictionary as "civilization" as defined by what they are in the game. Two very different things IMO. I'm not saying that the Celts or Sioux (and all the others I don't think should be included) wern't civilizations in real life, just that they were not advanced or organised enough to be able to do the things that a Sid Meier civilization has to do - build cities and have one overall leader.

Quote:
Why must a civilization be a unified, organized state? This game is called Civilization, not Countries. There were plenty of civilizations without unified countries for most of its history. Like Greece. It was just a collection of city-states and colonies. After a brief spell of unification under Alexander (and that didn't include Sparta) it rapidly disintegrated again. Yet no one denies that Greece is an enormous important civilization.
Because in Civilization, the game, the civilizations all act like organised, unified states. If they were simply cultures rather than nations than all your cities would start attacking each other and doing exactly as they pleased. The game may be called civilizations but its civilizations all act like united empires not collections of independent states with only culture in common. Many cultures fit the dictionary definition of a civilization, but only unified states fit the Sid Meier's Civilization definition of a civilization.

Also, the fact is that the terms Germany, Italy and so on were solely geographical terms before unification. Before the creation of Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century people thought of themselves as belonging solely to the little region they lived in - Venice or Bavaria for example. Its only because of the relatively recent unifications that we think of them as distinct civilizations.

Quote:
As for point 4. Nearly all civilizations were built on someone else's. If we vote for only the 'original' ones then we'd have Egypt, Sumeria, Hittites, India, China, Olmecs, full-stop. Of course we must draw a line somewhere. For example, i am as horrified as you are that Byzantines is in the top 16. Like hey, what about the Greeks? Aren't the Byzantines basically Greeks with a bit of Roman-ness thrown in?
I don't think I defined "off-shoot" clearly enough. What I mean is a civilization that is a breakaway province. So if one culture founds a big empire, and creates a new province out of lots little states or tribes (rather than conquering an existing state) and then later on that province breaks away and becomes an independant state, then I do not consider that country to be a legible civ3 civilization.

By this definition only the Indians and the Americans would be chucked out. They are both essentially breakaway British provinces. Yes I know there were many highly advanced cultures in India before British conquest India was just just a geographical region (like the Middle East or Europe) with many changing and distinct cultures but no real cohesive identity.

Quote:
You voted for Spain. Doesn't that violate #4? They are an offshoot of the Romans. According to these criteria, the French, Iroquois, and Zulus should be out.
France, England and Spain would all be allowed to stay because they were not formed as breakaway Roman provinces. Both Britannia and Gaul collapsed into anarchy after the Romans left and quickly disintegrated into patchworks of squabbling fiefdoms. When the states of England, France and Spain began to form (a good many centuries later) it was the political structures of the squabbling fiefdoms that formed the new states' own power structures and cultures - dukes, earldoms and feudalism had nothing to do with Roman provinces.

Yes, the Zulus and the Iroquois would also get kicked out of my ideal civ list because they were not city-based cultures.

I would also kick out the Babylonians, not because they don't fit my criteria but because I think the Assyrians would be more appropriate. They lived in the same area in the same epoch but their empire lasted long and was much much bigger.

This is all just my personal opinion, I'm not saying I have the sole true definition of a civilization :P

Quote:
The Byzantine Empire formed more as a successor state to ancient Rome than an offshoot.
I have a problem with this too. Its like having both the Dark Ages Anglo-Saxons and the modern British in the same game. They are both hugely different cultures but there is direct line of continuity between the two so I don't think you can have both of them in the same game. The same goes for the Romans/Byzantines. I think since the Romans were the most important of the two, they should be the ones included.

Quote:
REPLY: Karakorum, Sarai-Batu, Sarai-Berke are some examples of cities founded by Mongols. And if "collapsing into lots of little fiefdoms" is a basis for not choosing a civ, you might as well get rid of the Greeks, Germans, and Russians.
The Russians kept control of their empire for a good 500 years before it collapsed and as far as I know Germany is still in existence. As for the Greeks, yes I agree there is ambiguity there. I would include them though as their empire was far more organised and it was more of a civil war than a complete collapse like it was with the Mongols. The Mongols were good at taking things over and destroying things but they were completely incapable of setting up political structure with the power to control anything more than a small region. The Greeks had that capacity.

