The most glaring omission...

[static]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Static: is not the Ethiopian queen Sheba equally well-known as Shaka Zulu?

Yes, but Shaku had a more unique personality that adds a little variety to the game. I still think the Ethiopians should be in ahead of the Zulus, however it doesn't bother me that much that the Zulus were included.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by static
After the Top 10 Civs, IMHO(Romans, British, Chinese, Egyptian, American, French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Ottoman Empire) its kinda a toss-up for the next 15, so picking only 16 Civs is ALWAYS going to a controversial process.

For the record, here is my present top 10
Romans, Chinese, Greeks, British, Babylonians, French, Americans, Dutch, Arabs, Mayas.
Several others are not far behind.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by orange
I didn't mean "backing up" as in you were supporting him. I meant giving credibility to his claims that some of the statements made about Native American culture are embellished in the name of Political Correctness, and to an extent, this idea of multi-culturalism.

This is quite right.

I think comparing them to Cro-Magnon man is wrong, but it's a lot closer than saying that they rival the Spanish or any Euro civ in world impact. The Iroquois are a dominant civ in Native America, you're right. But as I said before, overall, when compared with all other civs, they are insignifigant. 16 spots and the Iroquois make it, but the Spanish don't? That to me, is a bit hard to swallow.

Again, he got the point.

Comparing the Iroquois to Spanish culture is laughable.

I'd like to strike my previous apology from the record, and stand by my initial assessment:

Ignorant and foolish. Oh well.

I gave you the benifit of the doubt, but now I'm convinced.
You are an imbecile.

WHAT THE??? There is NO way that a reputable institution like Columbia would even acknowledge this BS, I hope . I don't know where to begin with these ridiculous statements, you don't have to go crazy just to support your argument.

They do indeed, as do repudable instituions.
I'm sorry to shatter the illustions of so many of you, but facts are facts.
Your refusal to accept them lies at the heart of your difficulties.
These are the hard truths of the world, it's not all black and white.
I'm not arguing with anyone, nor making "crazy" statements.
But it is self-evident that the PC crowd worked a lot of you over pretty well.

Have to disagree, I don't think I'm backing up what Chris is saying. He's making assertions that the Iroquois were only the equal of Cro-Magnon man, and that they were the aggressors to the Europeans. I just find his comments really misguided and uninformed. I think people need to keep in mind the the Iroquois were the dominant Civ in Native America, and were significant for centuries. Just because they weren't huge in European history, doesn't mean they weren't important in World history.

No, what I was attempting to point out (As Orange understood), was that they (the Iroquois) were not advanced at all, and in fact, had reached a "status-quo" as a society, but stopped growing and advancing as a people.
Other parts of the world have moved on, they had not.
If you read carefully, I'm complelty correct about who attacked whom first.
The fisrt European colony in the Americas was razed by the natives (not the Iroquois), so there is nothing "misguided or uninformed" about what I said.
I have no illusions at what Europeans would have done, reguardless of what you all are now assuming, but I do know what I'm taking about.
Stop making excuses for the Indians. They aern't the "noble savages" that they are now painted as in the modern era by the PC crowd.

Uh, huh... Chris, is that kind of history being taught in Columbia? Oh my, oh my... things are getting worst and worst there...

Yes, Greece is renowned for it's fair and unbiased view of the world in it's universities.
I also happen to be greek, mon ami.

What excactly did you mastered in, Chris? I mean, yes, history, but this is a great field. Huuuuuge actually. In what kind of history? Mine was in Medieval Balkan history.

Modern European history, specifcally, 1900-1945, with 4 years of general studies in all fields.
You neglected to mention your university, "professor".

Pardon me... WHAT??? Where did you see that written? "the natives began this pattern"? The Europeans "lived peacably"????? Gosh, do you even know what you are talking about?

Far more then you, obviously.

I am not going even to trash this statement, because it is past logical assumptions and any rational debating. A few words only: Utter and Total Rubish.

In other words, you don't know what your talking about, have ZERO rebuttal, so fall back on the old PC trick "all of you know what I mean"

Yes, really relavent.

Another precious jewel of pompeous trashing a civ ...on what criteria? What do you mean "important", my friend? As an historian (if you are one) you should be fully aware that the importance of a civilization is not based on personal povs or even the "contribution" of that civilization to the humanity in general.

Yet another pointless swipe on your part.
I have been debating know nothings like you for years.
Facts, my lad, are all that count.
Still waiting for your credentials, old boy.
Mine are confirmed, by several of the people in this very thread.
Care to throw out more baseless accusation?

The "importance" of a civilization lies in it's uniquenes, in it's diversity, it's time/space span, it's cultural productivity and the impact on it's environment. Those are not things you included in your "charts" where you compared Cro Magnon with Iroquis...

We are talking about wether they are more signicant for inclusion then Spain.
I was pointing out, and quite correctly, that they are closer to primative man than the highly cultred Iberians, but this escaped you, you see my post not as history, but a bash against the poor red men.
Fool. Pay attention!

That is not revisionist or reformist history, that is standard history. Where did you read or learned that the significance of a civilization is ... for instance... the size of the armies it could produce, or whatever your stupid criteria for trashing the brilliant meso american civilizations are.

People like you make me ill.
Assume, then jump from your assumption that it is now fact.
You think the Aztecs or the Maya equal the Europeans and Asians in culture and acchivment?!!?
A people who didn't have the wheel, and practised human sacrifice?!!?
You are the embodiment of Political correctness, assuming I'm bashing something, when I mearly pointed out that they were inferior to other cultures.
We are discussing the merits of inclusion, viv-a-vis the civ-3 game.
Pay attention!

