How are you guys criticizing M. Bison? He's right on, barring some strange semantics you feel the need to interject into the conversation in an attempt to prove your point.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
XP civ overlap.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jasev
Where did you study history, man? It's not a shame to ignore something, but it's quite stupid to talk when you don't have any idea. It's a good politic to listen until you learn.
And I quote from Guns, Germs and Steel:
"The reasons for the civil wars [that pizzaro took advantage of to conquer the Inca] wasthat an epidemic of smallpox, spreading overland among South American Indians after its arrival with Spanish settlers in Panama and Colombia, had killed the Inca emperor Huayna Capac and most of his court around 1526 [10 years before Pizzaro arrived], and then immediately killed his designated heir, Ninan Cuyuchi. Those deaths precipitated a contest for the throne... If it had not been for the epidemic, the Spaniards would have faced a united empire." p. 77
Oh, no. Wait a second, I was right to begin with. It helped kill the Aztecs too. Cortes had landed in 1519, fought to Tenochtitlan, retreatred to the coast and come back again in 1520.
"What gave the Spaniards a decisive advantage was smallpox, which reached Mexico in 1520 with one infected slave arriving from Spanish Cuba. The resulting epidemic proceeded to kill nearly half of the Aztecs (NEARLY HALF OF THE AZTECS), including Emperor Cuitlahuac... [A hundred years later] Mexico's initial population of about 20 million had plummeted to about 1.6 million." p. 210
There you go, two popguns, two horses, two great empires falling to the spanish. Why? Disease. So before you go deriding my education, why don't you produce some good old counter-quotes of your own?I'm typing this from my bathtub. It helps support my girth.
__________________
Comment
-
I think we're straying a bit here... the debate is about why the Spanish and Arabs should not be in civ3. diseases is a major point but it's not the ONLY point in this debate.
Anyway, the Mongols weren't the only ones keeping China out of Central Asia... they were a very small tribe up to the 12th century. Before that it was the Huns, Turks and Khitans who did the job. Many people seem to assume that the Mongols dominated Central Asia for centuries before their empire spree, actually they weren't even close. They were just a minor tribe.Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
Comment
-
you neglected to mention the diarreha (sp?) that the aztecs were suffering. another aspect which contributed to the spanish conquest was cortez's clever alliances made along the way. The aztecs were very mean people and all the other minorities in central Mexico HATED them (look at the history of the Otomi for one example of the Aztec policies against formerly independent groups). These various groups allied with Cortez because they figured nobody could be worse than the Aztecs. So when Cortez walked into a Tenoctitlan in political strife the Aztecs were suffering from diarreha and other diseases; Cortez was aided by other disgruntled mesoamerican groups and there wasn't much that the Aztecs could do. Of course, the mesoamericans were wrong about the Spanish. They WERE worse than the Aztecs. Mexico City has lots of nice memorials and murals depicting this story...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bisonbison
#1 - The Spanish
... pushed the Persians out of Iberia, traded for some navigational tech and went on to conquer poorly defended Aztec, Iroquois and XP Maya cities ...A horse! A horse! Mingapulco for a horse! Someone must give chase to Brave Sir Robin and get those missing flags ...
Project Lead of Might and Magic Tribute
Comment
-
Buying a clue...
Bisonbison, I strongly suggest you go to the closest mall and buy a clue ASAP!
Your posts are the most unhistorical misinterpretations of history and ethnology on this forum - and I've read a lot of them in the past few weeks I am participating here
Reading your posts I constantly ROFLMAO - and I haven't even been able to finish them. A point by point trashing would be in vain - I would exceed the character limit and I wouldn't even be halfway.
There are about half a dozen guys on these forums that really do know their history - pay attention to their posts and you may be able to buy that clue we were talking about for a bargain price.