Quote:
I disagree once more. They were a civilization that shaped the form of Europe for a large time span. They invaded both France and England, they ruled those countries, they established kingdoms as far as the Italian peninsula. So, why weren't they a civilization?
Like the Mongols, they were incapable of setting up a political structure that could control a decent-sized area. Also, the whole term Viking is very misleading. When people talk about the Vikings, they are actually referring to two distinct culture/races: the Norwegians (or Norse (later Normans)) and the Danes. These two peoples came in seperate waves and fought each other for land. The term "Viking" was coined by their victims and means "pirate". So when people use the term "Viking" they should be aware that what they mean is "Norwegian and Danish pirates of the Dark Ages".

In France, England and Italy I would say that Viking culture was changed more by the cultures they invaded than the invaded cultures were changed by the Vikings.

Quote:
That said, the Arabs certainly did have a historical unified empire, in their Caliphate which lasted for over 600 years.
Okay, I'll go and move my Assyria (I've realised their city list would be identical to the Babylonians) vote to the Arabs.

Could somebody explain to me how get the "original post by..." thing in my quotes?
__________________
http://www.cojadate.com/

Last edited by Lumpkin; October 1, 2001 at 16:39.
Lumpkin is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 16:08   #11
orange
Civilization III Democracy GameNationStatesDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
orange's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: It doesn't matter what your name is!
Posts: 3,601
If you do not acknowledge the influence of the Arabs over the middle ages, than you fail to understand history itself. The arabs are an EXCELLENT civ choice. However, we must be careful not to clutter the Middle East with Egypt, Assyrians, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Hebrew, Phonecians, Iranians, Babylonians, etc. etc. etc. If so, make many of them the same "color" so that there would be a game with maybe the Babylonians as opposed to the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phonecians, and Arabs.
__________________
"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
orange is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 17:24   #12
St Leo
Scenario League / Civ2-CreationApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
St Leo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In search of pants
Posts: 5,085
I don't know enough about Arab history to say whether they should be included but as far as I'm aware when people talk of "the Arabs" they are referring to a culture not to any historical, unified empire. So I don't think they should be included either.

Lol! The Umayyad and the Abbasid dynasties ruled a vast empire stretching from Spain to Persia.

1) Must have been a unified, organised state.

Yep.

2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.

Cairo.

3) Must have represented a distinct culture.

Yep.

4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.

They weren't. BTW, the Byzantine culture/political structure was different from the Roman one.

5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.

Yep.
__________________
Blog | Civ2 Scenario League | leo.petr at gmail.com
St Leo is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 17:56   #13
Lumpkin
Prince
 
Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London
Posts: 571
Arabs rock
okay! okay!

I have changed my vote to give 20 points to the Arabs!

I'm still not convinced about the Byzantines though - for the reasons explained in my last post
__________________
http://www.cojadate.com/
Lumpkin is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 18:25   #14
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Judging from all these posts, i see that there are basically 4 types of civs:

1. important blocs
chinese, indians, arabs, egyptians, british, french, russians

2. 'off-shoots'
americans, byzantines

3. hordes of barbarians
vikings, mongols

4. local civs
khmers, iroquois, zulus


1. important blocs. imo all these should be the first ones into civ. and lumpkin: india is too important to be left out. since we need a civ to represent india, why not just indians?

2. no one seems to dispute americans. as for byzantines... it just doesn't feel right to have romans, then greeks, then byzantines. they overlap far too much. Like, should we vote for Olmecs, then Aztecs, then Mexicans?

3. vikings and mongols were hordes of barbarians. they conquered everything in their path... and quickly were assimilated. They flashed up with brilliance and quickly disappeared. That is not a civ in my eyes. For reasons of fun-ness i'd include them, but for historical accuracy, i would not.
And ubik: mongols certainly do not include the turks, bulgars etc. That's like saying the Spanish include the French.

