Expansion Pack Civs Explained: Mongols and Spanish

[Dr. Nick]

Dammit! I forgot!

[Locutus]

Alexander,
I agree, noone except you made any comments on the format yet so it's save to assume everyone else agrees with my proposal.

On the strategy section: well, if noone else cares (and apparently noone does), I guess the best course of action would be to allow you to add a (brief) strategy section to each civ. Don't expect me to write any - it goes against all I believe to be the Civilization philosophy (it's 'rewrite' history, not 're-enact' it) - but as long as noone else objects I'll accept anything you (and possibly others) come up with.

El Awrence & jdd2001,
No offense, but obviously you guys don't know your history. Buenos Aires and Veracruz were both Spanish for over 200 years. I cite the Columbia Encyclopedia.

On Buenos Aires:

The city was first founded in 1536 by a Spanish gold-seeking expedition under Pedro de Mendoza. However, attacks by indigenous peoples forced the settlers in 1539 to move to Asunción (now the capital of Paraguay), and in 1541 the old site was burned. A second and permanent settlement was begun in 1580 by Juan de Garay, who set out from Asunción. Although Spain long neglected Buenos Aires in favor of the riches of Mexico and Peru, the settlement's growth was enhanced by the development of trade, much of it contraband.

In 1617 the province of Buenos Aires, or Río de la Plata, was separated from the administration of Asunción and was given its own governor; a bishopric was established there in 1620. During the 17th cent. the city ceased to be endangered by indigenous peoples, but French, Portuguese, and Danish raids were frequent. Buenos Aires remained subordinate to the Spanish viceroy in Peru until 1776, when it became the capital of a newly created viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, including much of present-day Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia.

And on Veracruz:

In 1519 the Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés landed near the site later chosen (1599) for the present city. Veracruz was easy prey for the buccaneers of the 17th and 18th cent. The harbor is guarded by the fortress of San Juan de Ulúa, which was begun in the 17th cent. and was the last stronghold of the Spanish before their expulsion in 1821.

If these cities can't be Spanish, then Antioch and Byzantium can't be Roman, Alexandria and Syracusa can't be Greek, Carthage and Gades can't be Phoenician, Dadu and Samarkand can't be Mongol, Kiev and Minsk can't be Russian, Lahore and Karachi can't be Indian, etc, etc. City lists should (and do) consist of cities that were historically very important for their host civilization, regardless of their current 'owner'. Whether or not these cities were part of this civ during their entire existence might be important but is certainly not vital. (And yes, New Amsterdam/New York, as well as a few other important (former) Dutch colonies, is on my list with Dutch city names)

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Locutus
Slavery was until 100-150 years ago the most normal thing in the world and in some way or another, (almost) everybody did it: Romans, Greeks, Mali, Chinese, Indians, Spanish, English, Dutch, Americans, etc. It was not something specific to the Spanish

The reasons I mentioned the slave traffic over the Atlantic are that (1) it's unique with regard the distance the African slaves were transported and (2) the African culture journeyed with them, and had a vast influence on the culture of the colonies / new nations, and thereby on the entire modern world. So IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere; if the Portuguese will get a description, you might post it there, because they initiated this traffic.

I thought of the Basques because I read they had their own separate settlements in the new world. However, I'm not certain whether there were southern Basques involved. Also interesting is that Navarre had its own constitution and court until 1842. But the text is already getting quite longish indeed

Keep up the good work!

[Dr. Nick]

*points at from field*

I know the history of the city I was born and raised in very well, thank you. By "they were never Spanish" means that they were never referred to as such. I should say what I want to put across better, but I meant that Buenos Aires was never a part of Spain, but a part of a Viceroyalty and whatever name it all had before. But never Spain proper. Neither was Veracruz.

About the Byzantine cities, I do not know as much on Byzantine history to say anything about them, I am just talking about what I know that I know.

[jdd2007]

locutus-first of all JDD two thousand and SEVEN
second of all, i was right. i did NOT comment on the buenos aires thing. i just corrected El Awrence on his New York remark

[Ubik]

Byzantines

Alright, sorry for being late, but I hadn’t had much time (got three days off work and spend them with me lovely wife outdoors – limited net access - but when I got back I got straight to work this out).

So, despite some that believe since Roman and Greeks are in, the Byzantine should not be included in a (possible) expansion pack for Civ3 (by the same manner the Americans shouldn't be in, right?) here is the magnificent Byzantine civilization.

