Pick which civs you would like in Colonization II (this is hypothetical).

Please post? Please?? :please:

Because you asked nicely :D ;)

Portugal, Denmark-Norway and Sweden. Perhaps some german state (not HRE). Ottomans would be interesting addition but would be lot of work to implement with their different culture and religion. Western christian kings would pay to have the infidels destroyed tought :p

Problem with adding russia is that they could in theory started colonisation early in 18th centrury at the earliest.

Always wondered why Portugal were never in Colonization meself.

The early clinker built caravels with tar , moss , roves and tree nails have almost vanished into history.

Voted for All except for Holy Rome. They never colonized the world

I also voted for other because of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland_colonization), This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_colonization_of_the_Americas), and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_colonization_of_the_Americas)

Germany did colonize as well, but it was Brandenburg and later united Germany not Holy Rome.

Also why did you include the Arabs? If there in, then you might as well include Polynesia as well. (which wouldn't be a bad idea actually).

Wow. I never knew Scotland tried to found a colony in Nova Scotia.

Though it does seem somewhat obvious now (Nova Scotia=New Scotland).

Wow. I never knew Scotland tried to found a colony in Nova Scotia.

Though it does seem somewhat obvious now (Nova Scotia=New Scotland).

:D i wonder how the world would be if scotland actually made and kept a colony in Panama...

Mayans with kilts!

Highlanders in the lowlands!

Cacao with haggis!

Portugal. They did colonize quite a lot of the New World. ;)

The original misses Portugal as a great colonial power.

If colonization were to extend further in time, say up to 1800's then I'd be happy to see Russia, coming from the East and perhaps some German settlers too (Danish, Scotts, Irish and other opressed people incl. ;) )

Always wondered why Portugal were never in Colonization meself.

Because Colonization focussed chiefly on North American colonization, and Portugal played no real part in it. Their New World colonies were all in South America.

Wow. I never knew Scotland tried to found a colony in Nova Scotia.

Though it does seem somewhat obvious now (Nova Scotia=New Scotland).

Scotland and England were united under the same king, so it was actually a British colony, just like New England.

I think all of the civs which were powerful in Renaissance times would be good, for alternative history and replayability purposes. Some countries such as China probably could have colonised America and competed with the Europeans, they just didn't want to for some reason.
Two civs I'm not sure about: Arabs and Vikings. I voted for Arabs, but then I thought that perhaps they shouldn't be in because they weren't that powerful by the Renaissance era, but other Muslim countries such as Mali were still quite rich. As for Vikings, although they did set up some colonies in America, they were much earlier than the rest of the other colonies and died out just as the other European colonies were starting off. Either they would be really weak and primitive in the game and have no chance of winning, or there would be silly anachronistic units combining horned helmets and beards with rifles and brightly-coloured coats.

Defiantly Portugal and Russia. Maybe Venice and Sweden

there would be silly anachronistic units combining horned helmets and beards with rifles and brightly-coloured coats.
That I would like to see :D

Playing as Russians would make a completely different feeling of Colonization:

Landing on the west coast, co-operating with the natives, not meeting fellow Europeans for a short period...

I'd go for it!

Spain, England, France and the Dutch.

Because if the Col designers didn't expand the number of playable civilizations, they probably have a very good reason for doing so.

PORTUGAL!
You can't have a game about colonization without PORTUGAL! :D

Iberia FTW!

Playing as Russians would make a completely different feeling of Colonization:

Landing on the west coast, co-operating with the natives, not meeting fellow Europeans for a short period...

I'd go for it!

The problem with Russia is that if left with no real competition for land they would likely win every game.

As such you'd also have to simulate that to support their Alaskan colony, they had to move across Asia - which itself was in the process of being colonised. Furthermore you'd also have to simulate that each winter Russia often only had limited access to the ocean as it's ports were often frozen over.

I suspect you'd have to have very limited cross production (influencing the number of colonists that are spawned), and perhaps have to pay a mark-up for training/recruiting colonists and would also have to pay transportation taxes on goods sold in 'Europe' to represent the need to shift them from Russia's Asian coast to Europe.

Although only independent since 1830, Belgium might also be a country to include. It colonised a great part of central Africa in the late 1800s...

Well this game is going to be mod-able, just like the regular Civ 4, so we'll probably see most, if not all of these civilizations within a few months after release.

Wow. I never knew Scotland tried to found a colony in Nova Scotia.

Though it does seem somewhat obvious now (Nova Scotia=New Scotland).

It wasn't tried. We did found the colony. However outbreak of plague and lack of funds back in Scotland saw those efforts fold.

I would like to see Scotland, if only to replicate that! :lol:

I think all of the civs which were powerful in Renaissance times would be good, for alternative history and replayability purposes. Some countries such as China probably could have colonised America and competed with the Europeans, they just didn't want to for some reason.


The Ming Chinese didn't because their court officials emphasize on domestic affairs and were too busy with the power struggle. After Admiral Zheng He's voyage, they were too turned off by the huge expenditure that they burnt the log books and never returned to the ocean again.


...

I also voted for other because of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland_colonization), This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_colonization_of_the_Americas), and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_colonization_of_the_Americas)


How about the Welsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoc)? :lol:

I concur with Soneji. They still talk funny in Nova Scotia, even compared to the rest of the Canadians!

The original Colonization was ALL of the America's, and the Spanish were ALONE on the southern continent, so it definitely needs the Portugese to balance game play, for sure.

We can't have the Welsh in it!! They had an appointment with Rorke's Drift in Natal.....

Portugal is really only one that fits, Sweden would be next. Sweden did colonize and found Delaware.

LOL Learn history btw. Vikings were done by 1400s (Denmark and Sweden where the powers there). Arabs where under the thumb of the Ottomans. Wales was controlled by England and Scotland was during time of King James and by 1700s it was the United Kingdom so Scotland would be pointless and should be put under England.

Portugal is a must be, shame on Firaxis.

Sweden is indeed a second one, the invaded the Dutch colony (and lost it to)

LOL Learn history btw. Vikings were done by 1400s (Denmark and Sweden where the powers there). Arabs where under the thumb of the Ottomans. Wales was controlled by England and Scotland was during time of King James and by 1700s it was the United Kingdom so Scotland would be pointless and should be put under England.

lol historical accuracy for the win eh? :lol: what ever.

I think your the one who needs to go back and revisit the history books.

Niether has Scotland ever had any kind of control of the Welsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_colonization_of_the_Americas

Always wondered why Portugal were never in Colonization meself.

The official reason they gave was that the histories of Portuguese and Spanish colonization were very similar, and Portugal and Spain were even united for a long time.

That's a pretty bad reason in my opinion. They still had different foreign policies and different city-names and that's reason enough to have them in in my opinion.

Either they would be really weak and primitive in the game and have no chance of winning, or there would be silly anachronistic units combining horned helmets and beards with rifles and brightly-coloured coats.

No horns on viking helmets! (:viking: = :mad: Kark!)

Well, modern scientists don't believe vikings used metal helmets at all ... (Only for ceremonial purposes, or as a show off - but that would've made you an easy target in battle.)

But why not make a time line based version of Colonization, like Rhye's and fall of civilization? The Vikings could get an early but difficult start. And the Inuits, a couple of hundred years earlier.

The original Colonization was ALL of the America's, and the Spanish were ALONE on the southern continent, so it definitely needs the Portugese to balance game play, for sure.