4. local civs: generally used to fill up a geographic area. I'd personally choose the siamese/thais for south east asia. They were a dominant culture, and still are.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 18:36   #15
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
Fill up a geographical area?!? Sure, most will try playing on a world map once in a while, but don't you think that most of the regular games that will be played will be on a random map? So why even talk about geographical locations in which civs should or shouldn't be there?
Steve Clark is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 19:14   #16
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
it doesn't matter whether it's a random map or not, people just want a bit of variety. they don't want every civ to be from europe or east asia.
why then is there an iroquois or zulu civ? why is everyone talking about filling up s.e. asia with the khmers or thais?
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 20:51   #17
JellyDonut
Prince
 
JellyDonut's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Köln, Deutschland
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
no one seems to dispute americans.

You're new, so I'll let it slide.

Quote:
it doesn't matter whether it's a random map or not, people just want a bit of variety. they don't want every civ to be from europe or east asia.
why then is there an iroquois or zulu civ? why is everyone talking about filling up s.e. asia with the khmers or thais?
Agreed. All the natives of the Western world get 2 civs to represent them, and only one for Africa, the other 13 being European/Asian as it is. If the Iroquois and Zulus were taken out, we would have only 1 non-Eurasian civ (the Aztecs)!

You can't ignore an entire HEMISPHERE just because those civilizations didn't build cities. Look up civilization in the dictionary; you will se nothing about cities. This mentality is not far off from the colonial missions of European nations in America and Africa, who thought that the natives were 'uncivilized' and thus the justification for pouring upon them Christianity and European culture.

The Iroquois didn't set up cities because of one simple reason: they didn't own the land. It is a rather ethnocentric idea to believe the Iroquois had the same concept of land ownership as the Europeans. They didn't. They believed the land was open to anyone who wanted to use it and if someone else drove them out of there, it was not wrong for them to just use it. They did not draw boundaries like "okay, here is Iroquois land and here is Huron land".

So don't punish the Iroquois; they didn't do anything to you!
__________________
"Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!" -- Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
"If you expect a kick in the balls and get a slap in the face, that's a victory." -- Irish proverb

Proud member of the Pink Knights of the Roundtable!
JellyDonut is offline  
Old October 1, 2001, 22:54   #18
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Had the Iroquois been living on Britain and the Anglo-Saxons living in North America. We'd have the Iroquois colonizing North America and the world language that we'd be typing in would be iroquois.

As for the part about the americans... oh well..... :embarassed: but we won't see the americans being taken out of civ any time soon.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 2, 2001, 00:48   #19
Akron
Prince
 
Akron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally posted by Lumpkin


I don't think I defined "off-shoot" clearly enough. What I mean is a civilization that is a breakaway province. So if one culture founds a big empire, and creates a new province out of lots little states or tribes (rather than conquering an existing state) and then later on that province breaks away and becomes an independant state, then I do not consider that country to be a legible civ3 civilization.

By this definition only the Indians and the Americans would be chucked out. They are both essentially breakaway British provinces. Yes I know there were many highly advanced cultures in India before British conquest India was just just a geographical region (like the Middle East or Europe) with many changing and distinct cultures but no real cohesive identity.
Um... no.

Saying that the Indians are a breakaway province of Britain is like saying that France is a breakaway province of Germany just b/c of occupation during WWII. The English never came close to assimilating India, so it never really more than a colony. Nor did the English found India. The Indians maintained their own culture all along. Anyway, the Indians have existed for several thousands of years.

As for the Americans, just accept them as a civ. They are here to stay.
Akron is offline  
Old October 2, 2001, 04:58   #20
Solmyr
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 144
Quote:
I have a problem with this too. Its like having both the Dark Ages Anglo-Saxons and the modern British in the same game. They are both hugely different cultures but there is direct line of continuity between the two so I don't think you can have both of them in the same game. The same goes for the Romans/Byzantines. I think since the Romans were the most important of the two, they should be the ones included.
If you can have Romans and French in the same game, you can have Romans and Byzantines (or British and Anglo-Saxons). Just think of Romans as the Western empire before its collapse in this case (not that such historical thinking is really important in an unhistorical game like this).
Besides, I'd argue that modern British are more French Normans than Anglo-Saxons Or more appropriately a mix of everything.

