New poll: Number of civs

[S. Kroeze]

I do warmly support the idea of Strangelove to have 'natives' all over the world, not necessarily enthusiastic to become 'civilized'.

It would result in the creation of a rural population, as advocated by Doberman, and his CIVilians. In my opinion an even better idea would be to make most of those 'natives' nomadic pastoralists/hunter-gatherers. Roaming about they could easily come into conflict with sedentary civilizations. It would make expansion in the beginning of the game less obvious, resulting in a more exciting start of Civilization. It would also help to counteract ICS and be more realistic too.
A great idea!

[Youngsun]

quote: In all these historical surveys there is no trace of a unique Korean religion or culture.

S. Kroeze
I wouldn't say I'm an Oriental expert but I'll will tell you as far as I know.
McNeil is my favorite historian too but that goes as long as he describes only Western civilisations. He is not an Oriental expert is he? I would not refer to him if I were to describe about Oriental civilisations. It will be like asking to Peter Connoly about Samurai warfare.(inappropriate reference)

Fairbank,though I think, has better understanding about East Asia than McNeil, is still a China specialist isn't he?
Reischauer's experience as an ambassador serving in Japan made him quite a Japan specialist but that does not mean he has overall understanding about East Asia as a whole. I'm not questioning their credibility as historians(they are all respected people)

The problem is most of their works are largely borrowing of other's works which is especially true about the case of Korea.
And most of work done about Korean history are almost exact replica of "Chosenshi" which
is written by Japanese historians(such as Hatata Takeshi)who are influenced by the works of World WarII Colonialist historians.
This Colonialist movement(Shokuminshikan-Undo)began when Japan annexed Korea in 1910 under strict guidance from the military government and the purposes of the movement
were quite clear: 1.Glorifying Japanese history(as being unique). 2.Justifying the annexation of Korea by changing Korean history as a crap to avoid any international condemnation(as mere variant of
Chinese culture->a destined colony).

Nazi Germany tried to do similar things during WWII for the Arians as destined high-culture and slavic civs as destined inferiors but ended up unsuccessful because their works began after they occupied poland then intensified after the operation Barbarossa so the length of the works 6 years was not enough. Futhermore, allied forces' efforts to putting down these kind of activities were quite timely and determined.

US force which occupied Japan made no move on this kind of things and many Japanese historians were free to maintain their stnads.
We will have no idea how much damages this kind of activity done to Korean history unless Japan releases its dark secrets.
So why not ask to Koreans themselves? Well Korea began its own archeology since 1970 and many of critical archeological evidences are still in Japanese hands thanks to 40 years of colonial rule.
That's why many Western historians ask Japanese to help to describe Korean history during 70~80s just like McNeil,Fairbank and Reischauer and many others.

If you study Japanese history carefully you can find swift change of what they are saying about Korea.
I will give one example "Mimana" debate. During 50~60s, When Korea was in ruin from the Korean war,Japanese historians
claimed Shilla,Packje and Kaya(7th century Korean states)were all under Japanese rule as colonies. During 70~80s,When Korea began its own archeology, Japan began to deny Shilla and Packje as their former colonies but still claimed Kaya as their former colony then named Mimana.
During 90s, Korean archeologists and historians bitterly debated with newly found evidences to nullify the Japanese claim.
Now even many Japanese historians say Mimana is utter nonsense. Professor Ueda suggests Kaya was some sort of protectorate of Packje-Yamato alliance agianst Shilla aggression not a direct Yamato colony. There are so many cases just like this waiting to be discovered and debated but that
seems long way ahead as long as Japanese government is not very cooperative.
This outdated Japanese version of Mimana was adopted into Age of Empire(Microsoft)and Microsoft got complaints from the Koreans then changed its products for Korea by merely deleting Yamato campaign.(see game company can be wrong too) Therefore if you want more accurate info about their history try the most recently published books because it keeps changing by time.