Some of them: Locutus, Orange, Solmyr, Wernazuma (there are others, but you'll be able to figure them out yourself). That is if you are lazy to run through a houndred of history books yourself
Byzantine issue
Christantine, so in what terms are the Byzantines any different than the Americans? I think this is a matter of perspective - If we lived in 700 AD, Firaxis would have included the Byzantines in the game, along with the Romans and the Greeks - in 2001 AD they include the Americans along with the Brits, the French and the Germans.
See the analogy?
Comment
-
My argument against that, Rosacrux, is that the Byzantines existed only when the Romans and Greeks did not, whereas the French Spanish Americans and British all existed at the same time and on different land.
I know that's over simplifying the point, but the split of the Roman Empire gave birth to the Byzantines in Eastern Europe which occupied all of former Greek lands, and which eventually reconquered the western part of the empire. That to me is still the Roman Empire, not a new Empire...simply under a different name. Obviously they didn't hold the territory for long, the Arabs began their spread shortly after and conquered N. Africa and the Byzantines similarly lost central Anatolia.
To me, it's like having the Rus, Russians, and Soviets as Civs in the game. Same basic civ, just different time periods and slightly different locations."Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez
"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
Comment
-
Orange you are right, in more than one aspects. Only thing we might disagree is the criteria we use to determine the significance of the civilization (in game terms, that is).
The Byzantine heritage and the influences that created this marvelous civilization are undoubtfull. Roman, Greek, Orthodox (in reverse order, actually).
But to call the Byzantines "Roman" or "Greek", is an anecdote - they had a very distinguished culture, and cannot be confused with those.
Well, maybe it is a fact that we cannot expect them to be in the XP (IF there will be one) but I have to support them in terms of sympathy and admiration
Comment
-
Re: Buying a clue...
Originally posted by Rosacrux
Bisonbison, I strongly suggest you go to the closest mall and buy a clue ASAP!
Your posts are the most unhistorical misinterpretations of history and ethnology on this forum - and I've read a lot of them in the past few weeks I am participating here
Reading your posts I constantly ROFLMAO - and I haven't even been able to finish them. A point by point trashing would be in vain - I would exceed the character limit and I wouldn't even be halfway.
There are about half a dozen guys on these forums that really do know their history - pay attention to their posts and you may be able to buy that clue we were talking about for a bargain price.
Some of them: Locutus, Orange, Solmyr, Wernazuma (there are others, but you'll be able to figure them out yourself). That is if you are lazy to run through a houndred of history books yourself
Byzantine issue
Christantine, so in what terms are the Byzantines any different than the Americans? I think this is a matter of perspective - If we lived in 700 AD, Firaxis would have included the Byzantines in the game, along with the Romans and the Greeks - in 2001 AD they include the Americans along with the Brits, the French and the Germans.
See the analogy?
This game, Rosa, is an ahistorical and potentially offensive mix of history and ethnology. I am not trying to debate the histories of certain regions, and am not (as I am sure you will gleefully point out) interested in a lot of the details of the historical continuity I am describing.
What I am trying to do, what I have said repeatedly that I am trying to do, what you seem completely unable to understand that I am trying to do, is work out game-consistent reasons for including or excluding certain proposed XP civs. How hard is this to understand? I KNOW that the Spanish were the admixture of a lot of different cultures, I KNOW that the Arabs and the Babylonians are not identical, but for christ's sake, you guys seem completely unable to look at the larger picture of an of civs.
To have the Arabs in among the 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 civs that might come in a expansion pack is to leave out another, potentially more deserving civ. And the fact is, there are more deserving civs. The Arabs, I feel, are as well represented by the 3 existing middle eastern civs as all of Eastern European is by the Russian and German civs. Can you see the validity of that? Why not call for Hungarian and Polish and Czech and Romanian and Albanian and Croat civs? The Arab civ might be interesting, but it can easily be viewed as being as superfluous as a Polish civ. And I don't want to get into an argument on Poland vs. Arab, I have supplied a line of reasoning (that the Arab civ and the Babylonian civ can be seen as identical) that takes into account that this is A GAME, not a UN conference on ethnic origins.