Quote:
The Russians kept control of their empire for a good 500 years before it collapsed and as far as I know Germany is still in existence.
I was talking about their medieval states, just like you were talking about Mongols. After all, Mongolia is also still in existence.

Quote:
As for the Greeks, yes I agree there is ambiguity there. I would include them though as their empire was far more organised and it was more of a civil war than a complete collapse like it was with the Mongols. The Mongols were good at taking things over and destroying things but they were completely incapable of setting up political structure with the power to control anything more than a small region. The Greeks had that capacity.
The ancient Greeks never had a major empire controlling anything more than a small region, aside from one Alexander conquered (and he was a Macedonian, which is not strictly the same as Greek). That empire collapsed after his death. On the contrast, the Mongol empire endured for quite some time after Genghis Khan's death: Kublai Khan ruled all of China and Central Asia late into the 13th century; The Golden Horde in the western steppes persisted for 300 years before completely collapsing. If you also consider later developments, the name of Tamerlane pops up; his empire was not long-lived but significant nonetheless, in that it nearly eliminated the Ottoman Turks. The Moghul emperors of India were also Mongol, and their empire was around for almost 300 years. True, the Mongols were best at conquering existing states and imposing their rule on them, but then again the Romans did exactly the same.

Quote:
Like the Mongols, they were incapable of setting up a political structure that could control a decent-sized area. Also, the whole term Viking is very misleading. When people talk about the Vikings, they are actually referring to two distinct culture/races: the Norwegians (or Norse (later Normans)) and the Danes. These two peoples came in seperate waves and fought each other for land. The term "Viking" was coined by their victims and means "pirate". So when people use the term "Viking" they should be aware that what they mean is "Norwegian and Danish pirates of the Dark Ages".
Which is why I vastly prefer the name "Normans" Not only did they set up their own distinct states in Normandy and Sicily, but it's arguable that the entire subsequent history of Russia and England (at least) was shaped by them.

Quote:
I don't think I defined "off-shoot" clearly enough. What I mean is a civilization that is a breakaway province. So if one culture founds a big empire, and creates a new province out of lots little states or tribes (rather than conquering an existing state) and then later on that province breaks away and becomes an independant state, then I do not consider that country to be a legible civ3 civilization.
Well, that would still leave out the Americans, as well as a lot of European civs who succeeded Rome
Seriously though, while one might consider the early Eastern Roman empire a part of Rome (though hardly a single province), later on it definitely becomes a separate state.
You might as well consider the French and the Germans the same civ, since the French basically "broke away" from the medieval Holy Roman Empire.

Quote:
I would also kick out the Babylonians, not because they don't fit my criteria but because I think the Assyrians would be more appropriate. They lived in the same area in the same epoch but their empire lasted long and was much much bigger.
I don't know about that. Babylon had at least two major empires, under Hammurabi and under Nebuchadnezzar. The second one was in fact created upon the dying corpse of the Assyrian empire.

Their city lists don't need to be the same. There were enough cities in Mesopotamia to give them both big enough lists.
Solmyr is offline  
Old October 2, 2001, 07:41   #21
Ubik
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Greece
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan

And ubik: mongols certainly do not include the turks, bulgars etc. That's like saying the Spanish include the French.
No, no, no, definitely not. Turkic tribes share excactly the same heritage as Mongolic tribes. It is not like "Spanish include the French", it's more like "Greek include the Spartan".

You'll have to look up some ethnology history about the Turanian steppes and upper Mongolia, but that is precisely where both (later distinct) ethnic groups come from.

Do not mess todays Turks (actually, as every other nation nowadays, an amalgam of diferrent ethnic groups united under a single culture) and Mongols with what we'd call "Turkic" or "Mongolic" in the first millenia AD.