The Dutch colonized Suriname, which is the name of the independent country you found if you win as the Dutch in the original "Colonization". And the French have Cayenne to this day. Admittedly, that is small potatoes, and I think Portugal should be included in a future version. And though Sweden's colony on the Delaware did not last long, the settlers stayed on and did have an impact on what would one day be the United States. For one thing, they are credited with introducing the log cabin, that American icon for pioneer life, which was a familiar type of building in Sweden and Finland but completely unknown in England, the Netherlands, France and Spain. I wouldn't mind the Rurussians being included either. Let them be alone for a while but have some disadvantages in terms of few immigrants, long trade routes and so on.

Because Colonization focussed chiefly on North American colonization, and Portugal played no real part in it. Their New World colonies were all in South America.

That's correct. The strange thing that the historical map covered all of America, and it was strange not to see the portuguese there.

I voted for other mainly because I don''t think there sould be another civ. The four listed are just fine, this game is not Civilization. Remember the end goal is Independence from the mother Country. Portugal was never really in a position to achieve this with their colonies. The politics in Portugual never allowed them to develop their colonies or put them in a real place of defending them. It isn't worth bringing in the other countries into the scenario, they just don't fit. As for the natives, there never was a chance for them to compete with the Europeans and they really can't be played in this scenario either.

Because Colonization focussed chiefly on North American colonization, and Portugal played no real part in it. Their New World colonies were all in South America.

So they are selling a game about colonizing half of a continent! The Equator should be the bottom end of the map, then! :lol:

Because if the Col designers didn't expand the number of playable civilizations, they probably have a very good reason for doing so.

The only excuse I can imagine for ignoring Portugal is lazyness... And a huge amount of historical ignorance...

Come on, Firaxis! 80 votes for the inclusion of Portugal... and counting!

Cheers,

Mad Hab

The politics in Portugual never allowed them to develop their colonies or put them in a real place of defending them.

Sorry friend, what you are saying is absolute nonsense. The Portuguese expelled the French and the Dutch from Brazil twice, each. In fact, those two countries weren't strong enough to take Brazil from Portugal!

Cheers,

Mad Hab

Actually, I think I read somewhere that Portugal wasn't included in the original Colonization because slavery wasn't included as well, and the Portuguese colonial economy was engineered around it.

Sorry friend, what you are saying is absolute nonsense. The Portuguese expelled the French and the Dutch from Brazil twice, each. In fact, those two countries weren't strong enough to take Brazil from Portugal!

Cheers,

Mad Hab

Not to mention the vital importance Brazil had in the development of the sugar industry and gold mining. In fact, the Dutch learned the skills to produce sugar in their invasion of northeastern Brazil. But who knows, Firaxis may make an expansion that includes Portugal :D

I wouldnt like that Colonization would make new civs. Old are enough, but if something have to say id take Russia.

No horns on viking helmets! (:viking: = :mad: Kark!)

Well, modern scientists don't believe vikings used metal helmets at all ... (Only for ceremonial purposes, or as a show off - but that would've made you an easy target in battle.)

But why not make a time line based version of Colonization, like Rhye's and fall of civilization? The Vikings could get an early but difficult start. And the Inuits, a couple of hundred years earlier.
I know Vikings didn't really put horns on their helmets, but Firaxis apparently thinks so, judging by the Berserker unit. I can just imagine what they would make a Viking rifleman look like... :(

I always thought that Portugal wasn't included because of difficulty of simulating the effects of the treaty of Tordesillas

I would like to have mainly France, England, Spain, Portugal, Dutch.

Sweden and Denmark could be intressting to, even if they were just minor players. The whole thing depends on how they make the game. Just american colonization or africa and asia colonization as well.

Then maybe Italy, Russia and Germany too, as they had large colonies in africa/asia, but in the industrial age...

If they make the game as the first one, starting out in 1492 and ending around 1800 (?, i dont remember) and in america, then Germany, Russia and Italy cannot be in the game.

I will watch this game creation process with big hope. Colonization was really one of the best game of the 90's.

Niether has Scotland ever had any kind of control of the Welsh.


Erm, not true. King James I / VI held the both the Crown of Scotland and the Crown of England, and with the latter went Wales. He was Scottish.

"I always thought that Portugal wasn't included because of difficulty of simulating the effects of the treaty of Tordesillas"

? so what? The treaty divided the world between portugal and spain, and it didn't lasted for too long... In the game I guess spain can colonize north america and england can focus on brazil, why then is it a problem the division between east and west and not north and south?

In america portugal colonized brazil and urugai was disputed between portugal and spain for a long time. Portugal and Spain shared the same king between 1580 and 1640 but with separated crowns so the king was Phillipe II of Spain and Pillipe I of Portugal. So Iberia was united for 60 years we may say.

We all agree portugal is a must have, it's hard to ignore Brazil...

Other than portugal i would vote for sweden, they were the only power with some interests and power to colonize america. The germans we're too concerned about europe, and the russians were alreading expanding and colonizing in the east. The italians were divided and it would be hard to organize such an expedition, and the ottomans were allways having trouble trying to keep their empire united.

What is truly a must have is to be able to play as the precolombian native civs and tribes. Back in Colonization I have always wanted to take command of these limited, yet very powerful, parties. Specially the three great precolombian empires (Mayans the most). Sometimes you could find up to 13 solid big Incan or Aztec city Pyramids.. that was big civ, haha!!

So my vote goes for these civs to be included as playable parties. Imagine the posibilities..

If there's going to be alternate history, it should be a mod or scenario, not part of the core game. Otherwise, the game would just be another Civ4.

I was choosing Spanish or Dutch in old days and I do not think they will add any other civilization from original 4 civs. If they think to add they can add Portugal firstly.

If there's going to be alternate history, it should be a mod or scenario, not part of the core game. Otherwise, the game would just be another Civ4.

Wake up dude, this games are all about alternate history...

...it should be a mod or scenario...

I didn't totally disregard it.

Sweden? No no no!
Denmark would be much better and they actually had an overseas empire and colonized the Faroes, Iceland, Greenland and some islands in the Caribbean. That means their colonial empire in the Americas was actually bigger than for example the Dutch one, even though it wasn't as important :)

Denmark (including Norway of course) with a exploration bonus that has something to do with icy areas; exploring Antarctica Roald Amundsen (even though that was later), North pole, Bering Strait is named after the Danish navigator Vitus Bering. The leader would probably be King Christian IV..

If you only have the large ones then France, Spain, England, Holland and Portugal BUT
I would like to see:
France, Spain, England, Holland, Portugal, Denmark, maybe Russia and the pirates of the Ottoman empire :D

Portugal is a good addition. Yes, there is the argument that Portugal was in South America and Colonization focuses on North America, but the Inca are one of the native tribes in the game, so I think Portugal works just fine.

Russia, maybe. They did have SOME colonies on the west coast, but they really are not essential.

The rest, :vomit:. Firaxis not trying to recreate Civ4.

Why was Venice included in this list? Did they have anything to do with the Americas other than being adversely affected by its discovery?

Sweden? No no no!
Denmark would be much better and they actually had an overseas empire and colonized the Faroes, Iceland, Greenland and some islands in the Caribbean. That means their colonial empire in the Americas was actually bigger than for example the Dutch one, even though it wasn't as important :)

Indeed not, especially since Iceland and the Faroes are not in America and Greenland is almost entirely covered by ice and snow. It wasn't exactly a flourishing colony.

Denmark's "empire" in the Caribbean - now the American Virgin Islands - was almost as piffling as St. Barthelemy, the Swedish colony there. But the Swedes did found the first settlement on the Delaware; it covered parts of the present-day states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

The only country iI really miss in the new Colonization game is Portugal, and I can live without it.