Rosa, if you're unwilling to make specific points about my posts, and unwilling to present your view of a well-balanced array of 20 or 22 or 24 or 26 or 28 or 30 civs, then there's no way we can have a discussion. If you're going to accuse me of being lazy, you'd better be willing to make those point by point dissections. Otherwise, you're just being a self-righteous jackass.I'm typing this from my bathtub. It helps support my girth.
__________________
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bisonbison
Because the king and a huge portion of his subjects had just died from diseases that raced ahead of the conquistadors.Ja,ja,ja!!
If and it was ANTHRAX, you say very amusing things....but do you know what you say?Last edited by Pco; October 29, 2001, 16:13.http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9109/logo27rc.jpg
Comment
-
Bisonbison... oh jesus...
OK, before constructive criticism takes the lead, I should return you this: If you fail to construct a certain history-based criteria system for your version of the civilizations included in game wishlist, you are an incompetent moron.
Good, now we are through with name calling, let's see some of your arguments:
To have the Arabs in among the 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 civs that might come in a expansion pack is to leave out another, potentially more deserving civ.
Second civ that has to be added are the Spaniards. Third? The Mongols. Fourth? Ethiopian... or maybe Nubian. Fifth? The one that remainds of the previous pair. Sixth? Mayan or Inca. #8 should be Phoenicia or the Ottoman Turks or (if we really think middle east is too crowded) a southeast Asia civilization - solely for game balancing.
My personal 24 civ list would look like this:
Europe
Greek
Roman
French
German
English
Spanish
Russian
Nordic (Vikings, Skandinavian)
Asia
Babylon
Persia
China
Japan
Turks
Mongols
Arabs
Phoenicia
Americas
Aztec
Mayan
Inca
Americans
Native Indians (Iroqui or Sioux or Anasazi)
Africa
Egypt
Nubia
Ethiopia
Want to discuss this? I am all ears
Comment
-
I KNOW that the Arabs and the Babylonians are not identical, but for christ's sake, you guys seem completely unable to look at the larger picture of an of civs.
As for the Spanish, well, about the same reasons for the Arabs... so I won't repeat myself here.
The only counter-argument I can think off is overcrowding. Frankly, I think that overcrowding on one type of map (the small world map) is too insignificant a reason to not include a civ.
there is no civ more deserving than the Arabs.Last edited by ranskaldan; October 29, 2001, 18:46.Poor silly humans. A temporarily stable pattern of matter and energy stumbles upon self-cognizance for a moment, and suddenly it thinks the whole universe was created for its benefit. -- mbelleroff
Comment
-
The reason why the Spanish conquered the Incas and Aztecs was the fact that the Aztec and Incan Empires were nothing more than a central nation of Aztecs and Incans that oppressed all the smaller nations that they had annexed.
The Spanish simply turned a few knobs, scratched a few backs, and, BANG, they had the support of the Aztec and Incan ***** states due to the fact that they were considered to be Gods.
Comment
-
Re: Bisonbison... oh jesus...
Originally posted by Rosacrux
My personal 24 civ list would look like this: ...
And Mali, too. Why the Nubians?
Edit: Or do you see Mali as part of the Nubian civ?
BisonBison, while it's 'only' a game, I think most of us appreciate this type of game more if it's well rooted in actual history. Also, the educational value of games should not be underestimated.Last edited by Ribannah; October 29, 2001, 20:08.A horse! A horse! Mingapulco for a horse! Someone must give chase to Brave Sir Robin and get those missing flags ...
Project Lead of Might and Magic Tribute
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rosacrux
Well, maybe it is a fact that we cannot expect them to be in the XP (IF there will be one) but I have to support them in terms of sympathy and admiration
I do have great respect and admiration for the Byzante Empire, but as stated before, I only view it as a continuation of the Greek and Roman Empires.
The Soviet Union's history is very different and distinct from pre-20th century Russia, yet I wouldn't want to see a Soviet civ in the game alongside a Russian civ. Do you see the parallels?"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez
"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
Comment
Comment