The first "nation" coming from the steppes are the Huns - allthough, they pose a ground for debate for the ethnologists, because noone can with certainity call them "Mongolic" or "Kaukasian".

But after that, it is quite clear that the Mongolic tribes (Hazar, Avar, Bulgar) are precisely that - Mongolic tribes. And the Turkic tribe (originally just another mongolic tribe) discented and formed another ethnic group.


Another point (by Solmyr, who otherwise seems to know quite a bit about history) about wether Alexander and Macedonia were or not Greek "strictly".

Well, the Macedonian civilization was a Greek civilization. Macedonian aristocrats took part in the Olympic games (and that was the ultimate proof for the Greek-ness of one, because only Greeks were accepted in the Olympics) Alexander was calling himself "Greek", he spoke Greek and he was acting in the name of the Greek city-states, besides of his own kingdom (see the agreement formed between Alexander and every city state of Greece after the ransack of Thebes).

Additionaly, the kingdoms that have been formed upon his death (and they lasted from 100 years to 300 years - they didn't vanish on impact, dear sir) were called "hellenistic". Hellines is the Greek term for "Greek", you know...

So, why wasn't he "strictly Greek"? Could you elaborate more?
Ubik is offline  
Old October 2, 2001, 16:28   #22
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Quote:
No, no, no, definitely not. Turkic tribes share excactly the same heritage as Mongolic tribes. It is not like "Spanish include the French", it's more like "Greek include the Spartan".
The French and the Spanish have a common Roman heritage too, just like the Turkics and the Mongolics sharing a common Altaic heritage. However, that does NOT make the Mongols and the Turks equal to, or part of, each other.

Do you understand? French is to Spanish as Turks is to Mongols. And Turks is to Mongols are Athenians is to Spartans. Mongols do not include Turks. Mongols come from the same heritage as the Turks. That heritage is an Altaic heritage, which includes the Kazakhs, Chuvash, Kirghiz, Uighurs, Manchus, etc.

And as for the Macedonians, the Greeks basically considered them to be barbarians, one notch lower than Greeks. They were not considered to be on the same footing, as, say, Athens, or Sparta, or Corinth. However, the Macedonians tried to be Greeks and adopted Greek culture. That's why they spoke Greek and passed a Greek, or Hellenistic heritage to the Middle East.

Last edited by ranskaldan; October 2, 2001 at 16:34.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 2, 2001, 17:58   #23
JellyDonut
Prince
 
JellyDonut's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Köln, Deutschland
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally posted by Lumpkin

But please, please, please don't vote for the Celts, Vikings or Byzantines! They aren't real civs and Europe has too many as it is!
Quote:
Spanish: 5
Dutch: 20
Portuguese: 20
Care to explain?
__________________
"Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!" -- Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
"If you expect a kick in the balls and get a slap in the face, that's a victory." -- Irish proverb

Proud member of the Pink Knights of the Roundtable!
JellyDonut is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 04:14   #24
Solmyr
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Ubik
No, no, no, definitely not. Turkic tribes share excactly the same heritage as Mongolic tribes. It is not like "Spanish include the French", it's more like "Greek include the Spartan".

REPLY: Mongolian and Turkic tribes may share the same heritage, but they were quite different. In fact for a long time the Mongolian and Turkic tribes of the steppe were bitter rivals.

Well, the Macedonian civilization was a Greek civilization. Macedonian aristocrats took part in the Olympic games (and that was the ultimate proof for the Greek-ness of one, because only Greeks were accepted in the Olympics) Alexander was calling himself "Greek", he spoke Greek and he was acting in the name of the Greek city-states, besides of his own kingdom (see the agreement formed between Alexander and every city state of Greece after the ransack of Thebes).

Additionaly, the kingdoms that have been formed upon his death (and they lasted from 100 years to 300 years - they didn't vanish on impact, dear sir) were called "hellenistic". Hellines is the Greek term for "Greek", you know...

