No Spanish Civ????

[kittenOFchaos]

The Trojan horse

Praise to the victims...woohoo! victims are great!


No people are exempt from committing atrocity...some just were more capable...

Mourn the loser Aztecs...who sacrafically killed thousands of prisoners (including 3/4s of Cortes troopers that had been invited in by Montezuma)...

The english and spanish are not exceptions, merely they had the opportunity and motivation to stay out of the victim camp.

The saying is beware Greeks bearing gifts...as red dwarf puts it "beware Trojans, they are complete and utter smegheads"

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Neither do I, Grim Legacy, there would hardly be any tribe left!

It is, however, relevant to point out the differences between the Spanish and other empires. Just making a claim to the Pope and raiding a territory apparently made the Spanish empire look larger and more important to some, compared to the colonial governments as established by the English and the trading posts of the Dutch. It helps explain why Spain was not included.

Hehehe true!

I can't help but notice though that you mention the Dutch quite often. Certainly, the british achievements are at another level than those of the Dutch. Could it be that there is a *slight* bias involved there as well?

[Xuenay]

People, people, people. You're forgetting something important.

This isn't History Simulator 3000 With Politically Correct Countries. This is Civilization III. A computer GAME. A game that has been made for the sake of fun, not historical accuracy. Sure, the Civ Team is doing some research on some of the civs they're gonna include to add some more flavor to the game, but that's it. Myself, I couldn't care less about how the civs going into the game were chosen. Quite probably the Civ Team picked the ones they were most biased for, added a few others for marketing reasons, and chose the rest at random. Not fair? Of course it's not fair. Civ 2 wasn't very politically correct, either - monotheism was considered a more "advanced" religion than polytheism, and fundamentalist governments got away easier from terrorism because everybody expected them to act dirty. Were the riots on the streets because of that? Did people boycott MicroProse, did people say that all the fun in the game had been lost due to this? Of course not.

Same thing with Civ III. It's quite likely to be historically inaccurate (at least in some fields), and politically incorrect. Get over it. It's just a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you want historically correct, ask Sid Meier to make his own version of Encarta.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Xuenay
People, people, people. You're forgetting something important.

This isn't History Simulator 3000 With Politically Correct Countries. This is Civilization III. A computer GAME. A game that has been made for the sake of fun, not historical accuracy. Sure, the Civ Team is doing some research on some of the civs they're gonna include to add some more flavor to the game, but that's it. Myself, I couldn't care less about how the civs going into the game were chosen. Quite probably the Civ Team picked the ones they were most biased for, added a few others for marketing reasons, and chose the rest at random. Not fair? Of course it's not fair. Civ 2 wasn't very politically correct, either - monotheism was considered a more "advanced" religion than polytheism, and fundamentalist governments got away easier from terrorism because everybody expected them to act dirty. Were the riots on the streets because of that? Did people boycott MicroProse, did people say that all the fun in the game had been lost due to this? Of course not.

Same thing with Civ III. It's quite likely to be historically inaccurate (at least in some fields), and politically incorrect. Get over it. It's just a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you want historically correct, ask Sid Meier to make his own version of Encarta.

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.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Certainly, the british achievements are at another level than those of the Dutch.

Absolutely not. The British had (and have) far more citizens than the Dutch, hence they were - eventually! - able to control more overseas territories. And yet, the Dutch ruled during the entire 17th century. Not unchallenged, but the British lost when they waged war on the Dutch, even when they called in the help of the French and several German allies.

As for achievements other than conquest, the Dutch made major contributions to every single technological advance, as well as to all kinds of art, and work by Dutch engineers can be admired all over the world. Today the Dutch still rank among the top 10 economic powers in the world. They are second to none in many fields besides trade, such as; agriculture, engineering, communication, education, astronomy, economics, chemistry, democracy, social security, logistics, ecology, sanitation, and have the world's largest harbour.

More importantly, the Dutch civilization differs from others, as they based their expansion mainly on trade (and settlement by farmers in empty lands), instead of military conquest. They were, for instance, the main trading partner of the Iroquois. While the French stumbled from one war into another, the Dutch and Iroquois were always at peace.

The Dutch had freedom of religion right from day one.

[Waku]

Originally posted by several posters
It's only a GAME.

Teletubbies, snorkles and the seven dwarves should be in (4 the sake of fun )

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah

As for achievements other than conquest, the Dutch made major contributions to every single technological advance, as well as to all kinds of art, and work by Dutch engineers can be admired all over the world. Today the Dutch still rank among the top 10 economic powers in the world. They are second to none in many fields besides trade, such as; agriculture, engineering, communication, education, astronomy, economics, chemistry, democracy, social security, logistics, ecology, sanitation, and have the world's largest harbour.

SECOND TO NONE? Really, I have seen many examples of illusioned nationalist statements, but this is simply ridicuolous. Although, that Dutch base on the moon, that makes Dutch "second to none" is astronomy, is impressive, to say the least.

More importantly, the Dutch civilization differs from others, as they based their expansion mainly on trade (and settlement by farmers in empty lands), instead of military conquest. They were, for instance, the main trading partner of the Iroquois. While the French stumbled from one war into another, the Dutch and Iroquois were always at peace.

Yes, the Dutch were very good at trade. For example in slaves. How humane...

The Dutch had freedom of religion right from day one.

So WTF there is a big weighting house in Amsterday, where they used to weight the witches before burning them. You call THIS freedom of religion?

