Portuguese Civ

[Harovan]

Vikings and Norman are the same. Normans was the name the Celts and Romans gave the Vikings as men from the north, or "North Men".

[Jay Bee]

That's absolutely correct, sire.

[Arrian]

Hopefully, there will someday be an expansion pack full of civs that got left out. Meanwhile, there is an editor.

The ones I'd like to see:

Spanish
Vikings
Mongols
Celts
Inca
Arabs
Polynesians (at least then we can't grumble about AI ocean-going galleys... that would be the UU)
Koreans
One of the SE Asian civs (I forget the name of the one I'm thinking of)
A different sub-saharan African tribe - don't know enough about the history of the region to pick one.

-Arrian

p.s. It was my understanding that the Normans, while primarly of Viking ("Norse") stock, did mingle a bit with the French prior to the conquest of England (1066), thus they spoke French.

p.p.s Wasn't there a fourth tribe to go along with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes? Oh, and don't forget that later, the Danes showed up and held nearly 1/2 of England for a while (Danelaw).

[Dauphin]

Weren't the Jutes from Jutland, i.e. the same place as the Danes?

[Dauphin]

Wasn't there a fourth tribe to go along with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes?

Are you refering to the Friesans?

[dunk]

I think all the tribes that wound up in England are of Germanic origin. The Vikings are originally Germanic too, aren't they (gpoing by the similarities in language)? I was hoping someone would have called me a knucklehead by now if I was wrong.

This I'm sure about... yes, the Normans did speak French. French was the official language of England for a long time after 1066.

[Harovan]

Not only the Normans, and not only after 1066. Look at the King Arthur saga, which is Celtic and plays in the 5th-6th century. A lot of his knights, including the brightest, Sir Lancelot, were from France (probably the Bretagne).

[sargon2]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
...Out of those civilizations, the modern nations were formed. England is a mix of Germanic tribes (Angle and Saxon) and Celts, with Norman influence. France is pure Germanic, the Normans (Asterix and Obelix ) don't play a big role, Germany is basically Germanic with a significant Slavic influence, Russia is Slavic with Germanic (and other) influence. I don't know much about Spanish and Portugese history, but it ought to be similar.

EDIT: All mentioned nations have a huge Roman influence, in fact our entire occidental culture is based on the Roman (which is based on the Greek ).

There are only 3 main linguistical groups in europe its the Romanic group that includes Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Southern-Belgium and Romania originally except of the Roman Province Latina did they speak different languages (mainly Celtic)that were dominated by Latin and melted to the lokal Vulgar-latin later on these peoples had to integrate some Germanic or Slav people, that impressed a little their language but were mainla assimilated. A second group is the Slav groupe that includes Russia, Ukrain, Belorus, Poland, Slovakia, The Czech Rep, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria. Only the western people got culturally and by that way linguistically influenced by the Germans - nothing elss. The third group is the Teutonic or Germanic group that includes Germany(I prefer High-Dutch like J. Swift did), the Netherlands, Northern-Belgium, Swtzerland, Britannia, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Danemarck, Austria, Luxemburg and Ireland as it is englishspeaking. Germany is culturally strongly influenced by the roman cultur but they took their language only as foreign-words so they a seperated. Wether English is Germanic or Romanic is realy not that clear. The base is Germanic: Grammar and basic vocabulary but the majority of the less often but more complex vocabulary is Romanic of Latin and French/Normands origin.
Minor groups are the Basks, Greeks, celtic Irish and Finns, Hungarians. If u can graphically imagine u saw that that 3 group do just at their border do mix a little but not in the "hinterland".
But that is just Linguistics all 3 belong to the Indo-Europeen language family that includes India, Persia and even Afghanistan too. So what does the linguistical aspect mean. What is meant by Civ is not only language groupe, culture, nation and history-group. I guess what a Cic makes is the individual combination. And it only got the special predicate Civ if it had been successfull in the race of time.
So lets include the Spain and Portoguise Civs. But all other these-days Countries do also identify themselves with a successfull Civ of history that should belong too. I guess Pakistan i.e. relates to the indusvalley-cultre and the Mogul-Empire that is a derivate of the Mongolian Civ.
So I think we can't limit on 16 Civs. We need all. And until we wait we have to play with the most important through all ages and that are just the selected ones. Spain and Portugal don't belong to that group for they were not the overwhelming powers in europe in their best days just big colonial-powers (may be they got each a fourth of the world but not more than 10% of europe and that is what counted that days.

Please excuse my limited English

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by sargon2
Spain and Portugal don't belong to that group for they were not the overwhelming powers in europe in their best days just big colonial-powers (may be they got each a fourth of the world but not more than 10% of europe and that is what counted that days.