So, why wasn't he "strictly Greek"? Could you elaborate more?
As Ranskaldan pointed out, Macedonians were not ethnically "Greek" like, say, the Athenians were. Eventually they adopted Greek culture and language (having conquered most of Greece), so I guess in that sense you could consider them to be "Hellenic". Which only shows that it's difficult to accurately name a civ and assign a consistent leader to it
Solmyr is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 07:56   #25
Ubik
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Greece
Posts: 67
Ranskaldan and Solmyr

Wrong, both. And on both aspects. Ranskaldan, Turks (the Turks of that time we are talking about, ok?) and Mongols (of the same time frame) were of the same origin, you agree on that.

What has this to do then with Spanish and French comparison? It was a poor one, the least to say. Spanish derive from Hiberic, Roman, Celtic, Gothic and some minor local tribes, with strong Arabic and Hebrew influences. French derive from Gaul, Frankish (mainly) Normandic ancestry, with Roman influences...

So, where is the valid comparison???

And about the Macedonian-Greek thing... that is utterly wrong... Where to start from?

The Greeks thought of the Macedonian as barbaric? LMAO, yeah sure... that is why the Macedonian took part in the Olympics from 450 BC. Perhaps do you know that noone that wasn't Greek was accepted into the Olympics? Yes?

Macedonian were of Greek origin, but in the bounds of their kingdom lived some other tribes. Macedonian (as any decent archeologist and linguist can tell you) are basicaly of Dorian origin (the same as Spartans... does that ring a bell?) but subjects of the King of Macedonia were some Molosses (they lived in the ancient Hepirus) Illyrians (in the same place) and Thraceans (they lived, as the name can tell you, in ancient Thrace).

All those ehtnic groups have adopted much from the Greek way of life and tradition (as Greece was the dominant culture at the time in the region) but they weren't Greek.

On the contrary, Macedonian were definitely Greek, and you can look up any decent history book in the Western World, to prove my saying.

So, please, next time you say things like that, try to have it doublechecked and don't just say things that have no basis or historical documentation, just a twisted effort of some "historians" (being on the payroll of some local governments) to prove that Alexandar was of... slavic origin

Yeah, the same way Pythagoras was of Turkic origin (yes, the very same people who state that Macedonian were not Greek, state that Pythagoras and Asklipios and Hippocrates were Turks...)
Ubik is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 13:49   #26
Lumpkin
Prince
 
Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London
Posts: 571
JellyDonut,

I'd be delighted to explain. While I am very reticent to include more European civs since there are already so many, I felt it would just be criminal to ignore the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch given the immense impact on world history they have had. IMHO there are no such compelling reasons to justify relatively minor European civs like the Poles, or European cultures with somewhat dubious claims to be proper civs like the Vikings, Celts and Byzantines when we could have much more diverse civs with firmer claims to being proper civs from neglected regions like Africa and the Orient.


Solmyr

Quote:
If you can have Romans and French in the same game, you can have Romans and Byzantines (or British and Anglo-Saxons).
I don't see why. France grew up in the early centuries of this millenium from a variety of competing little fiefdoms with political structures that did not originate from Roman political structures. It did not inherit its authority from Rome in the way that the Byzantines did.

Quote:
You might as well consider the French and the Germans the same civ, since the French basically "broke away" from the medieval Holy Roman Empire.
I only consider civs illegible if they broke away from another CIV. And I don't consider the Holy Roman Empire a proper civ. It never had any real, effective power and was used mainly to make dominant kings look more impressive and try and boost their power.

Quote:
On the contrast, the Mongol empire endured for quite some time after Genghis Khan's death: Kublai Khan ruled all of China and Central Asia late into the 13th century; The Golden Horde in the western steppes persisted for 300 years before completely collapsing.
Okay I think you've just convinced me on that one. As with the Arabs, I will no longer be upset if the Mongols remain in the top 16. I'm still sticking to my guns on the Byzantines, Vikings and Celts though

Quote:
Which is why I vastly prefer the name "Normans" Not only did they set up their own distinct states in Normandy and Sicily, but it's arguable that the entire subsequent history of Russia and England (at least) was shaped by them.
I can cope with Normans, its just the term "Vikings" I don't like. I still wouldn't want the Normans included though as I think their role in history still isn't important enough to justify yet another European civ.
Quote:
You might as well consider the French and the Germans the same civ, since the French basically "broke away" from the medieval Holy Roman Empire.

