"Opposition To Arabs"

[statusperfect]

Wre is the "banana" option. I couldn't care less about arabs or not .

[DarkCloud]

Smelt iron

No... The hittites did this... And I'm fairly certain they were Indo-european... they did this because they lived in the mountinas, etc.

Hittites arent' arabs.

The arabs are merely the people who originated in the Deserts SOUTH- I'm not sure whether they can be counted as semites are not- but then again- arabic is a semitic language- thus you have a point there

But you see- each of the nations you cite was individual- they didn't consider themselves an arabic civilization until the Abbasid, etc. caliphates- and even then- they weren't all that united.

If you were going to make a civilization- you would need a specific arabic civilization- therefore I posit forth the Turks (even though they weren't arabs and hated the arabs) merely because they were one of the largest civs- and the seljuks fought the crusaders and we ALL know about the ottomans

As for the Abbasids- I suppose they would be the best 'arabic' civ- since they were the ones who founded moorish spain (I believe)
-

Is anyone else beginning to see how Euro-or-otherwise-incompletely-centric most of our educations seem to be?

Yes... some people

-=
Arabs also invented "0"... very important

-

BTW the Arabs came within a hair's-breadth of overunning Europe, only being stopped, in France, By Charles Martel in 732 CE, near Poitiers.

Weren't they stopped on the Danube in present day Austria some other time? And around 1300 or something of the such, I think it was Bulgaria's choice to choose between Christianity and Islam; and if they had chosen Islam, things might have turned out different.

Although I am more certain of the former than the latter

[Cyclotron]

Y'know, an arab is somebody who speaks arabic as a primary language, last time I checked. Even if you restricted it to only ethnic terms, the people in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine are all Arabs. Iran is Persian, and Turkey is Turkish, so they are not Arabs.

The Arabs were directly responsible for the introduction of Arabic numerals (which weren't originally arabic, but they still introduced them), which was one of the crucial building blocks of the European renaissance. It was largely the doing of the Arabs that ancient Greek knowledge (great philosophers, etc) ever survived the European dark ages.

Not to mention a few nifty empires that stretched form Persia to Spain...

No, really, Charles Martel did stop their initial advance into Spain in 732. The 1300s battle you are referring to was later, during a Turkish invasion of Europe IIRC, but Turks are technically not Arabs (although both were Islamic).

As for Turks vs. Arabs, I would have to say Arabs because although the Seljuk Turks/ Ottoman Empire left an impact on history, the impact of the Arabs was far greater and it contributed to more areas of civ (science, literature, etc) in a way that the Turks are not known for.

Generally, I think that as many civs should be included as possible... Arabs are at the top of my list, Israelis are probably near the bottom. I have no problem with the inclusion of Israel, but their impact on world history as a civ seems pretty small and there are many other civs I would rather see first.

[monkspider]

I believe the Arabs should be in without question, however I do hope to see a Hebrew civ appear in the next XP at least.

[Mr. President]

These games are already becoming top-heavy from sheer number of civilizations. Why the Iroquois and not the Sioux? Why the Babylonians and not the Assyrians? Why the Americans and not the Canadians and the Mexicans and the Brazilians? Why the Spanish and not the Danes? Why the Indians and not the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis?

If every civilization that had any role in history at all should be included (and really there's no reason why they shouldn't be aside from questions of audience appeal) I'm afraid you'd need a quantum computer to play Civilization.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by DarkCloud No... The hittites did this... And I'm fairly certain they were Indo-european... they did this because they lived in the mountinas, etc.

Ah, but I said they were AMONG the first ...

But you see- each of the nations you cite was individual- they didn't consider themselves an arabic civilization until the Abbasid, etc. caliphates- and even then- they weren't all that united.

If you were going to make a civilization- you would need a specific arabic civilization- therefore I posit forth the Turks (even though they weren't arabs and hated the arabs) merely because they were one of the largest civs- and the seljuks fought the crusaders and we ALL know about the ottomans

Recall that Islam was the rallying factor; as Islam spread into non-Arabic populations, the usual historical factors of autonomy and supremacy came directly into play.

As for the Abbasids- I suppose they would be the best 'arabic' civ- since they were the ones who founded moorish spain (I believe)

Umayyads, actually -- took Spain from the Visigoths in the early 8th cent CE.

-- More interesting to me is the obvious limiting effect technology has on terrotorial control. *sigh* Maybe one day Civ will get "corruption" to work more realistically ... And monkeys might fly out of -- well, you know ...

Weren't they stopped on the Danube in present day Austria some other time? And around 1300 or something of the such, I think it was Bulgaria's choice to choose between Christianity and Islam; and if they had chosen Islam, things might have turned out different.

Absolutely!! -- both were hazardous moments, but the battle I cite came arguably at Christendom's weakest moment, and --- as an aside -- had the further effect of leading to a significant stengthening of the Frankish Kingdom.

... And, on a very last academic note, you're quite right about the Hittites: they're Indo-Europeans from the Thraco-Phrygian branch (same as Greeks, Illyrians, Italics, and Celts).

... And, on a poetic note: "History may be servitude \ History may be freedom ..." "... For history is but a pattern of timeless moments."

