No Spanish Civ????

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Martinus
At the same time neither Germany nor Russia existed as unified nation-state, not to mention Americans, Greeks, Zulu or Iroquis. I can not comprehend why some people are so fixed about nation states here - formation of nation state was a step in civilization development.

Not so in the case of Spain or the Americans. Many different civilizations had settled there, and only AFTER they were united they began to form their own, separate civilization.

The fact that Spanish civilization was not pretty has nothing to do about them being civilization all right. Do you wish to exclude any civilization doing not pretty things from the game

No, the point was that it explains why Spain was not interested in technological development.

The fact is Spain has a major impact on the world, they still exist and have a culture different enough from say Germans, French or English to be considered a separate civilization (culture which comprises not only of Spain, but South America and Mexico to say the least).

Of course Spain had impact and it's a separate civ, but the question was whether it should be included in the top 16. I simply think the contribution to human civilization of the English, the French, the Germans and also the Dutch was greater.

Let's just say that calling Machiavelli a Spaniard shows a lot about your knowledge of history and what you are talking about.

Ouch! Made a mistake in my notes.
It has no bearing on the rest of my post though (now edited).
Actually this proves my point even more, the only famous scientist mentioned in connection to the Spanish empire was some Italian who admired the Spanish court.

Inquisition in the 18th century? Get real. Or better yet, get a history book.

Real enough!

"A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834."

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus71
South America, Central and north America (up to half the current united States, California, New Mexico, and for some time Lousiana), Philippines, most of the coast of Africa and India (specially while peninsular unification), half Europe, and many pacific islands, are 4% of the world?. It´s not a question of opinion, is a measurable matter.

But while Spain had a military presence in these parts (in some cases: waged continous war), most of these regions were never fully integrated into the empire, in the sense that a colonial government was established that effectively handled the daily affairs AND was loyal to the crown. Much unlike how the English and the French ruled their empire. (Btw HALF of Europe? Tell it to the Russians, the Vikings, the English, the Austrains, the Turks, ... )

The Moors were not defeated by the French to save Spain. Spain was "recovered" by spanish christians in a very long process (7 centuries) called "Reconquista"

Read some history books!

Spain has a scientific base in the South Pole, called "Juan Carlos I", and its present in the Antartic Teatry. What about Holland?.

Holland is only a part of The Netherlands (2 of 12 provinces).
While AFAIK the Dutch don't have their own permanent base on the South Pole, they participate fully in the research.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus71
Guess is difficult to explain, but I mean that the spanish empire has allways legitimated its expansion. Before the colonization of the americas, Spain obtained an offcial document of papal blessing. Colonization and conquering of the aztec and inca empire was not an invasion .... unarmed spanish missionaries went to the tribes to spread christianism .... and quality of personal sacrifice in the name of God. That´s why I said colonization has some honourable "purpose".

That presupposes that the Christian (read: Catholic) faith was more civilized than the existing local religion. Form a neutral point of view, there is no way you can call this a "honourable purpose".

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Alfonsus71
National State means something like modern state, in opposition to old feudal kingdoms. Its the first step for a nation to inititate its expansion. While most Europe were old feudal territories, Spain, England and France were national states.

On the contrary, exactly these three countries were typical Feudal states where the local aristocracy controlled their own militia and collected taxes. In fact remnants of Feudalism can still be found in these countries today.

It also was the Spanish aristocracy that took control of the seized territories in the Americas, and ruled their private property rather independently as the Spanish crown failed to supervise.

[Alfonsus71]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Holland is only a part of The Netherlands (2 of 12 provinces)

Sorry, I did a bad translation, in spanish the Netherlands are called "Holanda".

Originally posted by Ribannah
(about the inquisition)
This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834."

It´s true that the spanish inquisition survived till the early XIX. Our liberal constitution of 1812 abolished it, but an army from the Saint Alliance (all the countries you consider more advanced than Spain at the time), called the 100,000 sons of Sant Louis, restored the absolute monarchy and the inquisition in 1823.

Spanish inquisition is surely a bad thing of our past, but has been vastly exagerated by propaganda. The frenchs killed more people in a couple of days (the hugonots massacre) than the spanish inquisition in all its history.

Many anglo-saxon, german and dutch people here negate that Spain has had influence in history. You must now that your protestant religion in its different shapes (anglicans, lutherans, calvinist) was created and imposed by the german princes and Henry VIII as a tool to opose to the spanish rule of Europe, blessed by the Pope. So see how little importance have had Spain in history, that without Her you wouldn´t have your devoted, let´s say, religion.

