The most glaring omission...

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Seriously, Ribannah. Judge a civ on the following:

I'd be glad to, this is an excellent suggestion.

Technology Spanish, obviously (2:0)
Architecture I would pick construction but the conclusion is the same:
Spanish win easily (they had mills ) (2:0)
Economics Since the Spanish weren't able to feed themselves (which practically drove them to plunder and oppression) and the Iroquois thrived on their trade, an easy victory for the Iroquois (0:2)
Size In absolute terms: Spanish, relative to population: Iroquois (1:1)
Military On par, they were both master in their golden age / region (1:1)
Artistry Spanish win (2:1)
Social Iroquois have my vote (1:2)
Political Easy victory for the Iroquois (0:2)

So by this measurement they come out equal (10:10). Who would have thought!

But, and this is the point I am trying to get across, these are your criteria. You don't take into account that about everything the Spanish had, they learned from others, while the Iroquois made major progress all by themselves in several fields, and hand-in-hand with their rivals in others. As I consider that very important, for me there is no contest: I pick the Iroquois from the north-Amerind tribes any day, but many European tribes ahead of the Spanish.

[Fiil]

I'll try again:

History is all about conclusions and interpretations. Of course these should be based on facts (and to some degree logic) otherwise they are worthless.

Emotions makes your points less clear, so always try to be objective to the issue. IMO Chris shows a lot of emotion.

You talk about how important facts are, but this makes no sence as nobody disagree with you. Everybody here try to use facts. Discussions arise because when you make a conclusion, you select which facts you will base it upon, others could have chosen other facts, and sometimes you even use the same facts but interpret them in different ways...

Please do not write what you think of other persons, as nothing good will come of this!

OK, I'll try to stop writing these kinds of posts now.

[Jay Bee]

Fiil,
Right on, I think I get your point now, but somehow I sense that you did not get mine It's not what I think of other people, it's what other people think of themselves. It's also that not everybody here use facts to make their point across but resort to blatant lies. Look e.g. two posts above this one.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Seriously, Ribannah. Judge a civ on the following:

Technology
Architecture
Economics
Size
Military
Artistry
Social
Political

I think it's a good thing to compare civs by several factors, but I would have chosen a different set.

When choosing these factors I'll try to make them independant, so that one civ doesn't get credit for one achievement several times.

Technology: This is a good one IMO, civilizations qualify better if they are more advanced.

Architecture: Is IMO a combination of technology and artistry, so I'll leave it out.

Economics: Must be more specific to compare. Let's see the total wealth of a nation is dependant on size, the wealth of the common people is IMO largely dependant on the technology and the social life of the civ. Maybe you could compare the civs ability to make a profit, but this is hard because the Spanish made a lot of profit (remember this is not a moral game) because of their size and technology.

Size: A good one too. If two civs are alike except for the size, I would choose the big one. (I do not mean relative to population)

Military: The size of the military is dependant on size, the power of the military is dependant on technology. The only think I can think of to compare here is how militaristic the civs were. But why choose a militaristic civ over a pacifist?

Artistry: I like this one too, even if it hard to compare. Maybe it could be rephrased and divided into independant factors.
I will call it culture and divide it in two:
Craftmanship: The ability two make useful and superior artifacts of available resources using available technology. True artistry: Decorations, paintings, music... for non-religious purposes.

Social life: A good one too! I'll divide it in... political and religious/(philosophical) impact on social life.

Technology
Size
Craftmanship
Artistry
Political
Religious/(Philosophy)

If you want too you can replace the last four factors by 'Culture'. This way you will end up having the three main factors for winning civ3!

Next I will have to deside if I want to compare absolute or relative values . The point is: should the spanish be credited for the technologies they didn't discover but got from other europeans? Or only for the part they discovered on their own?

This is where people will disagree.

Also I could choose to weight some factors, claiming that some are more important than others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to know my choices: (three catagories, rating 0-5)

Iro/Spa
Technology: 1/1 (Not very scientific)
Size: 0/4 (25.000/world empire)
Culture: 2/3 (social life+politics/religion+craftmanship+artistry)
Total: 3/8
(These grades are given based on my limited knowledge of iroquois and spanish history)

[Chris 62]

I see that some of you still try to fan the flame, but you don't know me.
Keep trying.

Originally posted by static
You said "American indian culture is akin to Cro-Magon man" your exact words, not that they are closer to primative man than the highly cultred Iberians. So don't claim that we misread what you said. There is a big difference between the two statements.

And of course, all else I said was of no consequence to the discussion.

