The Educated Civer's Guide to Voting for Expansion Pack Civilizations

[ranskaldan]

it doesn't matter whether it's a random map or not, people just want a bit of variety. they don't want every civ to be from europe or east asia.
why then is there an iroquois or zulu civ? why is everyone talking about filling up s.e. asia with the khmers or thais?

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
no one seems to dispute americans.

You're new, so I'll let it slide.

it doesn't matter whether it's a random map or not, people just want a bit of variety. they don't want every civ to be from europe or east asia.
why then is there an iroquois or zulu civ? why is everyone talking about filling up s.e. asia with the khmers or thais?

Agreed. All the natives of the Western world get 2 civs to represent them, and only one for Africa, the other 13 being European/Asian as it is. If the Iroquois and Zulus were taken out, we would have only 1 non-Eurasian civ (the Aztecs)!

You can't ignore an entire HEMISPHERE just because those civilizations didn't build cities. Look up civilization in the dictionary; you will se nothing about cities. This mentality is not far off from the colonial missions of European nations in America and Africa, who thought that the natives were 'uncivilized' and thus the justification for pouring upon them Christianity and European culture.

The Iroquois didn't set up cities because of one simple reason: they didn't own the land. It is a rather ethnocentric idea to believe the Iroquois had the same concept of land ownership as the Europeans. They didn't. They believed the land was open to anyone who wanted to use it and if someone else drove them out of there, it was not wrong for them to just use it. They did not draw boundaries like "okay, here is Iroquois land and here is Huron land".

So don't punish the Iroquois; they didn't do anything to you!

[ranskaldan]

Had the Iroquois been living on Britain and the Anglo-Saxons living in North America. We'd have the Iroquois colonizing North America and the world language that we'd be typing in would be iroquois.

As for the part about the americans... oh well..... :embarassed: but we won't see the americans being taken out of civ any time soon.

[Akron]

Originally posted by Lumpkin


I don't think I defined "off-shoot" clearly enough. What I mean is a civilization that is a breakaway province. So if one culture founds a big empire, and creates a new province out of lots little states or tribes (rather than conquering an existing state) and then later on that province breaks away and becomes an independant state, then I do not consider that country to be a legible civ3 civilization.

By this definition only the Indians and the Americans would be chucked out. They are both essentially breakaway British provinces. Yes I know there were many highly advanced cultures in India before British conquest India was just just a geographical region (like the Middle East or Europe) with many changing and distinct cultures but no real cohesive identity.

Um... no.

Saying that the Indians are a breakaway province of Britain is like saying that France is a breakaway province of Germany just b/c of occupation during WWII. The English never came close to assimilating India, so it never really more than a colony. Nor did the English found India. The Indians maintained their own culture all along. Anyway, the Indians have existed for several thousands of years.

As for the Americans, just accept them as a civ. They are here to stay.

[Solmyr]

I have a problem with this too. Its like having both the Dark Ages Anglo-Saxons and the modern British in the same game. They are both hugely different cultures but there is direct line of continuity between the two so I don't think you can have both of them in the same game. The same goes for the Romans/Byzantines. I think since the Romans were the most important of the two, they should be the ones included.

If you can have Romans and French in the same game, you can have Romans and Byzantines (or British and Anglo-Saxons). Just think of Romans as the Western empire before its collapse in this case (not that such historical thinking is really important in an unhistorical game like this).
Besides, I'd argue that modern British are more French Normans than Anglo-Saxons Or more appropriately a mix of everything.

The Russians kept control of their empire for a good 500 years before it collapsed and as far as I know Germany is still in existence.

I was talking about their medieval states, just like you were talking about Mongols. After all, Mongolia is also still in existence.

As for the Greeks, yes I agree there is ambiguity there. I would include them though as their empire was far more organised and it was more of a civil war than a complete collapse like it was with the Mongols. The Mongols were good at taking things over and destroying things but they were completely incapable of setting up political structure with the power to control anything more than a small region. The Greeks had that capacity.

The ancient Greeks never had a major empire controlling anything more than a small region, aside from one Alexander conquered (and he was a Macedonian, which is not strictly the same as Greek). That empire collapsed after his death. On the contrast, the Mongol empire endured for quite some time after Genghis Khan's death: Kublai Khan ruled all of China and Central Asia late into the 13th century; The Golden Horde in the western steppes persisted for 300 years before completely collapsing. If you also consider later developments, the name of Tamerlane pops up; his empire was not long-lived but significant nonetheless, in that it nearly eliminated the Ottoman Turks. The Moghul emperors of India were also Mongol, and their empire was around for almost 300 years. True, the Mongols were best at conquering existing states and imposing their rule on them, but then again the Romans did exactly the same.