Portugal of course :D

Greenland still is offically part of north america and colonization did happen there but it was not exactly big. Russia and Sweeden and all the others should be minor civs like the native tribes. Portugal on the other hand landed in south america and held it, radically changeing things, historically accurate or not portugal should be included if only for varitys sake

Indeed not, especially since Iceland and the Faroes are not in America and Greenland is almost entirely covered by ice and snow. It wasn't exactly a flourishing colony.

Denmark's "empire" in the Caribbean - now the American Virgin Islands - was almost as piffling as St. Barthelemy, the Swedish colony there. But the Swedes did found the first settlement on the Delaware; it covered parts of the present-day states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

The only country iI really miss in the new Colonization game is Portugal, and I can live without it.

Bahh you're right man. I'm too biased :D

Erm, not true. King James I / VI held the both the Crown of Scotland and the Crown of England, and with the latter went Wales. He was Scottish.

Scottish control of the crown yes, political control over the Welsh nation no, that has always resided in Westminster.

But Westminster was controlled by a Scot

change venice to italy , actually all these are good civs to play with

BTW ,stop racism , Vote for the china , in honor of Zheng He

BTW ,stop racism , Vote for the china , in honor of Zheng He
Zheng He's discovery of the Americas is not really agreed upon by historians. But China certainly did have the capacity to settle the Americas if they wanted to.

When I think about colonization of America I generally think about Europeans. It has a certain "style" to it.

He's still a great navigator and by the way , they would have probably joined the colonization if they(emperors) all had this ideas in mind

I realize that... but precisely because he did not we did not see a massive Chinese colonization of the Pacific or other areas, just European one.

He's still a great navigator and by the way , they would have probably joined the colonization if they(emperors) all had this ideas in mind
Problem is, China weren't the most outward-thinking power. They had a huge empire and were the most advanced civilisation in the world. What more could they want?

The Spanish, on the other hand, had been fighting the Moors for centuries and had finally defeated them. They had little good land and their people resented them. The also had a massive army, and needed something to use it on. The primitive Americas were the perfect target.

change venice to italy , actually all these are good civs to play with

Italy did not exist. City-states existed in its stead, Venice being one of them. Modern Italy came about in the 1800s.

I always wondered how you could make a story of American colonization without Portugal... it is almost a History of Europe without France or England.

I think the portugese should definitley be included. If I had to pick more, I would actually say the Germans and Belgians. That way colonization of Africa scenarios could be played.

I realize that... but precisely because he did not we did not see a massive Chinese colonization of the Pacific or other areas, just European one.

But isn't the whole civ4 game , a what if situation

But isn't the whole civ4 game , a what if situation

Well, my main argument is that "Colonization" is about Europeans settling in the Americas. I could see the Chinese being in the expansion or an add-on, but having them in the main game, in a way, destroys the "feel" of it (largely because you want to replay a certain historical period).
I am Russian and I would like, for example, for Russian colonists to appear in the East around say 1600's, but I know that it is not historical, even though colonization of Siberia could happen twice as fast.

Look , no more arguments . But Firaxis should have been more specific , Or they should expanded it to Asia , Africa etc

OK, roger man :lol: ;)

PERSIA!! so I can colonize all of Central Asia. :) Like the old days.

I'd want Sweden, Russia, Portugal, and the Vikings included, because they've all had colonial stakes in the Americas. Just my choices.

Remember the end goal is Independence from the mother Country. Portugal was never really in a position to achieve this with their colonies. The politics in Portugual never allowed them to develop their colonies or put them in a real place of defending them.

You could say the same thing about France then. After all, New France wasn't seen as anything more than a source of furs, and had very little colonization compared to other countries (there were only about 70,000 people in New France at the Conquest- and over a million in the American Colonies, which covered much less area).

Erm, not true. King James I / VI held the both the Crown of Scotland and the Crown of England, and with the latter went Wales. He was Scottish.

I actually meant that England controlled Scotland and Wales, he misread my sentence but since James did control both Scotland and England and Wales and Ireland were apart of England then Scotland controlled Wales as well lol.

Actually I think Scotland colonization should be lumped under England since they joined in 1707 anyways.

Well you ask, I have answered. PORTUGAL!!! PORTUGAL!!!

Remember the end goal is Independence from the mother Country. Portugal was never really in a position to achieve this with their colonies. The politics in Portugual never allowed them to develop their colonies or put them in a real place of defending them.
:lol:

I think you are seeing things completely reversed, my friend.... Just not to go very far from the Americas, it was the effort of the Portuguese colonists, allied to freed slaves and indians , that drove the Dutch out of Brazil, in a effort pretty similar to the the one that the future USA England colonies did against the Quebec French. And the Indenpendence of Brazil was virtually painless, indicating that they were more than prepared to get indenpendence..... In fact , for 15 years Rio de Janeiro ( Brazil ) was the Portuguese capital ;) ( BTW I do not recall any kind of English effort to prepare any of their colonies for the independence ever .... but I never saw that kind of argument turned against them )

Another case of ignorance of history, I'm afraid....

The only reason that Brazil was independent nonviolently was Napoleon! Napoleon is hardly a natural phenomenon.

And King George III was some kind of hurricane, right ? ;)

How exactly could non-European civs be included? Isn't the whole thing about colonization of the Americas? Then I would go with Russia and Portugal. I would add Belgium, Germany and Italy if the game where to expand into Africa, as well as the Japanese and Qing Dynasty if the game where to expand into Asia.

EDIT: It might also be fun to play as the Iroquois, Sioux, Cherokee, Inuit, Aztecs, Mayans, Inca, etc. and fight back the Europeans, or even colonize Europe!

Saim - that's more Civ then Col

Definitely portugal
Not tham i'm a portuguese.
But portugal is really important in history

The problem with Russia is that if left with no real competition for land they would likely win every game.

As such you'd also have to simulate that to support their Alaskan colony, they had to move across Asia - which itself was in the process of being colonised. Furthermore you'd also have to simulate that each winter Russia often only had limited access to the ocean as it's ports were often frozen over.

I suspect you'd have to have very limited cross production (influencing the number of colonists that are spawned), and perhaps have to pay a mark-up for training/recruiting colonists and would also have to pay transportation taxes on goods sold in 'Europe' to represent the need to shift them from Russia's Asian coast to Europe.

I always sailed around the world and set-up my colonies on the western side of the new world so that I wouldn't have to worry about the other nations. Besides, the Incans and Aztecs were richer.

The idea that Col was all about North America can't be true. The original game always included a southern hemisphere and Spain and the Incas and Aztecs and Tupis.

Sweden had a colony in africa, Ghana:D

Portugal for sure. Including Denmark, Sweden and Russia would make historical sense also - and make the total # of playable civs a clean binary 8. ;)

Because you asked nicely :D ;)

Portugal, Denmark-Norway and Sweden. Perhaps some german state (not HRE). Ottomans would be interesting addition but would be lot of work to implement with their different culture and religion. Western christian kings would pay to have the infidels destroyed tought :p

Problem with adding russia is that they could in theory started colonisation early in 18th centrury at the earliest.

I agree... couldn't say it any better myself hehe...

Saim - that's more Civ then Col
That's what I was thinking. I don't see how people can suggest the Qing, Japanese, Ottomans, etc. when its all about colonizing the Americas.

I voted for Portugal, Sweden, and other.