Really, Benjamin Franklin would disagree with that statement, or was he just part of the PC crowd.
"The following is an excerpt from a longer piece written by Benjamin Franklin about 1784. Franklin clearly does not regard Native Americans as "savages": he is using the term for ironic effect. The "savages" are, in fact, as civilized or more civilized than the Whites: it is the Whites who must rely upon force, punishment, and prisons to enforce good behavior." - http://www.jmu.edu/madison/franklinnatamer.htm

How many years had the Natives had contact with the Europeans in Franklin's time?
I suggest you read sevral books written in this era, concentrate on the Mohawk valley during the revolution, and go back slighty earlier to the French and Indian wars, and see if the Colonists shared Franklin's views.
Three centuries had passed by this time, so again, hardly remevent to this time.

Maybe you should pay attention to your own words, "Perhaps they will tell you that American indian culture is akin to Cro-Magon man before the coming of Europeans". Once again, no mention of the Iberians.

All i wrote was a rebutal of the ridiculous assertion that the Iroquois were more worthy then the Iberians.
I didn't feel it necessary to repeat it post after post, but I was obviously in error, because it led to confusion here.
My apologies.

I will agree with you on the Aztecs, but saying the Maya wasn't equal the Europeans and Asians in culture and achievment is wrong.

Did the Mayans understand advanced Metalergy?
The wheel?
Advanced agriculture?
The shipright's art?
Gunpower ?
No, they didn't.
They did understand advanced mathmatics, and had excellent knowledge of the stars, but clearly, are not the equal of Europe.

For a guy not using emotion you sure throw around alot of phrases like "People like you make me ill." and "Add fool to your list of titles.".

How do YOU respond when people tell you, you know nothing and call you a racist?
When I say no emotion, I'm speaking of my first post, as well as clear facts.
I don't expect all to agree with what I say, but when attacked, as I was here, you can bet your bottom dollar I will respond in kind.

It is indeed about facts, so you should not be giving Chris these kudos. His posts are riddled with hyperbole, unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, exaggerations and untruths. And for not having any emotion, he sure is letting his anger show.

It shows when i see assinie posts such as this.
You don't agree, so it's "riddled with hyperbole, and so forth".
What utter rot.
All is documented fact, you just don't care for it, so you dismiss it out of hand, with the same PC attitude that is always seen.
No facts from you, just vague statements about "unsubstantiaed claims".

There is no need to employ bad history to refute the silly notion that the Spanish are insignificant as a civilization or the Iroquois are, at best, an advanced primitive culture. It actually undermines our point to do so.

I'm complely aware of this, Boris.
I have not shown "bad history", just history free of the nonsense that native americans were innocents.
Just because I didn't go into detail as to the many atrocites comitted by europeans, I have been accused by several, of being Racist, and as you just said, spewing "bad" history.
Nonsense.
Open your minds to all ideas, except that the world is not so cut and dried.
The truth is, in many ways, the Indians, not all tribes, but most, were indeed akin to stoneage man.
In fact, the most developed tribes were in the US Southwest, altough there names escapes me at present, one of them were the Pueblo.

For the young lady

Ah, that explains a lot.
You are comparing 20th century Europe to 16th century Amerinds.

Yes, a lot must be explained to you, as is evendent here.
BTW, nice try at a troll, but you will have to do far better.
Aern't you the one that tried to claim Gibralter should be a civ?

And don't forget the inquisition. No wait .... that was Spain & co ...

Considering your other posts, your confusion is understandable, but it was indeed, Spain.

You could have fooled us. In fact you did!

Fooling you isn't much of a challenge, my dear.

Chris,

History is about facts, NOT emotion. Very good one. It's a pity that so many people refuse to see it.

Talking about sigs, can you point me to the thread where Ming said that to Ras?

Yes, and as you have told me repeatedly, the people on this forum have their own notions, and to attempt to get through is to invite attacks, but I don't mind.
I fully expect disent.
As for emotion, as those who know me, YOU GET THE KIND OF ANSWER YOU GIVE WITH ME.
Several of you tried to dismiss my remarks out of hand, with insults and other nonsense.
Typical behaviour of the PC crowd, of which I see all the time, so keep trying, it does indeed seem amusing.
Or, you could consider, as I always do in matters, that you could be wrong, and give others a chance.

As for the Ras quote, it is an answer from Ming to yet another of Ras' pointless posts in the General area, and can be found here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28336

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Fiil
Culture: 2/3 (social life+politics/religion+craftmanship+artistry)

IMHO, the Iroquois have just as respectable religion/artistry as the Spanish. Please explain why you gave these points to the Spanish.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by JellyDonut
IMHO, the Iroquois have just as respectable religion/artistry as the Spanish. Please explain why you gave these points to the Spanish.

