List of Civilizations

[Vitmore The Great]

Been chosen best country to live in by the UN. It doesn't make Canada a major civ, but our involvement in the two World Wars should count (D-Day, Juno Beach was our beach. We were the only nation to make most of its objectives.) And yes, if I say involvement in the wars should count, then definately Australia should be involved since they contibuted 5 divisions in WWI, when we contributed 4. Without us to make the artillery shells for Britain in WWI - a)Britain would have lost due to supply problems or b)The US would have bled them drier than it already did.

Just my two cents.

Vitmore

[Luk]

Canada of course shouldnt be the civilization because they didnt create their own culture, tradition etc, which builds civilization. They are little nation with a little influence on the international affairs. It has no great, own unique history, language etc. I would discuss even America as a civilization as it is mostly English changed civilization, without own language, with short history, and almost without tradition (maybe primitive Wild West, and Country music tradition but not else). Well... I think that real civilization are Mayans, Aztecs, Incas in America, in Europe - English, Spanish, Roman, German, Polish, Russian, French, South Slav, Hungarian, Greek, Scandinavian. Thats all. I dont comment other continents because I dont know it well...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, the ONLY reason America belongs is because it is the most powerful nation on Earth. That does count for something . If it was like pre WW1 America, then it wouldn't belong.

Canada and Australia are a part of Britain basically. I don't think the Irish belong either. And the Israelis? Come on!! Except for religion, what have they really done?

[DarkCloud]

Canada, New Zealand and Austrailia are not part of Britain but until very recently they just followed what Britain did, WWI, WWII or were part of the commonwealth, not to say that they are not good countries, they just aren't great 'Civilizations' technically they are just an outcropping of british civilzation.

The USA is different because we have many, many, many different cultures and have been seperate from Britain for a very long time.

P.S. leave in the Vietnamese and Israelites they have been around a loooonng time and have had their empires rise and fall.

[Luk]

Well, you wrote very good, you Americans dont have civilization, and you dont create it, in America there are many civilization, and they are united only by country

[CornMaster]

But what about Germany?? Canada has been a country longer that Germany has but there is no debate over whether or not Germany should be in the game.

Canada has many cultures all independent which make up this great country. Canada did contribute a lot to the World Wars and has a seat on the UN (security Council), G7 or G8 (can't remember if it changed or not), WTO, etc...

Canada is in organizations with other Major civs so it should also be a major civ!!!

------------------
"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.

[cpp]

Exclude the greeks, romans, zulus, incas, aztecs, celts, persians, babylonians and mongols since their empires has been destroyed. Exclude the USA and Germany becasue of their short history. Exclude the vikings, egypt and spain: they're no longer world powers.


Seriously

I think all the mentioned (by me in this post, and others) civs/nations should be in the game, but is should be possible for the players to disable the civs they don't want to have in the game.
[This message has been edited by cpp (edited August 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by cpp (edited August 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by cpp (edited August 23, 2000).]

[Luk]

What Canada has been longer Country then Germany...?
It is too stupid to comment, I say only that Roman Empire of German Nation was the greatest empire in X-XI century, and Canada...

And I dont remember the Canadians in any conflicts... Maybe few soldiers... but who cares about it...

The great civilizations are
English, German, Roman, Polish... Russian are anti-civilization I think

[Shadowstrike]

Ahem.... Canada was in both World Wars, and a large number of other wars during this century. So if you exclude a civ for having a weak military, shouldn't ancient civs be removed for not having any?

[The Joker]

I can not believe the narrowmindness of some people.

Why on earth would Canada or Australia or New Zealand (??!?) be civ in the game????

First none of these countries have their own culture. Second they have excisted for only a few years. Third, and most importantly, THEY ARE NOT WORLD POWERS!

And the Aboriginals? They don't even have a civilization, no alphabet, no cities, nothing. Why would they be a civilization?

I think that only the ancient civilizations should be in the game - the Egyptian, the Babylonian, the Chinese civilizations and such. Through the rise and fall of great powers these would split, and form new civs, which would be named according to the civ they originated from. Meaning that the Teuton civ would split into the Germans, the British and so on. The British would split into the Americans etc etc. This would provide a lot of realism, and would also mean that a lot of civs could be in the game, as they would appear as splinter civs of older ones.

But since Firaxis is not selling the game to Babylonians or Egyptians they will propably include the canadians and other pathetic civs, to make them happy. But if they do I would like them to go all the way, and include the glorious Texan civ or the mighty and ancient New Yorkans. And, if we're lucky, I could get to play as my favorite CTP leader: Bob Marley, leader of the Jamaicans!

BTW: Denmark is actually all that Canada is, only better. We have a better social security system, better health care, give more money to third world countries, have a lousier military (and have higher taxes). So why not include the fantastic Danish civ?

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

[CornMaster]

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 08-20-2000 04:21 PM BTW: Denmark is actually all that Canada is, only better. We have a better social security system, better health care, give more money to third world countries, have a lousier military (and have higher taxes). So why not include the fantastic Danish civ?

Sure include the glorious Danish Civ. And every civ that ever existed in the history of the Earth!!! Thank God for customization!!!! I'll be able to add and change all I want.

I don't know how people can try and keep Canada out of the game!! Second biggest country in the world..... and the list goes on. I've said some of them already.

------------------
"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.

[Shadowstrike]

Ultimately this is going to end up with every country in the world. The only way to olve this is cutomizable packets. You could load in one and get a certain civ, after all isn't it us who choose what to play and what not to play? Make many different civs, and let the player choose which ones to include in their own version of Civ.

