What is a "civilization" anyway?

[XarXo]

Originally posted by MacTBone
This is an absolutely stupid assumption. First you ignore the fact that EVERY nation/civilization has killed, be it in an actual war or otherwise. Then you accuse Firaxis of only picking Civs whaich are "Bloody, bloody, bloody". Have you seen the list of sixteen civs? Did you know every single one? If you did then it looks like they got it half right already. Name recognition is a big factor when looking for civs. Were you able to rationalize why they were in the game, i.e. "world influence"? I've been able to. The only civ that doesn't jive with this is the Zulus, but that civ is in more for geographical and cultural purposes than any other reason IMHO.

No, sorry, is BLOOD! A lot of countries make "great" bloody actions, but these 16 are the best ones. Look the following reasons:

- English : What to say? They contracted pirates to steal money to Spain.

- Americans : "I will make a peace tretay, but first I will test my new kind of bomb with'em"

- Iroquois : "They represents all the native northamerican tribes..." OoooOOOoooOOh... How much beautiful?? FALSE! They represent all THE COLONIZATION WARS. Only a combat dude.

- Zulus : The same, but now for the english market.

- Russians : Oohohohooo. With communism and Stalin all is said!

- Germany : Hitler! Oh! The King of Blood. A midget bastard with ridiculous facial hair. What to say?

- Aztec : In Civ3.COM they make a special refference to the human
sacrifices. Now I know why they didn't choose the Incas.

- French : Their centralism and chobisnism is enough reason to declare war to him an destroy them. Ah, also the Sahara Arabic destruction in the XVIII-XX (and the atomic test in Muruora!).

- Indians : Millions of persons with computers. But the Cashmir war is truly a morbous point.

- Egyptians : Pyramids, and the slaves that build them? And the wars with Israel and Nubia?

- Japanese : Koreans "LOVE" 'em . They make a great humanitary acts in the 2nd WW.

- Chinese : Look a Tibet. Look at elsewhere.

- Persians : They are the actual Iran. that's all.

- Babylonians : Wohohoo, they are IRAQ now!!

- Greeks : Well... Ehm... Pf... Okey, Greeks are the exception.

- Romans : Ugh, too many bloody wars. Let's make a choice!

- Barbarians: Extra blood.

Well, this seems more a JOKE.

Ok, I accept that my theory is FALSE. Sorry if someone is insulted with my words, but is history guys!

[Locutus]

Actually, I don't think we'll ever agree on what a civilization is. Some people say a civilization is a cultural group that had written history, some argue that they must have lived in cities, others argue they should first and foremost be fun to play with and yet others say the should be historically 'important'.

IMHO the only way to figure out which civs are worthy of a place in Civ3 is to organize a poll, let everybody vote for their favourite civs and sort things out afterwards. Now, why does that sound familiar?

[mactbone]

Xarxo, I gotta ask, do you really believe what you've written here, or is this a troll?

The Greeks did make war, so I guess they're bloody too.
The Americans launched two atomic bombs because the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered until most of their population had died fighting. It's generally accepted that Truman saved lives on both sides by forcing the surrender quckly. Not to say that's a good reason, but that's how it is rationalized. You'd be better off making a point of the Amerindian massacres.

The Aztecs DID have human sacrifices and it's a very interesting and salient fact about them. That's not the reason they're in though. I don't know exactly why they chose Aztecs over Incas, but I'm sure someone with more knowledge about the civs could tell you.

[XarXo]

If we use a poll, Neanderthals are a civ ?

[XarXo]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Xarxo, I gotta ask, do you really believe what you've written here, or is this a troll?

Is a TROLL.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Locutus
Actually, I don't think we'll ever agree on what a civilization is.

You're right. Scientists and historics argue
on this, so why would we be different.

P.S. I'll give a more deep going reply tomorrow
(due to the autumn vacation).

[ranskaldan]

Yeah... it's really very very hard to arrive at a common definition for civ. But I was looking at the poll a couple of days ago and everyone had a problem with at least one or two civs in the top 16... And most of those debates involve completely different definitions for civilization.