Like the Mongols, they were incapable of setting up a political structure that could control a decent-sized area. Also, the whole term Viking is very misleading. When people talk about the Vikings, they are actually referring to two distinct culture/races: the Norwegians (or Norse (later Normans)) and the Danes. These two peoples came in seperate waves and fought each other for land. The term "Viking" was coined by their victims and means "pirate". So when people use the term "Viking" they should be aware that what they mean is "Norwegian and Danish pirates of the Dark Ages".

Which is why I vastly prefer the name "Normans" Not only did they set up their own distinct states in Normandy and Sicily, but it's arguable that the entire subsequent history of Russia and England (at least) was shaped by them.

I don't think I defined "off-shoot" clearly enough. What I mean is a civilization that is a breakaway province. So if one culture founds a big empire, and creates a new province out of lots little states or tribes (rather than conquering an existing state) and then later on that province breaks away and becomes an independant state, then I do not consider that country to be a legible civ3 civilization.

Well, that would still leave out the Americans, as well as a lot of European civs who succeeded Rome
Seriously though, while one might consider the early Eastern Roman empire a part of Rome (though hardly a single province), later on it definitely becomes a separate state.
You might as well consider the French and the Germans the same civ, since the French basically "broke away" from the medieval Holy Roman Empire.

I would also kick out the Babylonians, not because they don't fit my criteria but because I think the Assyrians would be more appropriate. They lived in the same area in the same epoch but their empire lasted long and was much much bigger.

I don't know about that. Babylon had at least two major empires, under Hammurabi and under Nebuchadnezzar. The second one was in fact created upon the dying corpse of the Assyrian empire.

Their city lists don't need to be the same. There were enough cities in Mesopotamia to give them both big enough lists.

[Ubik]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

And ubik: mongols certainly do not include the turks, bulgars etc. That's like saying the Spanish include the French.

No, no, no, definitely not. Turkic tribes share excactly the same heritage as Mongolic tribes. It is not like "Spanish include the French", it's more like "Greek include the Spartan".

You'll have to look up some ethnology history about the Turanian steppes and upper Mongolia, but that is precisely where both (later distinct) ethnic groups come from.

Do not mess todays Turks (actually, as every other nation nowadays, an amalgam of diferrent ethnic groups united under a single culture) and Mongols with what we'd call "Turkic" or "Mongolic" in the first millenia AD.

The first "nation" coming from the steppes are the Huns - allthough, they pose a ground for debate for the ethnologists, because noone can with certainity call them "Mongolic" or "Kaukasian".

But after that, it is quite clear that the Mongolic tribes (Hazar, Avar, Bulgar) are precisely that - Mongolic tribes. And the Turkic tribe (originally just another mongolic tribe) discented and formed another ethnic group.


Another point (by Solmyr, who otherwise seems to know quite a bit about history) about wether Alexander and Macedonia were or not Greek "strictly".

Well, the Macedonian civilization was a Greek civilization. Macedonian aristocrats took part in the Olympic games (and that was the ultimate proof for the Greek-ness of one, because only Greeks were accepted in the Olympics) Alexander was calling himself "Greek", he spoke Greek and he was acting in the name of the Greek city-states, besides of his own kingdom (see the agreement formed between Alexander and every city state of Greece after the ransack of Thebes).

Additionaly, the kingdoms that have been formed upon his death (and they lasted from 100 years to 300 years - they didn't vanish on impact, dear sir) were called "hellenistic". Hellines is the Greek term for "Greek", you know...

So, why wasn't he "strictly Greek"? Could you elaborate more?

[ranskaldan]

No, no, no, definitely not. Turkic tribes share excactly the same heritage as Mongolic tribes. It is not like "Spanish include the French", it's more like "Greek include the Spartan".

The French and the Spanish have a common Roman heritage too, just like the Turkics and the Mongolics sharing a common Altaic heritage. However, that does NOT make the Mongols and the Turks equal to, or part of, each other.

Do you understand? French is to Spanish as Turks is to Mongols. And Turks is to Mongols are Athenians is to Spartans. Mongols do not include Turks. Mongols come from the same heritage as the Turks. That heritage is an Altaic heritage, which includes the Kazakhs, Chuvash, Kirghiz, Uighurs, Manchus, etc.

