America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Arent
Oriel94: You know this is not true.
You continue to divide the world in black and white. People are - as you said - imperfect and thus make errors. There is no inborn "instinctive rejection" of extremism - not in your "anglosphere" and nowhere else. Right wing extremism is a big problem in Usa (I don't know about austalia).

Well, Australia HAS a large problem with right-wing extremism, even more as the USA. For many years, European immigration was stimulated, while colored immigrants were excluded. And what about the Asian refugees who aren't allowed to enter the country? And I believe it was in Queensland where an extremist party has become very large.

Fresno: The netherlands actually gave up most of their votes - it is now population based - and were in favor of this reform.

I know that, it is a good example of what I said. Further, you could mention the German minister of foreign affairs, who said Europe should become a federation, i.e., one big country. And it were the French and the English governments who were against this.

[Sun Zi 36]

"There was a nice idea (a while ago) only to differentiate between 3 civilisations in civ3, namely asiatic, european and islam. "

But when the number of civs u want is 16 u wouldn't want to only have 3 and always play a 3 player game, would you? Actually, if u want u can even just make it one: "the human civilisation" as there are certainly similarities in all human cultures. It all depends on where u want to draw the line or the level of detail u r going to take. I think it would be logical to assume for this discussion the level of detail would be such that the world would be divided into AT LEAST 16 civs.

"Considering the "angloshpere": While there for sure are differences I would not go so far to classify this "anglosphere" as different civilisation... you have to see that there are perhaps even bigger differences between single european countries (and I mean not only political but also cultural)."

"Absolutely. Historically, France and the UK have more in common than France and Germany."

I agree that difference in culture is very important. But i still think "Anglosphere" is valid if u take a finer division. Further, when considering whether a culture should be a civ in civ3, u would not just differentiate the cultures. Surely the Eskimos are very unique in culture even if u take a very broad view of world cultures. But why not include them? Bcos they are not very significant in terms of influence on world history.

So the reason why i think Anglosphere should be a separate civ is that u can define its culture with not a very narrow division yet Anglosphere is very important in influencing world history.

Ah! for once no-one is arguing US should be a separate civ, which is good.

"Historically, France and the UK have more in common than France and Germany."

This is just sidetrack but I'm actually not sure whether this is correct historically. I know the Normans invaded England but the Franks also came from the Germanic tribes. Legal systems of Germany and France remained similar with Civil Law derived from Ancient Rome whereas UK had Common Law developed from customary law. Ideals of the French revolution influenced Germany a lot by Napoleon exporting the revolution. The industrial revolution came earlier in England than in France and Germany which truly industrialised at rather similar times (19th century). France and Germany (not UK) were the founding members of EU and the fact that UK didn't join monetary union makes me think that UK have less in common with France and Germany.

"Right wing extremism is a big problem in Usa (I don't know about austalia). "

Heard of Pauline Hanson? she is extreme right in Australia. Used to be quite popular but is in decline.

As for EU, i seriously dont think UK should be part of it. The European countries need to speak with one voice, but without the UK. The UK just brings in too much American influence to EU (like the English language), so that they can't speak with one independent voice.

[mactbone]

Hehe, the English language is an American influence! Thanks for the laugh.

Where to begin, oh yes, America should be in the game. Wanna know why? Which country has had the most influence in the last 50 years? Which country is known and (and sometimes hated) around the world?

You said earlier that you don't like the American influence brought ny the Brits, ever wonder why you even care about the American influence? It's because America is powerful. In fact I'd argue that right now in historyy it's one of the top 3 most powerful civlizations in the world.

Alright, so we all realize that America in some form should be in the hame (some calling for a conglomeratin) but why do that when there are distinct differences? Maybe the English should combine with the French, considering all the tines the English had French rulers and vice-versa. Germany could be included too, the German language and English are extremely close to each other.

Just remember that you would think it odd if I called Liz ruler of America and Lincoln ruler of England. They ARE different, on fundamental levels.

