Carthaginian or Phoenician?

[Ironwood]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Civ: Phoenicians
Leader: King Hiram of Tyre (see 2nd Samuel, Old Testament, the Bible)
Capital: Tyre
Unit: Quinquireme (faster Trireme with less cost)
Attributes: Commercial, Expansionist

Thoughts?

I like! But were they truly expansionist? I know they had colonies all over the Mediterranian, but, IIRC, those were primarily commercial outposts (except one really big and successful commercial outpost, Carthange). I suppose any culture that deliberately expands could be considered expansionist.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Alexander01

Capital: Tyre

Tyre in English, but the "real" name was Tyros.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Ironwood

Still, the name "Greek" is used in Civilization, because, first off, it's more recognizable than "Macedonian," secondly, it was truly Greek culture that was extended, and that any culture Macedonia had was attained by their claim of fundamental "Greekness" (they were wannabe Greeks). Finally, simply calling them "Greek" includes other Greek areas that Alexander never touched, i.e. the colonies west of Greece proper (particularly Sicily and southern Italy, which feel the influence of their Greek ancestors to this day).

You have a clue in that (IMO), but it's still easier
to have simply Greek. I know it's historically correct,
but it's widely accepted and used. History books use
the "Aegean cultures" and "Classic Greece", but
I think they use Greek for Alexander's empire.

Markos (MarkG) could answer this question.

Why Hannibal? Because everybody knows his name. It's not historically accurate, I know. But who else could it be? (Please tell me. I am very interested in such things.)

Hannibal was the most prosperous Carthaginian leader,
at least as far as we know.

If you remember Civ II (some people have already forgot it),
the female Carthaginian leader is Dido (not Dildo, even if
many players would prefer that one ).
She was actually a real leader, but not significant.

The reason why we don't know so much about Carthage and
it's rulers and history is that the city was burnt down
to ashes in the II. Punic war.

[Rasbelin]

Civlization: Carthaginians
Leader: Hannibal
Capital: Carthage
UU: War Elephant
Attributes: Commercial, Militaristic

I know that the Indians have WE as UU,
but the Carthaginians were the real
masters of War Elephants, and they
were the first civ to use them.

The Roman army (especially Scipio) feared
them like hell.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Alexander01

(see 2nd Samuel, Old Testament, the Bible)

Not for being a fanatic Christian, but the Bible
is actually a good source for information (IMO) on the
ancient civs in the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.

[Rosacrux]

...I wouldn't excactly call it "a good source" or anything like that. It is biased, full of fantastic stories, peoples and events and is not history - it is a set of beliefs that tries to present also the history of the "chosen people".

A number of historians are making the grand mistake of taking into account literaly every word in the old testament... and they come up with ridiculous assumptions and rather annoying remarks.

Fact is that the old testament is a good starting point to learn a couple of things, but if you stick to them, you lose.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
I know that the Indians have WE as UU,
but the Carthaginians were the real
masters of War Elephants, and they
were the first civ to use them.

The Roman army (especially Scipio) feared
them like hell.

What *are* you talking about? The Carthaginians were the first civ to use War Elephants? Where do you think they got the idea from in the first place? Alexander the Great was the first 'Mediterranean' to encounter them (in India, where they were used as early as 1100 BC). After this initial encounter, the Greeks themselves used Indian War Elephants in a number of battles, most notably the Battle of Pyrrhus. This gave Egyptians and Carthaginians the idea to use their own African Plain Elephants. Hannibal's elephants were smaller than the Indian ones and the Carthaginians weren't all that successful with them. I quote:

Although his crossing of the Alps with the elephants is widely remembered, Hannibal made surprisingly little use of them. War elephants proved useful against Iberian tribal forces, though they were somewhat less effective when facing disciplined regulars (see The Trouble with Elephants). In fact, most of the 34 elephants he started with died during the mountain passage or during the severe winter that followed. The last few died after the battle of Trebbia, leaving only one (Serus?) to carry Hannibal through the Etrurian marshes.

Originally the Romans didn't know how to deal with the elephants they encountered and they (the elephants) scared the crap out of them, but they (the Romans) soon adapted. The War Elephant certainly had it's use on the Carthaginian battlefield but they were by no means superior to the Indians.

[Locutus]

As far as the Bible as historical source goes, I agree with both Rasbelin and Rosacrux. It is indeed a very good and important source of info, either on its own or in combination with other sources. Many of the things in the Bible are indeed biased and made up and at times it even contradicts itself (all this from an atheist's point of view of course, many Christians would no doubt disagree) but many things are truthfull and reliable as well. In any case, even the most 'fantastic' stories of the Bible have a basis in scientific 'truth'. Besides, name me one ancient literary source that isn't biased. One of the most important sources on the Celts we have FE is 'De Bello Gallico' by C. Julius Ceasar himself. But this book was at the time nothing more than a piece of propaganda to justify his military campaigns in Gaul. It creates a very biased and inaccurate picture of 'savage barbarians' but it also contains tons of invaluable historic info on them that *is* (most likely) accurate.

BTW, can we keep (as much as possible of) the Phoenician/Carthaginian debate in the relevant thread? This forum is already cluttered up enough with Expansion Pack Civ threads as it is...

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Locutus

Where do you think they got the idea from in the first place?

I mixed up with the Indians. I'm sorry, it was a mistake.
I was probably still asleep.

Originally the Romans didn't know how to deal with the elephants they encountered and they (the elephants) scared the crap out of them, but they (the Romans) soon adapted.

That's correct. My point was that the elephants were
the most important non-infantry weapon of Hannibal.
But Scipio managed to have some good tactics in the
final battle outside Carthage. He ambushed the elephants
from aside, before attacking the main force of Hannibal.
That movement gave him the needed ace in the battle,
because Hannibal had more men than Scipio (of course
now I might recall wrong).

But anyway, the Carthaginian history is interesting (IMO).

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
That's correct. My point was that the elephants were
the most important non-infantry weapon of Hannibal.
But Scipio managed to have some good tactics in the
final battle outside Carthage. He ambushed the elephants
from aside, before attacking the main force of Hannibal.
That movement gave him the needed ace in the battle,
because Hannibal had more men than Scipio (of course
now I might recall wrong).

Yeah, something like that...

But anyway, the Carthaginian history is interesting (IMO).

IMHO, all of history is interesting. Well, almost all of it anyway...

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Locutus

IMHO, all of history is interesting. Well, almost all of it anyway...

Me too. A real history freak? Probably.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
A real history freak?

Guilty as charged

[orange]

oh c'mon...

it's neck and neck! Someone else vote!

We can't leave it as a tie!

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Locutus
One of the most important sources on the Celts we have FE is 'De Bello Gallico' by C. Julius Ceasar himself. But this book was at the time nothing more than a piece of propaganda to justify his military campaigns in Gaul. It creates a very biased and inaccurate picture of 'savage barbarians' but it also contains tons of invaluable historic info on them that *is* (most likely) accurate.

Locutus-
Agreed, but it IS a great book. Good to hear that there are other people out there reading it. I think that it was one of my favorite books in Latin. I still remember the opening lines... Gallia est omnis divisa en partes tres... Actually seemed relevant and realistic. Yes, it's definitely propaganda, but it provides a great insight into Ceasar's psyche and the Gallic War. Just a shout out to Latin scholars out there...

[al-Apolyton]

I gave my vote too.

Originally posted by orange
Someone else vote!

Happy now? 13 versus 12.