Since it is difficult to find Western historians who are specialised in Korean history it is better to ask to Koreans themselves. But depending solely upon only one source can be quite dangerous step when you describe Oriental civs since their sources differ greatly in detail when they deal with same events/incidents.

I will give one example "7years of war"(Japanese invasion to Korea)

About Ming intervention
Japanese source says Ming army was defeated twice by the Japanese ground force and lacked martial spirit.
Chinese source says Great Ming army once sent to Korea to save its vassal crushed the Wa(Japanese)army and returned with glory.
Korean source says the first sent Ming army was so small in size so defeated by the Japanese. Second contingent were Ming's Royal regulars which won the siege of Pyongyang but later ambushed by the Japanese at the valley of Byockje.

About Korean naval might
Japanese source says Japanese did not have proper warships to fight the Korean fleet and
values Yi sun-sin as master tactician and Korean fleet as the strongest in the Orient at that time.
Chinese source never mention about him nor Korean navy but Ming's naval victory against Wa fleet.
Korean source says Yi sun-sin invented turtle-ship and saved Korea.

About atrocities
Japanese source says Ming army commited greater atrocities than the Japanese.
Chinese source never mention about atrocities.
Korean source says both(Chinese & Japanese) committed atrocities against civilians.

About the ending of the war.
Japanese source says Hideyoshi's death saved Korea and possibly Manchuria from Japanese onslaught.
Chinese source says Hideyoshi's death saved the Japanese army from total destruction since his death gave an
excuse to the Japanese to withdrew.
Korean source says even before Hideyoshi's death, the Japanese army already lost the war.

See how different the so-called source can be. That's why careful cross-examination of sources from three sides are required to have more correct picture of historical events when we talk about Oriental history.
I sincerely ask you to read about Korean source too so you can have more balanced opinion about Korea.
And check whether they think about themselves as variants or the unique. I remember when Fairbank describes about Korea, he uses the Chinese sources and Reischauser uses the Japanese sources when he talks about Korea.

McNeil went even further by faithfully adopting only Chinese source when he describes about the 7years war he mention "Ming's naval tech so great when Ming sent its fleet to engage the Japanese and they sank even few Portugese galleons." In fact, Portuguese never intervened the war(check Portugese/Korean/Japanese sources pal ) and he failed to mention Korean naval technology and its fleets' decisive role for the victory. He said Chinese ship design greatly influenced the Japanese design throughout history. Was it? really?
According to the Chinese source it seems but both Korean and Japanese sources tell different story. Until 9th Century, Japan had only one ocean-going vessel called Kudara-sen(150 tonnes)Kudara means Packje(One of three Korean kingdoms)in Japanese and During 6~7th centuries Packje was powerful naval empire ,constructed many ocean-going vessels and dominated sea trade in that region.(now that explains a lot)
16th century Japan warship design was actually influenced by the design of the Koreans. Only Korea had cannon-armed fleets at that time and under the leadership of Admiral Yi, invented many revolutionary warships such as Turtle-ship(Ironclad)and Pan-oak(Korean version of "man of war")After the first war, the Japanese learned from the concept of arming ships with cannons(this time they used Portugese ones)and ramming device.

Since we know the so-called source can be quite self-serving for anyone's own national interest, without hearing from one side and only hearing from the other can be quite hazardous for true understanding of any nation's history.


Korean culture

Korean religion.
Sounds like a show off but I have to tell you I've been these three countries(China,Korea and Japan)and I learned little bit of Mandarin,Korean(south)and Japanese(Kanto).I studied their general histories with some specialisation with martial arts/military/ceramics histories.

According to my observation and study, they(Chinese,Korean and Japanese)are all different and unique people with distinctive cultures. Since we are talking about Korea I will focus on that.

McNeil also failed to notice the secular trends of Korea towards Confucianism and labelled Korea as nation with religon:Confucianism. Hahaha The Koreans,even Yi-dynasty Koreans, did not perceive Confucianism as a Religion but rather a source for virtuous code of conduct that explains why there is no single shrine in Korea for worshiping Confucian but with thosands of Buddist temples. It's like an accepting principles of the Bible without necesarilly believing the God or Jesus.

