The most glaring omission...

[Fiil]

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.

When I give the Spanish points for religion, it's mainly because they launched the 'counter-reformation' which probably saved the catholic church in France and Southern Germany.
The Jesuits (a Spanish 'invention') were of great importance both in Spain and in the rest of the world.

About the artistry, Fiera mentioned a couple of persons: Goya, Velázquez, Lope de Vega and Miguel de Cervantes, who are all famous and Spanish, and who I've heard of up here.

I have never seen nor heard of anything special about Iroquois religion or artistry. Were the Iroquois superior to their neighbours in these fields? Please enlighten me!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange

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

The middle quote in your post was mine, in which I (correctly) pointed out that Chris was both being factually in error and emotional, despite his claims to the contrary.

I think others here have proven Chris's claim to be factually false, through quoted sources, to enough of a degree that I cannot take seriously anything he says.

I think Ubik's quote from his professor is quite on-target when it comes to Chris's intentions here. For someone nearly twice my age, I find Chris's behavior disturbingly immature.

However...this topic is not about Chris, and I urge everyone here to drop the issue and return to the subject at hand.

Back to the game:

I admit I have learned a great deal about the Iroquois through these threads, so in that sense, Firaxis has indeed sparked some real learning here. Who'da thunk it?

However, I am still unconvinced as to their inclusion in the first 16 civs. They strike me as more expansion pack material than the Ottomans or Incas.

Since I've never posted it, here would be my 16 civs (no particular order of importance):

1. Americans
2. Russians
3. Romans
4. Greeks
5. Germans
6. Ottoman Turks/Arabs (Sulayman as leader)
7. Babylonians
8. Chinese
9. Japanese
10. Incas
11. Aztecs
12. Malis
13. Egyptians
14. Indians
15. English
16. Spanish

Yes, I nixed the French.

Am I the only one to do this so far? I'm sure it won't be popular, but I think what I have above is pretty good at both geographic, cultural and ethnic variety. It also gives a pretty good span of civs that ascended to their heights at different eras.

Cheers.

[Jay Bee]

It's really sad to confirm once more how powerful a bad apple can be. Why are everybody here keeping the container and dropping the content? Yeah, Boris let's drop it. Things have escalated into multiple absurd personal attacks and nothing good can be obtained from this.

Fortunately somebody put a tiny point of light into this neverending nonsense:

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

Thanks JD.

I'm outta here. I just hope that the one poster you all know learns the lesson and doesn't start once again with that unnnecessary and extremely offensive campaigning against my people. I am talking about the one who had the guts to post this yesterday in Off-Topic:

Originally posted by
That is so sad .
If only we would care about each other's thoughts, we would never have terrorism!

[Fiil]

Originally posted by JellyDonut
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.

Of course this is true. But would you rather that we didn't have this discussion then?



Just because there is no right and wrong on this subject and because people will allways have different opinions, this doesn't mean that we cannot discuss the subject.

I get a lot of surprises when reading these threads (and I hope you do too). Not only does people bring up new facts that I'm not aware of, but they make a lot of new conclusions!

Those of you who can find no use of or see no point in this, have IMO stopped their learning process and will forever be lost in the annals of civilization...

[Chris 62]

Ha Ha Ha

Originally posted by 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".

He must have been referring to you.

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

Name changed to reflect the truly stupid.

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"...

When you have no intelligent argument, always spout psychobabel.

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

Yes, because it's obvious you didn't study history.
And you launched the first strike, dear boy.
Go back and reread the thread if you think differently.

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.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

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.

Ah, you fall on the first refuge of the truly stupid, attempt personal insult.
How pathetic you are.

...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.

Ha Ha, now you try to steal my heritage, because I refuse to be brainwashed by a flea like you!

So long and thanks for the crap

You dished it, now eat it.

