No Spanish Civ????

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Since I am not British, I won't accept the blame
But the fact that others behaved badly, too, is never an excuse for your own mischief.

By the way, I never said that there was no civilization in Iberia before the Spanish. There was civilization in Italy, too, before the Romans. They just weren't Romans.

I dont care what you are Ribannah, (though you did excuse yourself from blame for US atrocities against Indians because it took place after independence - i hope you're not one of that minority of Canadians who take credit for the good things Britain has done, but shift blame for the bad things)


Spain from 600 AD to 1492 not only had a civilization, it had one that was continous with later Spanish civ. Answer me - do you think that medieval Castile was Spanish or not?

LOTM

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont care what you are Ribannah, (though you did excuse yourself from blame for US atrocities against Indians because it took place after independence - i hope you're not one of that minority of Canadians who take credit for the good things Britain has done, but shift blame for the bad things)

I excused the British, not myself, I was not around at the time .....
And please LOVE THE CANADIANS!! They are GOOD people!!

Spain from 600 AD to 1492 not only had a civilization, it had one that was continous with later Spanish civ. Answer me - do you think that medieval Castile was Spanish or not?

I guess I have to say no. I wouldn't count Gelre as early representatives of "the Dutch civilization" either, nor München as early representatives of "the German civilization". Of course it is always somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line, but I think it makes sense to view Castile as ancestors of Spain, together with Navarre, Aragon, Seville, Cordoba and Granada. Otherwise I would feel like ignoring the importance of the union. This is just to clarify, naturally you can use your own definition, all the way back to Asturias & Galicia in the case of Spain if you so desire.

El Awrence: trade between colonists (after stealing from the natives) and homeland is not the same as trade between colonists and natives.
Spain did not "settle the Americas". Spanish settlers built some towns, mostly coastal, in some parts of the Americas - as did settlers from many other civilizations. Later, once independent, descendants from the original settlers occupied parts of the vast inland. In "Latin America", even today the native population still holds large areas.

Martinus: more than 90% of the slave trade was done by the British.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Martinus: more than 90% of the slave trade was done by the British.

I have absolutely no idea where you got that statistic from. It must be focussing on something specific like importation to North America. Slavery was extensively practiced by many nations in history.

[Harlan]

Sigh, I don't know why I'm writing this, its indeed like trying to argue with a wall. But I hate to see more inaccuracies perpetuated.

The "second to none" Dutch indeed have many accomplishments, but a good colonial record is not one of them. Look at Indonesia (formerly the Dutch East Indies) - far and away their major colonial effort. They ruled there with a ruthlessness and utter disregard for human life that would have made the the worst Spanish colonial governors proud.

For instance, shortly after the Dutch conquered the Banda Islands, they decided to kill off the entire population. All 15,000 of the Bandanese were murdered in 1621, because of fears that someone would smuggle off some of the spices and weaken their monopoly. The Bandanese race and language was completely wiped out, thanks to this move. Interestingly, the Spanish, Portuguese and English also held spice islands in the East Indies in the 1500s and 1600s, but only the Dutch had genocidal policies there. The population of the Spice Islands (Maluku) slowly but steadily declined until around 1800, when the spice monopoly was finally broken (and the Dutch stopped ruthlessly exploiting the area). The decline was because the local people were literally worked to death or starved to death slaving for the Dutch.

As the Dutch tightened their control over other parts of the archipelago, death also followed in their wake. One dissident Dutchman wrote a book called Max Havelaar in 1860, documenting the incredibly cruel, corrupt and despotic rule of the Dutch over the Javanese. It caused quite a sensation back in the Netherlands, but didn't lead to significant improvements for the colonized. Interestingly, the British were much more liked by the locals for their more benevolent rule under Governor Raffles during the Napoleonic Wars.

As a general rule, the local population was only educated to the bare minimum level for locals to take up some of the skilled jobs lacking Dutchmen to fill. In 1945, the Dutch failed to see how hated they were by the local populace, and fought a five year war trying to keep the East Indies a colony. Their poor colonization record left Indonesia hard pressed to deal with independence. For instance, upon independence it turns out there was only 1 person in the entire country with a degree in Economics.