EDIT:
Xarxo: i was just about to post some really nasty things about what you said... but then I realized that it was a joke... oh well, what can i say! lol!

[August Borms]

Originally posted by Rosacrux


Hmm... I thought that was Japan...

I'm pretty sure it's Germany... I've seen it mentioned a couple of times on non-German sites but I can't find anything on google though, except that Germany is 3rd biggest market for software and that PC games aren't that popular in Japan...

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by XarXo


- Americans : "I will make a peace tretay, but first I will test my new kind of bomb with'em"

I think you misread American history, If you must criticize Americans: Note the following wars:

Mexican-American War (Why was this fought? No good reason)
Spanish-American War (No good reason, newspaper, govt faked the reasons)

America has a long tradition of hating hispanics

--
In WWII Japanese did NOT want PEACE! That is why they were atomized twice.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


I think you misread American history, If you must criticize Americans: Note the following wars:

Mexican-American War (Why was this fought? No good reason)
Spanish-American War (No good reason, newspaper, govt faked the reasons)

America has a long tradition of hating hispanics

--
In WWII Japanese did NOT want PEACE! That is why they were atomized twice.

First, there is a great deal of evidence that Japan was making moves to capitulate prior to the bombing. Regardless, Truman's decision was more a first shot of the Cold War than a last shot of WWII. He was showing Stalin how big the American d!ck was.

Americans have no long tradition of hating Hispanics. What we have is the Eurocentric notion that only European civilization should be taken seriously. The wars cited above were merely a couple of conflicts in a long line of European American aggression in the name of "civilized" expansion. The Hispanics have no special place here--they joined the Amerinds, the blacks and every other non-WASP group in being a punching bag of history.

Edit: Of course, given the Spanish butchering of Native Americans, nobody's hands are clean here.

Cheers.

[Rasbelin]

Here's the reply I promised yesterday.

I checked what Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary mentioned about "civilization",
and here it is:

A relatively high level of cultural
and technological development;
specifically: the stage of cultural
development at which writing and
the keeping of written records is attained
b : the culture characteristic of a particular
time or place

I also checked what the Collins Westminster
Dictonary (good as new, anno 1960 ) had to say.
And guess what! It didn't know the word "civilization"!
Looks like the old good book has some weak spots.

My definition for "civilization" is a joint population or
settlement that has some sort of government,
written language, laws and social hierarchy.
The cultural heritage is also often shared by everyone.
It doesn't necessarily have a far developed science.

The deifinition given by the M-B's dictonary isn't
good (IMHO), because that's more like the definition
for "high culture".

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

In WWII Japanese did NOT want PEACE! That is why they were atomized twice.

You're more than right, or are you...

I must add that Rose wanted to drop Little Boy and
it's brother ( how cruel ) on Japan, because
he thought that it would speed things up.
And it really did that; Japan surrendered.

[Faboba]

Ras - The reason Collin's westminster didn't have civilization is because you're not spelling it correctly.

In the english language ( no not AMERICAN english, english english ) it's often spelt civilisation ( Oxford Dic says either is correct so I'm not judging, we had this argument many times before on Ap ) so try looking under s.

Oxford dic says it was coined in 1704 so your dictionary if it's even half decent bloody well ought to have it.

Civilization - also isation 1704 [ f. Civilize+-ation ] 1. The assimilation of the common law to the civil law -1812. 2. The action or process of civilizing or being civilized. -1775 3. ( more usually ) Civilized condition or state - 1772. Also transf.
3.The more advanced the c. the less powerful is the individual HELPS. Hense civilizational a.

So thats.......... not use at all to anyone.

( nb to make someone civil you must - bring them out a state of barbarism, instruct them in the arts of life or englighten and refine them. )

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Faboba
The reason Collin's westminster didn't have civilization is because you're not spelling it correctly.

Well, I found it already, but thanks anyway!

There's a very short description on "civilisation".

The act of civilising, or state of being civilised.

[Faboba]

And I'll bet that helped a whole lot