And as for the Macedonians, the Greeks basically considered them to be barbarians, one notch lower than Greeks. They were not considered to be on the same footing, as, say, Athens, or Sparta, or Corinth. However, the Macedonians tried to be Greeks and adopted Greek culture. That's why they spoke Greek and passed a Greek, or Hellenistic heritage to the Middle East.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Lumpkin

But please, please, please don't vote for the Celts, Vikings or Byzantines! They aren't real civs and Europe has too many as it is!

Spanish: 5
Dutch: 20
Portuguese: 20

Care to explain?

[Solmyr]

Originally posted by Ubik
No, no, no, definitely not. Turkic tribes share excactly the same heritage as Mongolic tribes. It is not like "Spanish include the French", it's more like "Greek include the Spartan".

REPLY: Mongolian and Turkic tribes may share the same heritage, but they were quite different. In fact for a long time the Mongolian and Turkic tribes of the steppe were bitter rivals.

Well, the Macedonian civilization was a Greek civilization. Macedonian aristocrats took part in the Olympic games (and that was the ultimate proof for the Greek-ness of one, because only Greeks were accepted in the Olympics) Alexander was calling himself "Greek", he spoke Greek and he was acting in the name of the Greek city-states, besides of his own kingdom (see the agreement formed between Alexander and every city state of Greece after the ransack of Thebes).

Additionaly, the kingdoms that have been formed upon his death (and they lasted from 100 years to 300 years - they didn't vanish on impact, dear sir) were called "hellenistic". Hellines is the Greek term for "Greek", you know...

So, why wasn't he "strictly Greek"? Could you elaborate more?

As Ranskaldan pointed out, Macedonians were not ethnically "Greek" like, say, the Athenians were. Eventually they adopted Greek culture and language (having conquered most of Greece), so I guess in that sense you could consider them to be "Hellenic". Which only shows that it's difficult to accurately name a civ and assign a consistent leader to it

[Ubik]

Ranskaldan and Solmyr

Wrong, both. And on both aspects. Ranskaldan, Turks (the Turks of that time we are talking about, ok?) and Mongols (of the same time frame) were of the same origin, you agree on that.

What has this to do then with Spanish and French comparison? It was a poor one, the least to say. Spanish derive from Hiberic, Roman, Celtic, Gothic and some minor local tribes, with strong Arabic and Hebrew influences. French derive from Gaul, Frankish (mainly) Normandic ancestry, with Roman influences...

So, where is the valid comparison???

And about the Macedonian-Greek thing... that is utterly wrong... Where to start from?

The Greeks thought of the Macedonian as barbaric? LMAO, yeah sure... that is why the Macedonian took part in the Olympics from 450 BC. Perhaps do you know that noone that wasn't Greek was accepted into the Olympics? Yes?

Macedonian were of Greek origin, but in the bounds of their kingdom lived some other tribes. Macedonian (as any decent archeologist and linguist can tell you) are basicaly of Dorian origin (the same as Spartans... does that ring a bell?) but subjects of the King of Macedonia were some Molosses (they lived in the ancient Hepirus) Illyrians (in the same place) and Thraceans (they lived, as the name can tell you, in ancient Thrace).

All those ehtnic groups have adopted much from the Greek way of life and tradition (as Greece was the dominant culture at the time in the region) but they weren't Greek.

On the contrary, Macedonian were definitely Greek, and you can look up any decent history book in the Western World, to prove my saying.

So, please, next time you say things like that, try to have it doublechecked and don't just say things that have no basis or historical documentation, just a twisted effort of some "historians" (being on the payroll of some local governments) to prove that Alexandar was of... slavic origin

Yeah, the same way Pythagoras was of Turkic origin (yes, the very same people who state that Macedonian were not Greek, state that Pythagoras and Asklipios and Hippocrates were Turks...)

[Lumpkin]

JellyDonut,

I'd be delighted to explain. While I am very reticent to include more European civs since there are already so many, I felt it would just be criminal to ignore the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch given the immense impact on world history they have had. IMHO there are no such compelling reasons to justify relatively minor European civs like the Poles, or European cultures with somewhat dubious claims to be proper civs like the Vikings, Celts and Byzantines when we could have much more diverse civs with firmer claims to being proper civs from neglected regions like Africa and the Orient.


Solmyr

If you can have Romans and French in the same game, you can have Romans and Byzantines (or British and Anglo-Saxons).

