1. The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
2. Allow players to cheat but they should lose their score if they do. Also espionage is basically worthless and a guessing game in civ 3. By the time you get espionage most civs have already switched over to deomcracy and are immuned to it. And the prices of espionage are way to high. $6000 gold to convert a city ya ok. Thats more than 10 ICBM and missle defense systems. It is more expensive than a space ship. Corruption is way to high. Why is it that in democracy there is still corruption.

1. Yes, we know, I want to ramp up the # of civs.
('sides, theres 3 in civ3)

2. Esp isn't cheating. Its just a game with the RGN. Esp sometimes could be useful to steal that tech to propel to the SS or something.

Corruption is always a problem, i can do nothing about that

The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
Oh, please, let's be realistic here. For one thing, there is a lack of African civs because they have not been worldmakers. Look beyond your pretentiousness and take a look at the civs included. Why are they there? Because they've had the biggest impact on world history.

Your argument for Ethiopia is flawed, too. Ethiopia lasted because of little pressure from outsiders in its early history and then in the modern age because European expeditions were few and small. Italy eventually invaded and conquered the country in 1936, anyway.

Face it: Europe has made a large impact on the world, so a lot of the civs in the game are from there. America is also in the game because the producers from the game are American, which speaks for itself: America has been a world superpower for a while now. It would also alienate the largest pool of fans for the game if they weren't included. As for the Middle East and Asia, the civs in the game from those regions are in there because *drum roll* they've had a large impact on world history. I doubt I need to explain further.

The Zulu and Mali are good enough. I mean, come on now. Africa is a continent of mystique in that so little is known about it in comparison to other places in the world. Most people know little to nothing about tribes that populated the area throughout history. Do you really expect the game to have a considerable amount of civs from there? I think not.

I know the game won't be spwailing with African civs. But what has India the Dutch or portugal done on a global scale. Very little. Why is it that the moors invaded and controlled spain France and Italy for 800 years but the Arabs are in the game and are actually credited with these invasions. What has any Native American contribtubed on a global scale or how about Korea. All they have is Zulu, Mali and Egypt. The Ibo of Nigeria had contributed to the slave trade which was a major part of history and the devlopment of America and Europe. Italy only beat Ethipoia after help from the Germans. Regardless civilization should be measured by contributions and advances not so much military strength. I just find it ridculous that so many civs who are not civlizations like the dutch and portugese and the austrians as well as most of the Native American civs. I'm just saying why do they keep adding in civs from asia and native america who didn't contribute as much as 1-2 civs from Africa. I agree that there are alot of civs from Africa who don't deserve recogniztion but Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Moors have all contributed on a global scale more so than many of the civs who currently exist

I think you are in the wrong forum. This is about Civ IV, not civ III. The Dutch are not going to be in Civ IV vanilla. And you will have Mali, Egypt and Arabs in civ IV, three civs that were in Africa. (The arabs dominated most of northern Africa).

And we don't know much It will cost to perform a tech steal in civ IV or how much a ICBM cost.

Edit: And the Arabs only invaded Spain, not Italy or France.

Ethiopia would be a good one. I don't know much about the Ibo, but what little I know about African nations is that they weren't very urbanized. Since Civilization games are based on cities, non-urban nations would be a stretch to include. Also, they probably should not use the word "civilization" to describe "nations."

In democracies in reality there is plenty of corruption. It's just less in quantity and visibility compared to other forms of government.

And the Arabs only invaded Spain, not Italy or France.
Actually, the Arabs did invade France. Don't you know what the battle of Poitiers in 732 was all about?

And it was the Arab tribe that started Islam's ambitious plan on world conquest, to unite the world under their banner. Don't even get me started on their invasion of Constantinople in the 800s.

The Egyptains are also considered a 'near Middle Eastern' civ, rather than an African civ.

:cry: You sound like a whinning pig stuck in the fence. This is a game not a life experience that you could write a novel about. Get real. Plus - You got access to the editor, create your own stats. Make the game you want and upload it in like so many others have already done.
If you do not know how then do what I did. Learn it. :eek: I am still learning. And when I get stuck I just email a couple of these guys and I always find someone who is always willing to help me out.
Make the African game....... :goodjob:

Your argument for Ethiopia is flawed, too. Ethiopia lasted because of little pressure from outsiders in its early history and then in the modern age because European expeditions were few and small. Italy eventually invaded and conquered the country in 1936, anyway.



Your knowledge of Ethiopian history is rather bankrupt. Ethiopia has been under tremendous outside pressure since the decline of Axum circa 600AD. Ethiopia has been attacked from the Arabian penninsula, by jihadists from present day Sudan, by jihadists from Somalia, the Ottoman Empire was threatening to occupy northern Ethiopia, Egypt invaded Ethiopia twice at Gundat and Gura (1875 and 1876) and was soundly defeated both times, and Italy was defeated in 1896.

Yes, the Italians occupied part of Ethiopia in 1936 but they never conquered the entire country - and, of course, they were eventually driven out.

Ethiopia is a country which has stood the test of time, despite all obstacles the country has had to face (internal and external) they have always persevered, survived, and protected their culture and identity.

Okay, I made that up on the spot. Don't get all touchy about it. I'm sorry. Normally, I do research before I post about something I don't know about, and I didn't this time, mostly because the poster I was replying to was making a poor point.

Yes, the Italians occupied part of Ethiopia in 1936 but they never conquered the entire country - and, of course, they were eventually driven out.
Yeah, and it was the British that did it, as Ethiopia wouldn't have had a prayer on its own. Western power. Italy is a Western power; Ethiopia is not. The reason the West is so dominant today is because of its history regarding military operations (along with its cultural baggage that was usually entwined with it). The fact a power such as Italy could successfully occupy Ethiopia speaks for itself. The only reason they lost at Adawa in 1896 was because they were outnumbered and facing an army that possessed Western firearms.

Before European inscursion, Ethiopia did not have to worry about Western battle tactics and Western firearms. When they did, they only won because of European mistakes. Again, the fact that they were mere European embarrassments tells the real story.

Anyway, that's purely from a military point of view regarding Ethiopia. I don't really give a damn if they're in the game or not.

If the Mayans or Incans could be in, Ethiopia could be in.

It's not of question of COULD THEY, though. A lot of nations could be in, but aren't. The developers have to choose, and no matter what they choose it will upset somebody.

::shrug::

Lobby for Ethiopia for an expansion pack. That's how the Dutch and Portuguese got in to Civ3: in the expanions. Better Second Fiddle than Diddley Squat. Right? :)

For all that has been said, maybe they are already planning to add Ethiopia in an expansion. Or if not, maybe there is still a chance to persuade them it would be a good idea.


- Sirian

If the Mayans or Incans could be in, Ethiopia could be in.

It's not of question of COULD THEY, though. A lot of nations could be in, but aren't. The developers have to choose, and no matter what they choose it will upset somebody.
But it's also a matter of could they as well. There's only so many that are considered important that they make it in the game while others don't.

Anyway, like I said in my previous post: I don't really care if whatever civ someone lobbies for is in there or not. I only have issues with people who presume to use substandard points from history they probably got out of a crackerjack box.

Actually, the Arabs did invade France. Don't you know what the battle of Poitiers in 732 was all about?

And it was the Arab tribe that started Islam's ambitious plan on world conquest, to unite the world under their banner. Don't even get me started on their invasion of Constantinople in the 800s.

The Egyptains are also considered a 'near Middle Eastern' civ, rather than an African civ.

Yes, I know were Poitiers is, Actually I have been in there many times. It is close to my hometown. It is in France, but, the Arabs where DEFEATED by the Franks in that point, so they didn't stay 800 years as the previous post I was replying to claimed. Compared to the time they stayed in Spain, that was an incursion rather than an invasion. I know that part of the history very well, but thats off topic, so I cut now before the administrators close the thread.

And Egypt is in Africa. Sorry.

Have a nice day.

Oh, for Pete's sakes. :rolleyes:

Egypt is in Africa, but it's basically considered a Middle Eastern civilization. Or rather, 'near Middle East', straddling both the cultures of Africa and the Middle East, given its location. You were missing the point I was making entirely.

As for France, it was still an "invasion" in that they invaded the territory. It was more of a raid than anything, but that's still an invasion. That's the only point I was making. You, on the other hand, made it appear as if the Arabs stopped south the Pyrenees.

Of course, you decided to take a hard tone against me for no reason at all. Sorry pal, but the only person who loses is you, if you're going to start that crap.

Admins might as well lock this thread anyway, and put it out of its misery.

The point is that there are should be at least one or more african civs to be representive and recognize good civlizations. If I put in Australia or Canada and left out America, Americans should be pissed off. thats my point. You put in places like Spain or Portugal that was colonized for 800 years by Africans (Moors) but don't include the coloneizer it looks as if what is going on

Pardon me if this is wrong, but wasn't the ancient Egyptian culture, you know the most famous one, more of a mediterranean (Greco-Roman) culture?

1. The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
2. Allow players to cheat but they should lose their score if they do. Also espionage is basically worthless and a guessing game in civ 3. By the time you get espionage most civs have already switched over to deomcracy and are immuned to it. And the prices of espionage are way to high. $6000 gold to convert a city ya ok. Thats more than 10 ICBM and missle defense systems. It is more expensive than a space ship. Corruption is way to high. Why is it that in democracy there is still corruption.
Cause in real life there is alot of corruption in a democracy. I really think putting the Zuluz in the game was just dumb :p The Dutch are a civilization the live in a country called the Netherlands. Yes, they should have puit Ethiopia in the game or Libya. Why the Zulus? You know you can replace the civs you don't want in the game with ones that people have made.

1. The lack of African civs. Why is it that there are only two civs from African when it has the most Civlizations. Why are the Dutch included when they are not even a civilization but the Ethiopian Empire that has lasted 3000 years not. Not to mention that Ethiopia has beaten many of the other civs in war like Romans, British, and the Arabs. They should add at least three African civs including the Ibo of Nigeria and the Ethiopians.
2. Allow players to cheat but they should lose their score if they do. Also espionage is basically worthless and a guessing game in civ 3. By the time you get espionage most civs have already switched over to deomcracy and are immuned to it. And the prices of espionage are way to high. $6000 gold to convert a city ya ok. Thats more than 10 ICBM and missle defense systems. It is more expensive than a space ship. Corruption is way to high. Why is it that in democracy there is still corruption.

