Analysis of Civ3 Civilizations

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

And the Vikings- they colonized France, England (Before 1100), Russia, Turkey, etc.

RUS- is UKRANIAN, not Russian. It lasted until about 1000 when Vikings came. Then in 1200 the Mongols took over. The RUSSIAN civilization is Mongol-Finnish-Rus.

The Russians truly Start as a civ in 1600's...They Start in 1400's very small... (As independent civ, yes twice as long )

Some notes --

1. Vikings (known in the east as "Varangians") established the cities of Novgorod, Smolensk, Rostov, and Kiev (as well as a handful of others -- Izborsk, Polotsk, Beloozero, Murom) during the 9th Century (and gave the Byzantines considerable grief).

2. Prior to this the area under discussion is usually referred to as being occupied by "peoples" -- Slavic and Balt -- without any particular rulers / governments of note.

3. The first "Principality of Russia" (Slavs under Varangian sovereignity) was in existence in the 10th century (ca. 925), and splintered into civil war in 1015 resulting in successor states (rival principalities); the Grand Duchy of Lithuania etc. indeed arose in the 14th century and had the, um, interesting experience of having the Germans, in the form of the Teutonic Knights, as their neighbors.

I would suggest Russian Civilization (in Civ terms) began ca. 1000 with (real world) defining characteristics as ethnically Slavic, religiously Eastern Orthodox, and temperamentally Viking -- making their Civ characteristics "Militaristic" and "Religious".

Regards,

Oz

[fred]

We arent about to go into the iroquios taking of detriot during the 1812 war. (May not of been iroquois but the same band of people Fraxis intended to include).

We dont have to revist the native indian defense of canada (upper and lower) against the americans with only a tiny amount of british trained regulars and a wimpy militia.

[Transcend]

Even if everything Ribannah said about Iroquois were true, they still don't "deserve" to be placed ahead of Arabs, Mongols, and the Spanish. I believe they were in to provide a template for other "aboriginal" civilizations. In this aspect, Firaxis made the right choice.

[fred]

i must agree. And the fact that the iroquois did unite a group of tribes. As well as being situated and envolved a lot with North American history they have become one of the most recognized native nations.

And I do believe that a native aboriginal people people should be in Civ III.

What i dont like is the fact civ is europe based. I wish in the expansion they include more asian and the mayan and incan civs.

And please dont doubt incan inovation. Just because they were conquered doesnt really mean much, because under that same right the romans shouldnt be included.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The English colonies took their Constitution from the Mayflower Compact/ Jamestown House of Burgesses/ Representative Goverment- not the Iroquois league.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was just added to make the Indians feel good- they accomplished a good Constitution... ahead of its time... but its doubtful that the settlers took anything from it.

How do we know that. Have you ever been to a meeting and then read the minutes after the meeting and the minutes where not complete or alter to said something other than what was said in the meeting. I have.
Keep in mind we are talking about 1770s in America. If the members of the Constitution committe used any thing from the Iroquois League, do you think they would publish that information to the public? No way, they would have been hung by the neck until dead. Remember most, not all, but most European American hated the Indians.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

*Cough* RUS- is UKRANIAN, not Russian. It lasted until about 1000 when Vikings came. Then in 1200 the Mongols took over. The RUSSIAN civilization is Mongol-Finnish-Rus.

The Russians truly Start as a civ in 1600's...They Start in 1400's very small... (As independent civ, yes twice as long )

Crikey, that's a big call. How old exactly do you think the "Ukraine" is? Ukraina is Russian for "on the border", or "frontier", i.e. the border/frontier of Russia. It was peopled mostly by Slavs ethnically and linguistically similar to the Russians.

The Rus' were a fusion of Slavic and Viking antecedents in the great rivers region of Greater Russia (i.e. the land between the Baltic and Black Seas). The city of Kiev (Kyiv) was their chief city, founded by a Varangian (Varyag, or Viking) named Rurik who was the ancestor of Ivan IV ("the Terrible") who united the Muscovite state (which became Russia).