Start with the basics:

Leader: Constantinos (Constantine) I the Great or Justinian. If the guys at Firaxis are all too PC and try to find some more female leaders (since they don’t really abandon in the world history) the Byzantines have some interesting empresses, like Theodora.

Capital city: Constantinupolis (Constantinople)

Cities: Antioch, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philipuppolis, Nikopolis, Nicea, Neocaesarea, Laodicea, Damascus, Theodosiopolis, Trapezus, Sinopi, Odessus, Philipoi, Andrianupolis, , Sabbi, Sardis, Caesarea, Nikomedea, Iraklion, Ancyra, Iconium, Edessa, Dyrrachium.

Great Leaders: Belissarius, Theodosius, Basil II Bulgaroktonos, Heraklius, Leo the Isavrian, Nicephorus Phocas, Michael VII Palaiologos, Narses

Unique Unit suggestions: Dromon (a fast early galley, sometimes equipped with “Hygron Pyr” - the well known “Greek Fire”).
Cabalarii: Basic Byzantine cavalry, armored and equipped with lances.
Varagian Guard: Selected Scandinavian (Nordic) and Rus mercenaries, the emperors guard (infantry, usually).
Cataphract: Elite cavalry unit, very heavy armored (the horse too!) but relatively slow.

History
In the 4th century AD the emperor of Rome Constantine I has decided to solve the poly-archy problem and get the heart of the Roman Empire away from the decadent Roman society, by moving the capital to the east. Actually, in fact Constantine has split the empire in two - something that wasn't though finalized until 395.

The City was named after him – Constantinoupolis – and was build on the site of a former Greek city called Byzantion (a colony of Megara, if I am not mistaken) placed in Bosporus, the narrow sea crossing between Aegean and the Black Sea. The Eastern Roman Empire – unlike it’s Western counterpart – lasted for more than 1000 years and it represents a civilization known to us today as “Byzantine”, a name given to it by scholars later.

Of course, both the state and the inhabitants always called themselves Roman, as did most of their neighbors. Western Europeans having their own Roman Empire (reincarnated later into the Holy Roman Empire) called them Orientals or Greeks, and even later Byzantines (a French scholar, which name right now slips my mind, is responsible for the name).

Byzantion (or Byzantium) was actually – up and until the seventh century, at least – a continuation of the Roman State, preserving also the basic structures (as in demography, culture, state and otherwise) of Rome.

We could say that it was a large multi-ethnic Christian state, based on a network of urban centers, connected by adequate roads and defended by a mobile specialized army (in the tradition of the Roman Legions). But that could not go on for ever, as the Roman state had lost it’s expansionist status (the greatest strength of Rome at it’s peak) and – with some exceptions, as the Justinian period – it tried just to preserve what it had. That wasn’t easy either.

After the Arab/Muslim conquest of Egypt and Syria, the nature of the state and culture was transformed. Byzantium became much more a Greek state [perhaps best seen in the emperor Heraklios' adoption of the Greek title Basileus, meaning King], all the cities except Constantinople faded away to small fortified centers, and the military organization of the empire came to be based on a series of local armies. There is then a persistent ambiguity about the beginning of Byzantine history - between the building of Constantinople by Constantine I and the mid-7th century collapse of late antique urban culture.

The seventh to ninth centuries are generally accounted a low point of Byzantine history. Little literature survives, and even less art. The period is studied above all for the history of the struggle over icons. This Iconoclastic Controversy bears witness to a continued intellectual vitality, and the emergence of one of history's most sophisticated analyzes of the nature and function of art. Constant warfare, especially against the Bulgars and the other Altaic tribes that moved west, kept the empire busy. Also the Arabs considered a constant threat and most emperors have had to go into war with them to preserve the unity of the empire.

Under the Macedonian Dynasty [867-1056], Byzantium's political power reached its apogee as former territories were incorporated in the Empire, and an element of multi-ethnicity was restored. This period is also significant as the time in which Byzantine culture was spread among the Slavs and other Balkan peoples.

Following massive Turkish attacks in the late eleventh century, the Empire was able to maintain a lesser but still significant political and military power under the Komnenian Dynasty: the cost was a social transformation which exalted a powerful military aristocracy, and gradually enserfed the previously free peasantry. In 1204, internal Byzantine politics and the resurgent West, effectively ended the imperial pretensions of the Byzantine state. The Fourth Crusade succeeded in conquering Constantinople and making it a Latin principality for half a century. The rest of the empire was split up between the leaders of the Crusade.