Is it so hard for you to simply accept that Spain was really important in the past?

[Alfonsus71]

Originally posted by Ribannah


That presupposes that the Christian (read: Catholic) faith was more civilized than the existing local religion. Form a neutral point of view, there is no way you can call this a "honourable purpose".

I don´t mean that catholicism were better than local religions, all deserve the same respect. I mean than going to the new world to peacefuly spread an ideal that you believe is the right one, as missionaries did, is much more etical than going there to kill the natives and expoil their lands, as most empires have done. And you can´t find a case like those of the spanish misionaries in any empire among history. Can you?. Even now, americans and NATO don´t send emisaries along the world to spread democracy, they simply support those dictatorships that they are interested in and bomb from the air those who are against its interest.

[kittenOFchaos]

Oh...what are they inventing in the south pole? an underwater helicopter maybe? A death trap perhaps, but he is the foremost mind of our generation!

What great Spanish comedians are there? This isn't arrogance...but you don't get jokes in all those history books I am reading

Concerning the British commonwealth...the point is that virtually all our past colonial possessions are in it, indicating clearly that they wish to retain ties with Britain (mainly economic) and that the countries parted on good terms...as for the new leaderships they were in a majority of the cases English educated.

As for well developed ex-british colonies...the white dominions certainly are well developed (hey canada), the whites in SA did ok...India is the worlds highest population democracy (a legacy of british rule) and the ex-patriot farms a la' Zimbabwe generate most the wealth in their countries (now MUG is causing trouble the Zimbabwe health service has now the lowest efficiency rating in the world, the economy has gone to crap...when he previously took lands from the white farmers he gave them to his cronies in high office...now it is merely his desire to hold power by any means). In ww2 the self ruled white dominions ALL provided troops to help Britain (from day 1)...THEY didn't have to but the blood link was there and the political ties were there.


As for this thread, the point is that with only 16 slots in the main game there is a choice to be made...and someone in fraxis made it with the Spanish. I personnally would have not had the zulus, nor the americans and the iroquis would have to ask permission. Distinct civilisations are what matter more and ones whose importance over a long time period. Western european civilisations get unfair representation as they exterted themselves over the rest of the world (and the game doesn't allow for transition of empires...)...

Fraxis have obviously sought to limit the number of civs whose geography overlapped...thus we are missing the ottoman as their geography overlapped with the greeks...we are missing the celts as they covered most of europe with their culture (civ2 had them as welsh? CARDIFF???? -the celts are fighting in greece
To win a place in the game, importance, distinctiveness (the british legacy HAS shaped the world MANY times greater than the spanish...as the British LEFT a legacy and in 1812 the treaty of Ghent secured peace with the USA that has not been unbroken since between America, Canada and Britain...3000 miles of unmanned frontier!...a frontier a line on the map!). Had Spain been capable of colonisation, with instituations to RUN an empire except by the threat of force PLUS some science (I blame the papacy) then maybe spain could have fought for a place in civ3's 16.

The arguements should rage over the inclusion of the Zulus (why are THEY IN? above so many other african civilisations...) and the americans (for them recreate the breakaway of colonials in the game). The japanese are in the game...yet their influence was RATHER minor till this century (due to cutting themselves off!) BUT they at least can point to a distinct racial context and civilisation.

Could Spain really consider themselves more important than the Arabs that brought islam alive and kicking to the middle-east, northern africa and the frontiers of europe? That is the level of competiton in terms of justifying your inclusion.

As for Harlan...do you want me to post my quaifications to post? jeez...what are yours! I design scenarios??? (admittedly wonderful...did you see my edited version of your "lord of the rings" scenario?...had it so you could play both rohan and gondor...rohan as A.I didn't help vs mordor...try it...it is probably easier to hold gondor in my version, but the ringbearer has it harder...my brother also worked it that gollem was vital!).
Unless we start putting up qualifications etc instead of merely a ranking on post number then the comment you made was vain and frankly wrong.


As for the reality moders, your mods will be chosen how people WANT to view the history they place in...the civ3 game is a take it or leave it to a greater degree...which is a more accurate version...neither as transition, death and rebirth or civilisations is not present and can't be (unless a "history of the world" type mechanism was introduced.)