I wouldn't make a distinction between Russians and Ukrainians when talking about the Rus', and the Rus' can be identified as early as the 10th Century. In fact it may be more appropriate to have the Slavs in as a separate Civ, in which case we can go back as early as B.C.

[Alfonsus72]

Originally posted by fred

What i dont like is the fact civ is europe based. I wish in the expansion they include more asian and the mayan and incan civs.

Acording to the list of civs included, I don´t think civ3 is eurocentric:

EUROPE: 5 1/2 (or 6 if you consider Russians only europeans): Greeks, romans, germans, english, french and russians (that could be considered half european and half asian).


ASIA: 5 1/2 (or 5 if you consider Russians only europeans): Babylonians, persians, indians, chinesses, japaneses and 1/2 Russians.

AMERICA: 3 : Aztecs, iroqueses and americans.

AFRICA: 2 : Egyptians and zulus.

OCEANIA: 0. No maories, australian aborigins or pascualites .

I think that distribution is much less eurocentric than history has been. Since the age of exploration, and specially in the age of imperialism, Europe has spread worlwide. I don´t want to judge if that´s good or bad, wrong or right, but it´s a fact.

To the question of why big civilizations like spanish, turkish, dutchs, arabs, mongols, austro-hungarians, portugueses,... that has hab very big empires are out, I guess that won´t be so important if there were no special civilization differences, as in Civ 2.

In Civ2, if you wanted to play, let´s say, the lituanians, you only have to put the name and titles of your leader and put a name of a lituanian city each time you build a new one.

In Civ3, if I want to play my beloved spanish civilization, what special unit should I take?, must I deal with the picture of Louis XVI or Elizabeth II as leader of the spanish civ?, what supositions must I do about spanish caracter (in this case is clear for me: RELIGIOUS/EXPANSIONIST). What kind of customization could we do with our custom civs?. If this is answerer, I guess we don´t have to talk anymore about what civs should be in or out now or in the expansion pack.

[Chris Horscroft]

Alfonsus72 - I sympathise - having Elizabeth I's picture as leader of the Spanish civilisation would be particularly infuriating to a Spaniard.

Maybe if the game designers weren't American, and had stuck to ancient civs only, then the Americans, the British and the Spanish would none of them be included (and the game would sell less well).

As it is, I suspect they've gone out to try and balance the map, rather than to really include the greatest civs. For my money, Spain should be in.

[DarkCloud]

Re: Nice joke

Originally posted by datakodin


LOL!

Just tell me - what does mean Cough RUS?

The RUS are the true people of the Ukraine. The Russians are a mix of Mongolic and Finnish blood along with the true blood of Ancient Rus.

Rus was the kingdom in the time of Vladimir, he who brought Christianity to RUS around 988

Rus is the people decended from the Trypillians, Cimmerans, Scythians, and Budini mentioned by Herodotus (485-425 BC)

The two main tribes of the Sarmatians: (3rd BC-3rd AD)
-Ruskolani----The Ukrainians::: RUS means "from Rhos"
-Alanians-----Polish

The RUS are the true Slavic People. They satred theeir true civilization in 857 and lasted until 1200 when the Mongols invaded. Rus Existed before Moscow was founded in 1147. Kiev was founded in 482 AD.

Ribbannah eh, I participated in it in various threads. Yes, the Europeans feared the Iroquois, but their siding with the English was not the deciding factor in the French-Indian war.

-Hopi are Mound Builder descendants, but the Mound Builders' civilization was greater.

Ozymandis 1. I agree with you. But Kiev was founded by Shcek, Khoryv, and Lybid; the Local Polanian Princes.

The Polanians were descended from the Khazar Kaganate, turkish nomads from the east or the Antes, or the Jordanes, or the Slavs.

I would have to check about #3. But in the old days the RUS-ans were involved more with the Byzantines than the Vikings... The FIRST viking ruler of RUS was Oleh (Helgi) of Novogorod (He Ruled 882-912)

-Yes, slavs should be an original civ.