The Greek political leadership, under the Palaiologan Dynasty regained Constantinople in 1261, but the "empire" was just one state among many in the area for the final 200 years of its existence. Strangely, this period was among the most culturally productive, in art, in theology, and in literature.

What was the Byzantine civilization? A few words by Paul Halsal (distinguished byzantinologist) say much more than I possibly could:

Byzantine civilization constitutes a major world culture. Because of its unique position as the medieval continuation of the Roman State, it has tended to be dismissed by classicists and ignored by Western medievalists. Its internal elite culture was archaicizing and perhaps pessimistic. But we should not be deceived. As the centrally located culture, and by far the most stable state, of the Medieval period, Byzantium is of major interest both in itself, and because the development and late history of Western European, Slavic and Islamic cultures are not comprehensible without taking it into consideration. While few would claim elevated status for much Byzantine literature [although its historiographical tradition is matched only by China's], in its art and architecture, Byzantine culture was genuinely, and despite itself, innovative and capable of producing works of great beauty. As an area of study, as I have tried to indicate here, Byzantine studies is complex, full of conflict, and still open to new questions and methods.

[Locutus]

Ribannah,
Yes, I agree there were aspects about the Slave trade and the Basque situation that are quite unique and worth mentioning but the same can be said for FE the role of Spain in the Napoleontic era and the industrialization of Spain, yet noone mentioned these topics so far. As pointed by us and others both earlier, the summaries are already long enough as they are and they are by no means intended to be complete.

El Awrence,
So you argue that if a Spanish city did not pay taxes directly to the Spanish king or was not part of what is generally referred to as the Spanish 'homeland' it is not part of the Spanish Empire or even the Spanish Civilization? In that case we might as well get rid of the Romans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Dutch, the Indians, the Arabs, etc, right now 'cause most of those civs weren't even a single state for most of the time, let alone did they have a common leader to pay taxes to, and many important cities of these civs were not located in their 'homeland'. How the details of the government system work does not determine whether people and cities belong to a certain civilization or not. If Buenos Aires and Veracruz and its inhabitants weren't Spanish, then what were they? Would you argue that the Viceroyalty of Peru(?) was a civilization in itself? It's true that Argentina and the other former European colonies could well be seen as independent civilizations today, but these civilizations only began to come into being from 1800 onwards. Before that they were just remote outposts of their mothercivilizition: even if they were already independent, the culture and background of the people were not distinctly different from those in their mothercountry. What it all boils down to is that these cities were once Spanish and they were by far more important in Spanish history than FE Montefrio or El Campello (examples of 'cities' that I saw on some other, IMHO gravely flawed, Spanish city list).

Jdd2007,
I humbly apologize for the grave error of misspelling your name and beg for your mercy, I could never forgive myself but do you, in your humble greatness, think you could ever get it over your heart to forgive me, oh great master?
On the Buenos Aires point, I guess I must somehow be misinterpreting the remark "i definitely agree with this point", I apologize for that too...

Ubik,
Ehm, I had just agreed with Alexander01 to not have more than 2 civs per thread as it would get too confusing... Oh well, since noone seems to have any comments on the Mongols and since you already posted a complete summary on them, I guess it's okay to keep them here (though if you want to devote a new thread to them that's quite okay with me as well). I briefly looked over it and it looks very good so far, I will have some more elaborate comments at a later time.

All,
We pretty much seem to have worked out the format: my original format + suggestions for great leaders & wonders and optionally a 'strategy' section (I will shortly update the Mongols and Spanish to reflect this, suggestions from our Spanish experts would be most welcome). If anyone still has objections, I'm all ears (better late then never) but for now I'm assuming it stands. As far as I'm concerned, others can start posting summaries for other civs as well whenever they're ready. Since there are only a few volunteers at the moment I guess it's not really necessary to coordinate who posts what when (unless people feel this is necessary). For clarity reasons I think it might be useful if new threads on this subject all have the title "Expansion Pack Civs Explained:" plus the name(s) of the civ(s) that are to be discussed in that thread. If any other people want to volunteer, please post in this thread for which civs, that way we can prevent that people start doing double work. As it currently stands, the following people been 'assigned' to these civs:

Ubik: Byzantines
Wernazuma: Maya, Inca
Jdd2007: Hebrew (or at least 'do some research')
Locutus: Dutch (unless Alexander01 or someone else wants them)

(Let me know if I forgot anyone.)