I don't see why. France grew up in the early centuries of this millenium from a variety of competing little fiefdoms with political structures that did not originate from Roman political structures. It did not inherit its authority from Rome in the way that the Byzantines did.

You might as well consider the French and the Germans the same civ, since the French basically "broke away" from the medieval Holy Roman Empire.

I only consider civs illegible if they broke away from another CIV. And I don't consider the Holy Roman Empire a proper civ. It never had any real, effective power and was used mainly to make dominant kings look more impressive and try and boost their power.

On the contrast, the Mongol empire endured for quite some time after Genghis Khan's death: Kublai Khan ruled all of China and Central Asia late into the 13th century; The Golden Horde in the western steppes persisted for 300 years before completely collapsing.

Okay I think you've just convinced me on that one. As with the Arabs, I will no longer be upset if the Mongols remain in the top 16. I'm still sticking to my guns on the Byzantines, Vikings and Celts though

Which is why I vastly prefer the name "Normans" Not only did they set up their own distinct states in Normandy and Sicily, but it's arguable that the entire subsequent history of Russia and England (at least) was shaped by them.

I can cope with Normans, its just the term "Vikings" I don't like. I still wouldn't want the Normans included though as I think their role in history still isn't important enough to justify yet another European civ.

You might as well consider the French and the Germans the same civ, since the French basically "broke away" from the medieval Holy Roman Empire.

Akron,

Saying that the Indians are a breakaway province of Britain is like saying that France is a breakaway province of Germany just b/c of occupation during WWII. The English never came close to assimilating India, so it never really more than a colony. Nor did the English found India. The Indians maintained their own culture all along. Anyway, the Indians have existed for several thousands of years.

I wasn't talking about Indian culture, but about the existence of India as a constitutional entity. Think about it, what was "India" before British colonization? It was simply southern central of Asia, containing a huge variety of very diverse cultures and controlled by a variety of different kingdoms, none of which ever suceeded in uniting the entire subcontinent.

The word "India" was tagged on to this region behind Europeans while the borders of this region were only formalised when the British found their expansion checked by the Russians to the north and Afghanistan (now there's an idea for a new civ ) to the west. Remember that the Native Americans are called "Indians" because Colombus thought he had arrived at the east coast of the vast, vaguely-defined region the Europeans' called "India". The people who used to live in the country (let alone the region!) certainly did not think of themselves as Indian. They would have held loyalty to whichever of the many cultures and kingdoms they felt they belonged to.

What language do you think the Indians use in their national governmental and legal system? Indian? It doesn't exist. The only language they can use is English because it is the only language uniting their vast subcontinent. A national Indian consciousness only emerged under British rule as they began to seek greater and greater degrees of self-government. I should add that this movement was led by British-educated intellectuals.

So I don't think its too far-fetched to say that the origin of India as a state and as a single, distinctive culture is as a break-away province of the British Empire! I'm not saying that to try and denigrate India or anything, I'm just saying that India existed before British colonisation only in the same way that Europe exists today - a geographical region populated by a variety of different states and cultures. The same argument applies to Germany and Italy before their own unifications.

[ranskaldan]

You don't get it do you, Ubik?

Mongols - Altaic heritage, with strong influences from Siberian and Chinese sources.
Turks - Altaic heritage, with strong influences from Siberian, Chinese, Caucasian, and Indo-European sources.

in the same way:

French - Roman heritage, with strong influences from Celtic and Frankish sources.
Spanish - Roman heritage, with strong influences from Celtic, Moor, Visigothic, Phoenician and Hebrew sources.

See the parallel????

Thus, your idea that Turks shouldn't be in civ if Mongols are simply doesn't stand. It's like saying the French shouldn't be in if the Spanish are.

As for the Macedonians, they were Doric like the Spartans, yes.... they were ethnically Greek.... but the perception of them by mainstream Greeks was that they were barbarians.

As for the part about Alexander being Slavic and Hippocrates being Turkic, the Slavs were in Eastern Poland at the time and the Turks were in Central Asia.

[orange]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
The French and the Spanish have a common Roman heritage too

Not quite. The Franks were Germanic. The Spanish are Gothic and Latin.

just like the Turkics and the Mongolics sharing a common Altaic heritage. However, that does NOT make the Mongols and the Turks equal to, or part of, each other.

Closer than the French and Spanish. It really is like making Athenian and Spartan when you could just say "Greek"

Do you understand? French is to Spanish as Turks is to Mongols.