[datakodin]

Re: Re: Nice joke

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Rus is the people decended from the Trypillians, Cimmerans, Scythians, and Budini mentioned by Herodotus (485-425 BC)

Nevermind. Rus are Trojan people who had escaped from Odyssey. It is very easy to prove - compare Rus and TRojan. Mongols did not invade to Russia because it was Tatars who did. Besides, Moscow was founded not in 1147 but one day earlier.

And by the way, do you know that Serbs shutdown 350 NATO planes?

Seriously speaking, there are many different points regarding many historical events. However, it would be better if Civ3 will be based on somehow official historical books.

About Russia. The Russian state was founded at 862 AD when Rurick, Sineus and Truvor became to be first Russian rulers. This date was given by Russian ancient writer Nestor and this date is recognized by most of researchers. Certainly, the country was named Rus' not Rossija as now.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by YefeiPi
Civ3 have cut down a drastic number of civs from civ2 and many of us agree and disagree with some of these game designers choices. Let's take a look at which current civ3 civilizations are worthy to remain in the game and which should not:

As you can see, I personally believe the Japanese and the zulus should not be included in civ3 because there are room for more recognized cultures. What do you think?

My underlining. Your assessments is openly ment to be personal and subjective, and thats OK. However, if you had the aspirations of being anywhere near objective (if thats possible) - then your viewpoints would be just plain ridicules. France and Japan not "worthy" enough? And you dont even mention Spain?

Anyway, civ-modpacks will be available - both downloadable from fansites and addable from future official expansion-packs.

[DarkCloud]

Re: Re: Re: Nice joke

Originally posted by datakodin

Nevermind. Rus are Trojan people who had escaped from Odyssey. It is very easy to prove - compare Rus and TRojan. Mongols did not invade to Russia because it was Tatars who did. Besides, Moscow was founded not in 1147 but one day earlier.

Yes, that is one of many explinations for the people of Rus. But supposedly they merged with the nomadic Scythians and formed a new nation.

Seriously speaking, there are many different points regarding many historical events. However, it would be better if Civ3 will be based on somehow official historical books.

Yes, true

About Russia. The Russian state was founded at 862 AD when Rurick, Sineus and Truvor became to be first Russian rulers. This date was given by Russian ancient writer Nestor and this date is recognized by most of researchers. Certainly, the country was named Rus' not Rossija as now.

Eh, this is an opinion as my statement is an opinion. Russian, Ukrainian and Romanian historians have been arguing whether Rus was Ukrainian, or Russian for many years... And the Romanians maintain that their people are better than either of the other two lands

[Ralf]

Originally posted by datakodin
Seriously speaking, there are many different points regarding many historical events. However, it would be better if Civ3 will be based on somehow official historical books.

Civ-3 scenarios, yes.
The main-game? Forget it. History only acts like theater-props and backdrops in the main-game. And thats great.

[DarkCloud]

I retract my statement about Hopi=Moundbuilders... misread a map

The Iroquois Constitution MAY have been used as ONE model for the constitution... but it was not written down by 1776!

The Americans most likely used the writings:

Magna Carta (this was much like the Iroquois Constitution: Protects the rights of the upper class IE Parliment not to be taxed without permission)
Mayflower Compact and Judicial System
Colonial Governments wherein they pass their own laws and govern theirselves
Jamestown Government
John Locke
Rousseau
etc.

Ever read "The Last of the Mohicans"? The Iroquois league was split asunder and destroyed... In fact there was never an "iroquois" tribe... it was merely a confederation of 4-6 tribes.

-They never foolishly allied with the British.. The britis had 100,000 people in North America whereas the frenceh had 10,000... even with help, the French would likely not have won.

The Iroquois had trade, democracy, freedom of religion, and quickly learned gunpowder by which they were able to stay on par with the imperial powers.

-Anyone can learn to shoot a gun if they have long enough to try
-Freedom of Religion: where does this say so... and besides, how does that show a society is socially advanced... now it DOES show how a society is open minded...
-All civs in this game had trade.
-Democracy as much as Parliament in England, yes, Real Democracy NO.

[KrazyHorse]

Democracy as much as Parliament in England in 14th century: possibly. 17th century? Not a chance.