In the game of civilization, there are several ways to win. In reality, it seems, "winning" isn't so easily definable. My topic for discussion is the following:

Has any civilization in history effectively "won" by the criteria of Civilization (the game)? For example, would the British empire have won a domination victory? Has the U.S. won a diplomatic victory? Has any nation won the equivalent of a cultural victory?

British culture is huge. Even in countrys that arnt or never were british commonwealth/colonys English is normally the second largest spoken language. Schools teach it compulsary its so big. British goverment structure has spread around the world, the same goes for there legal system.

Maybe if you only considered scenarios. Rome won domination in its sphere of the world for a time. China had done that several times. Japan as well when it was still fairly isolated. But on a global scale? No, although there were valiant efforts.

And as you can see from history, the UN in Midtown Manhattan does not grant a victory. ;)
I don't even think there have been any American Secretary Generals in the UN either. I might be wrong, though it's certainly not a majority.

Culture remains to be seen, although some cultures (or aspects of them) have become widespread even outside their borders, as Nobody said about the English language and a few other items. Science is always ongoing. And certainly there has not been a wiping out of all others.

Maybe in 2050, we'll find out when a giant scoreboard appears in the sky.

Since China is the only country that's survived from extreme antiquity to the present day, and controlled a large area whilst also exercising massive influence over its neighbours throughout that period, I'd say it probably won by default a long time ago.

China was Dominated, with a capital D, during the 19th century by European powers. And even if they weren't being so actively exploited beforhand, the European score was definitely higher since 1500 onward.

Mongols smashed China as well.

Yeah, but we've managed to bounce back afterwards every time. Even going so far as to assimilate the invaders. (Culture flipping on a grand scale)

If we're still around by 2050, then we'll win by Histograph. :p Since we're the only one of the original players that still survives.

I think the game had already been settled by Domination victories at least twice before, by the Mongols (questionable) and the British (surely).

China won a cultural victory in the Far East scenario.

In real life, America is approaching a cultural victory because it owns the Rock 'n' Roll, Hollywood and Broadway wonders, not to mention the Statue of Liberty, United Nations, Pentagon and Mount Rushmore.

Teh Hollywood Great Wonder alone must be generating several thousand culture points per turn. :lol: It's radius has already managed to cover the entire world.

If we go by the civ3 rule, Norway won a diplomatic victory back in 1945, with the election of Trygve Lie as the first (proper) secretary general of the United Nations.

And America built the Apollo Program, so America, China, Russia, Japan and India are competing to be the first to go to Alpha Centauri.

I would have to argue that eitherParis or Rome (probably Rome) won the One City Cultural a long time ago

United Nations
An American using the UN as a positive? That's a first! ;)

No, nobody won it. And certainly not Britain with a cultural victory. Maybe domination, but I still don't agree.

Yeah, if you're playing by Civ3 or 4 rules, Norway definitely won. Rome was taken by different powers several times, which is bad for culture, and Britain didn't control 2/3 of the world.

Constantinople was pretty cultured back in the day...

we Persians were pz0wned militarily by many peoples, but we came back and won a cultural victory in every single case.

Which Persia are you referring to?

Achaemenid Empire (648 BC–330 BC)
Hellenistic Persia (330 BC–150 BC)
Parthian Confederacy (150 BC–AD 226)
Sassanid Empire (AD 226–650)
The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates (AD 650-819)
The Samanids and the Buwayhid (AD 819-1037)
Turkic Rule (1037–1219)
Persia under the Mongols and their successors (1219–1500)
The Safavids (1500–1722)
Or the mess when Persia (Iran) was divided into Russian and British spheres of influence?

Rome all the way, culture or Domination...

Which Persia are you referring to?

Achaemenid Empire (648 BC–330 BC)
Hellenistic Persia (330 BC–150 BC)
Parthian Confederacy (150 BC–AD 226)
Sassanid Empire (AD 226–650)
The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates (AD 650-819)
The Samanids and the Buwayhid (AD 819-1037)
Turkic Rule (1037–1219)
Persia under the Mongols and their successors (1219–1500)
The Safavids (1500–1722)
Or the mess when Persia (Iran) was divided into Russian and British spheres of influence?

well its all generally considered the same country/nation. What I was referring to was the conquest of different foreign powers over it. I guess I should have backed up my statement. I was referring to Persia under Alexander and his successors where we influenced them back culturally. The others I was referring to were under the arabs (ummayads, etc) the turks, and the mongols. Hence the term Persianate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persianate)cultures.