1. Egypt Cathage and zulu, soon to be mali. Thats 3 not 2. Plus how many people play civ in africa?? compared to europe. Yes i know they have had a big historical impact blah blah blah... not in my history i never learnt about to Isalbobo or the Ramagaragaa i learnt about france, germany, russia and britian. that only thing that saves them for me is that we need to cover that continent in world maps. Polynesia probably has more people playing that africa, (new zealand and hawaii)

2. Espinoage is very exepensive but it is so in real life, and risky. I would like to be able to train them better or for them to turn vet and elite with victoryious missions. Also i find it usefull. somtimes buy the end of the game the world can e very tense and you might not want to fight a world war. i often coverts cities like this during the modern and industrial times. also during space race, or Trying for UN destroying the production is usefull. And sometimes trying to stop the world buliding Manhatten project is fun. And knowing your enemys troops numbers is very usefull.

Pardon me if this is wrong, but wasn't the ancient Egyptian culture, you know the most famous one, more of a mediterranean (Greco-Roman) culture?

Nope. The ancient Egyptians of pyramids and such existed long before the Greek and Roman civilizations. Greece (through Alexander) and later Rome did conquer and assimilate Egypt, but it was old when they were young.

But what has India done on a global scale? Very little.

India? Second-most populous country on earth? Nuclear power? Growing industrial power? You are wondering why India is in the game? :rolleyes:

The point is that there are should be at least one or more african civs to be representive and recognize good civlizations. If I put in Australia or Canada and left out America, Americans should be pissed off. thats my point. You put in places like Spain or Portugal that was colonized for 800 years by Africans (Moors) but don't include the coloneizer it looks as if what is going on

THe arabs (Moors) will be in the game.

Cause in real life there is alot of corruption in a democracy. I really think putting the Zuluz in the game was just dumb :p The Dutch are a civilization the live in a country called the Netherlands. Yes, they should have puit Ethiopia in the game or Libya. Why the Zulus? You know you can replace the civs you don't want in the game with ones that people have made.

Lets face it the Dutch have no culture no history no nothing. The only thing the Dutch have historically is prostitues and legal mary j. Zulus only were big but never had much of a great civlization themselves at leats they had military stregth though. As a civlization the Dutch bring nothing. No military no culture. Now Austria makes sense or even Belgium but the Dutch really have not a thing when comes to civs.

Yes the great africa civs were much more important than the Dutch . There is the Nigerean west indies- and the great Libyan spice trade- and too there are well over 3 civ players in Africa- they really ought to include more african civs like the Congo and they can have a cannible as a leader and UU or maybe a slaver.

Oh, please, let's be realistic here. For one thing, there is a lack of African civs because they have not been worldmakers. Look beyond your pretentiousness and take a look at the civs included. Why are they there? Because they've had the biggest impact on world history.

Your argument for Ethiopia is flawed, too. Ethiopia lasted because of little pressure from outsiders in its early history and then in the modern age because European expeditions were few and small. Italy eventually invaded and conquered the country in 1936, anyway.

Face it: Europe has made a large impact on the world, so a lot of the civs in the game are from there. America is also in the game because the producers from the game are American, which speaks for itself: America has been a world superpower for a while now. It would also alienate the largest pool of fans for the game if they weren't included. As for the Middle East and Asia, the civs in the game from those regions are in there because *drum roll* they've had a large impact on world history. I doubt I need to explain further.

The Zulu and Mali are good enough. I mean, come on now. Africa is a continent of mystique in that so little is known about it in comparison to other places in the world. Most people know little to nothing about tribes that populated the area throughout history. Do you really expect the game to have a considerable amount of civs from there? I think not.
i agree with your point here about the lack of meaningful african civs in the real world. plus i think we also have egypt which is african, so we do have three civs right? how many more do people want?

I dunno. I think about 35 more would be reasonable ;-).

I understand where some people are comming from...but asking for more and more civs to be included isn't worth your time. Why? Because they are not going to include them in Civ IV. Civ does not have to be politically correct...it includes cultures/civs/states that had impact on the world OR would be easily recognized by its core customers. That the Dutch had little impact on the world (a statement I disagree with) is irrelevant if the creators think the Dutch would be a popular choice for players. Besides, that is the whole point of making a game extensible...the users can add content at will. Discussing the merits of the different groups brought up is really just an academic pursuit...which is fine...but it won't change Civ IV.

THe arabs (Moors) will be in the game.
Any one in North Africa knows that Arabs are not moors. Equivalating Arabs with moors is like calling Native Indians Europeans except in a place where Europeans have never been.

Now I'm not here to insult Dutch people but tell me one significant thing they have ever done. I could name 10 other European countries not in the game that have done way more. Lets face it Dutch has no world or region presence and never did. No time in European history have any European nation said lets call in the Dutch. They have no culture no military, and crummy history why are they in the game.

i agree with you to a massive amount...but...i think it would be a stretch to remove any of the civs on the current 18 list...to add another african civ.

Now I'm not here to insult Dutch people but tell me one significant thing they have ever done. I could name 10 other European countries not in the game that have done way more. Lets face it Dutch has no world or region presence and never did. No time in European history have any European nation said lets call in the Dutch. They have no culture no military, and crummy history why are they in the game.

Let's see. They created the East India Company and was one of the first major powers to open asia up to european trade. The founded a string of strategic trading posts throughout India, South Africa, and Southeast Asia, many of those colonies were still under their control well into the 20th century. Their naval knowledge was extensive, eclipsing that of the portugese, and were among the first european nations to successfully navigate the pacific, opening Japan up for trade during the Sengoku period. Dutch rutters were highly prized, considered state secrets. Dutch navigators could command a king's ransom for any expedition. Militarily, they were able to revolt from the Spanish at the height of Spain's empire and form their own nation. Combined with their skillful use of trade and powerful navy, they catipulted themselves from euro-trash vassals to a world power within the span of a single ruler's lifetime. In art, many of the great "Old Masters" are Dutch, creating some of the finest paintings the world over. Ever hear of Rembrandt?

Ethiopia? According to what I've read, they did become a nation before the time of Christ, and are known for having been one of the few subsaharan nations to convert to christianity prior to the crusades, but outside of that, Ethiopia's history reads like a series of rebellions and invasions, each harder to defeat than the last. Ethiopia barely kept itself together, and on several occasions imploded only to be rebuilt, slightly weaker than before. Despite its central location and access to lucrative trade routes between the middle east and africa, Ethopia never managed to do more than be a footnote in some other nation's history.

lets not all start doing the "whos better then who" stuff...the dutch were huge. and africa is a lil under repersented. But fighting over whos better then who just shows a lil bit of misunderstanding..then prove your point superior

lets not all start doing the "whos better then who" stuff...the dutch were huge. and africa is a lil under repersented. But fighting over whos better then who just shows a lil bit of misunderstanding..then prove your point superior

I'm just tired of watching this guy slamming a legitimate nation without bringing anything else to the table. His posts read like he knows nothing of history and just wants to play the racism card.

understood..for sure. lets just keep it light..these threads on this stuff start getting mean quick.(im guilty of it as well) the points for more african civs are very valid, but in all honesty, who from the 18 do you remove? i really dont think you can with out cuasing an even BIGGER up roar. its got nothing to do with race or ignorance...remember..Market market market, they are counting on most new players to be ignorant, and when the read the box and go.. "ohhhh look ghengis khan". i hate to say it.. but theres not alot of african civs that will sell the game. is it fair? no. but its business. it sucks yes. but what can we do about it. not a whole lot. these devolopers would have been better off making around 35 civs. but i think they knew that we would buy it anyway, and even after the extra effort for 17 more civs people would still be on here going "well _____ did this in _____ b.c better then_____"

I agree, Superkrest. In all honesty, I would have no problem seeing Ethiopia in the game. From gameplay purposes a more dynamic Africa would be much appreciated. However, I felt Ghafhi's reasons for wanting Ethiopia are all wrong. Denmark, Austria, Portugal all have much better reasons for being in the game. History nuts will prefer them because these nations did make a mark on history and could have gone farther if not for the obstacles they stumbled over -- and gamers will be able to "beat history". Casual gamers should recognize them from their high school classes. Mayans, Incas and Aztecs as well, I think. Partly due to the recognition of the role these nations played in history. They make for a fun "what if" scenario, again for the possibility of "beating history" and surviving the crippling spanish conquista.

Still. Firaxis realizes they can't please all of the needs players have. Not only are they too numerous, many come at cross purposes. So, they're releasing an SDK. Ethiopia may or may not find itself in a future expansion pack, but that doesn't mean Ghaghi won't be able to create his own Ethiopian empire through the tools provided. This solves his problem nicely.

But he still has to come on this board specifically to complain about it. And not just complain, but to discriminate against cultures he apparently knows nothing about (which is partly what he accuses Firaxis of). Why?

yes..i hate putting the more important title on any civ..but if i was trying to sell a game to a world market, the civs would be popular and repersent huge target markets(western europe, asia , north america) as a civ fan ...id love to think that fraxis wasnt a business about money..but then again. they would be around if they weren't. middle america will buy more of this game then any market combined..and you see that repersented in the civ choices. theres threads about turks, slavs, celts, south pacific natives, amer-indians, and even quebec.(lol) id love to see as many as possible implemented. and maybe like in civ3 we will see them in coming expansions but i just dont know were you stop when adding civs, they already removed the babylonians which were hugely important to the ancient world and have been in the series since the begining. if thats caliber to which they eliminate the civs..wow. im suprised that there are not only 9 lol

It just drives me nuts to see attention-starved people go online to complain about a game (with an editor no less!) and go through the process of showing how ignorant they are while claiming moral superiority.

Ethiopia? According to what I've read, they did become a nation before the time of Christ, and are known for having been one of the few subsaharan nations to convert to christianity prior to the crusades, but outside of that, Ethiopia's history reads like a series of rebellions and invasions, each harder to defeat than the last. Ethiopia barely kept itself together, and on several occasions imploded only to be rebuilt, slightly weaker than before. Despite its central location and access to lucrative trade routes between the middle east and africa, Ethopia never managed to do more than be a footnote in some other nation's history.

I certainly don't like insulting people but for someone who just complained about the ignorance of others you are rather ignorant yourself.

