What constitutes a great civ?

[GeoModder]

I don't know. Today Australia is one of the few places left in the world with an abundance of the resources necessary for a modern culture. Perhaps, as you say, it all has to do with the lack of population to need larger political entities, and so less change for technological 'development'.

[SCUrfer]

The Koori weren't a civillization because they didn't build cities. Doesn't mean they didn't have an impressive culture, but no cities=no civillization. And no, that's not narrowminded, it's simple etymology. The word means something like "in service to the city" in Latin. You cannot be in service to the city without cities. In Civ game terms, they are goodie huts, not even barbarians.

I don't believe there is any proof that the Chinesse had serious contact with Australia. That 1424 book is a load of bull, from everything I've seen. Too many holes, Chinesse scholars who aren't hostile to the thesis think it's incorrect. The Malay might well have known about them, though. The difference is that the Europeans are the first ones to decide that Austrailia had anything worth taking.

[GeoModder]

Did the Mongols, the Vikings and the Celts had cities then in your opinion?

[SCUrfer]

Nope. I don't think they should be in either. Barbarians, all the way. Though I always played the Vikings in Civ II.

[Zoid]

Viking did have cities! Famous ones, like Birka, Hedeby, Kaupang and Staraja Ladoga. And let´s not forget that the Viking founded the first Irish cities such as Dublin, Waterford and Limerick.

[SCUrfer]

True enough, I suppose you could count the Vikings then.

The Mongols only ever had encampments or captured cities, though. They would best be simulated by a beefeed up barbarian system, honestly. And the Celts never really had a system of cities, either. They also could be accurately simulated by dense settlement of barbarians. Maybe it would be best if Barbarian tribes developed technologically and built higher pop. densities over time, so you could actually have regions crowded with minor civs like the Celts.

[GeoModder]

Cities, or villages?
Buy I guess the viking tribes became the Swedish and Danish kingdoms with all that came with that, and as such are entitled to be called a civ.

[Zoid]

Viking cities were never very large, I think the largest one was like 3000 people. But they were still cities, with everything cities have in them...

[GeoModder]

3000 inhabitants was not bad in the early middle ages.

[Zoid]

No, but nothing compared to Rome or Athens. But then again big metropolii were scarce at this time...

[alva]

What constitutes a great civ?

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/220_good-1.shtml

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/220_good-2.shtml

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/220_good-3.shtml

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/220_good-4.shtml

Why keep reinventing the wheel while the definitive one is in the shops already.

Surprised our good friend hasn't dropped by yet..frogs aren't usually known for their modesty, maybe he was hoping someone else would post the links.

[Zoid]

Well, we´re discussing various real life civs and not the game as such.

[LDiCesare]

Celts had many cities too. Bibracta, Lutetia, Lugdunum, Condate in Gaul for instance. Budapest was initailly a celtic city (named Ak Ink) too.

[Vince278]

A "Great Civ" would stand "The Test of Time". In our history China would be first, possibly followed by Egypt.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GeoModder
If having building cities in history is a prerequisite for being considered a civilisation in civ, then I wonder what Zulu's, Celts, Vikings, mongols and probably some more like that are doing in the game.

Well the Vikings did found cities in Ireland- Dublin, Limerick, Wexford, Cork, Waterford- first founding longphorts, or fortified raiding camps, which of course happened to be in bays or on navigable rivers.

They also managed to establish an integrated trading sytem which stretched from Greenland to Baghdad, enter the Varangian guard of the Byzantine emperors, establish a Norman dynasty in France and England, and a Norman kingdom in Sicily- and raid from the west of Ireland to North Africa and Italy.

They were literate peoples with a great literature, and stunning metalwork and created a hybrid Viking-Celtic artistic style.

The Celts in Gaul almost got off the ground with oppidas, but Roman militarism put paid to any Celtic city building there. However, scratch a Roman city site in England, or south Wales, or France, and you'll find a site sacred or of strategic interest to the Celts- such as Lugdunum, named after the Celtic god Lugh, and now Lyon.

Celtic sites associated with the salt trade across Europe usually are associated with cognates of words for salt, such as Hallstatt, Hallein, Salzburg and Alesia.


As for what constitutes a 'civilization', there was a conflict in ancient times between settled 'city' builders and the mobile nomads- from Iran, China, Greece to the Middle East.

It doesn't mean that the peripatetic peoples didn't have a civilization, it just means they didn't have the kind of civilization most of us are used to.

The Mongols did indeed build 'cities'- Sarai and Kara Korum, for instance:

The Mongols, like the other peoples of Central Asia, used large tents and yurts. According to thirteenth-century reports, there was a gigantic yurt in Mongolia, built on a cart, to which 22 bulls were harnessed. Traces of many towns and settlements have also survived, however, the most striking example being the old Mongol capital of Karakorum. This was a large city boasting 12 temples of different religions (including Buddhism), the palace of Ögedey Khan and residential quarters around the central trading area; we have a description of it from the only known European traveller who visited it, William of Rubruck.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/asia/html_eng/chapitre4216/chapitre12.htm