Just testing.

In the game of civilization, there are several ways to win. In reality, it seems, "winning" isn't so easily definable. My topic for discussion is the following:

Has any civilization in history effectively "won" by the criteria of Civilization (the game)? For example, would the British empire have won a domination victory? Has the U.S. won a diplomatic victory? Has any nation won the equivalent of a cultural victory?

To hard to say, I say the Western world as a whole, mainly the Romans and Greeks… So much of Roman and Greek culture and ideas influence the ancient and modern world!!
And also the Romans hold the record of the longest empire on Earth!

The Vatican keeps Roman culture in tack and still in influence the world…

And also the Romans hold the record of the longest empire on Earth!

Can you elaborate on that?

And also the Romans hold the record of the longest empire on Earth!

If you mean longest life, the 'empire' began only a few years before 1AD. Thus, the 'empire' lasted less than 500 years.

The Byzantine Empire lasted 1000 years.

If u mean longest by size, try the Mongols :p

But the Byzantine empire was just a continuation of the Roman empire. Yes, I know that the question how Roman the Byzantines really were has been debated at far greater length than it deserves in these fora, but it was certainly the same political entity. In which case, the Roman empire did last for really quite a long time.

Many nations are a 'continuation' of another empire, but aren't the same country...

All right then, the Byzantine empire was the same "country" as the Roman empire. There was complete political continuity between them, and the Byzantines always called themselves Roman ("Byzantine" is a later, historians' label). All that happened was that the capital was in a different place, and the territory over which they ruled dwindled.

Even if you consider Byzantium, though, Rome's overall longevity as anything more than a small regional state in Italy is under two millenia (roughly 260 BCE to 1450 CE, for about 1700 years all said and done). That falls short of China's 2100+ years (roughly 220 BCE to 1900 CE).

Alternatively, you can start with the founding of Rome and the Qin state ; in that case, we're talking roughly 2200 years to Rome (750 BCE to 1450 CE) to 2680 for China (780 BCE to 1900 CE).

And of course, I'm playing fair and ending China's existence in 1911 with the end of the Qing dynasty ; a very serious argument could be made for giving China an "Ongoing" status.

In the game of civilization, there are several ways to win. In reality, it seems, "winning" isn't so easily definable. My topic for discussion is the following:

Has any civilization in history effectively "won" by the criteria of Civilization (the game)? For example, would the British empire have won a domination victory? Has the U.S. won a diplomatic victory? Has any nation won the equivalent of a cultural victory?

rome may have won a cultural victory, as may the amazing americans may have as well in recent times.

America is two-thirds of the way to a cultural victory (per the Civ IV definition) : one needs three legendary-level cities, culture-wise, and while NYC (Broadway) and LA (Hollywood) are definitely there, I don't think any of the others have quite reached that yet (though Frisco, at least, is close ; so are perhaps Boston and a few others).

Another civ that's pretty far along to a Cultural win is Italy (Rome and Venice are definitely at the Legendary level for culture ; Naples and Florence (to name but two) are pretty close too).

[Oda] I'd say Memphis and Chicago easily have Legendary cultural status. Elvis, Howlin' Wolf, and Muddy Waters, man!

For America's 3rd legendary culture level city, what about Washington D.C.? It's got lots of "wonders" that should be generating culture points this past century - White House, Capitol, Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, Library of Congress, Smothsonian Institite, Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, etc.

EDIT: cross-post with Plotinus. Oh yeah. Chicago too.

And the Pentagon World Wonder is in a suburb.

I cannot PROVE this hypothesis - but it is possible, in Civ terms, it's already been "won" more than once.

Homo Sapiens - around for 50-100,000 years. Recorded history - about 6,000 years. That's plenty of time for civs to have been born, flourished and died several times.

Dunno, Plotinus. On the international stage Chicago and Memphis, while known, aren't QUITE at the Legendary level. Not in the way Hollywood (and thus LA) and New York are.

We're talking Venice/Rome/Paris/London-legendary here...

I was thinking about a cultural victory for England. London certainly makes it into Legendary city status, with York a distant second. What's the third city? Salisbury? Oxford? Bath? Slough?

Maybe the mongols did for the short period of time thta they held all that land mass together. Otherwise I'd say noe has as of yet. There are some Nations that are close to cultural as many have pointed out N.Y. and L.A. are definitely reresenting the U.S., and I'm sorry but CHicago andmemphis just don't make the cut.