True. However, the Huns and other central asian tribes are similar to the mongols.

And Turks is to Mongols are Athenians is to Spartans.

So with this logic, coupled with the logic above, Athenian is to Spartan as French is to Spanish? Hardly.

Mongols do not include Turks. Mongols come from the same heritage as the Turks. That heritage is an Altaic heritage, which includes the Kazakhs, Chuvash, Kirghiz, Uighurs, Manchus, etc.

So they are the same but they're not. Sort of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square? Where are you going with this?

And as for the Macedonians, the Greeks basically considered them to be barbarians, one notch lower than Greeks. They were not considered to be on the same footing, as, say, Athens, or Sparta, or Corinth. However, the Macedonians tried to be Greeks and adopted Greek culture. That's why they spoke Greek and passed a Greek, or Hellenistic heritage to the Middle East.

I would put them in with the Greeks, even if they weren't technically part of the same culture...in the same way that I would throw the Huns in with the Mongols because they are central asian tribes that came in to Europe.

There's a difference between making a "Turkic" civ and a civ called the "Turks". However, I suggest we have neither.

[ranskaldan]

Not quite. The Franks were Germanic. The Spanish are Gothic and Latin.

The inhabitants of Roman Gaul and Spain were Roman and the invading Franks and Goths simply melted into it. The modern French and Spanish are of Roman heritage, with Frankish and Gothic influences.

Closer than the French and Spanish. It really is like making Athenian and Spartan when you could just say "Greek"

Are you kidding? The Mongols and Turks are as distant as, say, Hebrew and Arab, or Celts and Romans. They lived on completely different parts of central Asia.

True. However, the Huns and other central asian tribes are similar to the mongols.

Central Asia was not a huge glob of similar-looking tribes. That's like saying all American Natives are the same. Or all Europeans. Or all East Asians.

So with this logic, coupled with the logic above, Athenian is to Spartan as French is to Spanish? Hardly.

I'm just using this example to illustrate that the Mongols and Turks do not include each other. Athenians and Spartans are subsets of Greek. French and Spanish are subsets of modern Romanic, or Romance. Mongols and Turks are subsets of Altaic.

So they are the same but they're not. Sort of like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square? Where are you going with this?

No, no. The Turks and Mongols don't include each other at all! They are completely separate.

I would put them in with the Greeks, even if they weren't technically part of the same culture...in the same way that I would throw the Huns in with the Mongols because they are central asian tribes that came in to Europe.

The Macedonians and Greeks are all "basic-Greek", in that they spoke Greek and so on. But as I said, the Central Asian tribes weren't similar to each other at all. They had completely different histories, conquered different lands, spoke different languages and had different customs.

There's a difference between making a "Turkic" civ and a civ called the "Turks". However, I suggest we have neither.

I gave 20 points to the Turks, if nothing else, because of the Ottoman Empire, which, in addition to conquering most of the Middle East and ruling it for 300 years, also offered a standard of life rivaling that of the Europeans until well after the Industrial Revolution.
And the modern Turks are the descendents of the Turkics.

[DarkCloud]

quote:

1) Must have been a unified, organised state.
2) Must have built cities - there is no real-life example of any culture being able to progress scientifically or economically without cities.
3) Must have represented a distinct culture.
4) Must not have been formed as an off-shoot of another civilization with political structures and culture simply being inheritied from the founding culture.
5) Must have excelled on either a global scale or on a continental scale.

Vikings had all this, except, perhaps #1 because of their tendency to be many splintered tribes.
----Cities, It could be argued that the Vikings built Volodymyr, north of Moscow. Other words: Trodnheim? Oslo? ... Viking cities, no?
3.) Very distinct culture... TRUE.
4.) They didn't inherit much.
5.) They conquered half of Europe, traveled to America, traded to Byzantium, conquered RUS, conquered Britan, etc. etc.

The Iroquois didn't set up cities because of one simple reason: they didn't own the land. It is a rather ethnocentric idea to believe the Iroquois had the same concept of land ownership as the Europeans. They didn't. They believed the land was open to anyone who wanted to use it and if someone else drove them out of there, it was not wrong for them to just use it. They did not draw boundaries like "okay, here is Iroquois land and here is Huron land".

They didn't build any cities because they didn't have the means- they may have built teepees and longhouses, but since there was no mortar, some people don't consider it a city... Everyone may have owned the land, but each indian owned their home-