This means the following civs from the current top 16 are still 'available' (if anyone wants to do a non top 16 civ, that's fine with me but for now they have a lower priority):

- Arabs
- Vikings
- Turks
- Phoenicians (I already have a city list)
- Celts
- Poles (useful source: LoD's thread)
- Portuguese
- Ethiopians (I already have a (partial) city list)
- Koreans (useful source: Yin's thread)

[Waku]

Originally posted by El Awrence
One thing I don't agree with here, why are cities like Veracruz and Buenos Aires down for the Spanish to found?

I would never remove Gadir from a phoenician/cartaghinian list nor Gades from a Roman list

[Alexander I]

Well done, Locutus. Your compromises are satisfactory to all, I'll wager.

One thing though...as far as possible, I think we should make this a team effort, since many are always more credible than one. So I feel anyone who has anything to contribute should speak up. It is the responsibility of the thread-starter only to update his post.

I think some people shy away from starting new threads because theirs could not compare to your excellent start, Locutus, so perhaps if a thread was begun, and then updated with any added information. (I know not everyone has the time we academicians have to research.)

[jdd2007]

Jdd2007,
I humbly apologize for the grave error of misspelling your name and beg for your mercy, I could never forgive myself but do you, in your humble greatness, think you could ever get it over your heart to forgive me, oh great master?
On the Buenos Aires point, I guess I must somehow be misinterpreting the remark "i definitely agree with this point", I apologize for that too...

THATS MORE LIKE IT, YOu lowly king who has hundreds more posts than i...

[jdd2007]

ah yes, i forgive you

[jsw363]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Sorry to sound pedantic, but you can't ride llamas.

Incas should have some special unit that can move all as roads across the mountainous andes.

I agree. The Incas used llamas as beast of burden and never rode them. I don't have any suggestions for an alternate unit however. Perhaps some sort of unit able to more easily defend mountain peaks.

On the BA/ Veracruz point. I would not include them not because they weren't a part of the Spanish Empire. They clearly were, though they were directly responsible to the Viceroy in Lima for most of thier time as a colony. I wouldn't include them because they weren't key cities in the empire. The Spanish never developed BA into a city large enough to deserve a spot on thier city list. Veracruz is more important because of it's role as a port. I think that colonies which played a role in the empire need to be included IF they were founded by that empire and weren't conquered.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by jsw363


I agree. The Incas used llamas as beast of burden and never rode them. I don't have any suggestions for an alternate unit however. Perhaps some sort of unit able to more easily defend mountain peaks.

The problem is only: I don't know whether civ3 got the "all roads" option, but I thought too, the Incans should have one, if that feature is integrated. I'll start working on the description after the test I got on wednesday.

[Solmyr]

Ubik: Damn you, I was going to write a long rant for inclusion of the Byzantines and their description, but you beat me to it

Just some additional comments on your writeup, then.

Leader: I would suggest a later one, because both Constantine and Justinian are more "Roman" than later great Emperors, and we don't want this civ to be dismissed as "part of Romans" My suggestions would be Heraclius, Basil II, or Alexios Komnenos.

Cities: I would remove Damascus as it seems to have more Arabic/Islamic characteristics.
Some more cities: Smyrna, Mistra, Patras, Dimitrias, Mesembria, Amasia, Amorion, Doryleion, Ragusa, Sebastea, Seleucia, Tarsus, Attalia, Abydos, Negropontos, Ioannina, Scutari, Ochrida, Dorostolon, Naissus, Sirmium, Melitene, Samosata, Soldadia, Cherson, Sevastopolis, Mosynopolis, Serres, Anazarbus (I could go on forever)

Civ Special Abilities: Religious and Commercial

[Shaka Naldur]

Originally posted by Ribannah

I thought of the Basques because I read they had their own separate settlements in the new world. However, I'm not certain whether there were southern Basques involved. Also interesting is that Navarre had its own constitution and court until 1842. But the text is already getting quite longish indeed

glad to know that it was that,

as i said before I respect your opinions about all the Iroquois thing (but I don´t agree with you) as long as you don´t use stuff like the actual basque terrorism situation in spain,

sorry I got a little off-topic

good job anyway