Just out of interest, JellyDonut, could you please name a single Goya painting? Or a Velázquez painting? (Hint: art).

Do you know who Lope de Vega is? Or even Miguel de Cervantes? (hint: Literature).

Finally, have you even heard of Santa Teresa de Jesús, or San Juan de la Cruz, or San Francisco Javier? (Hint: religion).

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Fiera
Just out of interest, JellyDonut, could you please name a single Goya painting?

"Lots of Beans"

Or a Velázquez painting? (Hint: art).

Nope.

Do you know who Lope de Vega is?

The star of "Liar, Liar" (this joke's for astronomers )

Or even Miguel de Cervantes?

How could I forget old Miguel?

Finally, have you even heard of Santa Teresa de Jesús

Who HASN'T heard of Mother Teresa and Jesus?

, or San Juan de la Cruz

The capital of Puerto Rico.

, or San Francisco Javier? (Hint: religion).

What's so religious about a California seaport?


Anyway, the point of my post is that one "culture" cannot be superior to another or measured as such because of the abstractness of the concept. I never claimed to be a Spanish history scholar.

[orange]

You know, I'd jump in here to back Chris up...

but he doesn't need my help! He's accurately smashing every false-truth you people bring up

You've all been brainwashed by courses taught on the idea of multi-culturalism. Calling Chris a racist for stating facts to support his opinion shows that you have run out of respectable ammo in this debate, not that you had much to begin with anyway.

The two main arguments that were being discussed are:
A) Which civilization was greater, and more deserving of a place in Civ III, the Spanish or Iroquois.
and...
B) Does 'the Iroquois' deserve a spot in Civ III

a few of you have strayed ridiculously off topic, and those of you that are arguing in support of the Iroquois on both topics aren't giving anything substantial to support your claims.

Statements like these...

I will agree with you on the Aztecs, but saying the Maya wasn't equal the Europeans and Asians in culture and achievment is wrong.

It is indeed about facts, so you should not be giving Chris these kudos. His posts are riddled with hyperbole, unsupported and unsubstantiated claims, exaggerations and untruths. And for not having any emotion, he sure is letting his anger show.

Ah, that explains a lot.
You are comparing 20th century Europe to 16th century Amerinds.

...just make you look like complete morons.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1]
Statements like these...
...just make you look like complete morons.

Orange, did you really mean to call me a moron? I urge you to look at all my posts, both here and on the Iroquois board, and reconsider.

[Boris Godunov]

Chris says:

When I say no emotion, I'm speaking of my first post, as well as clear facts.

Ok, let's do that. Quotes from your first post:

So your the one my hermanos always talk about, who thinks she knows history, but doesn't really.

Showing extreme ignorence here.

You don't know what your talking about.

The fact you even dare to ask betrays your ignorence.

Let's talk about this foolishness:

Ever hear of a man named El Cano? Bet you didn't.

How many Chinese navigators did that? What? Can't hear you...Speak up...

When you discuss history, you don't know what your talking about.

I sincerely doubt that if you were defending a thesis and you used language and tone such as this, it would be viewed as "unemotional" and even reasonable. It's just plain snotty. While I may disagree--vehemently--with Ribannah's suggestions and implications, I hope I never am so condescendingly obnoxious.

I think any historian worth his salt would find your tone in your first post shamefully rude.

[static]

The Saga Continues...

Originally posted by Chris 62
How many years had the Natives had contact with the Europeans in Franklin's time?
I suggest you read sevral books written in this era, concentrate on the Mohawk valley during the revolution, and go back slighty earlier to the French and Indian wars, and see if the Colonists shared Franklin's views.
Three centuries had passed by this time, so again, hardly remevent to this time.

You made assertions that the "PC crowd" portrayed the Iroquois as "noble savages" and that I was wrong. I give Benjamin Franklin's (I thought at least you might respect his opinion) own words on this and you just pass it off as nothing, so whose being close-minded? As for the request for more information on the Iroquois...,
"Among all the Amerind of the New World there were none so politic and intelligent, none so fierce and brave, none with so many germs of heroic virtues mingled with their savage vices-as these people of the Long House. All other nations feared them. They overrun the country of the Hurons in 1650, in 1651 utterly destroyed the Neutral Nation, in 1652 exterminated the Eries, and in 1672 made the Andastes a slave nation. As far west as the Mississippi and as far south as the great gulf was their war-cry heard. The tribes along the Hudson and the nations in New England paid tribute to them. They were the Conquerors of the New World, the "Romans of the West," of whom Father Ragueneau wrote in 1650, "my pen has no ink black enough to describe the fury of the Iroquois." " - http://www.fortklock.com/Iroquois.htm

Originally posted by Chris 62
Did the Mayans understand advanced Metalergy?
The wheel?
Advanced agriculture?
The shipright's art?
Gunpower ?
No, they didn't.
They did understand advanced mathmatics, and had excellent knowledge of the stars, but clearly, are not the equal of Europe.