Akron,

Quote:
Saying that the Indians are a breakaway province of Britain is like saying that France is a breakaway province of Germany just b/c of occupation during WWII. The English never came close to assimilating India, so it never really more than a colony. Nor did the English found India. The Indians maintained their own culture all along. Anyway, the Indians have existed for several thousands of years.
I wasn't talking about Indian culture, but about the existence of India as a constitutional entity. Think about it, what was "India" before British colonization? It was simply southern central of Asia, containing a huge variety of very diverse cultures and controlled by a variety of different kingdoms, none of which ever suceeded in uniting the entire subcontinent.

The word "India" was tagged on to this region behind Europeans while the borders of this region were only formalised when the British found their expansion checked by the Russians to the north and Afghanistan (now there's an idea for a new civ ) to the west. Remember that the Native Americans are called "Indians" because Colombus thought he had arrived at the east coast of the vast, vaguely-defined region the Europeans' called "India". The people who used to live in the country (let alone the region!) certainly did not think of themselves as Indian. They would have held loyalty to whichever of the many cultures and kingdoms they felt they belonged to.

What language do you think the Indians use in their national governmental and legal system? Indian? It doesn't exist. The only language they can use is English because it is the only language uniting their vast subcontinent. A national Indian consciousness only emerged under British rule as they began to seek greater and greater degrees of self-government. I should add that this movement was led by British-educated intellectuals.

So I don't think its too far-fetched to say that the origin of India as a state and as a single, distinctive culture is as a break-away province of the British Empire! I'm not saying that to try and denigrate India or anything, I'm just saying that India existed before British colonisation only in the same way that Europe exists today - a geographical region populated by a variety of different states and cultures. The same argument applies to Germany and Italy before their own unifications.
__________________
http://www.cojadate.com/
Lumpkin is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 16:15   #27
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
You don't get it do you, Ubik?

Mongols - Altaic heritage, with strong influences from Siberian and Chinese sources.
Turks - Altaic heritage, with strong influences from Siberian, Chinese, Caucasian, and Indo-European sources.

in the same way:

French - Roman heritage, with strong influences from Celtic and Frankish sources.
Spanish - Roman heritage, with strong influences from Celtic, Moor, Visigothic, Phoenician and Hebrew sources.

See the parallel????

Thus, your idea that Turks shouldn't be in civ if Mongols are simply doesn't stand. It's like saying the French shouldn't be in if the Spanish are.

As for the Macedonians, they were Doric like the Spartans, yes.... they were ethnically Greek.... but the perception of them by mainstream Greeks was that they were barbarians.

As for the part about Alexander being Slavic and Hippocrates being Turkic, the Slavs were in Eastern Poland at the time and the Turks were in Central Asia.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 19:39   #28
orange
Civilization III Democracy GameNationStatesDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
orange's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: It doesn't matter what your name is!
Posts: 3,601
Quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
The French and the Spanish have a common Roman heritage too
Not quite. The Franks were Germanic. The Spanish are Gothic and Latin.

Quote:
just like the Turkics and the Mongolics sharing a common Altaic heritage. However, that does NOT make the Mongols and the Turks equal to, or part of, each other.
Closer than the French and Spanish. It really is like making Athenian and Spartan when you could just say "Greek"

Quote:
Do you understand? French is to Spanish as Turks is to Mongols.
True. However, the Huns and other central asian tribes are similar to the mongols.

Quote:
And Turks is to Mongols are Athenians is to Spartans.
So with this logic, coupled with the logic above, Athenian is to Spartan as French is to Spanish? Hardly.

Quote:
Mongols do not include Turks. Mongols come from the same heritage as the Turks. That heritage is an Altaic heritage, which includes the Kazakhs, Chuvash, Kirghiz, Uighurs, Manchus, etc.
So they are the same but they're not. Sort of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square? Where are you going with this?