My other is Courland!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courland_colonization_of_the_Americas

Portugal certainly. Russia, Sweden, Courland would all be interesting.
An alternative history scenario with the Chinese, Norse, Celts etc would be fun.

... Courland ...Huh? What is that?

Huh? What is that?

Courland was a duchy and part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It had a colony on Tobago for brief periods of the 17th century. Possibly a country for die-hard players as support from the homeland would be minimal :D

The problem with Russia is that if left with no real competition for land they would likely win every game.



Not true. China had a giant navy in the 1400s. They could have easily colonized the New World, much easier then Russia.

Portugal should have been included for sure. It was a major power in America, even if they kept to Brazil. I would NOT like to see the Romans or other weird choices like them. My list would be prioritised like this:

Portugal (Brazil)
Denmark-Norway (US Virgin Islands)
Russia (Alaska and the west coast of North America)
Sweden (Delaware)
Courland (Tobago)
Scotland (Nova Scotia and New Jersey)

The Welsh didn't have a nation state to govern them in the way the others did, and Belgium and the Ottomans kept to other parts of the world. Germany entered the scene far too late for the game, and Italy even later. As for Venice, while I'm sure they would have loved to take part in the colonisation, they never managed to do so. In fact, Genova would be a better choice, since they had colonies of a sort in Crimea. Bavaria had a very short-lived colony in America, but it wasn't established by Bavarian settlers, so it doesn't count.

Portugal. It's pretty pathetic that the European country who first started the rush of exploration, and whose colony (Brazil) is the 2nd most populated in the Americas and the 5th most populated and 5th largest in the world is not in the game.

Another vote for Portugal. Their non-inclusion was the one thing that spoiled the original for me, I mean compared to the impact of Holland in the New World its not even a contest, not that Holland shouldn't be in of course.

I'm not too annoyed that their not going to be in the remake, A Portugal civ is likely to be one of the first modpacks made for it.

The idea of colonization, specifically in the western hemisphere, really only applied to a few powers, and certainly few of them listed above in the poll. Venice? Arabs? HRE? Historically silly.

Portugal would be the only appropriate civ to add to Colonization, for all the reasons already mentioned in many of these wonderful posts.

Sweden's colonies were around for 17 years on the Delaware, before being taken over by the Dutch.

The idea of colonization, specifically in the western hemisphere, really only applied to a few powers, and certainly few of them listed above in the poll. Venice? Arabs? HRE? Historically silly.

Portugal would be the only appropriate civ to add to Colonization, for all the reasons already mentioned in many of these wonderful posts.

Sweden's colonies were around for 17 years on the Delaware, before being taken over by the Dutch.

But Denmark-Norway had their colonies for a long time, and made some serious money from them.

But Denmark-Norway had their colonies for a long time, and made some serious money from them.

Yes, I suppose this is true. When we say Denmark/Norway, we're talking about their colonies in Iceland, Greenland, and where else? Money is one thing, but the English, Portuguese, French, and Spanish colonial empires attracted not only merchants and small-scale migration, but huge shifts in population that ensured language spread and dominance on a much greater scale. I would agree that yes, the game probably would be a little more dynamic and interesting with more "Civs", or "Cols"... and would benefit from not just the addition of Portugal/Brazil, but maybe one additional power? I could see that being maybe a mesh of the Scandinavian countries, which is vague. But at least that would encompass Swedish activities - however brief, historically - in the picture, along with Iceland & Greenland and what ever other minute colonies the Scandinavians inhabited.

Yes, I suppose this is true. When we say Denmark/Norway, we're talking about their colonies in Iceland, Greenland, and where else? Money is one thing, but the English, Portuguese, French, and Spanish colonial empires attracted not only merchants and small-scale migration, but huge shifts in population that ensured language spread and dominance on a much greater scale. I would agree that yes, the game probably would be a little more dynamic and interesting with more "Civs", or "Cols"... and would benefit from not just the addition of Portugal/Brazil, but maybe one additional power? I could see that being maybe a mesh of the Scandinavian countries, which is vague. But at least that would encompass Swedish activities - however brief, historically - in the picture, along with Iceland & Greenland and what ever other minute colonies the Scandinavians inhabited.

OK, a short clarification is in order, I guess. :)

Iceland was never a colony in the normal sense - it was uninhabited when Norse farmers settled there, and the island was a pretty integral part of Norway, along with the Faroe Islands and Shetland, right up until Norway was given to Sweden after the Napoleonic Wars. Greenland, OTOH, did not really have successful settlements until fairly recently. But it IS still part of America, and the settlements there were quite colony-like. That aside, Denmark-Norway settled what today are the US Virgin Islands, as well as placing trading posts in Africa and India. The scale might have been smaller that that of, say, the Dutch, but the country was a colonial power for sure. The people living in the Virgin Islands today are not Norwegian or Danish speakers, but you'll find plenty of Norwegian speakers in other parts of North America, and the names of the towns on the islands are very much Danish (Charlotte Amalie, Christiansted, Fredriksted).

i chose portugal but russia definetley deserves a look in aswell as sweden.

Why limit itself to the Americas? (and yes, they should certainly have Portugal AT THE LEAST for the American scenario). Why not have the Scramble for Africa? Or a colonization of India scenario?

Because Colonization focussed chiefly on North American colonization, and Portugal played no real part in it. Their New World colonies were all in South America.

The original game included Spain, the Aztecs, Incas and Tupi. I wouldn't call that focusing chiefly on N. America. The omission of Portugal is the biggest gap that needs to be filled IMO.



Scotland and England were united under the same king, so it was actually a British colony, just like New England.

When the Scots tried to colonise Darien in the 17th century England and Scotland were seperate nations despite having the same king. The English refused to cooperate with the Scottish colonisation attempt due to trade rivalries.

In my opinion the four countries in the original game represent the most powerful seafaring nations of that period fairly well. Adding more civilizations would probably only dilute the diplomatic aspect of the game and Firaxis probably has more good reasons not to add extra civs. So I'd say none.

In my opinion the four countries in the original game represent the most powerful seafaring nations of that period fairly well. Adding more civilizations would probably only dilute the diplomatic aspect of the game and Firaxis probably has more good reasons not to add extra civs. So I'd say none.
If you really think that the game can't have more than four civs, then they should remove the Netherlands and replace it with Portugal. Portugal did much more in colonizing the Americas than the Netherlands, whose colonies do not even compare to that of Brazil.

If you really think that the game can't have more than four civs, then they should remove the Netherlands and replace it with Portugal. Portugal did much more in colonizing the Americas than the Netherlands, whose colonies do not even compare to that of Brazil.

Except your argument is flawed since the Netherlands settled half of Brazil (their South American capital was Recife for a long time) and a large chunk of what is now known as New York. ;)

Aside from the fact that most of the Antilles islands were split between France and Netherlands.

So they did their fair share of colonising.

The Dutch did their share of colonization but Portugal's was definenatly longer lasting. The areas which you mentioned, Brazil and New York were lost to Portugal and Britian respetivley, and Portugal greatly expanded its control over Brazil. In regards to the Antilles, the Dutch played a much smaller role when compared to to the French and British. They may of had some islands, but France's Saint Dominique (Haiti) and Britian's Jamiaca and Barabados were the jewls of the carribean.

Even if Portugal had a successful colony in Brazil, the Dutch were a lot more involved in the European in-fighting. The Portuguese were, by the Treaty of Tordesillas, restriced to settle Brazil, and actually honoured that treaty. The Dutch were at least as successful as France as long as the country remained a major player in European affairs, but dwindled in the end because of other events. If historical accuracy is the goal, both nations, along with Denmark-Norway, should be in, but Portugal should have restriction as to where to settle. Which would, of course, be hard to implement - and make for a less interesting game for the Portuguese player.