Koreans' primary religious life can be described as Buddism plus Mu-sok. Mu-sok which basically is polytheism(thousands of gods)with characteristics of nature worshiping and generally practised by female sorceress named Mu-dang.(some similarities with Shinto)While Koreans' primary religions have been changed from Buddism to Christianity, Mu-sok still survives within Korean's religious life today as being the supplementary by occupying the grounds of superstitions/taboos,etc. If you ask any Koreans what is Mu-dang they will tell you what it is.

Korean alphabet
It is true they adopted Chinese charater for their writing system during 4th century AD but later they develop their own writing system called Han-gul and many linguists say it is the most sceintific writing system. As a minor civ it is quite an achivement I think. Japan still uses its supplementary writing system called Kana along with Chinese charaters(Kanji)

Others
Korean dishes have no similarities with the Chinese and Japanese ones(I love them all especially Japanese one)

Korean traditional wearing has no similarities with Chinese and Japanese ones(They are all beutiful)

Korean folk tales have no similarities with the Chinese ones but some similarities with the Japanese ones.

Tradtional Korean architecture, though look similar, vastly different from Chinese and Japanese ones such as castle and fortress design(I don't remember all the jargons told by the tour guide now sorry)

Traditional Korean housing uses distinctive features of centralised heating system named On-dol(Can't be found from Chinese bedroom and Japanese Tadami)There were only two ancient civs which used centralised heating system Roman and Korean civs. Fairbank failed to recognise this great invention by criticising the Koreans, people sleeping on the floor.

The list goes on and on but I will stop here.

Some minor points
Reischauer also failed to notice both China and Korea went through feudalism by saying only Japan had one. Zhou dynasty China was actually supported by many feudal lords. Late Shilla and early Koryo had feudal lords named Ho-jock and their clan titles were
hereditary.

Warrior elite class appears Shilla prior to samurai of Japan and called Hwa-Rang and acted under strict code named Hwa-rang-do. During the three kingdom period of Korea, Yamato had no specilised warrior elite class. Also some suggest the ancient Korean word "Saulabi" is the origin of Samurai. "Saul" in ancient Korean mean "fighting" and "abi" means father or man so the word meant "fighting father" or "fighting man". This theory becomes more probable because to Japanese the word "Samurai" has to be used as a whole otherwise it means nothing which strongly suggest the foreign origin of the word. Even in modern Korean, "Samu" means "fighting" but Japanese use "Kenka" or Tatakai" as a word for fighting. "Bushi" is a word from China.

This earlier existance of warrior class in Korea and the word Saulabi and Samurai all helps to us to reach the conclusion Samurai class in Japan actually came from Korea and when this class was replaced by scholar class in Korea, Japan consolidated more for this warrior class.

Japanese cultural debts to Korea is not new things to say and even McNeil,Fairbank and Reischauer know about them but lack in details.

"Tea cermony" and "Zen culture" are actually from the China and Korea also developed these as its own called "Da-do" and "Son". So don't make too big deal about these OK?

These Korean influence to Japanese culture are strongly supported by the evidences of massive influx of migrants from Packje and Kokuryo(Two Korean kingdoms) Yamato created special districts to settle these migrants in Satuma and its surrounding regions of Kyshu and Kai,Shinao and considerable part of Kanto regions. These influx of people to Yamato was a hugh boost towards more civilised society.

Kokuryo's territory was that of Manchuria so people are quite aggressive,tough and full of martial spirit. Packje was a naval empire so its people are truely seafaring ones and highly artistic and have good sense of commerce. These two Korean kingdoms' peoples' characteristics are inherited as Today Japanese people's dual characteristics.(while kind and peaceful but on the other hand aggressive) Actually I think there is no point of dividing these two people(Korean & Japanese)because they share same ancestors which Japanese bitterly deny.