I'm all for Personal customization. From polymorphic AI to letting a player choose what civs to include and what not to, let's try to remember that each person's copy of the game should be suited to their playing style and preferences, through "learning" of that the player's whims are. Molding to a player's desire will prove to be very useful in making any game a legend.

[S. Kroeze]

Hurray Joker!

You made your point very well! I agree completely.
And it seems I am not the only person to be exasperated by the ignorance of some people.

quote: What Canada has been longer Country then Germany...? It is too stupid to comment, I say only that Roman Empire of German Nation was the greatest empire in X-XI century, and Canada...

I might add the following ,quoting myself -because some people have declared to trust rather a personal analysis than a verbatim citation of some specialist in the field:

'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.

From 962AD until about 1250 the German Empire was a formidable one, no doubt about it- taking stock of the fact that all power was very limited in those days, absolutely nothing in comparison with the modern nation-state. The emperor was considered the highest authority in western christianity, having great power in Germany, Italy, Burgundy and considerable influence in surrounding countries like France, Bohemia and Poland.
The dynasty of the Ottones saved this part of Europe from the onslaught of the Hungarians. The empire expanded rapidly eastwards during this period, subjecting many Slav people. Temporarily they even controlled the church, selecting the pope and acting in all respects like the equal of that other emperor, ruling the eastern part of the Roman world from Constantinople.

Their very success brought about a reversal, because it created many enemies, who all allied against them: the papacy, the German aristocracy, in Italy the city states. The decline set in with the Investiture Controversy, the central issue being the appointment of bishops. Because the kings/emperors ruled through those bishops, control of the investiture was the very cornerstone of their power. The Papacy, beginning with Gregory VII (the other power claiming universal authority), and empire were at one another's throats for centuries and went down together. The French Capetians were the one who's sitting pretty: in the end the pope ended as their hostage in Avignon.

Because papacy and empire with their universal claims balanced one another, the future belonged in Europe to the national monarchies; an essential point in the development of Western christianity, a "true" civilization, becoming in this way a dominant feature as is aptly proved by this page. Greater personal freedom is an other result of this unresolved battle between church and state.

But until 1250, when Frederick II of Hohenstaufen died the outcome of the battle wasn't clear. For the emperors it was unfortunate that the emergence of the German cities, their natural allies against the aristocracy, was relatively late and less spectacular than in Italy.'

And commenting on the main topic:
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.

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!

In this thread the subject is elaborately covered. The advantage of my proposals is that they cover not only Europe, but six millennia of human history. And we can find here the germ of the brilliant Rise and Fall idea!

First of all, what major civ did not start out as a minor civ? At the time the small city of Rome liberated itself from Eutruscan rule around 500 BC I would say that it was a pretty minor entity compared to China, the Persian empire, or even some of the Greek confederations.

Want realism? Make it possible for a small, insignificant city state to become a major power in 200 years and the greatest economic power in history, up to that point, in another 200. Make it possible for a few tiny cities on a far off continent to revolt from their mother country and then in 150 years time dwarf that mother country in population and industrial might, all without conquering any major population centers. Make it possible for a minor civ confined to an island chain the size of California with few natural resources, still in the iron age when the major powers are for the most part quite industrialized, to in 50 years be able to compete with those industrialized civs militarily (Russo Japanese war, Japanese won), 50 years later conquer half the pacific, get throttled and bombed back into the stone age, and in another 40 years have the 2nd largest economy on earth and be #2 in industrial output, all without (succesfully, anyway) expanding beyond its original borders or skyrocketing in population.

Actually the story of a minor civ becoming a great power, sometimes even overshadowing older civilizations, is the rule, not the exception. Of course this degree of realism would be hard to impliment, so for practical purposes we should probably content ourselves with the myriad of China type eternal civs that we have gotten so far.
This important and highly intelligent post was originally written by Matthew!

By the way, its only a detail, but I sincerely hope the Russian default male leader wil be Peter the Great or St Wlamimir, grand duke of Kiew, and not the terrible Lenin. Butchers like Hitler, Stalin and Mao don't deserve to be honored by their entry in the hall of fame of Civilization!

[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited August 20, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Check out the Tribes 0.1 post and post your own two cents on which civs should be major and which should be minor.

The major ones would be the ones 'absolutely necessary' to the game while the minor ones would be minor tribes with no real culture, they never were superpowers, they never really developed into a civ, they never really were united, they just weren't important enough.

I don't mean to put everyone off, but there is no reason under the sun to include 'civilizations' such as the Canadians, Australians, or New Zealanders in the game, for even though they contributed to WWII they really are not civilizations, they are countries.

What is the difference you may ask.
The differences are subtle yet many.
1.A civilization has risen and fallen in power possibly many times.
I.E. America, Russia, Germany, Romans, Egyptians, Turks, etc.
2.A civilization has stood the test of time and existed for 100 years or so independent from others.
3.A civilization has built its own culture through immigration or indigenous development. I.E. China, America, India, Russia

Websters Dictionary defines civilization as-

1.The culture characteristics of a particular time or place

2. The process of becoming civilized

3. A situation of urban comfort.

4. A relatively high level of cultural and technological developement.

[Luk]

Well, It was a long text about civilization, but of course the knowledge of the history of lands and people to east from Odra River is very poor. Of course Kiev Country from X century had a little common with Russia, more with Poland I think. (The tribe which created this state was named Polanie, the same which created Poland in 966 year)