Pick which civs you would like in Colonization II (this is hypothetical).

I would seriously like to take the role of those whose land they invaded... like the native Americans, the Aztec, Iroquois and basically the victim of colonization

I´d really love to see my neightbours (I´m spanish) in the game so well, my vote goes for Portugal. ;)

In my opinion the four countries in the original game represent the most powerful seafaring nations of that period fairly well. Adding more civilizations would probably only dilute the diplomatic aspect of the game and Firaxis probably has more good reasons not to add extra civs. So I'd say none.

Portugal had a mighty colonial empire, not least in the Americas. They were definitely more important in the New World as a whole than the Dutch.

In the manual for the original "Colonization" they mentioned that they had considered including Portugal but didn't because they thought. Perhaps they thought Portugal would be too similar too Spain. Actually, it wouldn't have been since Portugal also had colonies in Africa and was very active in the slave trade. But I suppose the people at Microprose felt that including slavery would mean opening a can of worms. In a way, that's a little strange, since they couldn't help but include the extermination of Indians, and since the creation of the New World also emphatically involved slavery. But there it was.

It may also have had something to do with game balance . And ethinc considerations: not that many American gamers of Portuguese ancestry, or Portuguese ones in Europe, to be heedful of in those days.

haha: would love to see portugal in this game: prob didnt add it earlier cause the portuguese only colonised sth america, and the game is mainly based on nth america isnt it?: btw: if theres such an overwhemling support for portugal, shouldn't they add it into the game?, or do they have to make a mini-expansion for civ colonisation?

Portugal had a mighty colonial empire, not least in the Americas. They were definitely more important in the New World as a whole than the Dutch.

In the manual for the original "Colonization" they mentioned that they had considered including Portugal but didn't because they thought. Perhaps they thought Portugal would be too similar too Spain. Actually, it wouldn't have been since Portugal also had colonies in Africa and was very active in the slave trade. But I suppose the people at Microprose felt that including slavery would mean opening a can of worms. In a way, that's a little strange, since they couldn't help but include the extermination of Indians, and since the creation of the New World also emphatically involved slavery. But there it was.

It may also have had something to do with game balance . And ethinc considerations: not that many American gamers of Portuguese ancestry, or Portuguese ones in Europe, to be heedful of in those days.

Portugal was united with Spain for a considerable period of the game's time span. After that period Portugal was neither a big player in the European political field, nor had it's colony a large influence economically. Calling this empire mighty grossly overstates its importance.

The game merely fields the greatest seafaring powers of the time in a struggle for the New World. Sure, The Netherlands claim on present colonies is small compared Portugal's claim, Brazil. The fact is, however, that Portugal was never in any large conflict with one of the other European powers at the time. It is likely that if the Netherlands hadn't played such a major role in the political conflicts of the time, Brazil probably wouldn't even speak portuguese nowadays, as the French and English attempts at colonizing Barzil would have been far more successful.

Furthermore I doubt leaving out the concept of slavery was the reason for leaving out Portugal, Everyone, including The Netherlands, dabbled in slave trading at the time. I also doubt the ancestry of the would-be buyers of the game played any role in including the Netherlands and not Portugal. If they wanted to sell the game it would have made more sense to include Germany or Italy, a lot more people of that Ancestry in the Americas then those of Dutch ancestry.

I, in conclusion, maintain that the four powers included in the game simply represent the most powerful seafaring nations, although in present times the cultural impact on the Americas of some of these nations may seem less than that of Portugal.

Portugal was united with Spain for a considerable period of the game's time span. After that period Portugal was neither a big player in the European political field, nor had it's colony a large influence economically. Calling this empire mighty grossly overstates its importance.

The game merely fields the greatest seafaring powers of the time in a struggle for the New World. Sure, The Netherlands claim on present colonies is small compared Portugal's claim, Brazil. The fact is, however, that Portugal was never in any large conflict with one of the other European powers at the time. It is likely that if the Netherlands hadn't played such a major role in the political conflicts of the time, Brazil probably wouldn't even speak portuguese nowadays, as the French and English attempts at colonizing Barzil would have been far more successful.

Furthermore I doubt leaving out the concept of slavery was the reason for leaving out Portugal, Everyone, including The Netherlands, dabbled in slave trading at the time. I also doubt the ancestry of the would-be buyers of the game played any role in including the Netherlands and not Portugal. If they wanted to sell the game it would have made more sense to include Germany or Italy, a lot more people of that Ancestry in the Americas then those of Dutch ancestry.

I, in conclusion, maintain that the four powers included in the game simply represent the most powerful seafaring nations, although in present times the cultural impact on the Americas of some of these nations may seem less than that of Portugal.

Thank you very much for saying this, Kublai_Khan, this is exactly how I feel. :D It seems like Portugal is an influential player at the game's beginning (because of exploration and founding early colonies in South America), but after that there's really nothing going on with them in the New World.

@ Kubali Khan
The consinerable period of time which you suggested Portugal was under Spanish rule was 60 yeras from 1580-1640. The Netherlands declared independence from Spain in 1579. As the time range of colonization is aproximlatley from 1500-1800 that means the Dutch were actually under Spanish rule like than the Portuguese. The Portuguese were not weak as the defeated the Netherlands in the Dutch Portugese war of the early 17th century which kicked the Dutch out of Brazil. I don't understand how you don't consinder the Portuguese among the great sefearing powers if they had colonies in South America, Africa, and Asia, which obviously required a powerful navy to protect them

Though the Portuguese may have not been in many conflicts as their European counterparts it was not a sign of Portuguese millitary weakness, but rather smart diplomicy. Portugal allied with both France and Britian, and the kicked the Dutch out of the picture allowing them to colonize Brazil in peace.

You also claim that Portugal did not have a colony that was important finanically but that clearly was not that case. During the late 17th and early 18th century gold and latter diamonds were found in Brazil creating massive wealth for Portugal. Besides that Brazil was a large coffe and sugar exporter and had a diverse economy unlike many other colonies. Besides that, what important colony did the Dutch have? New York was lost to Great Britian so they were left with a few Carribean islands, which were econmicially insignafigant when compared to the French and British islands.

I see no good reason why Portugal was not included.

@ Kubali Khan
The consinerable period of time which you suggested Portugal was under Spanish rule was 60 yeras from 1580-1640. The Netherlands declared independence from Spain in 1579. As the time range of colonization is aproximlatley from 1500-1800 that means the Dutch were actually under Spanish rule like than the Portuguese. The Portuguese were not weak as the defeated the Netherlands in the Dutch Portugese war of the early 17th century which kicked the Dutch out of Brazil. I don't understand how you don't consinder the Portuguese among the great sefearing powers if they had colonies in South America, Africa, and Asia, which obviously required a powerful navy to protect them

Though the Portuguese may have not been in many conflicts as their European counterparts it was not a sign of Portuguese millitary weakness, but rather smart diplomicy. Portugal allied with both France and Britian, and the kicked the Dutch out of the picture allowing them to colonize Brazil in peace.

You also claim that Portugal did not have a colony that was important finanically but that clearly was not that case. During the late 17th and early 18th century gold and latter diamonds were found in Brazil creating massive wealth for Portugal. Besides that Brazil was a large coffe and sugar exporter and had a diverse economy unlike many other colonies. Besides that, what important colony did the Dutch have? New York was lost to Great Britian so they were left with a few Carribean islands, which were econmicially insignafigant when compared to the French and British islands.