"Archaeologists have long known that the Maya, who flourished between about A.D. 250 and 900, perfected the most complex writing system in the hemisphere, mastered mathematics and astrological calendars of astonishing accuracy, and built massive pyramids all over Central America, from Yucatan to modern Honduras" - http://www.indians.org/welker/maya.htm

Advanced Metallurgy - Not really, essential metals were scarce in their area, but they had an adequate understanding of Metallurgy.

They were ship traders...,
"Thanks to advances in both archaeology and science, new information about the Maya ‘merchant marine’ is now available. Research has focused on the Mexican Caribbean and investigators even went so far as to sail the routes themselves in vessels that were faithful replicas of those used by the Maya. The Maya began trading in the Pre-Classic period, about 300 BC, and continued to do so with increasing enthusiasm throughout the Classic period (A.D. 250-900). Trade intensified even in the Post-Classic period, when the culture was in decline, and only stopped completely when the Maya themselves ceased to exist as a political entity." - http://www.mayadiscovery.com/ing/history/navigators.htm

"Evidence also exists that there was interaction and trade between Central American cultures and European, African and Polynesian cultures -- well before the time of Columbus." - http://www.mayaparadise.com/mayabege.htm

The wheel - Necessity is the mother of invention, I'll agree they didn't have it, but that doesn't mean the weren't advanced in other areas.

advanced agriculture - the were comparable to their European conterparts during this time period. How many Civs were advanced during this time period?

Gunpowder? - They were around too early.

Also the Maya had advanced skills in architecture, were skilled in the arts, and created a possibly "Wonder of the World", the Mayan Calendar.

They are comparable IMHO, to many European, and Asian Civs from their time period.

[orange]

Boris - no. that was aimed at Rib and some other flamers who have given up on the topic and resorted to more immature debate methods...elementary school 'neener neener neener' tactics and mudslinging.

From what I've seen, your posting has been, for the most part, logical and well backed up...

...why do you think I was calling you a moron?

[static]

Originally posted by orange
You know, I'd jump in here to back Chris up...

but he doesn't need my help! He's accurately smashing every false-truth you people bring up

You've all been brainwashed by courses taught on the idea of multi-culturalism. Calling Chris a racist for stating facts to support his opinion shows that you have run out of respectable ammo in this debate, not that you had much to begin with anyway.

The two main arguments that were being discussed are:
A) Which civilization was greater, and more deserving of a place in Civ III, the Spanish or Iroquois.
and...
B) Does 'the Iroquois' deserve a spot in Civ III

a few of you have strayed ridiculously off topic, and those of you that are arguing in support of the Iroquois on both topics aren't giving anything substantial to support your claims.

Statements like these...

...just make you look like complete morons.

Since you used one of my quotes, I'll assume that I'm one of the people being referred to here. The only reason I even got into this thread was because some of Chris's statements which I felt were unneccessary. I have not called him a racist or anything of the sort, so please clarify who your talking about.

As for being called a moron and the assertion that I haven't given anything substantial to support my claims (maybe you weren't reffering to me), if you look at my previous posts you see that I have backed up my statements with reliable sources.

I must say that you like to label people with different views than your own as political correct or brainwashed. All I can say to that is look over the previous posts and you will see that many respectable people now and then, shared the same views as I.

We can debate issues without reverting to childish name-calling, I thought you were above this, maybe I was wrong.

[Ubik]

One of my professors in University of Athens, used to say "beware of those who know a little, and throw it around all the time, to back up a rotten set of ideas, just in order to appear superior or gain respect by the crowd".

Our moronic Chris is a stellar example of that kind of people.

He is fostering the "uberwarheit" in a way that I should call the least pompeous and arrogant, considering himself (and, in the way his distorted immature mind interprates things, he probably is) the wielder of the eternal "Id"...

to handle your vicious assault on me (not my ideas, nor my thesis, me) I should have studied psychology or - even better - neurology.

No historian on earth would be able to confront the massive ignorance, the profound stupidity and the astounishing lack of modesty and scientific thinking this particular individual shows.

So, sorry, I won't take the bait and debate with you - or with other that share your stupid, moronic, distorted set of ideas. They do know nothing more than you, so it is clear you appear to them like god... the god of the moronic ignorant, so to say.

...Greek dear? No way... the best you can aim is "American of a greek heritage". Greeks are those who staid here and fought... and still are fighting.

So long and thanks for the crap