List of Civilizations

[Biddles]

Let's get something straight, there is a difference between a CIVILIZATION and a COUNTRY which may or may not have any power.

A CIVILIZATION has a lot of history and it is quite different from other civilizations. Some examples of civilizations are the greek civilization, chinese civilization, Jewish civilization,arabic civilization, native american civilization, egyptian civilization etc.

A COUNTRY is a body of people and a government. The USA is a country, so is Canada, Australia, Germany, China, Saudi Arabia, Isreal etc.

The only civilization to arise in the last century or two is the western civilization (Which spans all the western capitalist countries including America, Canada, Australia, Modern Japan, England and the rest of NATO etc.)

Even though the USA is not a civilization I think that it should be included because it is so powerful right now. It has had a major effect on the present world. However, Canada and Australia should not be included. They have not had a major effect on the world.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Youngsun]

And there are major and minor civilisations.
To be qualified as major civ it should have/had been majorcultural source for surrouding regions with distinctiveness in style as Indian or Chinese civilisations had/have been.(only few are truely qualified major civs)

Major civilisations have thier own influential spheres and sometimes they overlap.

Indian orbit:Burmese,Siamese(Thai)
Chinese orbit:Korean,Japanese,Vietnamese
Indo-Chinese orbit:Tibetan,Khmer,Malay
Greek orbit:Roman
Greco-Roman orbit:Western Europe
English orbit:Australian,Canadian,New Zealander,American
American orbit:Most of developed part of world

Intersting to see some of the cultural satelites creat their own sphere.

[cpp]

If the game should be historically accurate, it would be boring. In 4000BC there wasn't that many civs around, so if I'd like to play as the frenh I'd have to wait until around 800 AD.
After all the game is about creating a new history, not replaying the old one.

[cpp]

If the game should be historically accurate, it would be boring. In 4000BC there wasn't that many civs around, so if I'd like to play as the frenh I'd have to wait until around 800 AD.
After all the game is about creating a new history, not replaying the old one.

For those historians around, it ahould be possible to exclude civs/states/nation from the default list.

[cpp]

If the game should be historically accurate, it would be boring. In 4000BC there wasn't that many civs around, so if I'd like to play as the frenh I'd have to wait until around 800 AD.
After all the game is about creating a new history, not replaying the old one.

For those historians around, it ahould be possible to exclude civs/states/nation from the default list.

[cpp]

If the game should be historically accurate, it would be boring. In 4000BC there wasn't that many civs around, so if I'd like to play as the frenh I'd have to wait until around 800 AD.
After all the game is about creating a new history, not replaying the old one.

For those historians around, it ahould be possible to exclude civs/states/nation from the default list.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*sigh*... I give up. No sence in reasoning with you... However, I wish to hear your reaction when Canada and Israel are left out of the game.

Oh, and Poland was a powerful nation, especially as part of Poland-Lithuania in the 1500s (?). Of course they were destroyed by the Russian and Swedish conquests of Polish land.

[DarkCloud]

Imran-

I agree that Poland or Lithuania should be included.

Corn Master-

Those were NOT Canadian forces. In the War of 1812 the BRITISH burned washington D.C. and captured Washington D.C.

If anything was done to the United States by canada which was owned by Britain it was only in Maine or one of the lesser-populated Northern states such as Ohio, which I know was attacked in the War of 1812, but in Ohio the only cities were forts and outposts and even then I believe only two were conquered and those were conquered by British solders.

General Winfield Scott defeated the BRITISH around Vancouver and Quebec, not the CANADIANS canada, was not a country then, it was more of a commonwealth, subject to the rule of the british.

And the USA won the war of 1812 even though we were idiots to start it. We did regain washington D.C. and beat up on Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver etc.

However since we never set foot in England the war can only be called a stalemate, but America held off the British.

-NOTE: When I was in grade-school you will not believe the trash they taught us. For some reason they told us that the British declared war on the US when It was the other way around.

Well, it just goes to show what national pride can do to history.
-American or Canadian

In World War II canada's troops helped, but do you really believe that they turned the tide of the war. America's troops did so.

The Canadians entered the war before America and when we entered the British/Canadians were still stalemated/losing against the Germans. After we entered the war began to turn for the better for the allies.

NOTES on General Montgomery and other generals.

Most British and American Generals were pretty bad generals. Patton was so so but most of our generals were below average. General Montgomery stank, he lost many,many,many men but because he won his battles he was heralded as a national hero.

The real reason we won the war in Africa was Rommel ran out of supplies.

Mexico may still be a country but we did 'conquer' it. In the Mexican-American war we attacked and took Mexico City. Afterwards we signed an agreement and acquired California, etc. We could have asked for more but the cost of life had been too great.

Technically the US conquered the Phillipines, but later set them free from the bonds of American Rule because that was why the Phillipines supported us in the war against their previous occupiers.

[CornMaster]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 08-26-2000 02:29 PM Well, it just goes to show what national pride can do to history. -American or Canadian

I couldn't agree more!!

quote: And the USA won the war of 1812 even though we were idiots to start it. We did regain washington D.C. and beat up on Quebec, Toronto, Vancouver etc.

Just because a country regains lost territory, doesn't mean they won the war!

quote: Those were NOT Canadian forces. In the War of 1812 the BRITISH burned washington D.C. and captured Washington D.C.