I see no good reason why Portugal was not included.

I agree completely. Though, as I said, it may have been due to balance considerations.

I don't understand how you don't consinder the Portuguese among the great sefearing powers if they had colonies in South America, Africa, and Asia, which obviously required a powerful navy to protect them

The Portuguese no doubt had a sizable navy, but since we are talking about the New World, Portugal only had the area which is now Brazil.

New York was lost to Great Britian so they were left with a few Carribean islands, which were econmicially insignafigant when compared to the French and British islands.

I see no good reason why Portugal was not included.

The Dutch began settling North America in 1614 and maintained control of a large area (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/New_Netherland.PNG) until the 1660's. They didn't just colonize New York. They actually had several colonies in the Caribbean, even though many of them changed hands several times: Curacao (one of the great "free ports" of the Caribbean), Saba, St. Eustatius (another great "free port"), Bonaire, Aruba, St. Martin, the Virgin Islands, Tobago, Suriname, and Guyana. Many of these places were very ecomically important, incorporating plantations that grew many profitable cash crops like sugar.

I have a couple of theories as to why Portugal isn't included in the game:
1. The original Colonization didn't have Portugal.
2. The Portuguese only had one area that they controlled in the New World (Brazil), and weren't as vigorous in making other settlement attempts as the other four powers.
3. It might be too difficult to put Portugal into the game without it being too similar to Spain.

Just my opinions. :rolleyes:

I just realized why the original Col has these 4 powers: they were all participants in the Independence War of the United States!

The Portuguese no doubt had a sizable navy, but since we are talking about the New World, Portugal only had the area which is now Brazil.

"Only the area which is now Brazil"? Have you ever looked at a map and seen how huge Brazil is? Incidentally, it also includes the Amazonas River, which makes the Mississippi look like a brook. I mean no disrespect to the Netherlands, but all they had was a colony in North America which the English very soon conquered, an area in present-day Brazil America which the Portuguese pretty soon annexed in a similar manner, Suriname and the rather insignificant Caribbean islands which still belong to them.

Even if Portugal had a successful colony in Brazil, the Dutch were a lot more involved in the European in-fighting. The Portuguese were, by the Treaty of Tordesillas, restriced to settle Brazil, and actually honoured that treaty. The Dutch were at least as successful as France as long as the country remained a major player in European affairs, but dwindled in the end because of other events. If historical accuracy is the goal, both nations, along with Denmark-Norway, should be in, but Portugal should have restriction as to where to settle.

Oh, I agree. They should only be permitted settle in the New World, like the other colonizing powers in the game.

"Only the area which is now Brazil"? Have you ever looked at a map and seen how huge Brazil is? Incidentally, it also includes the Amazonas River, which makes the Mississippi look like a brook. I mean no disrespect to the Netherlands, but all they had was a colony in North America which the English very soon conquered, an area in present-day Brazil America which the Portuguese pretty soon annexed in a similar manner, Suriname and the rather insignificant Caribbean islands which still belong to them.

Yes, I have but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'll try and make it more clear: Yes, Brazil is a large area but much of it then was uninhabitable jungle. Just because they had claimed a large area of land doesn't mean that they were more powerful or more wealthy than any of the other four powers. Take England's colonies in America in 1750 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/British_Colonies_in_North_America_c1750_v2.png/300px-British_Colonies_in_North_America_c1750_v2.png). They most certainly didn't equal up to the land area of Portugal's colonies in Brazil but they were wealthier. :rolleyes:

@ Kubali Khan
The consinerable period of time which you suggested Portugal was under Spanish rule was 60 yeras from 1580-1640. The Netherlands declared independence from Spain in 1579. As the time range of colonization is aproximlatley from 1500-1800 that means the Dutch were actually under Spanish rule like than the Portuguese. The Portuguese were not weak as the defeated the Netherlands in the Dutch Portugese war of the early 17th century which kicked the Dutch out of Brazil. I don't understand how you don't consinder the Portuguese among the great sefearing powers if they had colonies in South America, Africa, and Asia, which obviously required a powerful navy to protect them

Though the Portuguese may have not been in many conflicts as their European counterparts it was not a sign of Portuguese millitary weakness, but rather smart diplomicy. Portugal allied with both France and Britian, and the kicked the Dutch out of the picture allowing them to colonize Brazil in peace.

You also claim that Portugal did not have a colony that was important finanically but that clearly was not that case. During the late 17th and early 18th century gold and latter diamonds were found in Brazil creating massive wealth for Portugal. Besides that Brazil was a large coffe and sugar exporter and had a diverse economy unlike many other colonies. Besides that, what important colony did the Dutch have? New York was lost to Great Britian so they were left with a few Carribean islands, which were econmicially insignafigant when compared to the French and British islands.

I see no good reason why Portugal was not included.

The Netherlands had been acting independent of Spain for a long time before 1579. Charles V, the father of Philip II, was born in the Netherlands and had more close ties to the low countries, then to Spain. So one could say that for some time Spain was actually ruled by a "Dutch" emperor. The schism between the two occured when his son Philip II decided to take action against the (protestant) Netherlands in 1568. It was only then that one could really speak of Spain, where Philip II was based, trying to dominate The Netherlands. Furthermore, during this period there still wasn't a lot going on in the New World. England hadn't even started a colony and France had just started exploring. The original game splits the timescale into spring and autumn after 1600 for a good reason...

The Portuguese colonies in Africa only started to become of importance in the 19th century, i.e. outside the game's period. The Portuguese colonies in Asia were mostly just trading ports and most of them were conquered by the Dutch after they were kicked out of Brazil...

When the Dutch where thrown out of Brazil, this was actually largely due to the help of Spain, of which Portugal was a part at the time anyway. The fact that Portugal was not involved in any major conflict simply underlines the fact none of the four powers considered them a real threat to their colonial ambitions.

Lastly, the massive wealth for Portugal caused by Brazil you are referring to never made the Portuguese into the economic powerhouse the other powers were. Portugal remained a relatively poor country after their independence from Spain, causing many Portuguese to immigrate to Brazil over the years.

Yes, I have but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'll try and make it more clear: Yes, Brazil is a large area but much of it then was uninhabitable jungle. Just because they had claimed a large area of land doesn't mean that they were more powerful or more wealthy than any of the other four powers. Take England's colonies in America in 1750 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/British_Colonies_in_North_America_c1750_v2.png/300px-British_Colonies_in_North_America_c1750_v2.png). They most certainly didn't equal up to the land area of Portugal's colonies in Brazil but they were wealthier. :rolleyes:

Well, my sarcastic friend, it would be difficult to claim that Brazil was less wealthy than the Dutch colonies...

I would seriously like to take the role of those whose land they invaded... like the native Americans, the Aztec, Iroquois and basically the victim of colonization
There was a scenario for Civ3 which allowed you to do this. It was quite fun once you get past the fact the Inca are encassed in jungle and Aztec, water.

double post

Take England's colonies in America in 1750 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/British_Colonies_in_North_America_c1750_v2.png/300px-British_Colonies_in_North_America_c1750_v2.png). They most certainly didn't equal up to the land area of Portugal's colonies in Brazil but they were wealthier. :rolleyes:


Oh absolutely they equalled the land mass. You're comparing English sites of settlement against the whole of claimed land in Brazil. The whole of English claimed land in North America was truly vast - Rupert's Land alone was nearly half the size of Brazil, and then they claimed the whole of the Atlantic coastline from the Florida border to Newfoundland. They hadn't actually set foot in many places that they claimed, but the same is true of Brazil (in fact, Brazilians today have still never set foot in a large part of the territory they claim!)