Like most old nations, Ethiopia has had many revolts and reconstructions throughout its history. However, to say that it has been continually weakened is simply incorrect. If fact, as the Ethiopian capital has moved southwards through time, from Axum to Lalibela and Gonder and eventually to Addis Ababa, the territory and popilation of Ethiopia has grown larger and larger. Recall the last great expansion under Menelik II when much of the areas of Southern and Western Ethiopia were forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian state. The legacy of forced incorporation is still one Ethiopia struggles with but the current government has handled the situation admirably with one of the world's most inclusive governments.

I certainly don't like insulting people but for someone who just complained about the ignorance of others you are rather ignorant yourself.

Like most old nations, Ethiopia has had many revolts and reconstructions throughout its history. However, to say that it has been continually weakened is simply incorrect. If fact, as the Ethiopian capital has moved southwards through time, from Axum to Lalibela and Gonder and eventually to Addis Ababa, the territory and popilation of Ethiopia has grown larger and larger. Recall the last great expansion under Menelik II when much of the areas of Southern and Western Ethiopia were forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian state. The legacy of forced incorporation is still one Ethiopia struggles with but the current government has handled the situation admirably with one of the world's most inclusive governments.

I don't mean to come off as mean, but whether or not the state of Ehiopia being currently weakened or not is an opinion. What you have stated here is a continual shift of capitals, which could be interpreted as instability.

I am not saying that you are incorrect, however without a very indepth knowledge of the situation or some proven facts, I, as well as others would most likely induce that the state has undergone significant and weakening changes because of revolts, wars, and capital shifting.

You also did not include any other accomplishments of Ethiopia, I plead ignorance here, as I am not versed well in African history, but you should bring up those points if you wish to claim he is ignorant.

Besides, I would like to learn :lol:

And thank you Doronron, for citing Dutch accomplishments. They were one of the most influential seafaring nations in history, as well as traders, and it was annoying not to see that simple fact referrred to in any posts by others.

Africa has had a minor impact on the history of the world, compared to Europe and Asia. The civs that did make a major difference in history that are from Africa are in Civ 4. I don't see the problem here.

Like most old nations, Ethiopia has had many revolts and reconstructions throughout its history. However, to say that it has been continually weakened is simply incorrect. If fact, as the Ethiopian capital has moved southwards through time, from Axum to Lalibela and Gonder and eventually to Addis Ababa, the territory and popilation of Ethiopia has grown larger and larger. Recall the last great expansion under Menelik II when much of the areas of Southern and Western Ethiopia were forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian state. The legacy of forced incorporation is still one Ethiopia struggles with but the current government has handled the situation admirably with one of the world's most inclusive governments.

Well, using your own post as an example here, it demonstrates that the Ethiopian government has had an awful hard time staying in one place for very long, wonder why that is?

Forcibly incorporating other peoples into ones' nation is a common enough occurance as well. Wonder why Southern and Western Ethiopia refused to recognize their rightful rulers in Addis Ababa, though?

All kidding aside, you state no significant accomplishments of the Ethiopian people that have done anything to shape the world as we know it. Are they responsible for some great scientific advance? Did they develop a lasting religion or way of philisophic thought? Did their method of society, government, or architecture ever influence other great nations? Was their military or tactics ever world renowned as the Roman Legions or the Greek Hoplites were? Outside of their part of the Horn of Africa, did they ever exert a great amount of influence or possess some political weight?

History says no. At best, their princesses were sought after as brides or concubines by their northern neighbors during ancient times for their exotic beauty, and Ethiopia was considered an out of the way haven for Christian religious crusades on the holy land. Not much there to recommend them to replace Portugal, the Dutch, or Austria, quite honestly.

Yes, let Ethiopia in as a potential expansion race for gameplay and greater diversity, but it is certainly not the equal of any of the civilizations Ghafhi wants replaced.

And Sark, you're welcome.

the ai is a big problem. the resources are very loosely defined. i source of oil cannot fulfill all of a nations needs

hey ghafhi! let's get a few things straight. India gave the world the concept of zero. you count the way you do because of the indians. india gave the world the decimal system. computers today are possible because the decimal system exists. these are two of the most important contributions to mathematics. there are numerous more that i don't wanna list right now. read a book man! india had the first university in the whole world. 60000 students from all over the world studied there. india gave the world three major religions. only jerusalem can lay claim to that title. till the end of the 17th century, india was the richest country in the world. the british made the suez canal to get to india faster, there is a reason for that!! the whole concept of eastern spirituality came from india. bhuddism which spread to countries as far as japan is an indian religion - not chinese as many people think. if you read the real history of martial arts as we know it today, you'll find that it started in india. in modern times, india has nukes, india have made super computers, india has a good space program, india has an advanced IT industry. most european countries can't lay claim to that. so get the facts straight the next time.

Let's see. They created the East India Company and was one of the first major powers to open asia up to european trade. The founded a string of strategic trading posts throughout India, South Africa, and Southeast Asia, many of those colonies were still under their control well into the 20th century. Their naval knowledge was extensive, eclipsing that of the portugese, and were among the first european nations to successfully navigate the pacific, opening Japan up for trade during the Sengoku period. Dutch rutters were highly prized, considered state secrets. Dutch navigators could command a king's ransom for any expedition. Militarily, they were able to revolt from the Spanish at the height of Spain's empire and form their own nation. Combined with their skillful use of trade and powerful navy, they catipulted themselves from euro-trash vassals to a world power within the span of a single ruler's lifetime. In art, many of the great "Old Masters" are Dutch, creating some of the finest paintings the world over. Ever hear of Rembrandt?

Ethiopia? According to what I've read, they did become a nation before the time of Christ, and are known for having been one of the few subsaharan nations to convert to christianity prior to the crusades, but outside of that, Ethiopia's history reads like a series of rebellions and invasions, each harder to defeat than the last. Ethiopia barely kept itself together, and on several occasions imploded only to be rebuilt, slightly weaker than before. Despite its central location and access to lucrative trade routes between the middle east and africa, Ethopia never managed to do more than be a footnote in some other nation's history.

The Dutch were not a major power in fact they had to hire mercenaries cause they have no army. The Dutch lost SA to the brits. The Dutch revolted with the help of surrounding powers when the leader of spain was in question. Th true leader was the french king but other powers didn't want france to become a super nation so they broke up the spainsh empire in europe.

What you said about Ethiopia is off by alot. They were the first Christian nation. Ethiopia is way bigger than the Dutch which shows who is better. Ethiopia beat Italy twice in war far more than Dutch has ever accomplished.

I'm just tired of watching this guy slamming a legitimate nation without bringing anything else to the table. His posts read like he knows nothing of history and just wants to play the racism card.
anything about racism you did so maybe you are trying to acknowledge something that I purposely overlooked. I'm not saying yadah is better than dutch, I am saying that dutch don't deserve recognition cause they lack accomplishments

understood..for sure. lets just keep it light..these threads on this stuff start getting mean quick.(im guilty of it as well) the points for more african civs are very valid, but in all honesty, who from the 18 do you remove? i really dont think you can with out cuasing an even BIGGER up roar. its got nothing to do with race or ignorance...remember..Market market market, they are counting on most new players to be ignorant, and when the read the box and go.. "ohhhh look ghengis khan". i hate to say it.. but theres not alot of african civs that will sell the game. is it fair? no. but its business. it sucks yes. but what can we do about it. not a whole lot. these devolopers would have been better off making around 35 civs. but i think they knew that we would buy it anyway, and even after the extra effort for 17 more civs people would still be on here going "well _____ did this in _____ b.c better then_____"

The dutch or one of those bear drinking indian civs who dont do nothing. Ok maybe white guys aren't eupohoric about african civs but look what makes them know indians civ like mayans so much more. Most of the far-east and afro-asian civs are repeats

The Dutch were not a major power in fact they had to hire mercenaries cause they have no army.

Given the size of the country, and the period through which it maintained a measure of ascendance, I think it innacurate to write it off - whether or not a nation had a standing army, or hired mercenaries seems to me irrelevant - the fact that they could hire mercenaries and, along with other factors, prevented the ultimate anexation of their territory seems highly suggestive.

I recall that the charge of racism can not only be applicable when a european speaks so of another 'colour' of the human race - :eek: though un-pc in many places, it is entirely possible for Indians, as a for instance, to be racist.

It seems in no way useful to be arguing in such a manner.

Africa has had a minor impact on the history of the world, compared to Europe and Asia. The civs that did make a major difference in history that are from Africa are in Civ 4. I don't see the problem here.
People like you who are ignorant to african history and history in general. Other than the Aztec no native indian culture has done much. There aren't alot of native players. why are they there. I would argue that asia until recently has done nothing with the exception of the japanese

Well, using your own post as an example here, it demonstrates that the Ethiopian government has had an awful hard time staying in one place for very long, wonder why that is?

Forcibly incorporating other peoples into ones' nation is a common enough occurance as well. Wonder why Southern and Western Ethiopia refused to recognize their rightful rulers in Addis Ababa, though?

All kidding aside, you state no significant accomplishments of the Ethiopian people that have done anything to shape the world as we know it. Are they responsible for some great scientific advance? Did they develop a lasting religion or way of philisophic thought? Did their method of society, government, or architecture ever influence other great nations? Was their military or tactics ever world renowned as the Roman Legions or the Greek Hoplites were? Outside of their part of the Horn of Africa, did they ever exert a great amount of influence or possess some political weight?

History says no. At best, their princesses were sought after as brides or concubines by their northern neighbors during ancient times for their exotic beauty, and Ethiopia was considered an out of the way haven for Christian religious crusades on the holy land. Not much there to recommend them to replace Portugal, the Dutch, or Austria, quite honestly.

Yes, let Ethiopia in as a potential expansion race for gameplay and greater diversity, but it is certainly not the equal of any of the civilizations Ghafhi wants replaced.

And Sark, you're welcome.
The fact that it is the oldest country in the world and the non white/european country to be included in the league of nations is testament alone to the great empire of ethiopia. Europeans who were laregly racist in the 1920's and 30's were willing to recognize this country and its sovereignty after it beat so many of these "great" irreplaceable civs. My recommendation is take out the dutch not for africa but because they have no world power or voice in history. I say take out a repeat far-east civ like mesotopians or sumerians which are all persians and replace it with an african one like ethiopia. I don't this will upset to many people because 1. they are repeats and 2. No one in Iran is allowed to play video games anyways so no one will care.

