Is there not political correctness in Civ 3?

[GePap]

The Aztecs had incredible argriculture. Due to the nature of corn, and to thier mehtod of farming, one acre of farmland of the aztecs could feed more people than one acre of farmland in europe.

Speer: the biggest failings of Mesoamerican groups were that they were behind in metalurgy and writing.

that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

Sub-saharan africa faces a huge porblem with disease. Humans are basically a foreign species to most of the world, but they are indigenous to Africa, which means that in Africa, nature has had more time to find ways of exploiting man.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
so basically, technological advancement is not uniform. you can't say one group is 1000 years behind another. In some areas such as architecture and probably astrology, the Aztecs were undoubtedly ahead of most of europe.

I'm not sure on astrology (or did you mean astronomy?), but this assertion is patently false in terms of architecture. While the Aztecs possessed fine architecture, it was nowhere near as advanced as Eurasian architecture of the same time period. They hadn't even developed the rounded arch. They did have some innovation, but it was overshadowed by the far superior architecture of the Europeans.

Europeans were cultural absorbers, and had Aztec architecture been superior, they would have lifted it and incorporated it into their own. They did not. Why? Because theirs was already better.

[Az]

Astrology? AstroNOMY.

you cannot be more scientifically advanced in astrology. It's like being more scientifically advanced in Tarot card reading.

[Al B. Sure!]

Reds4ever:

That did bother me a bit when i was playing Civ2... as the Zulu, all I had to do was just take out the Egyptians or Carthaginians (assuming they were even there) and i got a whole continent for my own self... wall off the Sinai and an all-Africa (which is a huge continent) Zulu could just sit back and build 20 cities in Africa.

Playing as a european civ, however, i always had problems with the two other europeans that were bound to be on my small continent.


thanks

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Astrology? AstroNOMY.

Our alchemy beats yours any day!

[Al B. Sure!]

early astronomy was very metaphysical and theological... therefore it was astrology... what NASA does is astronomy... what the Mayan priests did was astrology.

Boris:

one problem with that idea is that the Aztec architecture was completely destroyed... archaelogists even doubted the Spanish descriptions of the indigenious cities until the 19th century when they started finding abandoned cities in central america and the andes... so the Spanish did not adopt Aztec architecture because it was systematically destroyed.

[Ramo]

Actually Boris, pre-contact NA had more urbane cultures than post-contact NA. After all, grouyps like the Souix began as farmers, then switched to nomadic hunters since the horse made that economically viable.

And European diseases tended to wipe out farmers. The Mississippi River Valley civilization, for instance, disintegrated with transatlantic contact.

that is one of the theories that i've heard. that such places as sub-saharan africa were so good places for people to live that they saw no need for change whereas civilization started in Egypt and the middle east right as desertification began in those areas so the less hospitable climate forced civilization.

Desertification really didn't get going until agriculture started in the first place (trees were destroyed, soil was depleted, etc.), so this isn't a valid theory. The fertile crescent became a waste land primarily because it was the first area humans farmed (and it didn't rain enough for the land to replenish rapidly, as in Northern Europe).

so basically, technological advancement is not uniform. you can't say one group is 1000 years behind another. In some areas such as architecture and probably astrology, the Aztecs were undoubtedly ahead of most of europe.

Astrology? I wasn't aware that the Aztecs invented tarrot cards.

If you mean astronomy, I would say bull****. Europe was on the verge of the Newtonian revolution when the Aztecs were wiped out. Hell, Europeans could predict the movement of the planets to a great degree of accuracy at this period (even if the mechanism through which they understood planetary motion was totally wrong).

As for architecture, the Egyptians were doing the same thing several thousand years earlier. The pyramids in the region were big, certainly, but all they needed was a huge amount of manpower.

There's absolutely no doubt that the Europeans were far ahead of the Aztecs at the time. They had plows, they had advanced ships, they participated in world trade, they had much higher population densitites (Tenochtitlan was an aberration), they had advanced metallurgical techniques, a nascent industry, etc., etc.

[GePap]

And all of that cause they could count on thousands of years of inovations within Eurasia, while folks like the Aztecs could not.

[Az]

Now the real question is, where Europe was at the time vis-a-vis the east.

[Al B. Sure!]

Desertification really didn't get going until agriculture started in the first place (trees were destroyed, soil was depleted, etc.), so this isn't a valid theory. The fertile crescent became a waste land primarily because it was the first area humans farmed (and it didn't rain enough for the land to replenish rapidly, as in Northern Europe).

