Names of Civilisations in 4000BC

[Athitis]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
[...]
Civilization obviously has little to do with reality, although it tries pretty well, but I think it makes them a little too rigid. No civilization is made of a single people, there are always people being absorbed or separating from the larger group. The Macedonian thing being a prime example. No one can argue now that they were Greek but when Alexander was conquering Greek cities further to the south I know there were many southern Greeks who considered him a foriegn northern barbarian and he would have been if not for his tutor.
I think there is a danger in trying to create clear boundaries between types of people when there really are not many to be found.

Gsmoove23 you are absolutely right
Way to go. Finally, no more 'the Macedonians are not Greek" stuff. The land of Macedonia north of Greece has no right to be called such! Grrrrrrrrrr..........
..........................
Got obsessed again!

Anyway on Topic: Alexander-or better say, his father Phillipus, conquered the south City States not because threy considered him a "barbarian" in Greek terms but rather because they didn't share his views of united Greece. Macedonian had a King, while Athens was democratic and the rest cities wanted to independant. However little could they resist as the civil war between Athens and Sparta had criplled both them and their allies. And the Persians were making sure that they would continue quarelling by supporting both sides.

Note that Alexander's Greek origin is made clear by Herodotous who makes clear that Alexander 1, grandfather of Alexander the Great, was Greek and participated in the Olympics. And we all trust Herodotous-at least scientists do.

If I u think I am wrong or have a different opinion I'd be interested in reading it.

[gsmoove23]

Whoops, I meant nobody can argue now that they were not Greek, after Alexander's exploits have been so connected with Greek military and cultural expansion. The Alexander 1 you're talking about was I believe the first of his line to be so closely associated with the Greeks after he had previously been loyal to the Persians. When he did participate in the Olympic games it was a demand with a claim that he was a descendant of Teminids of Argos, and there was an uproar, most of the participants did consider him a barbarian. Whether his claim was true or not it really doesn't matter to me, Macedonia was obviously on the frontier of Greece and I'm sure whether they were Greek or not depended on the politics of the time or the whims of their rulers.
In other words who cares what the modern state north of Greece calls itself. People are generally what they think they are and this too can change.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Athitis
Anyway on Topic: Alexander-or better say, his father Phillipus, conquered the south City States not because threy considered him a "barbarian" in Greek terms but rather because they didn't share his views of united Greece. Macedonian had a King, while Athens was democratic and the rest cities wanted to independant. However little could they resist as the civil war between Athens and Sparta had criplled both them and their allies. And the Persians were making sure that they would continue quarelling by supporting both sides.

Few historical notes:
The Macedonians were considered to be half-barbarians, they had charactaristics other states saw as Greek, but also charactaristics that people saw as barbarian.

The view of a united Greece was shared quite broadly, one important thinker on this area was Isokrates (436-338 BCE).

Most city-states were no better off under Athenian rule. Any conqueror treated their conquered people like dirt.

The civil war between Athens and Sparta did not cripple them (that was 30 years ago and military was restored within no time, in fact military was improved greatly), the continuant struggle between Thebes and Athens (joined with practically all other states) did. With as highlight the battle at Mantineia (361 BCE), where both sides claimed to be victorious. The rise of Macedonia only begun from 350 BCE, completed in 338 (with respect to Greece).

[Jon Shafer]

I remember when my civ teacher told me about how she got kicked out of a cab in Vegas because the driver was Greek and she told him that Alexander was Macedonian and not Greek. I suppose she was right not to discuss that issue with Greeks.

Civ could really represent the more diverse backgrounds of civs (by many more civs, mostly), but the game engine isn't very well suited at all to represent that. Unfortunately, I don't see any drastic changes for Civ IV in that department, since Civ I few things of the Civ core have been modified.

[Beren]

Well, Alexander Greek or not? It's a matter of what definition you use. The ancient Greek considered the Macedonians to be more or less Greekified (Is that English?)
That discussion is only relevant for nationalists and people who wonder how we should call the Civilization formerly known as greek. The whole concept of the Greek civilization is a strange one (I mean in Civ3). It was not a unity, but on the other hand it was a unity. I have been having plans about creating where all Greek poleis struggle for the absolute power over Greece (Does it exist already?). In Four Ages: Bronze, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic. With: Myceenian(bronze), Minoan(bronze Crete), Athenian(leaded by: Perikles), Spartans, Thebans, Delphians, Ionians, Argosians, Thessaly, Thracians, Rhodos, Macedonians, Troyans and three other poleis (we can work it out.)
But I don't think I will ever put any of these plans to action. If anyone wish to steel my idea he's free. He can reply here, because I already have an idea of what technologies should be in what age.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by LordAzreal And what about America? If such a system were implemented, what would America be called in 4000BC?

"Obscure Barbarian Tribe That Hasn't Been a Civilization for the Greater Part of Its History"?

[Datajack Franit]

BTW I think romans were the first giving a negative meaning to the word "barbaric", meaning those one who drinked wine with no water added in it

[Silpy]

The only people that Rome did not call barbaric was Greece. Was any civ, ever 'barbaric'?