The reason I think most people are ignoring this is because Civ3 is out. It doesn't matter what you say, they're not changing the game.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
This is just sidetrack but I'm actually not sure whether this is correct historically. I know the Normans invaded England but the Franks also came from the Germanic tribes.

Concerning Germanic influence, I don't see this as a difference among the three countries at all. All three peoples are the descendants of Germanic and Celtic ancestors, although the French culture is more influenced by the Romans as the other two.

However, the Normans did bring a lot of French culture to England. For example, many English words are originally French. Just look at this:

French: gouvernement; exemple; cité; capitale; empereur.
English: government; example; city; capital; emperor.
German: Regierung; Beispiel; Stadt; Hauptstadt; Kaiser.

Legal systems of Germany and France remained similar with Civil Law derived from Ancient Rome whereas UK had Common Law developed from customary law.

All the European countries, including France and Germany, had traditional law before the French Revolution. Napoleon introduced the Roman law, so only England has a different law now. Indeed England is different from the other two at this point, although during the mayor part of history it wasn't.

Ideals of the French revolution influenced Germany a lot by Napoleon exporting the revolution.

The ideals you probably refer to are more the ideals of the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment occurred both in England and France. The ideals of the French Revolution had nothing to do with Napoleon. In the contrary, Napoleon ended the Revolution and its ideals by establishing a new nobility and crowning himself as emperor.

The industrial revolution came earlier in England than in France and Germany which truly industrialised at rather similar times (19th century). France and Germany (not UK) were the founding members of EU and the fact that UK didn't join monetary union makes me think that UK have less in common with France and Germany.

True, but a more important argument is that France and England were already nations for quite a long time, while Germany was still divided in many separate countries. Power in England and France is still much more centralized as in Germany. England and France were colonial empires, Germany wasn't. Germany fought against England and France during WW2. It has been a dictatorship in the last century, England and France haven't. Furthermore, East-Germany has been under communist rule, while UK and France never suffered from such a regime.

[oriel94]

1) No part of the Anglosphere has ever been host to a totalitarian regime or a *mass* totalitarian party. Almost every continental country has been host to one or both. Why this startling difference? (I know that some particularly vacuous Euro-lefties think the British Tories or US Republican are 'extremist' parties - go figure).

2) Europe can 'speak with one voice' only if its peoples surrender self-government and democracy; and that is precisely how it is being achieved.

3) Yes, individual European states can continue to 'influence' EU policies - in much the same way that colonies can influence the policies of the colonial power.

4) That so many Europeans can see nothing particularly alarming about the EU merely serves, once again, to highlight the cultural/civilizational gap separating the Brits/Anglosphere from the civilization/s of the European mainland.

5) If the European people are so keen to 'speak with one voice', they will only be able to do that when Britain leaves the EU. You should welcome such a development.

6) Pauline Hanson's Party ('One Nation') was not an extreme right-wing party. Most of her policies, *including* her immigration policies would not startle those pathetic Social Democratic parties that have a stranglehold on most of Europe. Her economic policies were leftist-populist (large taxes, large government spending, increased regulation in all spheres, government 'employment creation' projects, lots of government assistance to small business and workers, an independent [non-US-aligned] foreign policy, etc). The only thing that attracted much attention was her immigration policy. She wanted a significant reduction in immigration. Australia already has almost one quarter of its population born overseas, which is the second highest figure in the OECD behind Luxembourg. Australia's immigration rate (per capita) is three times larger than the US. I disagree with her, but to call her 'extreme right' is simply ludicrous. In any event, even at its height her party scored only 10% of the national vote. It is now in steep decline.

[KaiserIsak]

I think USA (not america) should be in the game. But they is definatly not more important then civilizations like Arabs, turks, khmers, spanish, polish, vikings, mongols, dutch and austrians.

But then again they are more important then iroquis, zulus and aztecs.

The best would be to include all this nations, but personally i never play with america in a game (or dont choose them to play against) simply because i dont see any fun in it.
Much more fun with the chinese who really had influence.
This america period is simply the end of the colonial period which we already have Britain and France in.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
I think USA (not america) should be in the game. But they is definatly not more important then civilizations like Arabs, turks, khmers, spanish, polish, vikings, mongols, dutch and austrians.