Given the size of the country, and the period through which it maintained a measure of ascendance, I think it innacurate to write it off - whether or not a nation had a standing army, or hired mercenaries seems to me irrelevant - the fact that they could hire mercenaries and, along with other factors, prevented the ultimate anexation of their territory seems highly suggestive.

I recall that the charge of racism can not only be applicable when a european speaks so of another 'colour' of the human race - :eek: though un-pc in many places, it is entirely possible for Indians, as a for instance, to be racist.

It seems in no way useful to be arguing in such a manner.
maybe i went to far but natives don't play civs and video games are illegal in persia not to mention the ayatollah won't let them in. So why not remove a repaet persian civ

Lets face it the Dutch have no culture no history no nothing. The only thing the Dutch have historically is prostitues and legal mary j. Zulus only were big but never had much of a great civlization themselves at leats they had military stregth though. As a civlization the Dutch bring nothing. No military no culture. Now Austria makes sense or even Belgium but the Dutch really have not a thing when comes to civs.

Let me see you justify Belgium over the Dutch.

I am saying that dutch don't deserve recognition cause they lack accomplishments

Did you even bother to read doronron's post? Let me repost it, because obviously you didn't

"Let's see. They created the East India Company and was one of the first major powers to open asia up to european trade. The founded a string of strategic trading posts throughout India, South Africa, and Southeast Asia, many of those colonies were still under their control well into the 20th century. Their naval knowledge was extensive, eclipsing that of the portugese, and were among the first european nations to successfully navigate the pacific, opening Japan up for trade during the Sengoku period. Dutch rutters were highly prized, considered state secrets. Dutch navigators could command a king's ransom for any expedition. Militarily, they were able to revolt from the Spanish at the height of Spain's empire and form their own nation. Combined with their skillful use of trade and powerful navy, they catipulted themselves from euro-trash vassals to a world power within the span of a single ruler's lifetime. In art, many of the great "Old Masters" are Dutch, creating some of the finest paintings the world over. Ever hear of Rembrandt?"

Most of the far-east and afro-asian civs are repeats

Show me just one Far-East civ that is a repeat of another in the game.

Other than the Aztec no native indian culture has done much. There aren't alot of native players

How about the complex Incan road system? Or their mass riches? Or the large empire they managed to create? It doesn't necessarily matter that there aren't alot of native players. How many Babylonians, Sumerians, Hittites, Incans, Zulu, Carthaginians, Celts, Vikings, Mongols, Mayans, Aztecs, Iroquois, or Byzantines do you think play Civ III?
I would argue that asia until recently has done nothing with the exception of the japanese

Apparently you have never heard of China. And what about those Mongols? Only establishing the world's largest land empire.

Well, using your own post as an example here, it demonstrates that the Ethiopian government has had an awful hard time staying in one place for very long, wonder why that is?

Forcibly incorporating other peoples into ones' nation is a common enough occurance as well. Wonder why Southern and Western Ethiopia refused to recognize their rightful rulers in Addis Ababa, though?

All kidding aside, you state no significant accomplishments of the Ethiopian people that have done anything to shape the world as we know it. Are they responsible for some great scientific advance? Did they develop a lasting religion or way of philisophic thought? Did their method of society, government, or architecture ever influence other great nations? Was their military or tactics ever world renowned as the Roman Legions or the Greek Hoplites were? Outside of their part of the Horn of Africa, did they ever exert a great amount of influence or possess some political weight?

History says no. At best, their princesses were sought after as brides or concubines by their northern neighbors during ancient times for their exotic beauty, and Ethiopia was considered an out of the way haven for Christian religious crusades on the holy land. Not much there to recommend them to replace Portugal, the Dutch, or Austria, quite honestly.

Yes, let Ethiopia in as a potential expansion race for gameplay and greater diversity, but it is certainly not the equal of any of the civilizations Ghafhi wants replaced.
Good to see someone else here has some sense. This is what I tried saying earlier, but people chose to overlook all the important points made to restate their own (actually, regarding Ethiopia I was completely ignored), which if they had bothered to examine would have realized had just been shredded by the post they responded to. :rolleyes:

It's all about a certain civilization or tribe being one man's champion. He loves them so much, he wants to see them in the game, he comes up with reasons why they should be. They don't have to make total sense, they just have to stand up to reason to himself and to anyone who doesn't care enough to look beneath the surface.

People like you who are ignorant to african history and history in general. Other than the Aztec no native indian culture has done much. There aren't alot of native players. why are they there. I would argue that asia until recently has done nothing with the exception of the japanese
wow,..i was on the same page as you untill you showed your equall amount of ignorance. I understand that i know little about african civs but i do enough to know that they do deserve some repersentation..but not as much as you stated. as far as the indians..i take great offense to the beer drinking coment..you complain about sterotyping and ignorance..and there you go. i do agree that many african civs have done more then alot of amer-indian civs. but lets see...great zimbabwa vs. technoticlan, or cuzco? i dunno ...seems to me i know the winner...i can name 3 major american players..thats about the same as major(with exception of north africans) civs from africa..the situation of the two continents is very very simular. north amrica, like southern africa has vast amounts of lesser tribes with great civs poping up out of now where. and the iriqois nations capital(in upstate new york) was the largest city in the new world at the time... and as far as asians....the chinease have had a rediculose long civ, to ignore there importance(GUNPOWEDER) would just be odd. once again...i wish that we could all agree that more civs are needed with beter rep from all continents ...but i really cant stand placing importance over another in a race for wich race is better...the nazi's did that and look how that turned out.... i by no means am trying to instigate a fight. id really like to agree about africa but also remind you that fraxis has to place money on civs that would sell. no two ways about it..if in an expansion there are no other african civs. i will be right there behind you(and the turkey guys lol.)

Just so this thread doesn't go astray, stop the personal insults and discuss the topic.

People like you who are ignorant to african history and history in general. Other than the Aztec no native indian culture has done much. There aren't alot of native players. why are they there. I would argue that asia until recently has done nothing with the exception of the japanese

The fact that it is the oldest country in the world and the non white/european country to be included in the league of nations is testament alone to the great empire of ethiopia. Europeans who were laregly racist in the 1920's and 30's were willing to recognize this country and its sovereignty after it beat so many of these "great" irreplaceable civs. My recommendation is take out the dutch not for africa but because they have no world power or voice in history. I say take out a repeat far-east civ like mesotopians or sumerians which are all persians and replace it with an african one like ethiopia. I don't this will upset to many people because 1. they are repeats and 2. No one in Iran is allowed to play video games anyways so no one will care.

Let's kill a few birds with one stone here.

China began as a nation in 2200 BC. Your assertion that the Ethiopian empire lasted for 3000 years, and then claim it's the oldest country in the world is false. To top that, China is responsible for philisophical advances such as Confucianism, the military legacy of Sun Tzu, Great Wonders such as the clay army, gunpowder, rocketry, clocks. Their basic goods were sought after as a great prize, since ancient Rome. They possessed a true civilization with roads, a stable and active government, and a secure dynasty. Rome, Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Sumer, and Babylon all fell during that nation's existance. China was a viable power with the same government intact when Germany, France, and Britain dug themselves out of the Dark Ages. That same Dynasty continued to survive the depradations of European imperialism when Africa (including Ethiopia) was carved up and the Americas struggled to throw off the European yoke. Only when the warlords broke the empire and the Chinese Emporer was duped into being a Japanese puppet did that nation fall.

Japan's Empire began in 300 AD, and can trace it's imperial legacy from that point on to the current emporer. Japan is renowned for creating some of the finest swords ever made. Japan's cultural background is eaully strong, if not stronger than much of the rest of Asia. They were the only Asian nation to resist European dominance and Imperialism. Japanese history is filled with great military leaders ranging from Nobunaga to the more recent Yamamoto. They isolated themselves and kept European intervention at bay from the 1500s all the way to the 1850s when the American Admiral Perry forced their borders open. Then Japan did something no other nation has ever accomplished. They forcefully modernized themselves, going from swords and wooden armor to ironclads and repeating rifles in less than 50 years. During this time, they managed to maintain their cultural sovereignty. They proved themselves in the Russo Japanese war of 1905 and shattered the myth that Europe was invincible and meant to be the masters of the modern world. Japan only rose from there, actively participating in the Imperialist trend by carving out portions of China and annexing Korea. Japan's militaristic might grew to dangerous extremes as it sought to dominate all of China during the 1930s and conducted a lightning naval campaign during the 1940s that lead to the fall of many of the strongest colonial holdings the British and Dutch possesed in the Pacific. It took Britain, India, a unified China, and the United States to finally stop them.

China and Japan, by the way were both a part of the League of Nations, and I do believe they're not white!

You choose to ignore the fact that the Dutch built themselves a merchant empire that spread from South America to South Africa to India and the East Indies, despite it's "small size" and being trapped between three much larger powers. You choose to ignore the fact that many of the world's greatest paintings and much of the world's cartography came from Dutch hands. You choose to ignore the fact that though the Dutch may have hired army mercenaries, they would have needed wealth and power to maintain that army.

Ethiopia, despite its larger land mass, never had the wealth nor power the Dutch possessed to even defeat Eritrea, that small thorn that keeps much of the coastlines on the Red Sea from falling to Ethiopian Soveriegnty. Ethiopia has never carved a colonial empire, nor provided much in the way of art, nor contributed much to science or exploration. The Dutch have.

And by the way, name the European powers that were defeated by Ethiopia. Name the wars. List the dates.

I also have a feeling that a number of Middle Easterners (also not white!) would take offense to you lumping them all together and considering their opinion about their own cultures not worth much.

Again, I would have no problem for the Ethiopians to be in the game, but your method of their inclusion and reasoning behind such is both flawed and offensive. Get your facts straight.

here here. :goodjob: but the basic fact exsists...who would you remove from the list of 18 to include another african civ? i love my native american civs ...but i cant think of anyone on that that list that is worthy of replacing with the souix(just for example sake)

Good to see someone else here has some sense. This is what I tried saying earlier, but people chose to overlook all the important points made to restate their own (actually, regarding Ethiopia I was completely ignored), which if they had bothered to examine would have realized had just been shredded by the post they responded to. :rolleyes:

It's all about a certain civilization or tribe being one man's champion. He loves them so much, he wants to see them in the game, he comes up with reasons why they should be. They don't have to make total sense, they just have to stand up to reason to himself and to anyone who doesn't care enough to look beneath the surface.

That tends to happen in internet arguments, unfortunately. Especially ones involving video games or any form of pop culture.