Quote:
And as for the Macedonians, the Greeks basically considered them to be barbarians, one notch lower than Greeks. They were not considered to be on the same footing, as, say, Athens, or Sparta, or Corinth. However, the Macedonians tried to be Greeks and adopted Greek culture. That's why they spoke Greek and passed a Greek, or Hellenistic heritage to the Middle East.
I would put them in with the Greeks, even if they weren't technically part of the same culture...in the same way that I would throw the Huns in with the Mongols because they are central asian tribes that came in to Europe.

There's a difference between making a "Turkic" civ and a civ called the "Turks". However, I suggest we have neither.
__________________
"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
orange is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 20:44   #29
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Quote:
Not quite. The Franks were Germanic. The Spanish are Gothic and Latin.
The inhabitants of Roman Gaul and Spain were Roman and the invading Franks and Goths simply melted into it. The modern French and Spanish are of Roman heritage, with Frankish and Gothic influences.

Quote:
Closer than the French and Spanish. It really is like making Athenian and Spartan when you could just say "Greek"
Are you kidding? The Mongols and Turks are as distant as, say, Hebrew and Arab, or Celts and Romans. They lived on completely different parts of central Asia.

Quote:
True. However, the Huns and other central asian tribes are similar to the mongols.
Central Asia was not a huge glob of similar-looking tribes. That's like saying all American Natives are the same. Or all Europeans. Or all East Asians.

Quote:
So with this logic, coupled with the logic above, Athenian is to Spartan as French is to Spanish? Hardly.
I'm just using this example to illustrate that the Mongols and Turks do not include each other. Athenians and Spartans are subsets of Greek. French and Spanish are subsets of modern Romanic, or Romance. Mongols and Turks are subsets of Altaic.

Quote:
So they are the same but they're not. Sort of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square? Where are you going with this?
No, no. The Turks and Mongols don't include each other at all! They are completely separate.

Quote:
I would put them in with the Greeks, even if they weren't technically part of the same culture...in the same way that I would throw the Huns in with the Mongols because they are central asian tribes that came in to Europe.
The Macedonians and Greeks are all "basic-Greek", in that they spoke Greek and so on. But as I said, the Central Asian tribes weren't similar to each other at all. They had completely different histories, conquered different lands, spoke different languages and had different customs.

Quote:
There's a difference between making a "Turkic" civ and a civ called the "Turks". However, I suggest we have neither.
I gave 20 points to the Turks, if nothing else, because of the Ottoman Empire, which, in addition to conquering most of the Middle East and ruling it for 300 years, also offered a standard of life rivaling that of the Europeans until well after the Industrial Revolution.
And the modern Turks are the descendents of the Turkics.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old October 3, 2001, 22:15   #30
DarkCloud
staff
NationStatesAlpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamApolyton Storywriters' GuildAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
DarkCloud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:58
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Deity of Lists
Posts: 11,873
Quote:
quote:

1) Must have been a unified, organised state.
2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
3) Must have represented a distinct culture.
4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.
5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.
Vikings had all this, except, perhaps #1 because of their tendency to be many splintered tribes.
----Cities, It could be argued that the Vikings built Volodymyr, north of Moscow. Other words: Trodnheim? Oslo? ... Viking cities, no?
3.) Very distinct culture... TRUE.
4.) They didn't inherit much.
5.) They conquered half of Europe, traveled to America, traded to Byzantium, conquered RUS, conquered Britan, etc. etc.

Quote:

The Iroquois didn't set up cities because of one simple reason: they didn't own the land. It is a rather ethnocentric idea to believe the Iroquois had the same concept of land ownership as the Europeans. They didn't. They believed the land was open to anyone who wanted to use it and if someone else drove them out of there, it was not wrong for them to just use it. They did not draw boundaries like "okay, here is Iroquois land and here is Huron land".
They didn't build any cities because they didn't have the means- they may have built teepees and longhouses, but since there was no mortar, some people don't consider it a city... Everyone may have owned the land, but each indian owned their home-
__________________
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
DarkCloud is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team