One quick point about the Chinese Civ

[mfauzi]

I think the leader for the chinese should be qin shihuang. After all, he did unify china and introduced the unified writing for the chinese. And he was the first emperor of the whole of chinese. Besides, having somebody who's name means "king" would be weird in Civ III. Would other people call him "King King"?

Anyway, I think the golden age for the chinese should not be set in mao's era. Should be somewhere much longer in the past. And this would make them not millitaristic, but Scientific and Commercial (they traded a lot with the arabs, indo-chinese, the malays and many others)

Oh, and IMO, america's great leader should be Roosevelt!

[ranskaldan]

Qin Shi Huang is ok, I guess, though I'd still prefer someone from one of China's Golden Ages, like Emperor Tang Taizong.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Real? How real?
The first Chinese writing appeared during the Shang dynasty, which is about one thousand years later than the life of Huang-di.

First of all just because there wasn't any writing didn't mean automatically the oral traditions were complete myths. Just look at the city of Troy for example. It was also thought to be fictional until found.

There's much to be said about oral traditions, the one important thing is you have to be very careful with them.

Secondly, AFAIK writings goes much further back.

Originally posted by ranskaldan
The only archeological evidence that's contemporary to Huang-di are neolithic remains, and there is no way anyone can prove from these ruins that 5000 years ago the Chinese were led by Huang-di, or whether there was a Huang-di, or whether there was a Chinese race 5000 years ago.

Are you sure?

Archaeologists looked at historical records and found things that match remarkably with them, things such as villages and burial sites. There are other evidence, from geography and linguistic studies, for example.

I have a semi-academic work on this just sitting around under this mess somehwere

Originally posted by ranskaldan
they sound exactly the same. The Chinese word for emperor is Huang Di.

Both characters can mean "emperor."

[ranskaldan]

First of all just because there wasn't any writing didn't mean automatically the oral traditions were complete myths. Just look at the city of Troy for example. It was also thought to be fictional until found.

There's much to be said about oral traditions, the one important thing is you have to be very careful with them.

Secondly, AFAIK writings goes much further back.

Until evidence is found, we must assume everything is fictional. That's because oral traditions are hugely undependable, and for every one ounce of truth there's a ton of myth. Greek and Norse mythology are all oral traditions. Does that mean you have to believe them wholesale? Of course not.

Archaeologists looked at historical records and found things that match remarkably with them, things such as villages and burial sites. There are other evidence, from geography and linguistic studies, for example.

I don't see how villages, burial sites, geography or linguistics help to confirm the existence of a semi-fictitious king called Huang Di who is only attested in records 1500 years after his supposed existence.

Both characters can mean "emperor."

I think we're talking about the other 'Huang Di' the Yellow Emperor who supposedly lived during something like 3000BC.

[ranskaldan]

To clear up the confusion of the name Huang Di:

There are two words in Chinese pronounced Huang-Di.

The first is the word for emperor. It is a compound word, Huang-di. Huang means emperor and di also means emperor. Added together, the whole thing emphasizes the emperor's position and glory.

The second word is the name of an ancient king, supposedly the first king of China. Here the Huang means yellow, while the di still means emperor. So it's 'Yellow Emperor'.

[dexters]

Part of the problem is the need to be politically correct.

The fact of the matter is, while many of the civs had great Female leaders, most of them pale in comparison to the achievements of their french counterpart.

France for example. Charlamange and Napoleon are more deserving than Joan

Elizabeth for England is a sound candidate mostly because of the Elizabethan dynastic myth and legend surrounding her.

Catherine is very arguable. She might have been a strong leader, but Peter did more for Russia

and I agree 100% with your choice of Chinese leader.

For Japan, Tokugawa is a solid choice. He was an ally to Oda Nobunaga, one of the feudal lords trying to unite Japan under one rule. When Oda committed seppeku (suicide) in the face of a rebellion from his trusted general it was his loyal second in command Hashiba Hideyoshi who took revenge and carried on Nobunaga's Ambition. When Hideyoshi, himself an elderly man, passed a few years later, it was Tokugawa, leader of a neighboring fiefdom allied to Oda who completed his quest and united Japan under the rule of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

the rest, I have no qualms with.

[Dr. Nick]

dex, I still think that Meiji Mutsuhito had more merit to be included, aided by the ignorance on the time period from Japanese history. Meiji impulsed the reforms that turned Japan from a feudal state into a modern world power up to par with nations like Britain and Germany.

To a certain extent, Tokugawa and Meiji put together were the Bismarcks of Japan, but I think that the latter had more credit in terms of achievement.