I agree with most of these, but what about the Polish? You seriously think that Poland has had a greater effect on history than the USA? Methinks the propaganda on this board has gotten to you...

[Sun Zi 36]

"Where to begin, oh yes, America should be in the game. Wanna know why? Which country has had the most influence in the last 50 years? Which country is known and (and sometimes hated) around the world?... You said earlier that you don't like the American influence brought ny the Brits, ever wonder why you even care about the American influence? It's because America is powerful. In fact I'd argue that right now in historyy it's one of the top 3 most powerful civlizations in the world. "

Alright, seems to me someone has just came in from the last page, read one or two posts and just quickly made a reply. I understand, cos this discussion is soooo long that no-one would bother to read them all (especially the pointless ones in the middle). In fact, i addressed all your arguments in my previous posts in the last page (p.7).

U will see that i have highlighted the rhetorical questions quoted. Care to explain how the power of a country has got anything to do with whether it's a civilisation? Country, civilisation. Country, civilisation. Country, civilisation. See the difference?? Country, civilisation. Country is defined by political borders. Civilisation is defined by culture. If groups of people share COMMON CULTURE , they would potentially be part of the same civilisation. How powerful a country has got nothing to do with whether people share common culture within or with-out the country.

"Just remember that you would think it odd if I called Liz ruler of America and Lincoln ruler of England. They ARE different, on fundamental levels."

I actually don't think it odd for Liz or Lincoln to be the ruler of Angloshere.

"Germany could be included too, the German language and English are extremely close to each other."

I think our European friends here will tell u it is not.

"The reason I think most people are ignoring this is because Civ3 is out. It doesn't matter what you say, they're not changing the game."

Is that a statement of self-comfort or relief or what? As far as i m conerned that is just a statement of cowardice and unwillingness to confront an intellectual discussion that reveals truths about issues. The question is whether America SHOULD be in the game. Whether it's already in doesn't support or provide any comfort to the weak argument that it "should" be in.

"The best would be to include all this nations, but personally i never play with america in a game (or dont choose them to play against) simply because i dont see any fun in it."

Again, nations and civilisations are not the same. Especially for multicultural nations and multinational cultures like the US and Anglosphere respectively. In civ2, i only allow America when i want to play a modern game, cos the computer can never sail to the Americas and settle. Dunno about civ3 though.

"You seriously think that Poland has had a greater effect on history than the USA? Methinks the propaganda on this board has gotten to you...

Again, u are implying civilsations are the same as nations, which is not. Only if u can successfully define a civilisation with its culture can u then consider about great effect on history. I would say that people in San Francisco and people in Los Angeles each have greater effect on history than the Zulus or Iroquis. But why are they not civs? Cos their culture is virtually the same.

"The ideals of the French Revolution had nothing to do with Napoleon. In the contrary, Napoleon ended the Revolution and its ideals by establishing a new nobility and crowning himself as emperor."

Actually, Napoleon by his conquests have exported many of the ideals of freedom, etc to Germany and Italy. That's why his campaigns were most successful there. He ended the revolution but didn't end its ideals (eg the Napoleonic Code). His conquests were very important in generating forces of unification in Italy and Germany in the mid 19th century

"England and France were colonial empires, Germany wasn't. Germany fought against England and France during WW2."

Actually Germany did have a colonial empire only much smaller. If u talk about wars, i think u could find England and France fought much more wars against each other than against Germany or Prussia.

Anyway, even if England/France is more similar than France/Germany. i still think it is valid to draw a narrower line to distinguish all three of them and then look at their effect on history. Even on this narrower line, sections within Anglosphere (eg, US, UK, Canada, New Zealand) will still not be distinguishable so Angloshpere should only exist as one civ.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
Again, u are implying civilsations are the same as nations, which is not. Only if u can successfully define a civilisation with its culture can u then consider about great effect on history. I would say that people in San Francisco and people in Los Angeles each have greater effect on history than the Zulus or Iroquis. But why are they not civs? Cos their culture is virtually the same.