Or is it... guilt? Nah, couldn't be... but again, maybe. Yes, maybe because you are a descendant of those who exterminated 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas, and destroyed a dozen important (not interesting, dear, important) civilizations, that is why you trash them as "insignificant", so your scientific conscious should stay unharassed...

Typical responce of the foolish.
Attempt to paint someone you disagree with as a racist.
Add fool to your list of titles.

Surely, you must be the one and only person on this earth with a masters in history, that supports such a stupid thesis.

Sorry if my vocabulary is kinda harsh, but I am really annoyed because of those copletely unscientific remarks of yours.

You just showed why your a poor historian.
Emotion and personal bias have no place in this kind of discussion.
My remarks are based totally in cold, hard logic, and deliberatly devoid of emotion, which has no place in a scientific discussion.

You believe I think what was done to the Indians wasn't a crime against humanity?
Count yourself a fool yet again in that case.

What I think is right and wrong morally has no place in this discussion, and I wish most of you would start to understand that.
It's clear that most of you don't, by the series of personal attacks which followed.

History is about facts, NOT emotion.

[Jay Bee]

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?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Modern European history, specifcally, 1900-1945, with 4 years of general studies in all fields.

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

A people who didn't have the wheel, and practised human sacrifice?!!?

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

My remarks are based totally in cold, hard logic, and deliberatly devoid of emotion, which has no place in a scientific discussion.

You could have fooled us. In fact you did!

[Waku]

Originally posted by Ribannah
And don't forget the inquisition. No wait .... that was Spain & co ...

exactly, "& co"
Goggle for a link of statistics with the number of witches burnt in Netherlands and Spain.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Waku

exactly, "& co"
Goggle for a link of statistics with the number of witches burnt in Netherlands and Spain.

Huh? There were no witch hunts in The Netherlands after they kicked out the Spanish, and very few before that time that actually ended in casualties. Did you somehow miss the last thread we had on the subject?
If you have new data, specify your source!

[Fiil]

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

Hopefully history is about conclusions upon and interpretations of facts otherwise it isn't worth more to know history than to know the bingo numbers of last week!

You probably agree, but don't forget it!

[Jay Bee]

Someone here needs to read Henry Kamen's works on the Inquisition.... For the record, Henry Kamen is an English historian, one of the most reputed in the world regarding XV-XVII century European affairs...



Fiil,

I am not sure what you meant there, sorry. Conclusions and interpretations based on emotions are worthless. Only those based on objective facts are valid. That's exactly Chris' point. And I totally agree with him.

[Waku]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Someone here needs to read Henry Kamen's works on the Inquisition....

I wonder who

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously, Ribannah. Judge a civ on the following:

Technology
Architecture
Economics
Size
Military
Artistry
Social
Political

Tech, Architecture, Economics, Size and Military, the Spain of 1700 and the Iroquois Nations of 1700 are in different worlds (I set you up last time, but don't try to twist: Spain>Iroquois).

Now: Artistic, Social, Political

Politically, the Iroquois seem to be more advanced. Though not as democratic as, say, the English, they were more so than the Spanish Empire.

Socially, it's hard to compare. Given the disparate levels of the economies of both entities (one is highly developed and specialised, the other is subsistence-level), such terms as "equality", etc. become fairly meaningless. The Iroquois lived more equally than the Spanish did for the simple reason that their economic system couldn't support inequality.

Artistically is going to be the one where you and I probably disagree, but I'll step out on a limb and say that Spain had a more sophisticated and developed level of art than the Iroquois did. Either way, add up the score, and see what you get.

[Jay Bee]

KH, please, not you too!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
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?

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.

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.

Cheers.

[Jay Bee]

I applaud Chris' brave stance. Sorry, I do not see any single untruth in what he wrote. I may agree he's exaggerating the tone quite a bit. I actually acknowledged that yesterday. But this is mainly a question of temper, unrelated to the real reasons that have motivated all this silliness.

On the other hand, a number of posters here merely post based on personal phobies, posting blatantly false crap, without caring a bit about whether they are hurting the feelings of other posters. You sure know what I'm talking about.

As for your last paragraph, you are absolutely right (again). Only one person seems to disagree.


PS. I do not think you were around when all this nonsense began. Please take a look at this thread. Long but interesting thread. The stuff that is immediately pertinent to this discussion starts on page 4.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24157

[static]

Originally posted by Chris 62
No, what I was attempting to point out (As Orange understood), was that they (the Iroquois) were not advanced at all, and in fact, had reached a "status-quo" as a society, but stopped growing and advancing as a people.
Other parts of the world have moved on, they had not.

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.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Stop making excuses for the Indians. They aern't the "noble savages" that they are now painted as in the modern era by the PC crowd.

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

Originally posted by Chris 62
I was pointing out, and quite correctly, that they are closer to primative man than the highly cultred Iberians, but this escaped you, you see my post not as history, but a bash against the poor red men.
Fool. Pay attention!

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.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Assume, then jump from your assumption that it is now fact.
You think the Aztecs or the Maya equal the Europeans and Asians in culture and acchivment?!!?
A people who didn't have the wheel, and practised human sacrifice?!!?

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.

Originally posted by Chris 62
History is about facts, NOT emotion.

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.".