[Tingkai]

repeat message

[Tingkai]

repeat message

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos

As for well developed ex-british colonies...the white dominions certainly are well developed (hey canada),

Canada is most certainly not a "white" dominion. Canada prides itself on being a multicultural society of all races. I also dislike your implication that economic development is limited to former colonies ruled exclusively by white people. Hong Kong is doing quite well without the Brits. Please keep your racist adjectives to yourself.

[Harlan]

Kitten,
I don't know why all of the sudden you're going off about me complaining about you. I haven't even posted in this thread for a while, and I haven't mentioned you by name yet. You are of course free to post whatever you please, and so is anyone else. Its certainly not my position or anyone else's to deny freedom of speech. But just the same, we're also all entitled to disagree with comments anyone else makes.

As a matter of fact, I do disagree with some of yours. When you say things like the Spanish were "grimy EVERYWHERE they went without exception" or that the Spanish were not "capable of colonization", I'm going to disagree with that. Let's try to keep this discussion civil, base arguments on facts, and not say things that might be construed as racist.

Yes, the Spanish did some incredibly evil things as colonizers at times, probably worse than some other countries' colonial efforts. But what does that have to do with anything? Just about every civ either in the game or being bandied about for possible inclusion did horribly cruel things at one point or another. Should we limit the civs in the game to only "nice" ones, and leave out the Aztecs, Mongols, Vikings, and British?

(The last is a bit of a joke, since you seem to like the British so much, especially the white ones)

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
No, the point was that it explains why Spain was not interested in technological development.

Is interest in technological development instrumental in determining the civilization? That's why not all civilizations get "scientific" ability. Besides is a caravel or a globe not enough as a technological development for you?

Of course Spain had impact and it's a separate civ, but the question was whether it should be included in the top 16. I simply think the contribution to human civilization of the English, the French, the Germans and also the Dutch was greater.

But not Zulu and Iroquis. Still dont get me wrong. I am not saying any of the 16 civs should go. Just that Spanish should have been in as well (I got an impression you believed to the contrary).

Ouch! Made a mistake in my notes.
It has no bearing on the rest of my post though (now edited).
Actually this proves my point even more, the only famous scientist mentioned in connection to the Spanish empire was some Italian who admired the Spanish court.

As a matter of fact he was admiring Borgia court in Italy.
But it doesnt matter - Spanish had many great painters, writers etc. It is a fact their culture was (and is) really religiously oriented, but so what: let's give them "religious" ability.

"A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834."

Sorry my mistake.
Anyway, I do not like Spanish style very much myself (but Aztecs or Hindu were much more cruel in their religions). The fact I do not like it does not prevent their culture to be one of the most influential in the world. Much more than Zulu, Japanese or Iroquis (but I think including those civs was justified as well) for that matter.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Martinus
As a matter of fact he was admiring Borgia court in Italy.

As a matter of a fact the Borgias (original name: Borjas) were Spanish too. But, anyways, Machiavelli also admired greatly the Spanish court and the diplomatic ways of Ferdinand the Catholic King were repeteadly praised and taken as an example by him in The Prince.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Fiera


As a matter of a fact the Borgias (original name: Borjas) were Spanish too. But, anyways, Machiavelli also admired greatly the Spanish court and the diplomatic ways of Ferdinand the Catholic King were repeteadly praised and taken as an example by him in The Prince.

I DO know Borgias were Spanish
Yet Cesare and Lucretia were born in Italy and only ethnically half-Spaniards. Machiavelli was admiring Cesare, as he served as original "Prince".

As for Ferdinand, I read Il Principe (I admit a while ago), but I do not remember many references to the Spanish King - then again my memory may be failing on that one.

My point was: Spanish do not have to resort to Machiavelli, who was Italian, to show they had great minds in their civilization. I think we both agree on this.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Martinus
Is interest in technological development instrumental in determining the civilization?

It is an important part of a civ's contribution to human civilization as a whole.

Besides is a caravel or a globe not enough as a technological development for you?

The Caravel was invented long before there was a Spanish civilization. I don't know what you mean by "a globe", but major work on this subject was done by the Flemish (ie Dutch civ) scientist Mercator. The dateline was later discussed by French and Flemish/Dutch scientists, but the Arabs were already aware of the concept several centuries earlier.

But not Zulu and Iroquis. Still dont get me wrong. I am not saying any of the 16 civs should go. Just that Spanish should have been in as well (I got an impression you believed to the contrary).

I put the Spanish in the second batch of 16. I agree with you about the Zulus, they should be replaced with the Ethiopians. But a case could be made for the Iroquois inventing (modern) Democracy which had a great impact on the world.