The areas where there were actual settlements of population were small and scattered, but that's equally true of Brazil.

I think the martians should be included; didn't they colonize many parts of the America's?

I don't think it would be hard to include Portugal and have them play differently to the Spanish. The Spanish colonisation effort was characterised by massive military expansion and native exploitation, while the Portuguese one might be better characterised by careful diplomacy and contiguous development.

So, with that in mind, have the Portuguese' bonuses be something like:
Primary Bonus - Neutrality: You gain a +1 bonus to your relations with other powers, and The King of Portugal never involves you in wars
Secondary Bonus - Maneuvers: Your ships gain a +1 movement bonus when their whole turn is spent inside your waters
Secondary Bonus - Educative: Colonists can learn professions being taught in Colony Schools connected by road to their own colony.

The primary bonus would help the Portugese player remain at peace, as he wouldn't be involved in European wars (like the Ben Franklin FF in the original), though other colonies could still go to war with him if he's not carefully watching the diplomacy.
The first secondary bonus would work that inside Portuguese waters ships would get a movement bonus, but lose it if they left, so the player would have an incentive to make as much of his movement as possible occur in Portuguese waters, and this would be of most use for both trade routes and warfare if Portuguese waters were contiguous.
The second secondary bonus would work as a distance modifier, dropping off the further away the colony was, and dropping to 0% if not connected by road. Possibly dropping by half every 3 squares, or something. e.g. if Colonist A in Colony A has a 10% of learning the skill being taught in Colony A each turn, then Colonist B in Colony B (three squares away) has a 5% of learning the skill being taught in Colony B.

It wouldn't need to be these specific bonuses, but something like that would encourage Portugal to play historically, keeping to one area and avoiding conflict.

A lot of people have pointed out that the Portugese retook Brazil from the Dutch.

However, at the time, people in Portugal perceived this as a miracle. The Dutch Republic was by far the richest economy in Europe and had one of the strongest fleets.

What happened was that the West India Company that exploited Dutch Brazil was not making enough profits for its shareholders and went bankrupt.

The Portugese did not reclaim Brazil themselves by the way. The colonists in the colonies themselves fought a costly guerilla war against the Dutch mercenaries.

Portugal itself never dreamed of risking open war against the Republic. Their ports would have been blocked, all of their fleet attacked by privateers and their economy ruined. Thats why officially the Portugese King protested against the rebellions in Dutch Brazil. However secretly he was funding them. Only when England attacked the Republic in the First Anglo-Dutch war in 1652 did the Portugese dear to openly support the rebellion.

This is the core of the issue. Portugal was never in any position to challenge the other powers. No historian could argue that.

That in retrospect Portugal's colony became important has been pretty lucky.
If the Republic had devoted more resources to the conquest of Brazil who would have known what could have happened (Brazil would have been a lot richer in any case).

A lot of people have pointed out that the Portugese retook Brazil from the Dutch.

However, at the time, people in Portugal perceived this as a miracle. The Dutch Republic was by far the richest economy in Europe and had one of the strongest fleets.

What happened was that the West India Company that exploited Dutch Brazil was not making enough profits for its shareholders and went bankrupt.

The Portugese did not reclaim Brazil themselves by the way. The colonists in the colonies themselves fought a costly guerilla war against the Dutch mercenaries.

Portugal itself never dreamed of risking open war against the Republic. Their ports would have been blocked, all of their fleet attacked by privateers and their economy ruined. Thats why officially the Portugese King protested against the rebellions in Dutch Brazil. However secretly he was funding them. Only when England attacked the Republic in the First Anglo-Dutch war in 1652 did the Portugese dear to openly support the rebellion.

This is the core of the issue. Portugal was never in any position to challenge the other powers. No historian could argue that.

That in retrospect Portugal's colony became important has been pretty lucky.
If the Republic had devoted more resources to the conquest of Brazil who would have known what could have happened (Brazil would have been a lot richer in any case).

Have you edited your profile man? Almost 4 years in the forum and just posted 14 times. Just to teach us these extremely detailed historical issues I guess...

A lot of people have pointed out that the Portugese retook Brazil from the Dutch.

However, at the time, people in Portugal perceived this as a miracle. The Dutch Republic was by far the richest economy in Europe and had one of the strongest fleets.

What happened was that the West India Company that exploited Dutch Brazil was not making enough profits for its shareholders and went bankrupt.

The Portugese did not reclaim Brazil themselves by the way. The colonists in the colonies themselves fought a costly guerilla war against the Dutch mercenaries.

Portugal itself never dreamed of risking open war against the Republic. Their ports would have been blocked, all of their fleet attacked by privateers and their economy ruined. Thats why officially the Portugese King protested against the rebellions in Dutch Brazil. However secretly he was funding them. Only when England attacked the Republic in the First Anglo-Dutch war in 1652 did the Portugese dear to openly support the rebellion.

This is the core of the issue. Portugal was never in any position to challenge the other powers. No historian could argue that.

That in retrospect Portugal's colony became important has been pretty lucky.
If the Republic had devoted more resources to the conquest of Brazil who would have known what could have happened (Brazil would have been a lot richer in any case).
So you are saying that Portugal used political guile rather than brute force to achieve their goals? Maybe you just unwittingly provided a new suggestion for a trait for them. ;)

A lot of people have pointed out that the Portugese retook Brazil from the Dutch.

However, at the time, people in Portugal perceived this as a miracle. The Dutch Republic was by far the richest economy in Europe and had one of the strongest fleets.

Bah, its golden age was short-lived. It spend 50 years trying to conquer positions around the world, mostly from Portugal, with varying success, and in the end had to settle for some marginal territories in Asia.
Even had it won a decisive victory in the east or in America (which it didn't), when the french and the english got into the game the republic's ambitions of taking over the monopoly of the asian trade would be crushed. The english were the true winners in the end.


The Portugese did not reclaim Brazil themselves by the way. The colonists in the colonies themselves fought a costly guerilla war against the Dutch mercenaries.

Portugal itself never dreamed of risking open war against the Republic. Their ports would have been blocked, all of their fleet attacked by privateers and their economy ruined. Thats why officially the Portugese King protested against the rebellions in Dutch Brazil. However secretly he was funding them. Only when England attacked the Republic in the First Anglo-Dutch war in 1652 did the Portugese dear to openly support the rebellion.

1) the colonists were portuguese.
2) Portugal was at war with the dutch, until 1661, and the dutch simply were not powerful enough to blockade portuguese ports and win the war that way.


This is the core of the issue. Portugal was never in any position to challenge the other powers. No historian could argue that.

That in retrospect Portugal's colony became important has been pretty lucky.
If the Republic had devoted more resources to the conquest of Brazil who would have known what could have happened (Brazil would have been a lot richer in any case).

You've been reading bad historians.

I could say that if the spanish had devoted more resources to stamping out the dutch rebels they'd never have managed to become independent... but they didn't. The point is that resources spent in one place are not available for use in other places, the spanish were busy fighting the french, the english, the ottomans...
Likewise, the dutch simply did not have the resources to continue their war against Portugal and at the same time fight the british, the french and the spanish, not to mention Sweden, some german states... The conquest of a large american colony was a pipe dream.

I would have been fine with including Portugal. In fact I think it's only proper to do so when we're talking major colonial powers in America, but come on, Sweden?