Yayoi culture which is prior to Yamato too was under great influence from Korea. Bronze culture and Rice farming introduced by the Koreans. I think that's why many Japanese historians deny Yayoi as thier first culture.

Jomon culture is quite popular with Japanese historians and they want to see this as thier first culture but its too primitive to be seen as civilised culture.(stone age)

I think I talked too much maybe I wanted to release my strees from the exams. Well I don't know.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Youngsun,

I certainly don't think your post is too long. I think its highly informative and intelligent. As I admitted before:
I have to admit that my knowledge of Korean history is practically non-existent. And it was absolutely not my intention to slight the Koreans.

But I have become a bit suspicious about the national prejudices of some posters here claiming their nation is unique and should be included among the civilizations of CivIII. As you will have noticed there clearly is an Australian lobby and an Austrian too. Someone even maintained that those Austrians actually are Celts, no Germans,(?!?) while the Hungarians could be considered part of them. I cant take such distortions of historical truth seriously.

Since I am not campaigning for a Dutch civilization (which nonetheless has far greater historical importance than the Australians) I'm not arguing too serve nationalistic distortions of reality. To no avail I tried to make it clear that Civilizations are NOT IDENTICAL with political structures, nor with one ethnic group, nor with one linguistic family!! Following McNeill I think its religion that in the end holds a civilization together. Unfortunately many posters only consider the political structure of the present moment and seem to think that history has ended(!).

Could you recommend any general study on Korea? Generally I prefer ancient/early modern history; the Korean war and other twentieth century matter can be left aside. Unfortunately I cant read Mandarin, nor Korean, nor Japanese -though I would love to do so- but English, French or German will do. I guess Latin or Greek will not help. Success with you rexams!

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited April 22, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Thanks S.kroeze and my exam turned out to be good if not perfect.

I think there should be some human inhabitants occupying Australian continent whether it is Aborigines or Australian. and other empty part of the World too should be occupied by some local tribes thus easy expansion will never be possible.

Austria was once occupied by Romano-Celtic tribes until they were overwhelemed by Germanic invaders. Today most of Austrians are direct descendants of these Germanic tribes not the Celtic ones. If Austrians claim their ancestors are only Celts it would be like English people denying their Saxon/Norman blood.

I will never disagree with you the important role of Dutch civilisation during the exploration era.

Although I fully agree with you on the definition of civilisation as culture bloc or major cultural source, the game is not very faithful on this and I rather say the rule is broken long time ago since they(game developer)tried to represent civilisations as political entities not as culture blocs.

The evidences are everywhere. For example, look at the city name or leader name. German civilisation in the game is not a resentation of Germanic civilisation itself but a Germany as national entity. Dose it include Holland,Denmark or Austria? No I have never seen any Dutch,Danish nor Austrian city names appear within German civ city name box and Fredrick can't represent Germanic civilisation as a whole(he is rather a German national figure)

Now Firaxis has two choices:

1. make it clear that a civilisation is a civilisation and represent it as the strict text-rule and reduce number of civs so they can be fit into the true definition of civilisation.

2. or go on with the broken-rule tradtion of political entity as civilisation and add some more national entities.

I don't think Firaxis will choose the first option for the development for CivIII and You and I have to accept some suggestions made by other people to include their own nationalities. It is truely difficult to draw a strict line since nations varies in size and their importance greatly. It's like the argument of who can be armed with nuclear arms and who can not-->(USA-Russia-China-India-Pakistan)

General study of Korea? I can only recommend that it is best to actually go there and have a look with your own eyes rather than reading some books which might have been distorted by somebody. Don't miss Kyoung-Ju(ancient Korean capital)as your primary site.
Since my study is confined mainly to military history so fragmented in some ways and I still have to learn a lot more about general history of Korea(Remember I am still learning not lecturing )

Now I know you can speak 5 languages Wow

[Az]

as many as possible . at early stages the filtration of the stronger will dominate the other ones and make them their provinces . they could free themselves afterwards .... I think of Civs more like countries not like Civlizations .

in empty places there should be a spontaneous poping up of civs allowed .


