Analysis of Civ3 Civilizations

[Sun Zi 36]

I agree the Arabs are one of the most important civs to be added. They founded Islam, which is an aspect of culture that links 1.3 bn (22%) of the world's population. The Arabic language is spoken by 235 mil people, the sixth largest language. Not to mention their cultural achievements at the height of their civilization. Probably it is better to merge the Babylonians with the Persians rather than the Persians with the Arabs. If the Babylonians are supposed to incorporated surrounding cultures (eg Assyrians) it can also incorporate the Persians. This is also convenient as the height of the Persians (Persian Empire) is closer to the Babylonians than to the Arabs in terms of time.

I also agree that the French needs to be included. One of the most important cultural achievements by the French is the French revolution. Ideas of democracy and liberty from the revolution are spread by Napoleon to other parts of Europe. Many words in English originates from French. French culture is also obviously different from English and Spanish. I think there is more reason to include the French than the Germans.

My list of the 16 would be:
Chinese
Indian
Egyptian
Mesopotamian (includes all ancient cultures from the area eg Persians)
Greeks
Romans
French
Spanish (includes majority culture in Latin America and minority culture in South-West US today)
Anglo-Saxons (includes Anglo-Saxon populations in US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc today)
Russians
Arabs
Japanese
Aztecs
Incans
Malis or Zulus
Germans or Mongols or a civilization in SE Asia (Malays? Javanese?)

I would definitely exclude the Iroquois. The Mongols i think might be better represented by very strong barbarians in the game.

[Ribannah]

Why the Incas? What's so special about them, compared to the socially sophisticated Iroquois? (Who lived entirely elsewehere, too.)

[lupusmalus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Why the Incas? What's so special about them, compared to the socially sophisticated Iroquois? (Who lived entirely elsewehere, too.)

How about that massive empire they built all along the eastern coast of South America, creating what Toynbee called a "universal state" including all the strands of their respective civilization, just as the Romans did for the Graeco-Roman civilization. Not to mention a sophisticated culture. But I think there should be at least one representative each for the native North, South and Mesoamerica civilizations.

And I can't believe the Arabs still didn't make it in, their cultural, scientific and religious achievements were just massive. Anyone read "The Name of the Rose" where it says that that (fictitious!) monastic library there is the only one in Christendom to rival all these giant libraries the Arabs had compiled? And they had a massive influence on Western civilization as well, but the attitude of that Renaissance guy (whose name I unfortunately forgot) who translated all the Arab medical authorities into Latin and pretended he had written everything himself is obviously still pretty prevalent. Same goes for the Iroquois contribution to the US constitution

[Sun Zi 36]

I really can't see any reason why the Iroquois should be included. In another thread people were arguing whether the US federal system originated from the Iroquois constitution. Is the reason for including the Iroquois just bcos they might have contributed to the federal system of the US? And is that a really important question to ask when considering whether these people are a great civilzation?

I don't think geography should be a reason for inclusion either. When playing in the standard world map would you really get 3 civs all in the Western Hemisphere? It wouldn't make a very interesting game in the Eastern Hemisphere.

[lupusmalus]

But putting everyone into the Eastern hemisphere makes for an interesting game in the Western one? A bit Euro- (or Sino-)centric perhaps? Although it can actually be quite a challenge if you give a "capable" civ lots of space, e.g. if you left the Americans all on their own on a map of Earth in CivII they just became ridiculously MASSIVE and scientifically advanced. Though I prefer to play the Aztecs, crush those damnyankees and then conquer Europe!

Won't rehash the Iroquois arguments here, plenty in the mentioned thread.

[Jusbaummer]

It's amazing how much people disagree with everything. Thinking of civilization's achievements, geographic place, and especially different cultures, these choices Firaxis has made ARE PERFECT!!!
Unhappy that your country isn't in? Then use the editor! All these western countries are the same anyway, just chance the name!

[Dauphin]

The English
---------------------------------
History: Medium length civilization, world superpower in the late 20th and early 21th century

When did that happen?

English supremacy was the 19th and early 20th century.

Anglo-Saxons (includes Anglo-Saxon populations in US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc today)

As long as they keep the name "English" as the civilization name its fine with me.

[Executor]

Re: Analysis of Civ3 Civilizations

Personally, I would kick out any civilization or nation that didn't exist at least 500 years ago.

Aztecs
Chinese
Americans - gone
English
French
Germans
Greeks
Indians
Iroquois - prefer to replace them with Incas, Maya, etc.
Japanese
Persians
Romans
Russians - iffy
Zulus

I would add:

Babylonians
Mongols
Spanish
Vikings
Carthaginians

[Sun Zi 36]

In terms of size, it's much better to have 5 civs in Eastern Hemisphere and 2 in West. 4 and 3 just makes Eastern civilizations too strong and is unhistoric. As for Eurocentric or Sinocentirc, I think the history of the world is pretty much Eurocentric and Sinocentric and Eastern Hemisphere centric. So I usually have 5 and 2 when I want to play a more history game. Sometimes I even play 6 to 1 if I start in Europe so I can ship settlers to America and settle there and bully the Aztecs.

Uh.... I think everyone has different opinions. That's what makes the world interesting. How about providing some real reasons why u think the choice is perfect?

[lupusmalus]

Just that in CivIII you apparently get to play up to 15 competitors, so you can have your cake and eat it, too! Which is another argument for geographic balance, what if you give e.g. the Aztecs all of South America to play with and make them intelligent enough to use it, or the Zulus and Africa (at least in my Civs I and II the Egyptians have never been able to hold their own against them except by sheer luck), while everywhere else everyone is treading on each other's toes... And I think if we have one common denominator here it is that very few people think that the choice of civs is perfect, but then that wasn't really to be expected, eh?

And what's so special about 500 years ago - maybe just that its convenient to kick the US out?!?

[Jusbaummer]

Executor...Have you noticed that Babylonians are alredy in?
And what comes to Mongols, they were just barbarians who rode over Asia and bacame just shepherds again after that.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


French only probably? They were (and are) the major Western continental power from about 1100 a.d. on, with an exception starting in 1871 and continuing to 1945.

One forgets the Spanish... major power from 1400-to at least 1800???

And the Holy Roman Empire (Italian/German) (France was powerful... but not as much as you say.)????

Kingdom of Lithuania 1400's VERY LARGE

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

The Russians (I'm assuming that the ballerinas comment is directed towards them) have been around for twice as long as the Americans as an independent civ, and even longer as a people.

*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 )

[DarkCloud]

Arabs also kept the Roman Writings alive in their universities and Europeans studied under the Muslims

[DarkCloud]

Iroquis were as socially sophisticated as the Mongols mixed with the Aztec

Incas had a large road system, mining, sophisticated religion and probably could have held off the spanish conquest for many years if not for the fact that they had just had a Civil War and caught many diseases from the Spanish.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Iroquis were as socially sophisticated as the Mongols mixed with the Aztec

* Points at Iroquois constitution *

Incas had a large road system, mining, sophisticated religion and probably could have held off the spanish conquest for many years if not for the fact that they had just had a Civil War and caught many diseases from the Spanish.

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.

LOVE HIAWATHA!!