Tweet
The essential point in this eternal discussion is that half of the posters don't seem to understand the difference between a civilization and a nation-state/empire. Is this really so difficult to grasp?!?
Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!!
As a rule its religion and cultural identity that ultimately defines a civilization.
The game CivII acknowledges this difference; its makes clear that a Republic should be understood as a federation of city states all belonging to the same culture.
One cause of the existing confusion is that the makers of CivII haven't been consistent (for example including both French and Spanish, both being Roman Catholic and Latin nations), while at the same time totally neglecting the isssue of domestic policies, which in my opinion is a true shame! I hope CivIII will at least correct that.
I want to thank the Joker for his declaration of approval, though its partly his own idea.
Its true that not all "original" civilizations existed in 4000BC, but some of them did: the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indus and Chinese. Then some more creative posters came with the idea of introducing the rise AND fall of civilizations: today the only civilization clearly still there, is the Chinese, which is an achievement in itself. Hurrah for the Chinese!!
And why should all civilizations start at the same date? I think the game could be made much more interesting for the advanced player if he could choose a late-starting civilization. A player could earn points for every year his civilization existed. Nor should military defeat necessarily spell the end of a civilization! Normally a civilization will absorb the conqueror through assimilition.
By the way, the German empire is older than some posters seem to know: in 962AD Otto I the Great founded the Holy Roman Empire Deutscher Nation, which was not a nation based state in the modern sense, but the German element was certainly dominant in it; this first "Reich" lasted until 1806. I would date the birth of the English kingdom at 1066 at least, of the French kingdom at 987 (Hugo Capet), possibly even earlier (Clovis). Someone like Jeanne d'Arc proves that some sense of national identity did exist in the later Middle Ages, in Europe at least.
To those intelligent readers really interested in the concept of a civilization I would like to recommend W.H.McNeill: "The rise of the West(1963)"
If a small nation (14 million inhabitants??)like the Australians would be included, the Indian civilization alone could be divided in about hundred different nations who were politically important during the last 3000 years; Aryans, Dravidians, Magadhans, Guptas, Shakas, Kushanas, Tamils, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas, Rajputs, just to name some. Nice idea!
Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!!
As a rule its religion and cultural identity that ultimately defines a civilization.
The game CivII acknowledges this difference; its makes clear that a Republic should be understood as a federation of city states all belonging to the same culture.
One cause of the existing confusion is that the makers of CivII haven't been consistent (for example including both French and Spanish, both being Roman Catholic and Latin nations), while at the same time totally neglecting the isssue of domestic policies, which in my opinion is a true shame! I hope CivIII will at least correct that.
I want to thank the Joker for his declaration of approval, though its partly his own idea.
Its true that not all "original" civilizations existed in 4000BC, but some of them did: the Sumerian, Egyptian, Indus and Chinese. Then some more creative posters came with the idea of introducing the rise AND fall of civilizations: today the only civilization clearly still there, is the Chinese, which is an achievement in itself. Hurrah for the Chinese!!
And why should all civilizations start at the same date? I think the game could be made much more interesting for the advanced player if he could choose a late-starting civilization. A player could earn points for every year his civilization existed. Nor should military defeat necessarily spell the end of a civilization! Normally a civilization will absorb the conqueror through assimilition.
By the way, the German empire is older than some posters seem to know: in 962AD Otto I the Great founded the Holy Roman Empire Deutscher Nation, which was not a nation based state in the modern sense, but the German element was certainly dominant in it; this first "Reich" lasted until 1806. I would date the birth of the English kingdom at 1066 at least, of the French kingdom at 987 (Hugo Capet), possibly even earlier (Clovis). Someone like Jeanne d'Arc proves that some sense of national identity did exist in the later Middle Ages, in Europe at least.
To those intelligent readers really interested in the concept of a civilization I would like to recommend W.H.McNeill: "The rise of the West(1963)"
If a small nation (14 million inhabitants??)like the Australians would be included, the Indian civilization alone could be divided in about hundred different nations who were politically important during the last 3000 years; Aryans, Dravidians, Magadhans, Guptas, Shakas, Kushanas, Tamils, Chalukyas, Pallavas, Pandyas, Cholas, Rajputs, just to name some. Nice idea!
) that they'll be putting more time into. 
Comment