------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Youngsun,

I hope all is well? I have missed your contributions. I especially liked your proposal in the Civ III Units Workshop thread. Do you still visit here?

I can't say you have convinced me, but at least you have decreased my resistance to a political interpretation of the Civilization concept since it seems inevitable nonetheless. As you said:

quote: Now Firaxis has two choices: 1. make it clear that a civilisation is a civilisation and represent it as the strict text-rule and reduce number of civs so they can be fit into the true definition of civilisation. 2. or go on with the broken-rule tradition of political entity as civilisation and add some more national entities. I don't think Firaxis will choose the first option for the development for CivIII and You and I have to accept some suggestions made by other people to include their own nationalities. It is truely difficult to draw a strict line since nations varies in size and their importance greatly. It's like the argument of who can be armed with nuclear arms and who can not-->(USA-Russia-China-India-Pakistan)

Now lets assume Firaxis makes a clear choice for the second possibility -after all, everyone should prefer a clear choice above the muddled situation we have now- and interprets a Civilization as political entity. Immediately another problem arises.
To put all readers on the way I foresee, I'll copy a list of empires, which were at some period of history a dominant power, from the game 'History of the World', quite an enjoyable game, related to Risk. In this way I can save myself the responsability for this list. Yet I think the designers did make quite intelligent decisions. They divided history in seven epochs.
(NB: I put their capitals in brackets; barbarians don't have a capital in this game, how realistic! I corrected some obvious mistakes.)

I Early Civilizations, 3000-1400BC
Sumer (Kish)
Egypt (Memphis)
Crete (Knossos)
Indus/Dravidian (Harappa)
Babylonia (Babylon)
Shang dynasty (Anyang)
Hittites (Chattushash)
Aryans

II Antiquity, 1400-450BC
Assyria (Ninive)
Zhou dynasty (Hao)
Phoenicia (Byblos)
Vedic republics and kingdoms, a.o.Kosala (Shravasti)
Greek cities (Athenai)
Sarmatians
Carthago (Carthago)
Persian empire (Persepolis)

III Classical Antiquity, 450BC-300AD
Celts
Macedonia (Pella)
Magadha (Pataliputra)
Han dynasty (Chang'an)
Xiongnu
Roman empire (Roma)
Maya (Tikal)
Sassanian empire (Ctesiphon)

IV Early Middle Ages, 300-750AD
Guptas (Pataliputra)
Goths
Huns
Byzantine empire (Constantinople)
Anglo-Saxons
T'ang dynasty (Chang'an)
Islamic caliphate (Mekka)
Khmer (Angkor)

V High Middle Ages, 750-1300AD
Frankish empire (Reims)
Vikings
Fujiwara dynasty (Heian)
Holy Roman empire (Aachen)
Cholas (Tanjore)
Song dynasty (Kaifeng)
Seljuks
Mongols

VI Renaissance, 1300-1550AD
Ming dynasty (Beijing)
Timurids (Samarkand)
Inca empire (Cuzco)
Aztec empire (Tenochtitlán)
Otoman empire (Istanbul)
Portugal (Lisboa)
Spanish empire (Madrid)
Safawid empire (Isfahan)
Mughal empire (Delhi)

VII Modern, 1550-
Manchus (Beijing)
Russian empire (Moskwa)
United Provinces (Amsterdam)
France (Paris)
British empire (London)
United States (Washington)
Japan (Tokyo)
German empire (Berlin)

I really think they did excellent work. Yet the problem emerges immediately: Civilizations we like to imagine as indivisible and monolithic, like China, India and Persia, turn out to be politically intermittent. After all many Chinese dynasties didn't follow one another without temporary disruption of political unity. So when Firaxis persists in this direction, a Rise and Fall structure becomes unevitable, or they should abandon historical resemblance all together. I'm looking forward to your comments.