How did I imply that nations are the same as civilizations? Poland and the US were both nations the last time I checked...

[Sun Zi 36]

OK, sorry i misunderstood u. If "US and Poland were nations" was ALL that u meant in your last post, then u r correct they are. And since they are nations, and not civilisations, as u agreed, they should not be civs.

But in case that wasn't all that u meant, that u meant US as a nation had more effect on history than Poland so it should be a civ, then i consider your argument completely flawed and i suggest u reread what i said in my last post.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think we're on different wavelengths here. I totally agree with you that, if only distinct civilizations are included in Civ 3, then the US and Poland are both disqualified. They are just nations and each part of a greater civilization. However, I think it is inevitable that some nations will be included in the game. There are only a few distinct civilizations in history, so after a certain point you are going to have to include some nations. I think the US tops the list of nations to be included and that's why I'm not upset about its inclusion in the game.

I had no problem with KaiserIsak saying that the Arabs, Turks, Vikings, Mongols, Spanish, or Khmer are more worthy for inclusion than America; they are all more distinctive culturally than America and probably qualify as "real" civilizations (although there would be much debate even on that, especially with the Mongols or the Vikings). My problem was with the Dutch, Austrians, and the Poles, with Poland being the most flagrant example. These three all seem to be mere nations, IMHO, and therefore would have to compete with the US for a spot in Civ3. America destroys Poland in overall importance and is therefore more worthy of inclusion. We are agreed, however, that the US isn't a civ. I just look at the US as a very worthy nation that got into the game mainly because it was the country that Civ3 was made in. If Firaxis was located in Poland, we would probably be arguing about whether Poland is worthy of being in Civ 3...

[Dauphin]

I think our European friends here will tell u it is not.

Actually English is more a Germanic language that any other. If you look at all the words in a sentence, at random, you will find many German rooted words, more than French.

A lot of the vocabulary of English is French/Latin based but the commonest words, and a majority of the grammar, are German based.

I cannot speak German but if you look up all the small words in this sentence I doubt many are not German.

The expression "Null and Void" is an example of split language heritage. Null and Void mean the same thing but come from different language roots.

[Sun Zi 36]

Big Crunch:
Sorry for my ignorance. I actually just derived it from the post by Fresno above.

"However, the Normans did bring a lot of French culture to England. For example, many English words are originally French. Just look at this:

French: gouvernement; exemple; cit? capitale; empereur.
English: government; example; city; capital; emperor.
German: Regierung; Beispiel; Stadt; Hauptstadt; Kaiser."

I virtually know nothing about this subject so i guess Fresno will respond about this.

Drake: i agree with most of wat u are saying. Arabs, Turks, Spanish are definitely distinct civs. However, I would consider the Poles more distinct than the Americans.

"so after a certain point you are going to have to include some nations."

My perception of civs is probably more narrow than u. I think if u use culture to define civs, u can narrow down to quite a lot of civs. And even then, USA as a whole can't qualify as a civ bcos there are too many different cultures within it. You'll probably single out the minority cultures within the USA b4 u can go even further to separate the majority USA from "Anglosphere".

[Ecthy]

Basically, all languages in Europe are Indo-European languages, which used to be called Indo-Germanic ones...

Indo-European languages are separated into the following families (in Europe, some Indian languages belong to them as well):

Balto-Slav group (Russian, Ukranian, Polish and the like)
Germanic group (English, German, Swedish...)
Celtic group (Bretonic, Galician, Welsh...)
Greek
Albanian
Iranian
Armenian
Romanesque group (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian...)

and there's also the
Indo-Aryan group (Hindi, Bengali, Urdu...)

...due to the fact that the Aryan people (nowadays called Europide) came from northern India/Himalaya region thousands of years ago...

anyway, you see that English and German are relatives... any more pie.. err. questions?

[Dauphin]

Thanks for clearing that up Ec the lion.

I do have two more questions.

What langauge family does Basque fall under or is it completely "alien"?

What language family does Esperanto fall under?