It's a moot point. The game ships with the tools necessary to edit it. Even if Ethiopia's not included, he can just as easily mod it in. And there's always the possiblity of multiple expansion packs. There's a good chance more African nations can be included then.

here here. :goodjob: but the basic fact exsists...who would you remove from the list of 18 to include another african civ? i love my native american civs ...but i cant think of anyone on that that list that is worthy of replacing with the souix(just for example sake)

I agree. None of the nations listed should be removed. They all aided in making the world what it is today. Just add to it. There's plenty of room and a good chance some of these nations will make their way into future expansion packs. If not, the tools will exist to add nations ourselves.

Ghafhi, go read some history books. Your arguments are pathetic..

Did you see the warning I gave above? Take it into consideration. I'm sure this conversation can continue in a civilized manner even when people disagree with each other.

Let's kill a few birds with one stone here.

China began as a nation in 2200 BC. Your assertion that the Ethiopian empire lasted for 3000 years, and then claim it's the oldest country in the world is false. To top that, China is responsible for philisophical advances such as Confucianism, the military legacy of Sun Tzu, Great Wonders such as the clay army, gunpowder, rocketry, clocks. Their basic goods were sought after as a great prize, since ancient Rome. They possessed a true civilization with roads, a stable and active government, and a secure dynasty. Rome, Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Sumer, and Babylon all fell during that nation's existance. China was a viable power with the same government intact when Germany, France, and Britain dug themselves out of the Dark Ages. That same Dynasty continued to survive the depradations of European imperialism when Africa (including Ethiopia) was carved up and the Americas struggled to throw off the European yoke. Only when the warlords broke the empire and the Chinese Emporer was duped into being a Japanese puppet did that nation fall.

Japan's Empire began in 300 AD, and can trace it's imperial legacy from that point on to the current emporer. Japan is renowned for creating some of the finest swords ever made. Japan's cultural background is eaully strong, if not stronger than much of the rest of Asia. They were the only Asian nation to resist European dominance and Imperialism. Japanese history is filled with great military leaders ranging from Nobunaga to the more recent Yamamoto. They isolated themselves and kept European intervention at bay from the 1500s all the way to the 1850s when the American Admiral Perry forced their borders open. Then Japan did something no other nation has ever accomplished. They forcefully modernized themselves, going from swords and wooden armor to ironclads and repeating rifles in less than 50 years. During this time, they managed to maintain their cultural sovereignty. They proved themselves in the Russo Japanese war of 1905 and shattered the myth that Europe was invincible and meant to be the masters of the modern world. Japan only rose from there, actively participating in the Imperialist trend by carving out portions of China and annexing Korea. Japan's militaristic might grew to dangerous extremes as it sought to dominate all of China during the 1930s and conducted a lightning naval campaign during the 1940s that lead to the fall of many of the strongest colonial holdings the British and Dutch possesed in the Pacific. It took Britain, India, a unified China, and the United States to finally stop them.

China and Japan, by the way were both a part of the League of Nations, and I do believe they're not white!

You choose to ignore the fact that the Dutch built themselves a merchant empire that spread from South America to South Africa to India and the East Indies, despite it's "small size" and being trapped between three much larger powers. You choose to ignore the fact that many of the world's greatest paintings and much of the world's cartography came from Dutch hands. You choose to ignore the fact that though the Dutch may have hired army mercenaries, they would have needed wealth and power to maintain that army.

Ethiopia, despite its larger land mass, never had the wealth nor power the Dutch possessed to even defeat Eritrea, that small thorn that keeps much of the coastlines on the Red Sea from falling to Ethiopian Soveriegnty. Ethiopia has never carved a colonial empire, nor provided much in the way of art, nor contributed much to science or exploration. The Dutch have.

And by the way, name the European powers that were defeated by Ethiopia. Name the wars. List the dates.

I also have a feeling that a number of Middle Easterners (also not white!) would take offense to you lumping them all together and considering their opinion about their own cultures not worth much.

Again, I would have no problem for the Ethiopians to be in the game, but your method of their inclusion and reasoning behind such is both flawed and offensive. Get your facts straight.

Actually you are the one who is wrong I said ethiopia has lasted 3000 but that did not mean it didn't exist before then. If I say America has lasted 50 years there is nothing incorrect with that statement, it is absoulutuley true. America existed 50 years ago, however this does not limit the exist of america to 50 years as you would like to believe. Same argument for Ethiopia, which as actually called axum back then. I probably for forgot china or was in a rush when I wrote that. I'm sure they did alot of stuff. Also Ethiopia was not colonized as you said that is false. Actually I did say Japan did alot of stuff. they are in the g8. The world greatest painters I beleive were Italians mostly not dutch. Ethiopia didn't need to inslave people to make money like the Dutch. The Dutch had mostly small insignifcant colonies like aruba. Eritrea was its country until europe forced into ethiopia who fought a reluctant war. Most of the Dutch colonies were lost in war a insignifcant in size.

The Persian nations and sub-nations. They are all just a break off sect of the persians big deal.

ive totally lost the disire to argue this point ...half truths dont make you right...im really tired of the whos who...ethopia has never been a world player..maybe as nubia(EONS AGO). nor have they ever built a massive cultral base..but they do still deserve to be in the game as an EXPANSION civ...the dutch are not on the 18 civ list..so who cares what they did or didnt do..pick a civ worth REPLACING for the game and you'll have a valid argument

I agree. None of the nations listed should be removed. They all aided in making the world what it is today. Just add to it. There's plenty of room and a good chance some of these nations will make their way into future expansion packs. If not, the tools will exist to add nations ourselves.
I don't see why the Iroquois or the Incas are there they didn't build nothing great or they don't have no great culture. Mayans someone explain that to me because I can't find nothing on them

there not on the 18 civ list either for civ 4..but read harder man...the mayans had huge citys and massive pyraminds....they were also very advanced in mathmatics and astrology...the iriqois were there mostly to appeas native american intrests (kinda like what your arguing for)but they iriqouis nation was an alliance of many nations that live peacefully together untill the americans(colonials during the revolution) laid waste to them...the capital city was the largest in the new world and the nation itself was the first in the americas to use repersentive governments to run the nation. there is definitly culture there...the incans..wow..cuzco..the city of gold... the civ was wealthier then most eurpean civs. the road system was second only to the roman rode system and untill then had never been duplicated. the empire stretched the entire length of the andes and was much larger then the ethopians your advocating

Ghafhi, you're missing the point. Italy invaded Ethiopia. Britain invaded Ethiopia. The Turks invaded Ethiopia. All of them took a toll on Ethiopia. Ethiopia did not invade Italy, Britain, or the Ottoman Empire.

Ethiopia had to fight for its very survival, for much of its history. Europe, on the other hand, by the 17th century, was basically safe from outsiders. Most of that time they wound up fighting themselves.

Again, the fact that Ethiopia inflicted defeats on the Europeans was that they were European embarrassments. That tells the real story, because Europe was clearly in control. Ethiopia was not.

Ethiopia has made little to no contribution to anything distinctly military (or economic either, I believe; the world doesn't exactly cater to Ethiopian economic strategies). The Ethiopians had to rely on European military formations and tactics to beat Europeans, not to mention acquire European firearms. Who had the upper hand? The Europeans. Not Ethiopia.

Now, some people like to say, "Yeah, but it's been European military advantages that make them favored." For much of the West's early history, it was considered backwards in both military and economy. For example, Persia's invasion of Greece was supposed to be a walkover. Persia's triremes at Salamis were no better than the Athenians', and the Greek hoplite was actually considered inferior for Persian contemporaries at the time. The Greeks won because their military advantage came from a cultural advantage in that everyone in Greece was relatively free, compared to a state such as Persia, where no one had a voice but the king. Citizens could vote in an assembly on pretty much everything, including how to fight wars. It was the Athenian polis that decided to abandon Athens and make a stand at Salamis. It was that same polis, along with Themistocles, that came up with the strategy that would ultimately defeat Xerxes' fleet. Citizens could voice opinions on what worked and what didn't, which allowed for a more flexible military that could defeat a much larger one, like at Darius' at Marathon and Xerxes' at Plataea.

Europe's military advantages came from its cultural advantages over its non-Western enemies. Over time, this translated into a distinct military advantage in technology as the West was more open to embrace new technology and use it for applied military purposes than anyone else. Non-Westerners ended up trying to imitate them by buying Western firearms or trying to incorporate their tactics, but in the end it was the cultural baggage that came with it that allowed the West to stay on top. It's why Europe ended up with the distinct military advantage.

I however, also agree that it's not Europe that makes up the world, and that Civilization does not mean "Western Civilization". It's all about bringing any civilization, any tribe, from history and leading them to stand the test of time. The more civs, the merrier.

the capital city was the largest in the new world

Tenochtitlan was the largest city in the new world with a population of 200,000 at the arrival of the Spanish.

once again..the civs you are so adimitly fighting..are not the 18 in civ 4...

I still don't see how the Iroquois did more than the moors. If taking over half of Europe and helping to bring the Renaissance, steel smolting, advanced map making,tetracycline, mathematics, agriculture and advanced architecture, advanced markets, and influencing music and their machines isn't enough then what is. If I understand you correctly the Iroquois should be out the game. Maybe an African civs should take their place maybe not but Iroquois don't seem to have done much to me they seem to be a parallel of Zulu.

at the time superbeaver :) i belive tenochetlan was the biggest in world at the time..not sure though..and yes i think the iriqoius were an apeasment..but they were there to repersent. kinda like the mali. and when did the moors come up? i dont think anyone has argued against them.

I still don't see how the Iroquois did more than the moors. If taking over half of Europe and helping to bring the Renaissance, steel smolting, advanced map making,tetracycline, mathematics, agriculture and advanced architecture, advanced markets, and influencing music and their machines isn't enough then what is.
For some clarification...it makes much more sense to say the Arabs, not the Moors. The Moors were the name given to the Arabs in Spain by Europeans.

The Iroquois were the most powerful group represented in the five tribes that united together to form the Iroquois Confederation (hence, its name). Other than that, I know little about them, but they are a solid choice for a civ if you're looking for more North American civs than just the Aztecs and Americans (which is always the oddball because the Americans in question are based off of English settlers and are thus European, but just based in North America). Before someone jumps on me for excluding the Mayans and Inca, I was talking about North American civs. The Mayans more or less inhabited Central America and bits of Mexico, and the Inca of course were in South America. Civs from the Americas, though, no doubt. Depends on how people like to group them.