Wrong... the desertification began with the end of the last ice age. Why is the Sahara undergoing desertification? berbers were never farming there...

not only does the idea that desertification predate civilization make sense what with the ice age, also paleolithic wall paintings in north africa and egypt show that the Sahara used to be woodlands populated by huge numbers of animals including elephants and lions. Egyptian civilization appeared AFTER desertification hence why Egyptian towns were always near the Nile... if **** was not desert beyond the nile then there would be towns out there which there werent.

They had plows, they had advanced ships, they participated in world trade

Exactly and these technological innovations were not needed by the Aztecs so they were not developed... without any draft animals, the plow was pointless and the good Mexican soil and efficiency of corn made there be little need for anything but hand-tools to farm. Why would the Aztecs need advanced ships when they were an in-land civilization that had no neighbours across the seas?

The aztecs only developed what they needed.


thanks

[Az]

Albert you're kind of right. But you forgot the impact of slash and Burn.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
early astronomy was very metaphysical and theological... therefore it was astrology... what NASA does is astronomy... what the Mayan priests did was astrology.

Charting stars and planets and using their movements to create calendars is astronomy, not astrology.

Boris:

one problem with that idea is that the Aztec architecture was completely destroyed... archaelogists even doubted the Spanish descriptions of the indigenious cities until the 19th century when they started finding abandoned cities in central america and the andes... so the Spanish did not adopt Aztec architecture because it was systematically destroyed.

If Aztec architecture was completely destroyed, how do you know it was so superior?

Mayan architecture isn't superior to the European architecture of the time, either. Europeans were creating vastly more complex structures than the Aztecs were. Compare the architectural knowledge needed to build the Colliseum vs. any Aztec building, and you'll see what I mean.

Exactly and these technological innovations were not needed by the Aztecs so they were not developed... without any draft animals, the plow was pointless and the good Mexican soil and efficiency of corn made there be little need for anything but hand-tools to farm. Why would the Aztecs need advanced ships when they were an in-land civilization that had no neighbours across the seas?

The aztecs only developed what they needed.

This is precisely the point. Due to geographical situations, the Aztecs had not needed to develop more advanced technology. The Europeans, however, had such needs. So when the two civilizations collided, Europeans won. You could replay history over again starting in 4000 BCE, and the result would more than likely end up being the same. You could swap the Aztecs and Euro positions, and those inhabiting Mexico will still lose to those who inhabited Europe. It has nothing to do with any racial traits, but purely on geographic/biological situations.

[Az]

Boris: why take the Colliseum? take any of the vast amount of Cathedrals scattered around europe.

[Spiffor]

Actually, I'm amazed by the lack of technological progress in subsaharian Africa, and to a lesser extent in precolombian America.

Historically, the search for power through war has been a huge motivation to research more efficient weapons (which had a civilian use thereafter). Precolombian America and subsaharian Africa had their share of wars too, so I wonder why the weaponry was still that primitive. Before the colonization, many African warriors still fought with Sticks, while the best weapons were scrap from the Arab weaponry (destined to kings).

[Al B. Sure!]

If Aztec architecture was completely destroyed, how do you know it was so superior?

Contemporary descriptions as well as modern archealogists theorizing... then again, remember that i go to a 90% minority public school district so i wouldnt be surprised if they taught us wrong information just to make minority groups look better. it's a possibility...

Precolombian America and subsaharian Africa had their share of wars too, so I wonder why the weaponry was still that primitive.

with pre-colombian mexico, part of the reason why weapons didnt become more advanced was because of the Aztec religious idea that you are not supposed to kill an enemy on the battlefield but rather capture him to be killed/sacrificed later. This led to all those 'garland wars' where Aztec warriors used clubs and obsidian stone swords to wound rival soldiers who they would then capture. Another issue was that due to Aztec ruthlessness, they effectively pacified central america and there was little need for effective weapons... only when Cortez arrived did the Aztec rivals like the Tlaxcala actually start fighting... before then, they were subserviant to Tenochtitlan.

As for sub-saharan africa... civilized areas (such as the west and east) did possess good, metal weapons. The people of Benin were especially known for their metal-working so i assume that the same smiths who could make exquisite statues out of iron could also fashion swords.

as for the rest of africa... that can be explained by the idea of if it aint broke, don't fix it... blunt spears did well enough for roving Bantu... in fact, i heard that Shaka was the first of the zulu to even think of having sharp spears and this idea caused the insignificant zulu tribe to conquer almost all of uncolonized south africa. who knows why Shaka just thought up one day to equip his soldiers with lethel weapons...


thanks