I'm not even gonna comment on Ribannah's insistence that the Spanish civ would only begin with the Castilians, except to point out that Firaxis considers the Bablyonians to include the Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Hittites, Kassites, Assyrians, Arameans, and Chaldeans as well, and the Egyptian civ to have continued after the Greeks conquered it. By those loose standards, the Spanish civ can easily trace back to the Tartessians, especially since only 50,000 Visigoths and the same number of Arabs/Moors ever moved to Iberia.

There are so many other inaccuracies by and disagreements with Ribannah I could contest, from the Spanish empire covering only 4% of the world's land to the British responsible for 90% of the slave trade, but there are limits to how much I can bang my head against a wall.


P.S.- kittenofchaos, you can't be all bad if you like Red Dwarf!

[Dr. Nick]

Ribannah, the Spanish established many important cities in the mainland. Just to name a few, Potosi, La Paz, Sucre, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba, Posadas, Formosa, Asuncion, San Rafael, Mendoza, San Juan, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca... I can continue listing is I pull out a map of Latin America.

They DID settle, for the simple reason that the laws in Spain prevented any other offspring other than the eldest son from receiving any inheritance, America was colonised by segundones and adelantados, men with no inheritance who could make fame and fortune in America, and there were lots of Spanish settlers.

Also, other nationalities arrived in Latin America only after 1880, and mainly to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Ribannah, the Spanish established many important cities in the mainland. Just to name a few, Potosi, La Paz, Sucre, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba, Posadas, Formosa, Asuncion, San Rafael, Mendoza, San Juan, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca... I can continue listing is I pull out a map of Latin America.

Jeez. I said MOSTLY coastal. Those towns you mention are up river from the coast and therefore the obvious exceptions. Sucre was called Chuqisaca at the time btw, I don't think the Spanish settlers had the foresight to call it after the later general of the revolt.

Also, other nationalities arrived in Latin America only after 1880, and mainly to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

Don't be stupid. How about North America, which you also claimed to have been "settled by the Spanish", and where did you put the Portuguese, English, French and Dutch who all arrived on the Atlantic side of South America?

"The first Dutch expeditions to the Guiana region took place in 1597–98, and
the first Dutch colony, on Essequibo Island in present-day Guyana, was founded in 1616. The Dutch West India Company was founded in 1621 to exploit the territory. The Dutch hold on the east coast was interrupted by English and French attacks and by a slave insurrection (1762–63). The Treaty of Breda gave all English territory in Guiana to the Dutch, but in 1815 the Congress of Vienna awarded the area that is now Guyana to Britain while reaffirming the Dutch hold on Dutch Guiana (present-day Suriname). The Netherlands granted Dutch Guiana a parliament in 1866. ..."

But even in Latin America, you forgot the import of the Africans. The Caribbean, too, saw many other civilizations arrive other than the Spanish. But why don't you try and find the facts yourself for a change.

Harlan: you are absolutely right about the Dutch in the Indonesia area. They should have stuck to what they knew best (ie trade with the natives) there, too. About the time span of the Spanish (or any other) civ: I already said that you can make your own choice. It is not a matter of right or wrong, if I gave you that impression I apologize. I would like to hear your criteria. About the Atlantic slave trade: why don't you look it up yourself before you accuse someone of "inaccuracies", there are plenty of sources on the WWW.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Before I forget, here is a link to Astronomy in Leiden which I think could give you some insights. Remember, this is just one university.



Please read with me: "Some places had fewer trials than others. In the Dutch republic, no witches were executed after 1600, and none were tried after 1610. ... In England the death penalty for witchcraft was abolished in 1736."

So basically witch hunts by the Dutch, while already few, disappeared with the Spanish influence.



That's English, not Dutch. But you're confusing "witches" as picked out by the superstitious with the real thing.

Edit: and the "Malleus maleficarum" was written in the 15th century, in Germany.

Leiden University rulez!

[Xuenay]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


I do not fully agree with you. Though the fun factor is certainly important, I think you can't deny that part of Civ's attraction lies in its 'real-world, real-history' setting. I would definitely appreciate the game less if it was completely fantasy. Like the childish "televangelist" unit in CtP, which was in bad taste IMO.