Sorry, but however much I like the Dutch, your claims are simply ridiculous. It seems from them the Dutch were the first driving force in the world-wide, not to mention European culture.

[Jay Bee]

Grim: BINGO!!! The mask finally fell off...


PS. Louis XIV, king of France, why were you called Roy Soleil?

[Ribannah]

Guys, do some reading before you comment. You are awfully ignorant.

Martinus, witches were only burnt (in the Dark ages) when they weighed less than 20 pounds, otherwise they were thrown in the river to see if they floated, which was apparently more fun. What this has to do with religion escapes me, however.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Guys, do some reading before you comment. You are awfully ignorant.

Martinus, witches were only burnt (in the Dark ages) when they weighed less than 20 pounds, otherwise they were thrown in the river to see if they floated, which was apparently more fun. What this has to do with religion escapes me, however.

Contrary to the urban myth, most witches were not burnt in the Dark ages, but in the 16th and 17th century. This is the time the "Malleus Maleficiarum" was written, BTW.

And if you can not draw a line between religion and witch burning - well, I am sorry.
Without even divulging into a discussion about witches being actually a religion, where do you think "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live" come from?

[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.

Originally posted by Martinus
Contrary to the urban myth, most witches were not burnt in the Dark ages, but in the 16th and 17th century. This is the time the "Malleus Maleficiarum" was written, BTW.

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.

And if you can not draw a line between religion and witch burning - well, I am sorry. Without even divulging into a discussion about witches being actually a religion, where do you think "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live" come from?

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.

[St Leo]

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

By the real thing, are you referring to fictional characters made up by superstitios writers or Wiccans? Neither qualifies as a "real witch" IMHO.

[Dr. Nick]

*cough*

Pointless discussion here, ribannah and kitten as hard as walls.

Let me repeat myself:

For one, Britain also inherited a war machine and a battle hardened navy with nothing to do. They needed to increase their economy and they took it out by taking over foreign economies and forcing them to sell raw materials to Britain for low prices and forcing them to buy the manufactured commodities at alsmost unpayable prices. They used their navy to project their power and eventually took over the lands to protect British interests. They had a commercial empire made up of areas of British commerce and areas of interest made in order to act as buffer zones in case of war.

Simply what every other empire did.

The Spanish, on another hand, stumbled upon America and decided to put what they had into good use and increase commerce. First they set up trading posts, then they occupied the land and governed it in order to protect their interests.

In other words, the Spanish have as big a claim to fame as the French, British, Germans, Dutch, Romans, Greeks and pretty much anyone who extended their borders beyond what started out as their motherland.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Pointless discussion here, ribannah and kitten as hard as walls.

p

They had a commercial empire made up of areas of British commerce and areas of interest made in order to act as buffer zones in case of war. Simply what every other empire did.

Nope.

The Spanish, on another hand, stumbled upon America and decided to put what they had into good use and increase commerce. First they set up trading posts, then they occupied the land and governed it in order to protect their interests.

Let me inform you about the history of your own country.
The Spanish never established as much as a single trading post in Argentine. Like elsewhere, they sent military expeditions, only in this case every one of these was defeated by the natives. Instead, some people from Spanish origin settled in Argentine from neighbouring lands. They founded a number of towns - again, not a single trading post.
In 1776 the Viceroyalty of RÃo de la Plata was "created" including today's Chile, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and part of Bolivia - with Buenos Aires as its capital. It failed miserably, since the citizens were already quite independent and had no wish to be loyal to the Spanish crown. After several revolutions independence from Spain was officially proclaimed in 1816.

In other words, the Spanish have as big a claim to fame as the French, British, Germans, Dutch, Romans, Greeks and pretty much anyone who extended their borders beyond what started out as their motherland.

You are still missing the point that civilization is more than military conquest.

[Dr. Nick]

Britain was a commercial empire. The need to imperialise arose from the necessity of the industrial nations to sell their manufactured goods as well as aquiring cheap raw materials to make these goods. Having colonies meant that they had access to both raw materials and a market for their Mfg goods. This was true for Britain, for Germany and for France. Strategic areas of influence, ie, Egypt, Gibraltar, Suez, etc, arose from the necessity to protect their shipping lanes in order to secure their trade with the colonies, ergo, it was a commercial empire for all those European Nations. If not, what was it then?

In the same way, it was for Spain. They came along, found lots of gold and silver which they could use, and the people in Spain found a land that they could settle and seek fame and fortune. In any case, the colonies arose from a need of the home country by which there was a mutual benefit for the peoples in the mother nation.

About the history of my own nation, I am very much aquainted with it. To begin with, Pedro de Mendoza's outpost Nuestra Señora del Buen Ayre failed because, for one, it had no demand to grow. It was simply a town that subsisted on its own. It was destroyed because Spain had no real need for it. Once the Inca Empire had fallen, there was a natural need for a port near the silver mines in Potosi and Bolivia. Nuestra Señora del Buen Ayre was then established as a port city, from which they could transport the gold and silver. But as time passed and the mines were depleted, Spain began to purchase goods from the Viceroyalty in order to manufacture them and resell them. The reason for the trade monopoly with Spain, which lasted till 1810, was because Spain could buy raw materials at low prices and sell their manufactured goods at high prices, which is what made the locals belligerent. In so many ways, Spain had many trade posts, as the ports offered Spanish goods, just as English goods were available in India and German goods in Tanganyka.

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.