Expansion Pack Civs (Part 4): A never-ending story?

[Leppersson]

OK, so lets do Worldwide Championships for Civilizations
We have 32 places to appoint, 16 core...
We should award each continent in accordance with its merit in developing of a mankind.
I propose:
Europe 14, 8 core.
Asia 9, 4 core.
Americas 5, 2 core.
Africa 4, 2 core.
Excuse me, there is not place for Polynesia.

So for Europe it would be:
Core ones:
Greek
Romans
Viking
English
French
Russian
German
Spanishs
As additional ones:
Celtic
Portugese
Dutch
Polish
Italian
Hungarian

For Asia:
Core:
Chinese
Persian
Mongol
Ottoman Turkish
Additional:
Babylonian
Phoenician/Carthaginian
Japanese
Khmer
Jewish

Americas:
Core:
Aztec
Inca
Additional:
Modern American
Native American

Africa:
Core:
Egyptian
Arab (yes I know i coud be in Asia as well )
Additional:
Ethiopian
Zulu

Core ones would be "arranged" in the play-off...

[Gramphos]

You forgot Australia. And are the ones not listed as core your votes?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Locutus
Oerdin,
You don't know much about the Mali and the Khmer, do you? If so, before you draw conclusions like that, you should keep in mind that your lack of knowledge of certain civs says a lot more about you than it says about those civs.

Do I have extensive, indepth knowledge of the Khmer & Malian kingdoms? No, however, I would say I probably know more then the average reader in this thread and I certainly know more about world history then the average man on the street. Locutus, I made an evaluative judgement about the relative historical importance based upon certain criteria. If you would like to question that judgement it would be better to simply ask which criteria I used and not resort to veiled insults.

One could indeed argue that the Dutch, and the Portuguese (like Wernazuma, I'm not so sure about the Austrians) were historically more important than the Mali or the Khmer, but to state that the latter could not even compare to European civs is a severe underestimation of the greatness of these civilizations. I dare argue that both the Mali and the Khmer were in fact greater civilizations than the Dutch or the Portuguese.

Anyone can argue that any civ should be included, however, if we are going to decide the relative merits of one civ against another civ then we must agree on how we are going to decide. This is what I have been using:

1. The civ should have had a large cultural impact that lasts to this day. Civs which effected world culture the most should have preference over those who effected it less.
2. The civ must have made several important scientific advancements that had a significant impact upon the history of the world. Also was it scientifically ahead or behind other contemporary civs.
3. When the out come is close global powers should be chosen over region or local powers.
4. How large was the geographic area it controlled? How big was the population? What was the civs longevity? Does the civ still survive today or did it collapse?
5. Finally, I look at relative economic power. Which was better developed & had a larger impact upon the world?

Other people can come up with their own criteria but unless we all use the same criteria then we will end up arguing endlessly and never arrive at a consensus. I included Autria based primarially on 2, 4, & 5. It was only an example though if you would like I will drop it and we can concentraite on just the Dutch, Portugese, Malians, & Khmers.

The Malian kindom was an isolated, medium sized, iron aged kingdom which arose in western Africa during the late middle ages. It's capital was Timbuktu (most of the time), it survived mainly by trading gold (which it got from Ghana) and salt (locally mined) to Arabs who then traded it to the rest of the world. Mali quickly fell under the Arab sphere of influence and went into steep decline due to civil war and the fact that both Arabs and Europeans found alternative ways of obtaining Mali's primary trade goods. Off hand I can't think of scientific advance that was developed in Mali and subsuquently spread to the entire world but if any one else can I would love to hear about it.

Khmers were a civilization in southeast asia that propered between 1100AD-1500AD. The kingdom was centered in Cambodia but many of it's religious centers were in modern day souther Thailand. During the high period (between 1150-1300) Angkor Wat was built (as well as several other temple complexes) and the khmers conquered pieces of Loas, Vietnam, & Thailand. Khmers did become an influencial regional power in Southeast asia but they were heavily influenced by both the Indian and Chinese cultures. By 1500 the kingdom collapsed into an number of sussesor states and the Thais and Vietnamese ended up reconquering their old territories.
The Khmers have a much better case for inclusion then the Malians but in the end they just didn't out proform the Dutch, Spanish, or Portugese. Scientifically I can't think of anything they contributed though religiously Khmers made big contributions to Buddism (I must admite the Wats where beautiful to see when I visited Thailand and Cambodia in 1998). I remember hearing that rice cultivasion begin in southeast Asia but we can't contribute that advance to the Khmer kingdom.