The Mali and the Zulu are the only two distinctive African civs to be in the game, correct? (Don't give me that crap about Carthage and Egypt. For crying out loud, Carthage was originally a Phoenician colony and Egypt is more Middle Eastern than African, anyway. We're talking about Sub-Saharan Africa here.) I suppose some people think that's an underrepresentation, but pardon me when I say I don't know of any others that were very important throughout history. The Zulus are questionable, though: they were the terror of South Africa, but only for a short period of time, relatively speaking. People like me know very little about Africa, and the good people at Firaxis of course don't want to be confusing people with adding in a bunch of civs no one has ever heard about.

Only so many civs can be represented in a game that allows for a limited number (especially if that number is only 18). Keep your cool, wait when you get the game, and mod it to your gaming pleasure, as the game is supposed to excel in that regard. Expansion packs will undoubtedly add more civs anyway. No one can really say that enough; enough people have said it already, and it makes good advice to live by.

Ghafi, you're missing the point. Italy invaded Ethiopia. Britain invaded Ethiopia. The Turks invaded Ethiopia. All of them took a toll on Ethiopia. Ethiopia did not invade Italy, Britain, or the Ottoman Empire.

Ethiopia had to fight for its very survival, for much of its history. Europe, on the other hand, by the 17th century, was basically safe from outsiders. Most of that time they wound up fighting themselves.

Again, the fact that Ethiopia inflicted defeats on the Europeans was that they were European embarrassments. That tells the real story, because Europe was clearly in control. Ethiopia was not.

Ethiopia has made little to no contribution to anything distinctly military (or economic either, I believe; the world doesn't exactly cater to Ethiopian economic strategies). The Ethiopians had to rely on European military formations and tactics to beat Europeans, not to mention acquire European firearms. Who had the upper hand? The Europeans. Not Ethiopia.

Now, some people like to say, "Yeah, but it's been European military advantages that make them favored." For much of the West's early history, it was considered backwards in both military and economy. For example, Persia's invasion of Greece was supposed to be a walkover. Persia's triremes at Salamis were no better than the Athenians', and the Greek hoplite was actually considered inferior for Persian contemporaries at the time. The Greeks won because their military advantage came from a cultural advantage in that everyone in Greece was relatively free, compared to a state such as Persia, where no one had a voice but the king. Citizens could vote in an assembly on pretty much everything, including how to fight wars. It was the Athenian polis that decided to abandon Athens and make a stand at Salamis. It was that same polis, along with Themistocles, that came up with the strategy that would ultimately defeat Xerxes' fleet.

Europe's military advantages came from its cultural advantages over its non-Western enemies. Over time, this translated into a distinct military advantage in technology as the West was more open to embrace new technology and use it for applied military purposes than anyone else. Non-Westerners ended up trying to imitate them by buying Western firearms or trying to incorporate their tactics, but in the end it was the cultural baggage that came with it that allowed the West to stay on top. It's why Europe ended up with the distinct military advantage.

I however, also agree that it's not Europe that makes up the world, and that Civilization does not mean "Western Civilization". It's all about bringing any civilization, any tribe, from history and leading them to stand the test of time. The more civs, the merrier.

Britain lost Italy lost twice and turks never came no where near ethiopia. You are only saying they are embarassments cause you are trying to take away from the Ethiopian accomplishments. Of course if my army has a gun and your army has a knife I will win. Now you critizes Ethiopia for beating Europeans with weapons they use. America invented the nuke doesn't mean they should be the only ones with a nuke. Europeans didn't really invent the gun they just modified a chinese idea. Europes military advantages came from the gun and that is shown in that when countries like ethiopia have guns they beat europe. If Europe had such great culture then why did they loose to the moors why did Geghis Khan beat European countries. Why did America loose in Vietnam I don't see Vietnam great culture they used guns

I still don't see how the Iroquois did more than the moors.

It has already been stated that the Iroquois were an appeasement civ, to include a native American civ.

If taking over half of Europe

Question: Since when is Spain and Portugal half of Europe as you claim? The Moors conquered all but the very northern portion of the Iberian Peninsula, and made some advances into southern France. That is hardly half of Europe


If I understand you correctly the Iroquois should be out the game. Maybe an African civs should take their place maybe not but Iroquois don't seem to have done much to me they seem to be a parallel of Zulu.

This is Civ IV, not Civ III. It is pointless to argue about whether the Iroquois or Zulu should be replaced, as they are not in the game.

at the time superbeaver :) i belive tenochetlan was the biggest in world at the time..not sure though..and yes i think the iriqoius were an apeasment..but they were there to repersent. kinda like the mali. and when did the moors come up? i dont think anyone has argued against them.
Was the richest country in the world at the height of its power. It spreda islam in africa to many countries. The mali king was sos rich that when he went to egypt he gave so much gold that the price of gold was inflated for the next 100 years. Hows that for culture

Was the richest country in the world at the height of its power. It spreda islam in africa to many countries. The mali king was sos rich that when he went to egypt he gave so much gold that the price of gold was inflated for the next 100 years. Hows that for culture

That isn't culture, its economics. And he is asking where the Moors came into the conversation. He isn't arguing about Mali.

For some clarification...it makes much more sense to say the Arabs, not the Moors. The Moors were the name given to the Arabs in Spain by Europeans.
Wrong. Not all Moors speak arabic. The majority of moors were muslims and they are distinct from arabs. Moors have an entirely different culture than arabs. Moors are african arabs can be of any race. All you have to do is speak arabic and follow the arabic culture. kinda like being spanish. There were never Arabs in Spain but there were moors.

It has already been stated that the Iroquois were an appeasement civ, to include a native American civ.



Question: Since when is Spain and Portugal half of Europe as you claim? The Moors conquered all but the very northern portion of the Iberian Peninsula, and made some advances into southern France. That is hardly half of Europe




This is Civ IV, not Civ III. It is pointless to argue about whether the Iroquois or Zulu should be replaced, as they are not in the game.

They also took over much of Italy in the first few years and belgium

I guess you claim Rembrandt is now Italian? Name a world renowned painter who happened to be Ethiopian. You still don't get it. China had an ESTABLISHED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT since 2200 BC. They existed long before that time as a group of petty warlords. That part of history is not much different than Ethiopia. The difference is China, like the Dutch, actually contributed something useful to human civilization as we know it. Ethiopia has not. Ethiopia may have been around longer than nations such as the Dutch, Portugal, or Austria, but they've done nothing worthwhile. Nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a great power or a cultural icon. The Ethiopians never made any money, except off of those people Arabians could sell. Again you choose to ignore the facts I have provided. Again you choose to reiterate your demands with nothing to back them up. Instead you insult and denegrate other cultures you have no understanding of and then claim moral superiority over others, just because of the color of your skin.

Colonially speaking, at the height of Dutch power, they controlled Dutch Guyana, South Africa, Portions of western India, Ceylon, Singapore, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, New Guinea...I think I'm missing a few here.

As for Persia? Persia is the evolution of two older nations, Sumeria and Babylon. These two were the major powers in the cradle of civilization, and their history we can be greatful for the first written language, the concept and development of a unified code of laws, an agriculturally based society, masonry, pottery, stratification of society so that some can teach or develop new skills. The very foundation of all civilization comes from these people.

And where are those wars and dates I asked for? You know, the ones where the powerful and mighty Ethiopian armies defeated history's best and brightest nations?

That isn't culture, its economics. And he is asking where the Moors came into the conversation. He isn't arguing about Mali.
always in conversation if you look at the title of the thread.

They also took over much of Italy in the first few years and belgium

There were no moors anywhere near belgium. The most the Moors ever took from Italy was Sicily. Making things up and posting them doesn't make your point any more valid.

The Ethiopians are not going to be in the retail release, get over it. If you're that hard up for playing the Ethiopians, you'll have access to the tools needed to code them into the game.

im a lil confused to the point trying to be made..weve gone from africa in general..to ethiopia. to denmark..to american indians ..to moors..we have all agreed that africa should have some more repersentation...but we just question who you would like to see replaced to make room for them??

I guess you claim Rembrandt is now Italian? Name a world renowned painter who happened to be Ethiopian. You still don't get it. China had an ESTABLISHED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT since 2200 BC. They existed long before that time as a group of petty warlords. That part of history is not much different than Ethiopia. The difference is China, like the Dutch, actually contributed something useful to human civilization as we know it. Ethiopia has not. Ethiopia may have been around longer than nations such as the Dutch, Portugal, or Austria, but they've done nothing worthwhile. Nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a great power or a cultural icon. The Ethiopians never made any money, except off of those people Arabians could sell. Again you choose to ignore the facts I have provided. Again you choose to reiterate your demands with nothing to back them up. Instead you insult and denegrate other cultures you have no understanding of and then claim moral superiority over others, just because of the color of your skin.


Colonially speaking, at the height of Dutch power, they controlled Dutch Guyana, South Africa, Portions of western India, Ceylon, Singapore, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, New Guinea...I think I'm missing a few here.

As for Persia? Persia is the evolution of two older nations, Sumeria and Babylon. These two were the major powers in the cradle of civilization, and their history we can be greatful for the first written language, the concept and development of a unified code of laws, an agriculturally based society, masonry, pottery, stratification of society so that some can teach or develop new skills. The very foundation of all civilization comes from these people.

And where are those wars and dates I asked for? You know, the ones where the powerful and mighty Ethiopian armies defeated history's best and brightest nations?

Rembrandt is a good painter but nowhere near the great Italian painters of the renaissance.

Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba borne.

about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.
Ask any Rastafarian or carribean person what they think of Ethiopia and Haille Sesse. If millions of people think you are G-d incarnate orgiven special powers from G-d isn't great then what is. That is what Ethiopia has contributed. Many AA have wrote books telling aa to back to ethiopia. It is a holy land and so much more. Maybe you don't think ethiopia is culture icon but any one from africa knows different. Ethiopia made other africans believe in decolonization because Ethiopia was not colonized. If declonizing and barring slavery in an entire continent is great then i can't help you. The dutch only controlled a coastal part of south africa before losing it to the british. The cradle of civlization is Ethiopia not persia you can ask any scientist or whom ever you want. Life started in Ethiopia. Babylon came way to late in History to have an effect on civlizations. Rome was around before Babylon was a good civ.

