Civilization: cultures or nations?

[molly bloom]

Consider also if you will, the Celts- a distinct culture, or cultures, La Tene, Hallstatt, and the fusion of Norse/Celt cultures in Ireland and Scotland, different languages, different ways of worship and differing gods, even, and yet spoken of as one civilization, one people, but hardly ever forming distinct 'nations' in ancient times.

The idea of the 'nation', distinct in ethnic and cultural terms, really kicks off in Europe post the Thirty Years' War, with rulers and ruled forming more distinctive ethnic and religious blocs.
Obviously, there were exceptions, such as the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but the seeds of nationalism were sprouting.

I plump for civs being cultures and nations- it simply depends on the grouping you want to play.

[siredgar]

Well, if you went by "cultures" then you'd have to rename nearly all of them. For example, Germany/Germans would probably have to change to "the Germanic culture" and encompass cities in Austria, parts of Switzerland, and elsewhere. It's also very possible that many cities in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and even the U.S. would fall under "the Anglo-Saxon culture". If you go simply by "civilizations", nearly all of Europe and some parts of the Middle East could be grouped into a single "Western civilization".

[Fresno]

Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

Regarding the Western civilization, I would say there are a Slavic, a Latin and a Germanic civ.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Fresno
Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

We have lots of other names for Germans. Normally used in a derogatory sense though.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Fresno
Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

Regarding the Western civilization, I would say there are a Slavic, a Latin and a Germanic civ.

http://www.folkfestival.net/

Fresno- see above: in the United States, you will find the Pennsylvania Dutch are in fact.... the Pennsylvania Deutsch... the 'e' migrated.

Although English is partly a Germanic language, 'English' or 'Anglo-Saxon' (pity about the Jutes) hardly adequately describes a culture made up of Viking, Roman, Norman French and Celtic and North German influences. Besides 'German' and 'Germanic' are not strictly interchangeable in English, and in any case, are infinitely preferable to 'hun' 'boche' and 'kraut'.

It's only the same kind of loose terminology that serves to describe Spain, Portugal and their former colonies in the Americas as Latin, or Hispanic, however distinctive say, Brazil's culture is from Cuba's or Costa Rica's.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Fresno
Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

Regarding the Western civilization, I would say there are a Slavic, a Latin and a Germanic civ.

Yes, yes, I was speaking conservatively on the term "Germanic". Regardless, when you are talking about a civilization in the strictest terms, I don't believe there would be a separate Germanic "civilization" or even Latin or Slavic for that matter.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Fresno- see above: in the United States, you will find the Pennsylvania Dutch are in fact.... the Pennsylvania Deutsch... the 'e' migrated.

That brings me to another strange thing in English. Dutch call themselves 'Nederlands.' Germans call themselves 'Deutsch'. Do you see what I mean?

Although English is partly a Germanic language, 'English' or 'Anglo-Saxon' (pity about the Jutes) hardly adequately describes a culture made up of Viking, Roman, Norman French and Celtic and North German influences.

I read there are three groups of Germanic languages:
North Germanic (Danish, Norse, Swedish)
West Germanic (German, Dutch, English, Frisian)

Others say Frisian and English are actually a seperate group: North-West Germanic.

But indeed English is a bit different from the other Germanic languages: it is much more influenced by the French language.

Originally posted by siredgar
Yes, yes, I was speaking conservatively on the term "Germanic". Regardless, when you are talking about a civilization in the strictest terms, I don't believe there would be a separate Germanic "civilization" or even Latin or Slavic for that matter.

In the strictest terms, Americans, Germans, French, English, Spanish and all the other European peoples should be merged. But would such a thing improve the game?

[Sandman]

Well...

Nations: They are distinct entities, but lets face it, they are a relatively recent creation, and have a short shelf life compared to the time scale displayed in the game.

Cultures: These are totally fluid compared to nations, which at least try to have a pretence of solidity. No-one really has a clue where one culture begins and another ends, or even how to divide them up.

Plus both the above are social constructs which are IMO either random, or generated by the environment. So I suggest that it is the environment which determines a civ.

So we can have a different civ for each of the worlds biomes.

[Fresno]

The idea of a nation isn't that new. There were already kingdoms a very long time ago, and although they are obviously different from the current countries, you can't say they weren't nations.

[Sandman]

you can't say they weren't nations.

I can and will. Ancient and medieval kingdoms of which you speak were not nations. The people who lived in them, mostly peasants, were motivated not by patriotism, but by the fact that they were essentially owned by the aristocracy.

Furthermore, in many cases the aristocrats had a totally different language and culture from their subjects, in the case of England, for a long time the aristocrats spoke the language of the Norman invaders.

There were organisations and arrangements which confounded national sovereignty, such as the Pope, the holy roman empire, and the constant interbreeding of the various royal families.

[Oligarf]

I voted 'I don't know', mainly because I don't think that the other two choices are correct. A sort of middle-way, might be better.
Other important aspect is whether we talk about civilizations in real life or about civilizations as they should be seen in the Civilization series.

[Quasar1011]

I voted for nation. I went to Washington DC in the summer of 2000, and saw many buildings that could have passed for ancient Greek or Roman! So there is no doubt that a nation may be a conglomerate of many cultures. The British nation has Welsh, Irish, Scottish, and English to start; German kings from Hannover sat upon the British throne at times; French words abound in the English language; the Danes and Vikings left their mark in eastern England; and the Indians and Chinese now own many restaurants in Britain. My point is this: culture does not respect boundaries nearly as well as does nationhood. Just because the new Afghan government, or the old Liberian government, uses Yankee dollars as their official legal tender, does not make them culturally American. The people are influenced by foreign culture, without becoming nationals of the other country unless they choose to emigrate. A nation's culture can extend far beyond its borders, so I think nation is a better model for what comprises a civ.

[Oligarf]

This works for the US, as it is a federation, in this view Europe would qualify for one civilization. I doubt that.

[Fresno]

Oligarf: I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain it, please?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
I'm very interested in what your first and second languages are then... You are from Canada, right? I thought they only spoke English and French there.

Yes, but what about the Greek example then?

Languages from all around the world are spoken here. We're a "melting pot" society with a long tradition of welcoming immigrants.