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

Boris, My first post was at the request of the Spanish posters, to rebut the Young Lady's consistant and unfounded attacks on them.
Everyone seems to have "jumped in", for her defense.
I was indeed serious, and they were indeed meant to be condescending and obnoxious, to a person whom had been that way to my comrads for a VERY long 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

I didn't say I thought nothing of Franklin's words, but that there were other opinions that contrast quite clearly with his.
Also, you see a common denominator as far as the Iroquois history presented.
All of the matters of note in their society come AFTER contact with Europe, not before.
It leads to the unaswered question, who taught whom.
You will also note, the passage you quote is not flattering to the natives.

Boris again:

The middle quote in your post was mine, in which I (correctly) pointed out that Chris was both being factually in error and emotional, despite his claims to the contrary.

You have proven nothing, just continued to claim that I am in error.
Saying your right won't make you right, no matter how much you try.
Your behaviour is EXACTLY what I pointed out it would be, prove nothing, just claim the victory.

I think others here have proven Chris's claim to be factually false, through quoted sources, to enough of a degree that I cannot take seriously anything he says.

I have yet to see you bit of this "proof" you claim, no "quoted" sources.
More nonsense on your part.

I think Ubik's quote from his professor is quite on-target when it comes to Chris's intentions here. For someone nearly twice my age, I find Chris's behavior disturbingly immature.

Of course you would, for I dared disagree with your PC views.
It hardly surprizes me that you would side with someone who:
1)Called me a racist
2)Dismissed my facts out of hand, without a shread of proof
3)Attempted to deny my herritage.
You fit a very old quote: Show me your friends, and I'll tell you who you are.
Yes, you and Ubik go together quite nicely.

However...this topic is not about Chris, and I urge everyone here to drop the issue and return to the subject at hand.

All of you should have stood with it from the start, instead of the personal attacks.
I knew where I was going from the start, at the "Gibratan", and I was right on the mark.
The fact that you and your PC friends took the heat was solely due to your attempting to "step in", and be chivilrous.

And again, patting yourselves on the back, as friend Boris just tried, changes nothing.
Attempting to sound reasonable, yet still being insulting Ie I find Chris's behavior disturbingly immature simply because you cannot present a coherent rebuttal to my assertion, is foolish, but not unexpected.

The Iroquois do not belong in the game, the Spanish do.

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

Again, this is a matter of opinion.
In some ways, yes, in others, no.
Yes, the Pophul Vol could be considered a wonder, but I believe European culture to be more advanced than the Maya.
It is interesting that the Aztecs are the selected race, not the Maya.
Whether they traded with Europe is still conjectural, but Africa is possible, (but unlikely, due to certain maritme factors).
The ships they had, as demonstarted by Thor Hyderthal some time back, could possibly survive the trip, but they were quite small, and not really suited for ocean trade.
Also, the strutres they built are quite interesting, but I stand by my statement that Europe was more advanced.

[static]

Re: Ha Ha Ha

Originally posted by Chris 62
Again, this is a matter of opinion.
In some ways, yes, in others, no.
Yes, the Pophul Vol could be considered a wonder, but I believe European culture to be more advanced than the Maya.
It is interesting that the Aztecs are the selected race, not the Maya.
Whether they traded with Europe is still conjectural, but Africa is possible, (but unlikely, due to certain maritme factors).
The ships they had, as demonstarted by Thor Hyderthal some time back, could possibly survive the trip, but they were quite small, and not really suited for ocean trade.
Also, the strutres they built are quite interesting, but I stand by my statement that Europe was more advanced.

Chris - Let's just agree to disagree, I only got into this thread because I feel some of your statements are misguided.

I put the Spanish in my top 10 Civs (Romans, British, Chinese, Egyptian, American,French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Ottoman Empire) IMHO, and definantly think they should be included, however I also put the Maya and Iroquois in my top 25 and feel they also have a legitimate claim to be included. I think its a toss up from 11-25, and no matter who was chosen in the top 16 it would have been controversial.

My point is that there were significant Civs outside of Europe and Asia, and that the typical view of World History doesn't go in much depth on these Civs. I wanted to give people some information they may not of heard, so they would get a more well-rounded view of the Iroquois and the Maya.

It's still a matter of opinion of who and what people want to believe, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.