By the way, I don't think we should attach any importance to the list of cities of CivII. It is clearly one of the most sloppy details, obviously quickly put together on a Saturday afternoon, of a otherwise well-cared-for game. After all, the German Queen, Maria Theresa, was archduchess of Austria, queen of Hungary and Bohemia; her capital was Wien!
[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited June 18, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

Adding to the civilization mix:

Crete
Parthia

[Az]

S. Kroeze :

anytime such a thread pops up I feel very uncomfortable about myself .

Asking I Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli Civilization is too much . but is it too much . I know the last sentences aren't clear but they just represent the huge question mark in my mind . can such a nation that made a great impact ( I hope you agree with me ) like the hebrews ,disappear and then reappear ? is there any way to simulate it ? should Firaxis even bother ? at first I was pretty sure that yes . but now , with threads piling in my mind , I am not so sure . answers ?

------------------
Prepare to Land !

[Urban Ranger]

Youngsun,

Just some quick notes after reading your thesis on Korea

Korea had been a Chinese vassal for quite sometime. At least it was during the Tang Dynasty. I don't know when did it become independent, though.

"The Koreans,even Yi-dynasty Koreans, did not perceive Confucianism as a Religion but rather a source for virtuous code of conduct that explains why there is no single shrine in Korea for worshiping Confucian but with thosands of Buddist temples."

Just because you find somebody's statue in a shine in the Orient doesn't mean he or she is a god (or goddess). For example, Lord Pao (a madarin during the Sung dynasty).

In China Confucianism is a secular philosophy for the most part. The mainstream never had him deitified. A saint, maybe, but not a god.

"Mu-sok which basically is polytheism (thousands of gods) with characteristics of nature worshiping and generally practised by female sorceress named Mu-dang."

"Mu-sok" sounds freightfully Chinese. The Chinese character "mu" refers to those who have supernatural powers. Originally it was used to refer to those who use a variety of methods -- such as drilling holes in tortoise shells and then burning the shells over fire -- to foretell the future. This meaning is very old and dated back to the Chou dynasty or even earlier. Later it was expanded to include those who claimed they could drive out evil spirits and bring in good fortune.

"Sok" in Chinese refers to "skills, methods, or techniques." It carries a connotation of "not enlightened" or "not proper." "Tao" would be used instead to refer to something grand, perhaps on a cosmological scale.

"Zhou dynasty China was actually supported by many feudal lords."

Some contend that they were more like slave owners. An any rate, Fedual lords were there during the Warring States period. Even during the early Han dynasty there were these "kings" who were the equivalent of fedual lords.

""Bushi" is a word from China."

It is?

""Tea cermony" and "Zen culture" are actually from the China"

Zen actually came from India. Zen is the original sect (if you can call it that) of Buddhism.

[Youngsun]

Hallo S Kroeze.

quote: the game 'History of the World', quite an enjoyable game

Interesting. Do you know any site that has this so I can download?

quote: So when Firaxis persists in this direction, a Rise and Fall structure becomes unevitable

Don't get me wrong I voted for the idea and still like it but one thing that bothers me is the implementation of it into the game. I don't have any problem with the Rise status of my empire but how you going to simulate a falling? Political division within a empire can be the best example as far as I can think. But what about an empire that still maintains territorial integrity but cripples inside for other various reasons? Bigger percentage of corruption or falling productivity regardless of what form of government you have perhaps? tell me more on this please.

Another thing that has to be sacrificed is that an advanced diplomacy feature of the game if the term of civilisation becomes strict. Many civilisations have interacted with its nearby political entities whatever they were barbaric or civilised. Local tribes,nomadic hordes,minor civs and major civs all have helped to shape up the world that now we know and they all deserve some kind of historic represenation within the game for fun & reality's sake.

Dalgetti

I don't have any problem with Hebrew civ appears in the game but things like once it's existance comes to an end then re-emerge after some time can be very difficult to simulate I guess.

Urban Ranger

quote: Korea had been a Chinese vassal for quite sometime. At least it was during the Tang Dynasty. I don't know when did it become independent, though.

