Tweet
Re: Real nice Captain!
You're most welcome. I tried to list all the significant civs (that we have records of) in each era and in each geographic location.
Location and time play a big role in what we consider to be significant, so I wanted to establish context. We can't really compare the hegemony of ancient rome to the USA because of the time and geography (even though we try really hard
). If we look at specific time periods and specific regions, we can usually pick out a few dominant civs.
Yes, didn't they also put up a disproportionate amount of "fight" with Spain? IIRC, all of the lowland countries were ceded to the Spanish crown by some marriage, and they refused to submit.
Belgium eventually was conquered but the Netherlands never were. I think this is one of the main reasons for the differences. Aside from longstanding language, the Catholic church came to Belgium in force, and in the art world, Belgian work was more religious (as was custom of Europe at the time) whereas Netherlands were more secular.
Also, considering they had a minute, almost non-existent, standing army, the burghers put aside their commercial ways and became quite adept militarily. Compared to Spain's power at the time, it was a definite upset.
I didn't know that about Caesar, or the crusades. But I knew about the very important trade cities, Rubens (et al), and the Congo. Let me also add in a valiant effort in WW1. They knew they couldn't win, but managed to slow the passing Germans down enough for the French to rally (rumoured using taxicabs) to stop the Germans just outside Paris (Marne River?)
All in all, perhaps not as "great" a civ as England, Belgium played a key role in that era. My main reason for including it was the trade. They, along with the Netherlands, were town cities based on trade. These towns were very free compared to existing serfdom in agri-based countries. this led to a type of government and style of society very much unique in the world at the time. We often attribute Magna Carta and the devolution of power from absolute kings to a shared aristocracy as being the first step towards democracy but it was not. Neither the USA nor France can make claim to it either, despite them both later expressing it very well. The rule of law and modern representative government stems from the societal changes created by trade-based towns. In those towns, power was distributed more evenly and more difficult to acquire a majority of. Power was based primarily on economic well-being, and this led to an increased sense of private property. Stakeholders required it and refused to give it up without compensation. Ruler could force it but wise rulers knew better. The mercantile skills and trade skills of townspeople are not as easily replaced as the unskilled manual labour of serfs. Drive them out of your city and they will go to another. The long-term benefits of a stronger economy were worth more than short-term pillaging or taxation. Rule of law came about not from abstract politics or from the aristocracy but from the societal structure of free towns. Democracy and representative government are tied to the concept of populism, which stemmed from the culture of the free town and property stakeholders. At least, that's my theory.
So, there is the main reason I included both Belgium and the Netherlands. Different societies on one hand, but they shared in this development more than any other civ out there.
That's why I made it.
But anyone else see anything I'm missing in that list?
If so, where would you put it? (era, location)
Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
In name of -as I might hope- all my fellow countrymen, I thank you, Captain, for your sensitive kindness to include us.
I must admit though that Belgium, even if only Europe would have been included, never has been or will be a 'major' civ/power:
In name of -as I might hope- all my fellow countrymen, I thank you, Captain, for your sensitive kindness to include us.
I must admit though that Belgium, even if only Europe would have been included, never has been or will be a 'major' civ/power:
Location and time play a big role in what we consider to be significant, so I wanted to establish context. We can't really compare the hegemony of ancient rome to the USA because of the time and geography (even though we try really hard
). If we look at specific time periods and specific regions, we can usually pick out a few dominant civs.
The Great Caesar himself referred to the Belgians as the bravest (fighters) of the Gaul. Belgians played a very active part during the first ('successful') crusades (Godfriend of Bouillon), had among many important trade cities during Middle Ages (Bruges, Antwerp), great artists (Rubens, The Flemish Primitives), was rapidly and succesfully industrialized, Congo, ...
Belgium eventually was conquered but the Netherlands never were. I think this is one of the main reasons for the differences. Aside from longstanding language, the Catholic church came to Belgium in force, and in the art world, Belgian work was more religious (as was custom of Europe at the time) whereas Netherlands were more secular.
Also, considering they had a minute, almost non-existent, standing army, the burghers put aside their commercial ways and became quite adept militarily. Compared to Spain's power at the time, it was a definite upset.
I didn't know that about Caesar, or the crusades. But I knew about the very important trade cities, Rubens (et al), and the Congo. Let me also add in a valiant effort in WW1. They knew they couldn't win, but managed to slow the passing Germans down enough for the French to rally (rumoured using taxicabs) to stop the Germans just outside Paris (Marne River?)
All in all, perhaps not as "great" a civ as England, Belgium played a key role in that era. My main reason for including it was the trade. They, along with the Netherlands, were town cities based on trade. These towns were very free compared to existing serfdom in agri-based countries. this led to a type of government and style of society very much unique in the world at the time. We often attribute Magna Carta and the devolution of power from absolute kings to a shared aristocracy as being the first step towards democracy but it was not. Neither the USA nor France can make claim to it either, despite them both later expressing it very well. The rule of law and modern representative government stems from the societal changes created by trade-based towns. In those towns, power was distributed more evenly and more difficult to acquire a majority of. Power was based primarily on economic well-being, and this led to an increased sense of private property. Stakeholders required it and refused to give it up without compensation. Ruler could force it but wise rulers knew better. The mercantile skills and trade skills of townspeople are not as easily replaced as the unskilled manual labour of serfs. Drive them out of your city and they will go to another. The long-term benefits of a stronger economy were worth more than short-term pillaging or taxation. Rule of law came about not from abstract politics or from the aristocracy but from the societal structure of free towns. Democracy and representative government are tied to the concept of populism, which stemmed from the culture of the free town and property stakeholders. At least, that's my theory.
So, there is the main reason I included both Belgium and the Netherlands. Different societies on one hand, but they shared in this development more than any other civ out there.
Would be nice idea though if players would be able to choose a civ from the very attractive list you've compiled!
AJ
AJ
But anyone else see anything I'm missing in that list?
If so, where would you put it? (era, location)
Von Danakenites could even give the Mayans the UU of spacecraft. 
Comment