The only reason why the Europeans are always seen as so important is because they preferred waging war and suppressing other nations over developing a sophisticated society, building magnificent cities and structures and collecting knowledge (and with 'collecting' I don't mean 'borrowing' it from others).

Europeans weren't the be all and end all of world history but they have been more dominant then any other group. You are right Locutus they were more successful at waging war, but, they we more successful because they built sophisticated societies, built magnificent cities, and where scientifically innovative. To say that they "borrowed" it from everyone else is incorrect. Sure every civ borrows good ideas from other civs, but European civilization was hugely dominant in just about any field of scientific study worth talking about.
Does this mean that others didn't contribute anything? No. It simply means that their contributions way outpaced the competition and so they deserve to be "over represented".

[Leppersson]

Originally posted by Gramphos
You forgot Australia. And are the ones not listed as core your votes?

Not forgotten
Australia and Canada (and some others) for me are a part of English civ.
I did not mentioned Sweden and other Scandinavians as succesors of Vikings...
I know you,ll say so English and French origin from Celts and all Europeans from Greeks and Romans. It is a problem in such understood civilization definition to include in the game...
My votes, hm I must find it out: the rules, you know , which core are already included.
For sure I want:
Arab (I can't understand how anyone was not able to perceive the Arab civ!) 20
Mongols 20
Turkish 20
Viking 20
Spanish 20
Dutch 20
Polish 20
Inca 20

[ogotai]

"Leppersson" - hmm... that reminds me something... but what?!

[St Leo]

Who the hells is voting for the Hebrews? Their only claim to fame is Christianity/Islam and I usually don't blame them for that.

[orange]

I agree

Hebrew should not be in the game.

Judaism is followed by many. But how historically signifigant was the Hebrew civilization itself? It just got passed around from one empire to the next. It never really experienced a golden age, wouldn't really have a unique unit, and just how many Hebrew cities can you name? Sure, a few in Israel...but that's it.

Plus, there'll be to many ME civs. The Hebrew are getting a large vote from the Israeli population of Civ III, IMO...if they make it and the Askumite or Mali don't, I'll be mildly disappointed

[orange]

update anytime soon?

just wondering, Loc

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Leppersson
Not forgotten
Australia and Canada (and some others) for me are a part of English civ.

I think he meant the continent, i.e. Oceania and not the country. Australia might include the Polynesians, Maoris, Australian Aborigines, Rotokas, etc.

[JayKay]

This is my first post at Apolyton forums...and i'll vote on the following civs: (hope this is all ok with the rules)

Portuguese: 20 points
Spanish: 5 points
Vikings: 5 points
Irish: 5 points
Incas: 5 points
Mayans: 5 points
Dutch: 5 points
Turkish: 5 points
Polish: 5 points
Austrians: 5 points
Hungarians: 5 points
Palestine: 5 points
Mongols: 5 points

_________________________________________________

[img]C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\asimoes\Os meus documentos\Toni\Bandeira de Portugal.gif[/img]

Portugal - Nation of Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition)

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by JayKay
[img]C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\asimoes\Os meus documentos\Toni\Bandeira de Portugal.gif[/img]

Welcome, JayKay. I would just like to remind you that whatever image you attempted to post must be saved on your computer and therefore nobody else can see it!

[LoD]

JellyDonut: It's named "Bandeira de Portugal.gif", so I don't think we have to see it to know what it is .

[Amerlain]

Vote...

Ok all, here are my votes:

Poles: 20 pts
Huns: 20 pts
Slavs: 20 pts
Siamese/Thai: 20 pts
Swedes: 20 pts
Arabs: 5 pts
Israelis: 5 pts

[JayKay]

ok here it is...sorry about that...my mistake!!!

what about now? can u see it?
_________________________________________________



Portugal - Nation of Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition)

[Rosacrux]

Hi I am new on this board and I want to say that Locutus is doing a great job here.

Alright, now I am going on to vote. 160 points - 20 max for each civ, right?

Arabs - 20
Mongols - 20
Byzantines - 20
Carthagenians - 20
Spanish - 20
Ethiopian - 20
Nubians - 20
Inca - 20

If somethig is wrong with the above voting, please informe me. Thank you