There were no moors anywhere near belgium. The most the Moors ever took from Italy was Sicily. Making things up and posting them doesn't make your point any more valid.

The Ethiopians are not going to be in the retail release, get over it. If you're that hard up for playing the Ethiopians, you'll have access to the tools needed to code them into the game.
Tell that to Beethoven???? Look up Beethoven ancestry and tell me what you find. Then you can come back and apoligize for calling me a liar. By the way I looked up and the netherlands was part of the moorish empire. Turns out that they were also part of spain back then. A small portion of northern Italy was captured for 90 years by the moors.

then your same argument for ethiopia can be used to support the american indians..vastly outnumbered..out gunned...and out" cultured???" they fought on anyways...and lasted hundreds of years against the oppressers...or is that different??? and the moors...they are different then the african civs that i thought you were arguing about...the moors are more north african civs..so if you want to go that route..you already have egypt..at first i thought you had a valid argument about the ignored southern portioins of africa..lol wow i was wrong

about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.
Ask any Rastafarian or carribean person what they think of Ethiopia and Haille Sesse. If millions of people think you are G-d incarnate orgiven special powers from G-d isn't great then what is.

That is only their beliefs. What about all the others who don't believe that?

The dutch only controlled a coastal part of south africa before losing it to the british.

It doesn't matter if the Dutch only controlled South Africa for a little while. Look at all the other places they went.

The cradle of civlization is Ethiopia not persia you can ask any scientist or whom ever you want. Life started in Ethiopia. Babylon came way to late in History to have an effect on civlizations. Rome was around before Babylon was a good civ.

The cradle of civilization is Mesopotamia. It is where the first major civilizations formed(Sumeria, Babylon, etc.) Babylon existed long before Rome. Therefore, if Babylon was too late, then that means Rome was to late. And obviously Rome has had an impact.

By the way I looked up and the netherlands was part of the moorish empire. Turns out that they were also part of spain back then. A small portion of northern Italy was captured for 90 years by the moors.

By the time Spain controlled Belgium and the Netherlands, they were apart of the Habsburg empire. Not the Moors. That happened in the 16th-18th century, after the Moors had been kicked out of Spain.

And another funny thing. I looked up Beethoven on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven), and guess what? Not once does it mention the Moors. It appears that you are wrong.

Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba borne.

about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.


Er... 10th century BC is 1000 BC - 900 BC. It's not 10,000 BC.

Oh, for crying out loud people. Forgive me for being general in dismissing points that mean little to nothing anyway. Let's go over this again:

Wrong. Not all Moors speak arabic. The majority of moors were muslims and they are distinct from arabs. Moors have an entirely different culture than arabs. Moors are african arabs can be of any race. All you have to do is speak arabic and follow the arabic culture. kinda like being spanish. There were never Arabs in Spain but there were moors.
The Moors were the name given to the Muslims in Spain. That's all. The Moors were only in Spain, because that was the name given to the Muslims that lived there. End of story.

The Arabs were a small tribe that converted to Islam and set out to conquer the world under the banner of that religion. Along the way, they conquered and assimilated other tribes, which in turn joined them in their bid for world conquest. That would include peoples like the Berbers, Turks, etc. I was just being general to make a point, sheesh. Get off my back already.

Besides, all Muslims can speak Arabic, because that's the language of the Koran.

I'm going to break this next one down into steps because it's so ridiculous I'm having trouble holding back my laughter.
Britain lost Italy lost twice and turks never came no where near ethiopia. You are only saying they are embarassments cause you are trying to take away from the Ethiopian accomplishments.
No, I'm not. Did you purposely ignore what I posted? They were European embarrassments because they were supposed to be pushovers. Instead, the Ethiopians beat them. Did they lead to the total capitulation of both Britain and Italy? No. Did it lead to a respite for Ethiopia that allowed it to get back on its feet, only to come to blows with Europe again as Italy invaded in 1936? Yes. This only proves that the powers of Europe were far greater in that regard. The fact that we are talking about European invasions of Ethiopia and not Ethiopian invasions of Europe speak for itself. For cripe's sakes, listen already. I've said this same thing three times.

As for the Turks, the Ottoman Empire encroached upon their borders. That's all.

Of course if my army has a gun and your army has a knife I will win. Now you critizes Ethiopia for beating Europeans with weapons they use.
No, I'm saying Ethiopia had to use European weapons to beat Europeans. You're looking at this through a standpoint in which a gun and melee weapon are standard and everyone knows about them. There was such a time when the gun was a revolutionary weapon. The Ethiopians had to acquire guns in order to beat the Europeans, because they had guns. And your "of course guns beat knives" argument is stupid, because it doesn't hold any relevance. Of course the Ethiopians had to use guns. The Europeans had them, and would have knocked the stuffing out of them if they hadn't used them in turn. The Europeans sent relatively small expedition forces that made stupid tactical mistakes as well, which helped bring about Ethiopian victories.

America invented the nuke
America was the first to develop it, but they weren't the "inventors". I don't think I need to say anymore on that subject.

doesn't mean they should be the only ones with a nuke.
Of course not, but you're missing the point, as usual. Who cares if the Ethiopians had Western firearms or not? The point is, they needed them in order to even stand a chance.

Europeans didn't really invent the gun they just modified a chinese idea.
The Chinese invented gunpowder, which they primarily used for fireworks. Europe expanded on the idea by using it for cannon and later, firearms. China played no role in this whatsoever.

Europes military advantages came from the gun and that is shown in that when countries like ethiopia have guns they beat europe.
Europe's military advantages have been proven long before the invention of the gun. The Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon and Plataea with superior military tactics and formations, and they beat them at the naval engagement of Salamis. The Romans periodically beat its enemies with its unheard of military system and a state that operated like a nation-at-arms. Alexander the Great annihilated the Persians and pretty much anything that stood in his way when he set out of Macedonia to conquer Asia. The Crusades, while not ultimately successful, were amazing nonetheless that Europe had the logistics to transport men and materiel to a land far from Europe, the Middle East, and carve kingdoms into it. Not to mention capture Jerusalem. All before gunpowder.

If Europe had such great culture then why did they loose to the moors why did Geghis Khan beat European countries. Why did America loose in Vietnam I don't see Vietnam great culture they used guns
All you're doing is stating exceptions that prove the rule. The Mongols are one of the few civilizations in history that actually beat Europeans in Europe with non-European weapons. There is almost no record of something of this nature ever happening. The Arabs relied on speed and ambush to meet their objectives. Most of their enemies were unable to stand against such an onslaught. When they came face to face with shock battle with the Franks in 732, they were soundly beaten. The same was true in the East when they attacked Constantinople around the same time.

Ugh, and you're even ignoring points you made yourself when you talk about Vietnam. Vietnam was a war against insurgents supplied by the Soviets and Chinese, who gave them the weapons needed to effectively fight the Americans. Plus, the Americans were also fighting under absurd rules of engagement, with things like "we can't invade North Vietnam, we can't bomb their harbors, we can't follow them into Chinese airspace", etc. Not to mention we also were trying to fight a conventional war.

Peh.

And doronron is right. Most of your comments are offensive and racist, and aren't helping you all that much. All you've been doing is blabbing.

Ghafhi, on the technical aspect, your cause is moot. Ethiopia will not be released in the original retail version of Civ IV, no matter how loud you yell.

On the historical aspect, all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. Every one of your contentions have been dismantled and proven wrong, even when you chose to refine your point. Your rabid desire to see Ethiopia as anywhere near the same caliber of civilization as Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, or Persia -- much less Portugal, Austria, or the Dutch, has blinded you to the points we've been making. We have historical and scientific material to back our statements. You simply insult others' heritages and expect it to prove your point.

The history books and archeaology tell us that the Ethiopians have provided no great works of art, no architectural wonders, no scientific advances, no social changes. The Ethiopians have proven themselves the be lacking militarily and aren't known for being explorers. They've contributed nothing of great enough importance to history to assure their slot in a video game, a toy. You're arguing over a toy.

I've asked for specific times, places, events, names, etc regarding the wars Ethiopia has won against Europe and those that could be considered Rembrandt's equal as an artist. You've ignored those requests because you know there are no such comparisons to be made.

You can refuse all you like. Make assertions all you like, but that doesn't make your statements true, no matter how much you believe them to be true.

As I've stated several times so far: Put the Ethiopians in, but they are not among the top civilizations and should not replace any of the nations already in the game.

You realise half the posts you've made in this thread are blatently offensive and bigoted towards other cultures? Do you realise that the cultures you've bashed were bashed because they were not black? You've attacked them for no reason other than they aren't black.

If that's not racist, I don't know what is.

Besides, all Muslims can speak Arabic, because that's the language of the Koran.

I don't think that's quite true. I'm pretty sure that there aren't 1.1 billion Arabic speakers, but there are 1.1 billion Muslims.


The Chinese invented gunpowder, which they primarily used for fireworks. Europe expanded on the idea by using it for cannon and later, firearms. China played no role in this whatsoever.

Europe's military advantages have been proven long before the invention of the gun. The Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon and Plataea with superior military tactics and formations, and they beat them at the naval engagement of Salamis. The Romans periodically beat its enemies with its unheard of military system and a state that operated like a nation-at-arms. Alexander the Great annihilated the Persians and pretty much anything that stood in his way when he set out of Macedonia to conquer Asia. The Crusades, while not ultimately successful, were amazing nonetheless that Europe had the logistics to transport men and materiel to a land far from Europe, the Middle East, and carve kingdoms into it. Not to mention capture Jerusalem. All before gunpowder.

All you're doing is stating exceptions that prove the rule. The Mongols are one of the few civilizations in history that actually beat Europeans in Europe with non-European weapons. There is almost no record of something of this nature ever happening. The Arabs relied on speed and ambush to meet their objectives. Most of their enemies were unable to stand against such an onslaught. When they came face to face with shock battle with the Franks in 732, they were soundly beaten. The same was true in the East when they attacked Constantinople around the same time.


But they eventually won. Turkey still owns Constantinople and some European territory.

This article claims that the Chinese did invent cannon: http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1225.html

As far as Europeans getting beaten by non-Europeans in Europe goes... The Moors did manage to beat them for a while. So did the Ottoman Turks. You can argue that those victories weren't final, but I could say the same about any European victory; just wait ;-). Europeans got defeated by Americans and Russians, who are admittedly European-ish. Many of the various barbarian tribes that attacked the Roman and Byzantine Empires (Huns, Slavs, Bulgars, etc.) came out of Central Asia.

