Civilization: cultures or nations?

[Fresno]

Sun Zi 36, now I'm really convinced you were right on the other thread about using the dictionary.

Of course there are different meanings for 'nation,' but what if I had said 'state'? Then people might have complained that the state of California isn't the same as a state like France or Canada.

Giving an explanation for every option in the topic would be useless either, because, as I said, everyone understood what I meant. So let's discuss the question this thread is about, instead of wether the opions were valid or not. They were.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

It appears that your understanding of the meaning of the word "nation" is point 3 while most of us share the thought that it is points 1 or 2. points 1 and 2 had nothing to do with culture. it is logical that the poll maker by giving us these 2 options, he meant "nation" in the light of points 1 and 2 above.

I can live with those definitions. I'm just nitpicky about the differences because I'm a government major. I have about athirty different government texts that deal with nationalism and the definition of what a nation is and they are all in tune with definition 3 of the dictionary definition. It is the historical definition of a nation, and what I assumed that nation and culture in Civ 3 was based on. Definitions 1 and 2 are valid modern definitions of a nation, but they are less technical and precise definitions. If you are using those definitions then the poll is viable and, in that case, I choose "culture" as how the civs should be represented.

[Wee Lad]

Maybe someone already mentioned this (too lazy to read all replies): the nation-state did not appear until the peace of Westphalia (unsure about spelling) in 1456. Hence calling it a nation would be historically incorrect as the Romans and other were not nations as we understand it.

[Gareth]

Likely this was already said. Instead of >civilizations/nations< the term >peoples< might be more accurate. But this is the game's name so firaxis shall be forgiven

Example: Even if you play on Earth-map/ use civ3breed, the countries aren't always at the right positions. If Zululand conquers Germany, the rest of the German cities at the end of Sibiria will be named Germany.

And they all have their own cultures, this is unique to homo sapiens. Real awareness of an own modern nation appeared in the most heads only 200 years ago. This is not the criterion to rate the civs.

Also the civs in the game would have had different cultures at once. The Vikings in Russia were different guys than the ones in Sicilia.

Ancient Greece was a sum of independent cities with similar culture. I think they were the first who called the tribes in the north barbarians. But they were seperated into Celtic and Slavic tribes, even if the didn't knew it themselves. Civs like Zulu, Iroquois that were tribal didn't have had cities. But they built temples, did trade, voted kings, conquered others. learned to ride and to use firearms etc. which makes them to fit into the game-principle of civilization.

Its fun to play native americans vs. america/europeans or confederates vs. federateson a usa map. Its fun to meet gandhi with war elephants or to see Bismarck angry in a fur. That counts. On the other side I'm glad that civ is a game with a good amount of realism. There are enough disney-like games.

[Fresno]

I still think every term would be confusing. Read my previous post for the reason why.

So let's continue the discussion and leave the naming-part.

Gareth: so you voted culture?

[Big Fish]

If a nation lasts more than 25 years it develops its own distinct culture. So a nation causes culture

[Sun Zi 36]

Originally posted by Big Fish
If a nation lasts more than 25 years it develops its own distinct culture. So a nation causes culture

250 years maybe, but 25 years? Ever heard of multiculturalism? if a "nation" (please make sure you mean definitions 1 and 2 not 3, which I set out above, otherwise you are not making much sense because definition 3 is culture) can "cause culture" how did great empires last for over 25 years? did Europe not disintegrate into so many smaller nations after being ruled for a long time under single nations (Austria-Hungary, USSR, Yugoslavia) because of diverse cultures within those single nations? Dont tell me those empires or single European nations in the past were not actually "nations" in the sense we are talking about here, they satisfy every element in defintions 1 and 2 set out above.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Big Fish
If a nation lasts more than 25 years it develops its own distinct culture. So a nation causes culture

Uhh...on what evidence do you base this rather intriguing equation?

Provencal culture stretched (geographically) from North Italy through the south of France and into Catalan Spain, and yet there was no 'Provencal' nation as such; similarly 'English' culture existed in the American colonies simultaneously with 'English' culture in Great Britain, and yet a distinctive 'American' culture took longer than 25 years to develop.

Scots culture in the relatively homogenous nation of Scotland altered over the years, but even in Mediaeval Scotland, the difference between Lallans/Lowland Scots culture and the Scots Gaelic culture of the Western Isles and Highlands was notable.
This however does not imply that they formed different nations, or that the cultures stemmed from different nations.

[Corvi #6]

If you compare a map of Europe with a map langauges spoken in Europe, you will see a clear tendency for language blocks to form their own states. So I would say that culture causes nations and not the other way round.

[Oligarf]

I think there must be a good reason why we use the word civilization and not culture or nation for the thing we are talking about. They are not the same.

[XarXo]

The problem isn't about cultures or nations (but I preffer cultures), the problem is with the moment at the game starts (4000 BC).

In the early middle ages Lituania was an enormous country that sized its actual territory plus northern Belarus and Polska, but now... Who thinks in Lituania for include it in the game?

The better option is a game system like Empire Earth, this is, you choose the start period. The other part for the idea is that depending from it you can select some countries, these countries can change their names when an era finishes, so if we start with (for example) teutons, we can finish in English (yes, it isn't very accurate, but well...), germans, dutch or whatever you want. Also mixed ethnics can appear in the two or more branches where it appeared. Finally, the main idea is a game with not a great history accurance, is history possibilities the interesting thing .

In this chase, we can make:


4000 BC -> 500 BC -> 1000 BC -> 1750 BC

Teutons -> AngloSaxons -> English -> Americans

OR

Iberians -> Lusitains -> Romans -> Portuguese

OR (ehem)

Iberians -> Romans -> Crown of Aragon -> Catalans

OR (better)

*PUT YOUR COUNTRY HERE* -> Occidentals

---------------------------------

Visit now, Yahoo! en català at: http://ct.yahoo.com !!

[Tingkai]

The problem with saying a civilization is defined by culture is that most modern civs are composed of a variety of cultures.

The British civilization has its English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh influences. Or to go even further back, it was influenced by Germanic and French culture .

The culture of India is influenced by Islamic, Hindu, Buddist, Sikh and other religions.

The Germans are influenced by Catholic and Protestant views.

The Americans have a vast array of cultures influencing the mainstream, sometimes unified, sometimes distinct.

So the answer to the question may well be that the question itself is incorrect.

[Sun Zi 36]

Tingkai:
I agree with u that most, if not all civilisations are subject to cultural influence of different kinds. But that is I think what makes them a civilisation distinct from others. All civilisations must be influenced by different cultures to different degrees for them to be distinguished from other civilisations. That's why cultures define civilisations. But at no point do u take into account national boundaries in defining civilsations. That is why i think civilsations are defintely cultures, not nations.

[Oligarf]

I think that there are several ways for a civilization to become one, I think that civilizations can emerge from nations or cultures, but I also think that nations and cultures can emerge from civilizations. Therefore I find it hard to say what it actually is. As I already mentioned, it is probably something different.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Fresno
For example the Zulus are a non-western civiliztion, but they weren't important enough to justify their inclusion.

Why not? This is just a game, not some ultimate award for a civilization. Yay, the Greeks were included, that means they finally made it.