Korea starts as Choson then annexed by Han(4th centruty BC)Wu-Ti's army that settled 2 province(Lo-lang & Tai-feng)along southern Manchria and northern Korea. While Lo-lang still held much of northern part of Korean peninsula, various enthnic Korean kingdoms emerged as Puyo,Koguryo in Northern Manchria and Okcho,Tongye in Northern and central Korea and three han kingdoms in Southern Korea. Kokuryo destroys Puyo,Tai-feng and finally the Han chinese stronghold Lo-lang then rapidly expanded its territory which include whole of Manchria and northern Korea. The three Han kingdoms gradually evlove as Pack-je,Shilla and Kaya then Kaya was annexed by Shilla thus opening the era of Korean version of three kingdom period(Kokuryo,Packje and Shilla)and amazingly the Chinese version of three kingdom(Wei,Wu and Shu)too was very close to the time period of the Korean version. Let's see hmmm Shang-Zhou-Warring states-Chin-Han-Three kingdoms-Northern/Southern dysnasties-Sui-Tang.....
it was early Han dynasty period when Korea was annexed then late Han to Three kingdoms when Kokuryo began to interact with China so as far as I know it is basically during early Han to late Han not until Tang that parts of Korea was settled as Han provinces.

For the Confucianism, yes I agree with you. A idol worshiped at a shrine does not always mean a religion is being practised. China has the both views(though close to secular one)about Confucious but in Korea, it is percieved strictly secular.

The word "Mu-sok" has the chinese origin due to the Ancient Koreans' usage of chinese characters as their writing system but the main practice of it does not come from China but Northern Asian style shamanism/nature worshiping. The word Shinto too has the chinese origin but again it too does not have any relationship with Chinese style shamanism. If you see any of Mu-dang(sorceress)'s practice such as "Gut" you will see the difference.

quote: Some contend that they were more like slave owners. An any rate, Fedual lords were there during the Warring States period. Even during the early Han dynasty there were these "kings" who were the equivalent of fedual lords

Yes, you're right. In fact, any dis-unity period of Chinese history is full feudal lords.

"Bushi" is a word that is pronounced in Japanese style based on Chinese characters.

Zen sect only not the culture. It was Tang Buddhist monks who had devloped this as distinct stream within the religion then both the Korean and Japanese monks learned the principle which had spreaded among their own societies/cultures.

[St Leo]

Asking I Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli Civilization is too much . but is it too much . I know the last sentences aren't clear but they just represent the huge question mark in my mind . can such a nation that made a great impact ( I hope you agree with me ) like the hebrews ,disappear and then reappear ? is there any way to simulate it ? should Firaxis even bother ? at first I was pretty sure that yes . but now , with threads piling in my mind , I am not so sure . answers ?

Hebrews are partly to blame for Christianity and Islam, but this accomplishment was more due to the location than the state as a whole. Their country was neither large nor influential and overall nothing more than a minor state.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[Jordal]

I think that the greek city-states should be seperate in some way. But they could unify if threatened by a greater power, such as the Persian invasions. But the conflicts between the city-states should be represented. After all, Phillip II would have had a harder time conquering Greece had the city-states been allied. Also, religion should be included, and diplomatic relations with civilizations of the same religion would be better. The barbarians could be represented by their ethnic groups, such as the saxons, celts, and huns. They could have villages, found small cities, and if they conquer part of a civilization they could acquire culture and become their own civilization, such as the franks in France.

[Jordal]

I think that the greek city-states should be seperate in some way. But they could unify if threatened by a greater power, such as the Persian invasions. But the conflicts between the city-states should be represented. After all, Phillip II would have had a harder time conquering Greece had the city-states been allied. Also, religion should be included, and diplomatic relations with civilizations of the same religion would be better. The barbarians could be represented by their ethnic groups, such as the saxons, celts, and huns. They could have villages, found small cities, and if they conquer part of a civilization they could acquire culture and become their own civilization, such as the franks in France.