I am curious to know what you mean by Europe's military advantages. You refer to a consistent advantage over some 2500 years of history.

Those Muslims that wish to read the Koran have to know Arabic if they want to read it. No, I don't know personally if all Muslims do or not; I was just making another generalization. I tend to do that to make general points.

But they eventually won. Turkey still owns Constantinople and some European territory.
The Turks aren't Arabs. They were a tribe that converted to Islam and took up the cause the Arabs started (since you know, their empire stagnated and then fragmented during the 8th and 9th centuries). The Turkish victory at Manzikert is one of those examples of a non-Western army beating Westerners, though again, it's an exception. The Byzantine army was wracked from within through deceit and intrigue over its own commanders, vying for the throne. They eventually adopted cannon and of course, used them to capture Constantinople in 1453. An already weakened Constantinople, at that.

As far as Europeans getting beaten by non-Europeans in Europe goes... The Moors did manage to beat them for a while. So did the Ottoman Turks. You can argue that those victories weren't final, but I could say the same about any European victory; just wait ;-).
The Turks used firearms and cannon (keep in mind that I said "non-European weapons" as well). They at pretty much every opportunity looked for ways to match technological parity with the West. However, they lacked the added cultural baggage to improve on existing designs because of the state they were ruled under, which didn't encourage rational inquiry and the like. They thus never developed the proper tactics of shooting in massed volleys to accompany the firearms they used, as the Europeans did and, they didn't because it was against their own idea of personal bravery of the individual warrior. The same went for engagements at sea, in which the powers of the West adopted cannon to go on their ships, while the Turks had to "borrow" their ideas by buying cannon from them and trying to mount them on their own ships without the real technical know-how (in fact, the Turks often hired Western engineers to do the job for them). How else do you think that a few Mediterranean powers such as Spain and Venice were able to take on the fleet of an empire that stretched from North Africa to Anatolia to the Balkans? How else were states that were often conflicting with themselves able to hold them off at all?

Western victories in battle often led to the complete destruction of the opposing force. Whether or not the main campaign was a success matters little; what matters is the lethality of Western combat to its non-Western enemies, which often did lead to ultimate victories.

And I already stated that the Moors as well as the Mongols proved to be exceptions. I just didn't say outright with the former; however, I figured it was implied well enough, considering it was grouped along with what I had to say about the latter after the quote I addressed from Ghafhi.

This article claims that the Chinese did invent cannon: http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dum...le/id-1225.html
Maybe, but it was the West that took the idea and implemented it as a device that could pack maximum firepower with massed volleys of soldiers who stood shoulder to shoulder so that they could annihilate the enemy. The idea was to make sure as many people as possible could carry one, and to fight as a single unit, which was pioneered by Europeans.

Many of the various barbarian tribes that attacked the Roman and Byzantine Empires (Huns, Slavs, Bulgars, etc.) came out of Central Asia.
Exceptions that prove the rule. And, I'm sure you know already what the state of the Roman Empire was during the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

I am curious to know what you mean by Europe's military advantages. You refer to a consistent advantage over some 2500 years of history.
Yes I do, and I'm glad you mentioned that. Before, when I saying "Europe", I was using that as a substitute word for "the West", which was what I actually meant. The West has had a distinct advantage over its enemies over 2500 years of history, and that is its lethal way in handling war at the expense of its enemies. Its unique way of fighting was something the world had never seen before and is in fact the basis behind which modern armies around the world now fight today.

There's a whole book that delves into this subject: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. It's a good read; I suggest you take a look at it should you get the chance. The battles they cover include Poitiers, Lepanto, Guagemela, Salamis, Cannae (see, it's not just about Western victories, but rather, how Western warfare ultimately wins), Midway, Rorke's Drift, etc.

I guess you claim Rembrandt is now Italian? Name a world renowned painter who happened to be Ethiopian. You still don't get it. China had an ESTABLISHED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT since 2200 BC. They existed long before that time as a group of petty warlords. That part of history is not much different than Ethiopia. The difference is China, like the Dutch, actually contributed something useful to human civilization as we know it. Ethiopia has not. Ethiopia may have been around longer than nations such as the Dutch, Portugal, or Austria, but they've done nothing worthwhile. Nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a great power or a cultural icon.

Your post bleeds with Eurocentrism.

Name a Dutch painter that was "world renowned," known all over the world. You can't, you can name Dutch painters that were known throughout the Western world and maybe in some circles outside the West - but one that was truly world renowned?

Further, small Eurpoean states like the Netherlands and Austria wouldn't be anything themselves if it weren't for their location and interaction with the rest of the Western world. When the Dutch accomplished something in the 18th century that (almost always) was not just a Dutch accomplishment, it was a Western one with the Dutch taking the final steps. (This is why, as someone indicated earlier, the Dutch aren't a civ per se; the Dutch are a state within the Wetsern, or perhaps Northern European civ.)

Also, to state that Ethiopia has never been a cultural icon is, once again, ignorant and Eurocentric. Many people in Africa and the Americas view Ethiopia's history with pride. If you go there, as I have, you'll see white women with African hairstyles touring the country.

The centuries old work of Ethiopia's monks, epitomised by the illuminated manuscripts, has been celebrated by many foreigners. The medeival rock hewn churches of Lalibela and Tigray can't be ignored.

So, when you say that nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a cultural icon what you should have said is that you don't look at Ethiopia as a cultural icon - which is fine - you are allowed to be ignorant of other societies and to suggest that they have no worthwhile culture. If you actually go there and speak to Ethiopians you will see how important there culture is to them and how proud they are.

And where are those wars and dates I asked for? You know, the ones where the powerful and mighty Ethiopian armies defeated history's best and brightest nations?

Of course there is the Italian defeat in 1896. And in 1941, when the Italian were ejected, partially by the British, Ethiopian diplomacy won out over British threats to keep Ethiopia as a colony. Those are the only armed conflicts with Europe that I'm aware of. Obviously, if Ethiopia had been weaker it would have been colonized back in the 19th century. Strength deterred invasion.

Just for the record, I'm happy with the announced 18 civs. Ethiopia doesn't need to be in; but the ignorant bashing of Ethiopia needed to be countered.

Those Muslims that wish to read the Koran have to know Arabic if they want to read it. No, I don't know personally if all Muslims do or not; I was just making another generalization. I tend to do that to make general points.


I suggest that you verify your assertions in advance lest pedants such as myself focus on minor inaccuracies to the exclusion of your main point.

Arabs are an ethnic group. Arabs were Semitic peoples inhabiting the (duh) Arabian peninsula, who spread out over much of the Middle East as part of the Islamic conquests. The Islamic conquerors who invaded Spain were at least partly Arab, though, of course, by then, the Islamic empire included many non-Arab peoples.


The Turks used firearms and cannon (keep in mind that I said "non-European weapons" as well). They at pretty much every opportunity looked for ways to match technological parity with the West. However, they lacked the added cultural baggage to improve on existing designs because of the state they were ruled under, which didn't encourage rational inquiry and the like.

To be fair, most European nations were similar in terms of rational inquiry.


How else were states that were often conflicting with themselves able to hold them off at all?

Well, the Ottoman empire was kind of a mess politically a lot of the time. That helps. Bigger doesn't always win.


Western victories in battle often led to the complete destruction of the opposing force. Whether or not the main campaign was a success matters little; what matters is the lethality of Western combat to its non-Western enemies, which often did lead to ultimate victories.

I disagree with this statement. Few battles ever led to the complete destruction of the enemy force. I'm sure you can list a bunch of examples, but you're making a pretty strong statement that needs stronger proof.


And I already stated that the Moors as well as the Mongols proved to be exceptions.

Pile on enough exceptions and the rule collapses.


Maybe, but it was the West that took the idea and implemented it as a device that could pack maximum firepower with massed volleys of soldiers who stood shoulder to shoulder so that they could annihilate the enemy.

Which also made them more vulnerable to firearms. It's not clear to me that such tactics were an advantage.


Exceptions that prove the rule. And, I'm sure you know already what the state of the Roman Empire was during the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

I haven't ever understood what that phrase means.

The Roman Empire was in bad shape in no small way due to those very same barbarians. I think you are confusing cause and effect.


Yes I do, and I'm glad you mentioned that. Before, when I saying "Europe", I was using that as a substitute word for "the West", which was what I actually meant. The West has had a distinct advantage over its enemies over 2500 years of history, and that is its lethal way in handling war at the expense of its enemies. Its unique way of fighting was something the world had never seen before and is in fact the basis behind which modern armies around the world now fight today.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you assert that non-Western armies have been less bloodthirsty and ruthless than Western ones.


There's a whole book that delves into this subject: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. It's a good read; I suggest you take a look at it should you get the chance. The battles they cover include Poitiers, Lepanto, Guagemela, Salamis, Cannae (see, it's not just about Western victories, but rather, how Western warfare ultimately wins), Midway, Rorke's Drift, etc.

What's the Cliff's Notes version? Surely you can state what "Western warfare" means and how it is unique and better in a paragraph or two.

Ghafhi, you're missing the point. Italy invaded Ethiopia. Britain invaded Ethiopia. The Turks invaded Ethiopia. All of them took a toll on Ethiopia. Ethiopia did not invade Italy, Britain, or the Ottoman Empire.

Ethiopia had to fight for its very survival, for much of its history. Europe, on the other hand, by the 17th century, was basically safe from outsiders. Most of that time they wound up fighting themselves.

Again, the fact that Ethiopia inflicted defeats on the Europeans was that they were European embarrassments. That tells the real story, because Europe was clearly in control. Ethiopia was not.

We all know Europe had better weapons, what is your point? You keep stressing the point that the Europeans were embarrased. Why? The point is that Ethiopia succesfully dettered them and defeated the Italians. The fact that Ethiopia had less advanced weaponry just makes the Ethiopian accomplishments more ingenious.

EDIT: To add to this point, the Russian victory over Napoleon does not fail to be a great accomplishment because the French army was better. The Russians were outmatched but they won anyway by making their enemy "bleed to death."

It's all about bringing any civilization, any tribe, from history and leading them to stand the test of time. The more civs, the merrier.

Well, that's was Ethiopia has done. It doesn't matter if it was by the tooth of the nails or not, or if it was by military means or diplomatic skill; Ethiopia has stood