England had to be close on domination too, the sun never set on the english enpire ya know lol. :)

I don't think NY and LA qualify as legendary culture on the same scale as Paris, London, Rome, Delhi, Beijing, Cairo, or even Athens. NY and LA have been around for 350 years or less against the thousands of years these cities have been accumulating culture points. Plus, these cities have had many, many more works of art created( culture bombs;)), and even artist super-specialists than LA and NY and are waay ahead on Legendary terms.

Diplomatic 'victory' in Civ4 terms has not happened because there has been no 'diplomatic victory vote';) Merely getting to SG is not enough in Civ4

Conquest (yeah right...)

Domination: Mongols did well, but they had no idea of the Americas and Australia, and they barely scratched the Northern tip of India, Africa, the Western edge of Europe. The British came closer, covering 1/4th of the World's surface, but lost it once they started losing colonies in the 40s and 50s.

Score? China, USA, Russia and perhaps, India and Brazil are sort of in the reckoning. By 2050, India will have the largest population, but won't have the area of USA or China unless we culture flip Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and (who knows maybe even) Pakistan into a joint South Asian Union, to get somewhere close...Tech won't matter so much since trade will inevitably bring most, if not all the new techs into India soon. So, in 2050, there will probably be a close finish between India, China and the USA for the 'score' victory.

I don't think NY and LA qualify as legendary culture on the same scale as Paris, London, Rome, Delhi, Beijing, Cairo, or even Athens. NY and LA have been around for 350 years or less against the thousands of years these cities have been accumulating culture points.

I'd agree with this. When I think of great and legendary cities, I don't think of Los Angeles. And I'm hard pressed to think of any important cultural contributions from New York. It's just a big city that seems to be the setting for most American films and sitcoms. When I think of American culture, I think of music, and as I suggested, that means Chicago, Memphis, New Orleans...

British cities: I'd agree that London would be first, followed by York or Oxford, but don't forget Canterbury. In fact, Canterbury would probably have a better cultural rating than Oxford, since it's much older.

I'd agree with this. When I think of great and legendary cities, I don't think of Los Angeles. And I'm hard pressed to think of any important cultural contributions from New York.

I'd have to agree about Los Angeles, but New York is the capital of the U.S. in terms of the theater, publishing, painting and sculpture, and photography.

I don't think NY and LA qualify as legendary culture on the same scale as Paris, London, Rome, Delhi, Beijing, Cairo, or even Athens. NY and LA have been around for 350 years or less against the thousands of years these cities have been accumulating culture points. Plus, these cities have had many, many more works of art created( culture bombs;)), and even artist super-specialists than LA and NY and are waay ahead on Legendary terms.
But some adjustment must be made in order to compensate for the global reach of modern day cultural generators as opposed to ancient ones. Something like, say The Dream of the Red Chamber may be a household name already for Chinese these past centuries, but unknown to every other Civ. Likewise for the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. In contrast, almost everyone on this planet from Tokyo to Praetoria or Buenos Aires knows who Michael Jackson or Madonna is.

Conquest (yeah right...)
A lot could still happen in 44 years... :mischief: Massive ROP rape, for instance...

...By 2050, India will have the largest population, but won't have the area of USA or China unless we culture flip Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and (who knows maybe even) Pakistan into a joint South Asian Union, to get somewhere close...
Pour more effort into Bollywood! You've already flipped Sikkim. That's a start already. :goodjob:

No country/civ had ever control 2/3 of the world's area or population, thus no country had ever won a domination victory.

However, in the soon-to-be-released Civ4 Warlords, you can make other civilizations your vassal, which contributes to your empire's population, land area.

If the Cold War alliances (NATO, SEATO, Warsaw Pact, etc) can be considered vassals of the USA, USSR, does that mean the USA or the USSR won a domination victory back in the days of the Cold War?

EDIT: couldn't have been the USSR, according to http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

But some adjustment must be made in order to compensate for the global reach of modern day cultural generators as opposed to ancient ones. Something like, say The Dream of the Red Chamber may be a household name already for Chinese these past centuries, but unknown to every other Civ. Likewise for the Ramayana or the Mahabharata. In contrast, almost everyone on this planet from Tokyo to Praetoria or Buenos Aires knows who Michael Jackson or Madonna is.