If I remember correctly we had something like 200 people there lol. Sure it's an interesting part of Swedish history and Sweden was a great political and military force in Europe during parts of the 1600s but if you add Sweden you'd have to add a dozen others at the very least. I like the original concept of concentrating on the major powers, but Portugal should have been included.

I would have been fine with including Portugal. In fact I think it's only proper to do so when we're talking major colonial powers in America, but come on, Sweden?

If I remember correctly we had something like 200 people there lol. Sure it's an interesting part of Swedish history and Sweden was a great political and military force in Europe during parts of the 1600s but if you add Sweden you'd have to add a dozen others at the very least. I like the original concept of concentrating on the major powers, but Portugal should have been included.

There were a little over 600 colonists at the time the Dutch took over, but to that must be added the colonists who ran off and joined the Indians, those who ran off to Maryland because life as a colonist was simpler under the more easy-going English rule, and the fact that after the Dutch had occupied New Sweden, they found the Finnish and Swedish woodsmen to be such excellent settler material that they actually sent one of them, a certin Israel Helminen (an ethnic Finn), back to Sweden to recruit more colonists. Some two or three hundred made it to America before the Swedish government forbade any further recruitment of emigrants. A generation later,the people still speaking Swedish on the Delaware (some had moved elsewhere and/or assimilated with the English) had increased to 800 and asked the king of Sweden to send out pastors from the Church of Sweden to see to their spiritual needs; in the meantime, their parish clerks had held services, but they felt this wasn't quite sufficient. The king obliged, and three Swedish-speaking parishes were maintained this way - the English, as usual, didn't mind. In due time, as the Swedes were absorbed, the number of Swedish parishes maintained shrank from threee to one. The last Swedish minister administering to the spiritual needs of the people of New Sweden died in Wilmington, Delaware (formerly Fort Christina) in the 1820's. By then, the Swedes and Finns had basically been absorbed by the Anglican church. (Sweden and England were generally on friendly terms.)

Since all early colonial populations in what is now the US bred at a tremendous rate, the number of people descended (in part, of course) from the people of New Sweden must number in six digits, perhaps more. Ask a population statistician if you don't believe me.

Also, apart from supplying the ancestors of of John Hanson (the first president of the Continental Congres) and John Morton of New Jersey (one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence), the Swedes introduced the log cabin. At least, such a building demonstrably existed in Sweden-Finland (largely still forest country) at the time, but not in England and the Netherlands (cleared farmland).

None of this makes the Swedes on the Delaware comparable in importance to the Portuguese or even the Dutch, but I'd argue that they were at least as important as the Russians. Admittedly, this is on a rather humble level, far below the five Big Ones.

Oh, a final note - so many young men ran off to join the Indians because the forest life of the local tribe, the Lenni-Lenapes (who got on famously with the Swedes) was quite similar to forest life back in Sweden at the time.

Ahem. Sorry for the lecture, folks.

Portugal is such an important colonizer to have missed out

You've been reading bad historians.


Charles Boxer, The Dutch in Brazil? Thats pretty much the standard work on the matter. Boxer is an Englishman, so pretty objective for that matter.

Atleast it beats whatever petty portugese source you can come up with. Fact is Boxer used a lot of sources from both Portugal and the Republic and the things I have told here come mainly from his book.


Dont take innonimatu serious. He says the Dutch didnt have the Naval power to blockade Portugal back in the 1660s. Are you kidding me? They had the strongest fleet in Europe. Remember that the Dutch decisively defeated the English fleet in 1665 and towed their flagship down the Thames.

I hate resorting to Wikipedia, but innonimatu has some serious reading up to do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Dutch_War

Start there.

Have you edited your profile man? Almost 4 years in the forum and just posted 14 times. Just to teach us these extremely detailed historical issues I guess...

I'm a Civ player but also someone with an extensive interest in historical matters. Mostly I read a lot of topics but occasionally when I read historical claims that are simply not true I feel inclined to reply.
I've studied history and specifically colonial history in the 17th century, so I know my sources.

I agree that if there were a fift European nation it should be Portugal, but since there are only four this will have to do. Some people however are claiming that Portugal was more important in that time than the Dutch Republic. However such claims are completely ungrounded, not a sane historian will agree with that.

I understand where such claims could come from, you look at Brazil and think that the Portugese must have been extremely influential. But history does not work that way. At that time, Brazil was not as large and populous as it is now. Portugal was a weak nation from a diplomatic, military and political point of view. That it founded one of the biggest colonies in retrospect was a extremely fortunate and good accomplisment.

However at the time they were simply not an important power on the European political scene.

I understand where such claims could come from, you look at Brazil and think that the Portugese must have been extremely influential. But history does not work that way. At that time, Brazil was not as large and populous as it is now. Portugal was a weak nation from a diplomatic, military and political point of view. That it founded one of the biggest colonies in retrospect was a extremely fortunate and good accomplisment.

However at the time they were simply not an important power on the European political scene.

Agreed, but they had such an impact in the New World that I think they should have been included.

The germans with hitler should definitely be in.

:mischief:

/facepalm...

I think the Portuguese and maybe the Russians should be in.

I think their bonus would be Agricultural. +50% production of non-food or fish crops.

The leaders could be:
Joaquim José da Silva Xavier (Agricultural, Independent) (3 more people can work in the Liberty Hall)

Manuel da Nobrega (Agricultural, Imperialistic) (Missionsaries can convert nearby Indian cities to join them, though converted cities lose 25% population)

I enjoyed it.

On the 'log cabin' thing. Weren't some of the Eastern natives living in similar long huts at the time? Just curious, because I'd assumed they'd be an inspiration for simple wilderness homes.



Ahem. Sorry for the lecture, folks.

Yeah right. /sarcasm off

I would be wonderful if more alt-history colonizers were in. Germans, Italians, etc...

The germans with hitler should definitely be in.

:mischief:

They lived in long houses, but they weren't like log cabins IIRC... they were roundish

They lived in long houses, but they weren't like log cabins IIRC... they were roundish

There were alot of different designs. Some were roundish, though those ones were generally smaller - just houses, not longhouses. The actual longhouses, ie Iroqouian design, were constructed of timber frames with bark or hide walls, usually designed so that sections could be rolled up. Some have roofs that are slightly rounded at the ends, others look more or less like barns:

http://www.nygeo.org/Longhouse.jpg

On the Pacific coast, there were longhouses of heavy timber construction, the Haida and Tlingit plank houses:

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/8325/longhousescreenbmpyc7.jpg

http://www.nativeaccess.com/ancestral/haidahouse1.html

Of course Portugal should be in the game. I read lot of arguments saying Portugal hadn't the importance that the Dutch have in the time of colonies (because of the only one area it colonized, Brazil, or because it was part of Spain during a long time). Portugal was the first World Empire and its colonization to Brazil was a success.

I can't believe there are still people who think Portugal should not be added. I know that Portugal have a bigger relation Africa-America than the others and maybe cause Africa doesn't show in the game the portuguese have it act lowered, but people should not substimate the portuguese colonization of Americas as a low importance story line. Portugal in the colonization scenario surely got a bigger importance than the dutch.

PS: I think Dutch should not be taken away, but if it is expected to change nations, Portugal should enter in Dutchs place.

João VI should be one of the portuguese leaders, since he moved the capital of the portuguese empire from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro during the Napoleonic times.

PS: I think Dutch should not be taken away, but if it is expected to change nations, Portugal should enter in Dutchs place.

Huh?

The Dutch are in. The Portuguese are out. End of story.