Would you enjoy Civ less if your home civ was not in?

[AeonOfTime]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh, pull the other one- it's less of a nation than Brittany- or Haiti .

I must confess this whole Nation thing confuses me a little... I often heard references to the Indian nation (meaning the native americans), but do they have their own government? I know they have representatives in the government - but then I must admit I have absolutely no knowledge on them.

However, I believe they ARE a nation - they have been around for a long time and have always sticked together, forming a coherent group. They have a distinct identity. Strangely this can also be said of the quebequois, but it sounds funny to refer to a quebequois "nation".

... would anyone care to enlighten me on what defines a nation?

[clausewitz]

I think you still keep confusing the words 'state' and 'nation'. State is a form of organisation whereas nation has to do with common culture, language etc.

Thus there can be one nation in one state (like France), several nations in one state (like Spain) and of course one nation can be spread over several states (like the Russians).

States change quickly whereas nations remain constants throughout history.

Québec is a nation but not an independant state and the question whether it is a nation or not is IMO absolutely indebendent of the federal organisation of the Canadian state.

[AeonOfTime]

Ok, so what defines a nation is really the common idendity of a people.

Which also means that in the beginning, Québec was still a part of the french nation until their identity as a people evolved into a separate nation sharing a common language (well, sort of anyway) but not the same culture.

Which in turn leads me to asking at which point you can really start calling a group of people sharing the same culture/language etc. a nation? I know there are no rules like, say, 1000 people can make a nation - but nevertheless, there has to be a staggering number of nations then...

[Blake]

I'll enjoy Civ4 a little less if New Zealand isn't on the world map. But I just play random maps all the time anyway....

[Niptium]

When a good portion of the people of a cultural identity start to refer to themselves as different and new entity - it's a good sign. For that matter - I think the nationhood of the Québécois apeared rougly at the same time as the american one - although the later has already won it's independance.

Like most of the concepts of social science - nationhood is a blurred line. Because a political canvas may have as a politic to create a national sense to it's diverse cultural and national entities. That's called nation building. Some are very successfull at it. Look at how Italy got into one nation... but there was several nationalities before it even got at a state level...

Canada is in the same process - that's why you see some national crisis - because the Canadian nationbuilding tends to collide with the already vigourous Québec identity... That,s why there is a strong secessionist movement...

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Nikolai


No, they were not. We had the hopeless and unhistoric name "Scandinavians" instead. I never liked that, if they are to make a civ out of us, why not do it right?

WRONG!! They are called Vikings in Civ3, not Scandinavians.
It's like this:
noun: Vikings
adjective: Viking
country name: Scandinavia

Scandinavia makes more sense than "Vikingland" or something like that in my opinion.

[Gangerolf]

I'm disappointed that the Zulus aren't in this time. Not because they are "worthy" of being labeled a civilization, but because they've been in every other Civ game and I them.

[Footie Mad]

Yes the warmongering Zulus with their massive amount of warriors in Civ 1 are sorely missed.

[Freddz]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Oh, I would definitely. As Gustavus Adolphus or Karl XII- Swedish 17th and early 18th Century history was a favourite part of my school studies.

With Oxenstierna you would get a sound administrator and with Adolphus a military genius- that would be a powerful combination for Civilization games.

I actually agree. Sweden would be very warlike under those kings. Karl XII "the madman" and Gustav II Adolf "the military genius" would make great kings in a swedish civilization. Vikings are actually lame as they don't really have had any great conquerer.

I could reccomend "Poltava" by Peter Englund as one one of the best history books ever written when it concerns the coming of a battle. Poltava was the battle when Sweden lost its power as a force to be reckoned with in Europe and Karl XII was beaten badly by Peter the Great.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1860648479/qid=1129823347/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-7092705-5539129?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

What makes Poltava unique as a book is that it actually has a very live air about it to read. It's almost as if you are there at times, and Englund based his material largely on correspondance (real letters) from the participants of the war.

On a sidenote, I do not care much if Sweden is with as a civ as I'm not much of a patriot/nationalist and I feel Sweden as a modern nation feels a bit too peaceful. But if it is ever included in CIV 4, those two are the kings to include, not the rediculous Vikings.
Btw, Vikings didn't even have horns on their helmets.

[Freddz]

Actually I see the title is a bit different than Poltava in english:

"The Battle That Shook Europe: Poltava and the Birth of the Russian Empire"

[AeonOfTime]

@Freddz: Btw, Vikings didn't even have horns on their helmets.

But they had berserkers and axes, which is quite enough for my standards

On a sidenote, how come the Vikings still have that image of only being a band of plunderers that terrorized the english coast? There was much more to them than that...

[Gangerolf]

yeah they terrorized the irish and french coasts too

[Verenti]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime


But they had berserkers and axes, which is quite enough for my standards

On a sidenote, how come the Vikings still have that image of only being a band of plunderers that terrorized the english coast? There was much more to them than that...

Isn't it obvious from the language you're writting in? It's Because the Anglo population rules the world! AH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA!

Ahem.

Honestly don't know.

[ghen]

I think that the larger the country you're in, the more culture you already have. That means you'll care less whether the country is in a game or not. Smaller countries are just happy when their country name is on anything and with a game like Civ they finally get their chance.

Its the same thing in my home state.. Delaware is so diminutive (2nd smallest state, smallest in pop.) that everyone here is pissed when we're excluded to the likes of New York and California. Its totally irrational of course, but we just can't help it

[spa]

There is a strong nationalism in Quebec and I don't think it's a question of a Quebecois nation existing. Canada's problem is that since Trudeau, English Canada has come to hold a civic nationalism centred around multiculturalism, bilingualism, equality and the charter of rights. For many English Canadians this has meant that Quebec is part of a Canadian nation. You can see this in the fact that English Canada doesn't even know what to call itself without Quebec. English Canada doesn't really fit and is a tad dated given the shifts in immigration patterns and ROC (rest of Canada) is just a stop gap measure. English Canadians simply haven't concieved of themselves as anything, but Canadian and for them Canadian includes Quebec. It's made things doubly difficult because when Quebec asserts its nationalism it challenges Canadian nationalism directly. Furthermore, English Canadians see Quebec nationalism as a slap in the face since they feel that they've been very generous in accomodating Quebec.

And this is where I think Quebeckers really misunderstand English Canada. If separation comes it won't be pretty. English Canada will be furious at the rejection and the perceived lack of gratitude. This will force English Canadian leaders to take a hardline or, if they don't, the following election will bring a hardline party to power. It seems to me that Quebeckers in general think that if separation happens it'll be a calm affair in which both sides negotiate calmy and rationally. They think that they'll get to keep their passports, the Canadian dollar, membership to NAFTA (for what that's worth these days), economic arrangements etc. They'll be in for a rude awakening. I just hope it doesn't happen. I think we would be nuts to break up the good deal we have going.

The one other thing that is interesting in the national mess that is Canada is English Canada's own regionalism. I'm originally from Atlantic Canada, but I'm living in Alberta right now (for school) and I can say Maritimers and Newfoundlanders have a definite identity as do Albertans, Saskatchewaners and British Columbians. It's only Manitoba and Ontario that don't seem to have conflicting loyalities to the Canadian state.

-Sam