I think most Americans would be a bit chary about seeing Madonna or Michael Jackson as representatives of culture. They are actually the +1 happiness you get from Rock n' Roll;). India also has our Raj Kapoor, Shah Rukh Khan, Amitabh bachchan and of late, Rajnikant, who are also pretty popular in the Middle East and Africa, not to mention the former Soviet republics which loved Indian movies and had no access to Hollywood.

Call me snobbish, but I think culture is something a bit more than what leaves us entertained for a while or occupies our eyeballs for a couple of hours. I think there are some works, of art, of literature, of sculpture, architecture, even film, which leaves an impression upon us, not merely because we are Indian or American and it appeals to our Indian or American tastes and values, but redefines and creates those values and tastes in a manner that impacts several generations.

In that sense, jazz is definitely American 'culture', Shakespeare is British culture, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are Indian culture, and let me put my neck out, Hollywood and Bollywood (as they represent styles of film-making or story-telling) are aspects of American and Indian cultures respectively. Compare the effects of Shakespeare on Hollywood or even the Ramayana and Mahabharata on Bollywood and you see why LA, and even NY, or for that matter Mumbai, Calcutta or Chennai, cannot count as 'legendary'.



Pour more effort into Bollywood! You've already flipped Sikkim. That's a start already. :goodjob:
That's only the Hindi movie industry!
Wait till we unleash Kollywood (Tamil), Tollywood (Telugu), and a whole range of other 'woods' including Sandalwood! (Kannada) on the world and soon you'll be going 'Cruise who?!'

Its begun with Japan...;)

We'll flip Pakistan, but they have too many troops in the cities;)

Los Angeles, as I said, is included as proxy for Hollywood, which is certainly legendary status (in game terms, because America dumped about twelve culture bombs there, not to mention the +50% from Hollywood).

New York, well, you hit the nail head-on, Plotinus. It's the background to about half the American movies ever made. People KNOW about New York. The New York skyline has got to be among the most famous in the world, and names such as "Empire States Building", "Statue of Liberty", "Times Square", "Wall Street", "Central Park" and "World Trade Center" (BEFORE it got blown up, I mean) are known the world over. New York adds on to that several well-known museums, etc.

So yes, I think if any towns in the United States qualifies for Legendary Culture (as per the civ meaning), New York is one of them.

If the European Union becomes a federal state by 2050, it will obtain a cultural victory if it is allowed to have all the culture points European cities have been ratcheting up for the last 2,500 years.

I think most Americans would be a bit chary about seeing Madonna or Michael Jackson as representatives of culture. They are actually the +1 happiness you get from Rock n' Roll;).

Agreed, except that Madonna and Michael Jackson aren't anything like Rock 'n' Roll, they're pop/rock. Completely different!

I always thought that Civ III should have distinguished between the reach of culture and its depth. On that reading, the culture of LA has great reach but no depth to speak of, while the culture of Venice has great depth but much less reach (these days).

Agreed, except that Madonna and Michael Jackson aren't anything like Rock 'n' Roll, they're pop/rock. Completely different!

I always thought that Civ III should have distinguished between the reach of culture and its depth. On that reading, the culture of LA has great reach but no depth to speak of, while the culture of Venice has great depth but much less reach (these days).


If you ask me "rock and roll" itself ought to be a National Wonder since many nations have influenced the growth of worldwide music, finding popularity in countries other than USA and Europe as well. The popularity of Bhangra in Britain, or of Reggae or Sufi music in countries outside their origin...show that while 'Rock n' Roll' was probably the biggest, it is not necessarily the only Music industry to have had an international following. Same goes for movies, and perhaps Broadway as well..

No. Even speculation with such thing is ridiculous which might make it fun though for some.

And my vote goes to the Vatican.

You can argue about irrelevant things all you want and try to ignore the fact that NORWAY WON A DIPLOMATIC VICTORY BACK IN 1946.

And since we stop counting points after a "Civ" wins, it means that all that has happend since 1946 is irrelevant for the score.

So hah

You can argue about irrelevant things all you want and try to ignore the fact that NORWAY WON A DIPLOMATIC VICTORY BACK IN 1946.

And since we stop counting points after a "Civ" wins, it means that all that has happend since 1946 is irrelevant for the score.

So hah

Only if you go by the clearly inferior Civ3 victory conditions :rolleyes:

;)

Inferior to what? In Civ1 you could only win by conquering the entire world or flying to Alpha Centauri, and no-one's done that yet.

I'm vaguely aware that there are Civ games other than 1 and 3, but they don't impinge much on my personal world...