So, in a way, the historical/realist value of Civ *is* important.

Sure, it's one thing if they say that the Pyramids were built with the help of the people from Mars and that the Bavarian Illuminati controls the U.S. economy, but I don't think that the selection of nations will ruin the realism half as much...

[Dr. Nick]

From those towns I mentioned, only Asuncion was up a navigable river. And, don't try and change the argument by being a smartass with what name Sucre had before it was renamed.

Also, the Spanish settled LATIN AMERICA, which is what I said. A much bigger area than the Eastern seaboard of North America, the antilles that were not spanish and the guyanas.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Martinus: more than 90% of the slave trade was done by the British.

Much of the early slave trade was done by the portuguese, who soon were challenged by Spanish, British and especially dutch. Among the dutch slave traders there was a good number of jewish traders who fled to the netherlands after being expelled from Spain and later Portugal.

[Ribannah]

Also, the Spanish settled LATIN AMERICA, which is what I said.

No they didn't, and it's not what you said either:

Originally posted by El Awrence
On another hand, answering to your point about conquest not being part of a civilisation, the Spanish were much more successfull at expanding their culture around the globe. Spanish settled the Americas, whereas from other "empires" settling was a minor issue. Jesuit missions and conversions were much more massive than those of the other European missionaries in Asia and Africa. Thus, I believe they have earned their place amongst the British, Germans, Greeks, French and Romans.

From those towns I mentioned, only Asuncion was up a navigable river.

Sure. And your point is?

A much bigger area than the Eastern seaboard of North America, the antilles that were not spanish and the guyanas.

Right. Canada and Brazil are of course real tiny as well.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Much of the early slave trade was done by the portuguese, who soon were challenged by Spanish, British and especially dutch. Among the dutch slave traders there was a good number of jewish traders who fled to the netherlands after being expelled from Spain and later Portugal.

Seems like the distaste for facts is spreading.
I had expected more from you, Wernazuma III!

"The part of the Treaty which gave "unqualified and unanimous satisfaction at home" was the "Assiento" compact, whereby England secured from Philip, in accordance with the practice of the Spanish Sovereigns referred to above, an "absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish Colonies." The monopoly was conferred by the British Government upon the South Sea Company. The "immense amount of guilty wealth acquired through the 'Assiento' Treaty did much to compensate for the great pecuniary sacrifices of the war." The generation which concluded it came to regard the "extension of the slave trade as a capital object of English commercial policy," and it became the "main object" of national policy to "encourage the kidnaping of tens of thousands of negroes and their consignment to the most miserable slavery." In fact the Peace which brought a precarious and short-lived truce to Europe, brought war, war of the most atrocious and desolating character, and on a scale until then unimagined, to Africa, and "made of England the great slave trader of the world."

[Dr. Nick]

Jesus, the only point I'm trying to make is that the Spanish have as much right to be on that list as any other European colonial power. And should therefore be included in the first place.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Spain from 600 AD to 1492 not only had a civilization, it had one that was continous with later Spanish civ. Answer me - do you think that medieval Castile was Spanish or not?

Originally posted by Ribannah
I guess I have to say no. Of course it is always somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line, but I think it makes sense to view Castile as ancestors of Spain, together with Navarre, Aragon, Seville, Cordoba and Granada. Otherwise I would feel like ignoring the importance of the union.

Sorry, Ribannah, but I don't understand that kind of logics. Let's put it the easy way, huh? Look:

All Castilians are (were) Spanish, but not all Spanish are (were) Castilians.

Same goes for medieval Aragón, or medieval Navarre. They were all part of the Spanish culture or Spanish civilization. It's not a matter of where you draw the line, it's just a matter of knowing what you're talking about, or not knowing at all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah


I excused the British, not myself, I was not around at the time .....
And please LOVE THE CANADIANS!! They are GOOD people!!


.

I have met some Canadians I adore. I have met some Canadians who were nasty. And I have met some Spaniards I like very much. I hope you take my point.

LOTM