Yours Amidst the Lone and Level Sands,

Ozymandias

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Mr. President
These games are already becoming top-heavy from sheer number of civilizations. Why the Iroquois and not the Sioux? Why the Babylonians and not the Assyrians? Why the Americans and not the Canadians and the Mexicans and the Brazilians? Why the Spanish and not the Danes? Why the Indians and not the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis?

If every civilization that had any role in history at all should be included (and really there's no reason why they shouldn't be aside from questions of audience appeal) I'm afraid you'd need a quantum computer to play Civilization.

Assuming -- as I always do! -- that one is playing on a "real" map of the Earth, ideallly the different Civs become different puzzle pieces elucidating different aspects of history. An "American" civ is an absurdity in 4000 BCE and a necessity post-1775.

I'm certain the ultimate answer as to why certain Civs are included are to do with (1) marketing (2) the developers' misconceptions of history (3) the developers' misconceptions of the players' misconceptions of history and (4) an incredibly successful attempt to assemble an engine to accommodate simulating so many different eras.

Again, limiting myself to the allegedly real world, I believe that those scenarios which will best stand (forgive the pun!) the test of time will be those understanding and utilizing the nuances between the different attributes a Civ possesses, vis-a-vis its neighbors, etc.

-O.

[Cyclotron]

please note that more civs != more needed computing power.

Nobody has said anything about increasing the number of players each game, that's not what this poll is about. More civs to choose from has zero negative impact of any kind.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
please note that more civs != more needed computing power.

Nobody has said anything about increasing the number of players each game, that's not what this poll is about. More civs to choose from has zero negative impact of any kind.

Agreed entirely. Again, with the terra-centric view of mine, the ideal scenario (be it beginning in 4000 BCE or any other time) would have Civs in play which best represent the overall large-scale events of the epoch in question -- heck, an Alexander the Great Sucessor scenario could probably get by with six Civs or so and some rampant barbarians. Quantity not required!

-Oz.

[KaiserIsak]

Israel once ruled the world under King David so they should be in. I am not An Arab but the term Arabs are used for every country in the Mid East except Israel and actually none of them are "Arabs".

Yeah Israel rules the hole world. The HOLE world. Actually they only ruled a tiny strip of land along the eastern mediterranean, known as judea and samaria. But thats another story. King David actually sent Urias to death so he could marry his wife Batseba. Great pal, eh?

[roalan]

Cyclotron 7

Not true. Palestinians and Jordanians Syrians and Iraq are NOT Arab . Jordan and Palestine are Semites. The others are what they are but not Arab. Just because they speak the lang, does not mean that they are Arab. Ukranians are not Russian just because they speak Russian.

[Cyclotron]

Dictionary.com:

Arab:

1) A member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia, whose language and Islamic religion spread widely throughout the Middle East and northern Africa from the seventh century.
2) A member of an Arabic-speaking people.

I draw two concusions from this: One, that Arabs are Semitic, so your logic that Jordanians and Palestinians are not Arabs because they are Semites is false. Two, "Arab" defines people who speak Arabic.

[roalan]

Arab

No I am still correct: Websters Dictionary:
Arab: 1. A Native or Inhabitant of ARABIA:
The Peninsula in SW Asia between the Red Sea and the Person Gulf.Largely a deaert region.
2. Any of the Semantic people NATIVE to Arabia but now widely scattered throughout surrounding lands commononly a Bedouin.
Not Syrians or Jordanians( unless they are Bedouin) and not Palestinians. These people are NOT native to the Arabian Peninsula. Just what I said before the Saudies-Quatar Kwaite etc. are arabs and those same nationalities that live in other countries.

[Cyclotron]

Merriam Webster online tells me that:

1 a : a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsula b : a member of an Arabic-speaking people

According to Cambridge, an arab is

a person from the Middle East or N Africa who speaks Arabic as a first language

Furthermore, according to the dictionary of english usage,

The Arab nations now include countries outside the natural limits of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Arabic language has adopted many forms in those countries.

Conclusion: an Arab is not a racial definition, but a linguistic-cultural group.

woot!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Conclusion: an Arab is not a racial definition, but a linguistic-cultural group.

I would hasten to add that a "linguistic-cultural group" is almost certainly a better definition, in Civ terms, than race/ethnicity -- although, of course, In The Beginning, it is reasonable to assume that relatively isolated populations of homo sapiens sapiens (nope, not a stutter -- it's what we have the audacity to name ourselves "wisest of the wise") would have had all three in common. BTW, this would make the beginning European - North African - West Asian beginning Civs:

1. The Indo-European derived Thraco-Phrygians (Celto-lIgurians, Celts, Illyrians, Italics, Greeks, and Hittites); a separate branch encompassing Slavs, Balts, and Tuetons; and Iranians.

2. Semites in the Arabian Peninsula

3. Hamites from Morocco to Ethiopia (with Sudanese just below this last)

4. West Mediterraneans in Spain

5. Smaller populations of Etruscans and Latins in the Italian Peninsula.

6. Caucasians between the Black and Caspian Seas

7. Hattites, Kassites, Sumerians, and Elamites nearby

8. Finns in the farthest north ...

9. .... with Huns to their east

10. Dravidians along the Indus.

Anybody wanna play?

Abraxas,

Oz