Oh man, get a history book asap, please. You need it badly

[sargon2]

Come on, I'm absolutely a Spain-lover. For me Spanish is the most beautyfull language in the world.
Get me a better answer.
So I tell u what stands in my Historybook:
in the 8. Cent. a big part of the Iberian Island got conquered by the muslimic Maures. After struggelfull Centuries of heroic fights and reconquering Spain got found (before the Maures their were Visigoths and latinized Celts).So far so good.
Euphorical after that, they wanted to expand their power. They send out ships to find economical traderoutes. What they found was a new world, well done so far. But it was a continent or 2 of simple, in it's positiv meaning, primitiv people. The Spains managed to defeat them all. They did build up a world of rescours-exploration with first indian and later african slaves, poor Spanish people did build up new life there. Later on after the Portuguese found the better way to india they also established militarilly protected tradepoints on the way: around the african coast and at the indian coast. When the world got completely shared they even got the desert-hinterland of their african tradpoints.
So let's recapulate: The Spanish Empire did consist of the european homeland, a nice sunny country but neither especialy fertile nor endoved with mutch manufacturing. secondly they got all Latin-America except Brasil but that was industrially not prescious and the popullation was rare and fairly poor except some rich - but why that land was important is because it generated a unconceiveable quantity of gold and especialy silver. The third base of the empire were the tradepoints indiabound, they- surely also added their part of gold and silver. But that is the way the oversea colonies were always seen by the rulers as money-generators not more.
So that is the base of that empire now what did they do with that?
What did they with their money. Mainly they spent absolutely and by percentage more money on luxuries than any other country in europe. Militarily It got never a chance against the other european countries, as they got against it. Only onetime did it try to get a hegemony, it's when the Armada went Britanniabound.
U know how it ended.
OK The Spain Empire got 1/6 to 1/5 of the world under their feet. But that is not compairable with the quality of India, China or Middle East.

But I'm open for aspects I did forgot. Tell me about why u think Spain has been a major globle player. May be I'm gonna learn something today.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

Wasn't there a fourth tribe to go along with the Angles, Saxons and Jutes?

Are you refering to the Friesans?

Yeah, I think that's the name I was thinking of. And I'm sure you're right about Jutes = Jutland, but the reason I mentioned the Danes seperately is that I was thinking about Danelaw in particular, which I thought came later than the initial wave of Jutes. I may be wrong, though.

-Arrian

[Jay Bee]

Sargon,

Oh man... you gotta be kidding me, right?

That part on the Spanish military was particularly revealing. Here is a clue. Look for the word "tercios" anywhere. You may be shocked by the accomplishements of an army that according to you "got never a chance against the other european countries, as they got against it. " Btw, as an aside curiosity, you'll probably read that there were lots of German mercenaries in the Tercios. I bet you were sleeping at the time the teacher was talking about XV-XVII c. European History and Politics. Either that or, in addition to a good history book, you may also need to take a course on "Assimilate & Understand What You Casually Hear and Read".


Oh man...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian


Yeah, I think that's the name I was thinking of. And I'm sure you're right about Jutes = Jutland, but the reason I mentioned the Danes seperately is that I was thinking about Danelaw in particular, which I thought came later than the initial wave of Jutes. I may be wrong, though.

The Angles and Saxons "invasion" had pretty much settled down by the 7th Century, whilst the height of Danelaw and the foundation of the Normandy Dukedom was in the 10th century. Overall a few centuries difference, so culturally and linguistically I don't think the people of Jutland had changed that much in that time - although the differences of Angles-Saxons-Jutes would have created the new Anglo-Saxon hybrid identity.

[Dauphin]

Whilst on the subject of language, many synonyms in the English language have completely different roots:

Old Anglo-Saxon - Old Danelaw

craft - skill
hide - skin
sick - ill
starve - die

[sargon2]

OK I'm now knowing about your Tercios in Germany. it seems that they were a special force with pikes and muskets but of little order. They fought for the catholic German Emperor as a kind of mercenaries in the 30years-war against the Protestants and their right of free belief and were also responsible for the massacres of millions of Civilians by killing and starving them. It's no famous story about them in Germany. In that war they got defeated by the swedish protestant general Gustav Adolf, their tactic was from then on old-fashion, more flexible units were formed.
But nevertheless I will accept that they were a powerfull special force that was feared at its time. 1 Point for U.
But I didn't regard military history in detail - just in general. All countries got their special forces. What have the Spanish achieved. What provinces or countries did they defeat, that is what militarily counts. Not what u had at home, but what u use and what u achieve, that counts.
Tell me what wars were won by the Spanish empire in europe.
I'm calm. I only want to know. It's no problem if concvince me, but give me convinceable stuff. Just more than your Tercios.
Before I started thinking on the effords of Spain I just said they were one of the most powerfull nations in history but now I'm douting. Give facts that restore my old belief. I.e. 1573 the Spain Empire defeated France and captured a province or something like that. I guess that the famous history of Spain is only issued in spanish lessons. I got a polish friend he is also convinced that his country got a powerfull overwhelming history equal to the French or German

PS: it's not that easy to get something about the Tercios in general in Englisch or German. Spanish keeps closed to. Do u know a good link in English where an article is about them.