The soldiers were living in Upper and Lower Canada at the time, while Canada wasn't independent at the time these were still Canadian soldiers. If Britian brought soldiers over from Britian and they attacked through Canada well that would be a different story.



------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
Administrator of the CornEmpire Forum
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No... they were still BRITISH! In the French and Indian War (7 years war), the British fought battle not Americans (even though forces from the 13 British colonies participated. In the War of 1812, those people in the Dominion of Canada were British and refered to themselves as such.

[DarkCloud]

Just wondering, how do you do the quotes in the text.

I am just about to give up arguing this topic because to quote an old song "I'm so tired..."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quotes -

-Quote-Message-/Quote-

Replace the "-" with "[" and "]"

[Lonestar]

Iman, for someone who refers to New Jersy as "Heaven", you sem to have a inflated sense of shelf-importence(like me).


The Israelites deserve to be in the game, their influence on history dwarfs that of the others, whether Muslims, Germans
, or the bloody Canucks.

But hey, as long as we're debating whether or little piddly-**** nations (Canada) should be included, I cast my vote for the Texans.




------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[The Joker]

This is a great discussion! Thought versus stupidity!

Lonestar:

quote: The Israelites deserve to be in the game, their influence on history dwarfs that of the others, whether Muslims, Germans , or the bloody Canucks.

Are you crazy? How can you say such a thing??!?

quote: But hey, as long as we're debating whether or little piddly-**** nations (Canada) should be included, I cast my vote for the Texans.

That's what I'm saying. Let's hope they include the Texans, the New Yorkans, the Californians, the Washington DC'ers, the Canadians, the Australians.........

And those pathetic Romans or Babylonians? Well, they're LOSERS! They didn't make it, they collapsed. So throw them all away! We don't want any loser civs in the game!

Long live stupidity!
Long live narrowmindness!
Long live Canada!

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

[S. Kroeze]

quote: The Israelites deserve to be in the game, their influence on history dwarfs that of the others, whether Muslims, Germans , or the bloody Canucks.

I want to support Lonestar, though it is absolutely impossible to prove such a statement in any verifiable way. The point is that the Hebrews (not the Israelites) produced a rather diverse collection of writings, which partly by accident were put together and given the name Bible(=the BOOK). A second part of it, like a serial story, was not liked by all followers but became in combination with the first volume (like a sales offer) the greatest bestseller of all times. A competing version of this story, using many elements and ideas from this edition, became the second greatest bestseller of all time.

Especially in less developed countries like the United States, people constantly refer to this book, though they have as a rule only very superficial knowledge and understanding of its contents. Though this book has for centuries restrained technological and scientific progress, it also teached mankind some positive lessons like morality and the protection of the weak. The two competing books caused more wars and were used as a reason to kill more people than any other range of thought.

One might call these books rather a mixed blessing, but their influence and indirectly the influence of the Hebrews can assumed to have been huge. The question how history would have turned out without the Hebrews and these books will never be answered.

It will probably be obvious that I am neither a Jew, nor a Christian or Muslim. It is not my intention to offend people deliberately.

I certainly think that such a 'Holy Book' should be included among the Wonders of the World. Parts of it, especially the Song of Songs, are magnificent poetry; some stories, like the tale of Joseph and his eleven brothers, will pass every literary criticism. The book did certainly contribute to the dominance of the Europeans.

The discussion about the historical importance and cultural/political independence of the Great Civilizations of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Namibia, Jamaica and Greenland during six millennia of human history is too silly to participate in.
The Joker has a point here: Texas and California have at least some traits of national identity. All southern American states once had an aristocratic culture distinct from the north. They also fought a real war trying to defend their 'regional' identity, one of the bloodiest wars in history(1861-1865). There is not one Canadian nation, there are at least two: the English and the French speaking Canadians, separated by religion, language and culture. As far as I know they do not have much sympathy for one another...
Lets create a Civ game with only one civilization: the Canadians!!! (who else?)

Someone else thought that a more (or less) historically correct game would inevitably be boring. Please explain why?? I do not understand such reasoning. As the game is now I enjoy the start much more than the end game. So far to my knowledge no one has suggested that civilizations cannot begin before their historically correct starting date. I only advocated the idea of not letting all civilizations at the same time. I still think it would be interesting when some start later than others. I still hope the Rise and Fall idea will be used.

And when the following idea of me will be used the game would be a fierce competion from the very beginning:

quote: My proposal would be to let a particular Civilization start with several small towns -only one of them ruled by you- that are not politically united. So you would be forced to aim for supremacy within your own Civilization before outward expansion became a realistic possibility. This would result in fierce competition from the start, being also more in accordance with historical reality. Just one example: in Antiquity there never was one united Greek empire. For a short period Mykene acquired a kind of overlordship. Centuries of intense competition and war between the poleis followed, the most important being Athenai, Sparta, Thebai, Korinthos, Miletos and Syrakousai. In the end Philippos and Alexander subjected most Greeks, but they were Macedonians, speaking another language and considered to be barbarians. The Byzantine Empire was the first more or less unified Greek empire.

Its a shame all newcomers seem to have missed the ideas of colonies, protectorates and diverse levels of political influence in a region: interest, influence, protectorates, military occupation, annexation, some without military control, but established by diplomatic and/or trade relations. Read SE MODELS v3.0, a rather long but very interesting thread, when you realize the great possibilities of such ideas!
[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited August 27, 2000).]