Two biggest problems with Civ right now
- Thread starter Ghafhi
- Start date
- Status
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
there not on the 18 civ list either for civ 4..but read harder man...the mayans had huge citys and massive pyraminds....they were also very advanced in mathmatics and astrology...the iriqois were there mostly to appeas native american intrests (kinda like what your arguing for)but they iriqouis nation was an alliance of many nations that live peacefully together untill the americans(colonials during the revolution) laid waste to them...the capital city was the largest in the new world and the nation itself was the first in the americas to use repersentive governments to run the nation. there is definitly culture there...the incans..wow..cuzco..the city of gold... the civ was wealthier then most eurpean civs. the road system was second only to the roman rode system and untill then had never been duplicated. the empire stretched the entire length of the andes and was much larger then the ethopians your advocating
CTM
I choose no avatar.
Ghafhi, you're missing the point. Italy invaded Ethiopia. Britain invaded Ethiopia. The Turks invaded Ethiopia. All of them took a toll on Ethiopia. Ethiopia did not invade Italy, Britain, or the Ottoman Empire.
Ethiopia had to fight for its very survival, for much of its history. Europe, on the other hand, by the 17th century, was basically safe from outsiders. Most of that time they wound up fighting themselves.
Again, the fact that Ethiopia inflicted defeats on the Europeans was that they were European embarrassments. That tells the real story, because Europe was clearly in control. Ethiopia was not.
Ethiopia has made little to no contribution to anything distinctly military (or economic either, I believe; the world doesn't exactly cater to Ethiopian economic strategies). The Ethiopians had to rely on European military formations and tactics to beat Europeans, not to mention acquire European firearms. Who had the upper hand? The Europeans. Not Ethiopia.
Now, some people like to say, "Yeah, but it's been European military advantages that make them favored." For much of the West's early history, it was considered backwards in both military and economy. For example, Persia's invasion of Greece was supposed to be a walkover. Persia's triremes at Salamis were no better than the Athenians', and the Greek hoplite was actually considered inferior for Persian contemporaries at the time. The Greeks won because their military advantage came from a cultural advantage in that everyone in Greece was relatively free, compared to a state such as Persia, where no one had a voice but the king. Citizens could vote in an assembly on pretty much everything, including how to fight wars. It was the Athenian polis that decided to abandon Athens and make a stand at Salamis. It was that same polis, along with Themistocles, that came up with the strategy that would ultimately defeat Xerxes' fleet. Citizens could voice opinions on what worked and what didn't, which allowed for a more flexible military that could defeat a much larger one, like at Darius' at Marathon and Xerxes' at Plataea.
Europe's military advantages came from its cultural advantages over its non-Western enemies. Over time, this translated into a distinct military advantage in technology as the West was more open to embrace new technology and use it for applied military purposes than anyone else. Non-Westerners ended up trying to imitate them by buying Western firearms or trying to incorporate their tactics, but in the end it was the cultural baggage that came with it that allowed the West to stay on top. It's why Europe ended up with the distinct military advantage.
I however, also agree that it's not Europe that makes up the world, and that Civilization does not mean "Western Civilization". It's all about bringing any civilization, any tribe, from history and leading them to stand the test of time. The more civs, the merrier.
Ethiopia had to fight for its very survival, for much of its history. Europe, on the other hand, by the 17th century, was basically safe from outsiders. Most of that time they wound up fighting themselves.
Again, the fact that Ethiopia inflicted defeats on the Europeans was that they were European embarrassments. That tells the real story, because Europe was clearly in control. Ethiopia was not.
Ethiopia has made little to no contribution to anything distinctly military (or economic either, I believe; the world doesn't exactly cater to Ethiopian economic strategies). The Ethiopians had to rely on European military formations and tactics to beat Europeans, not to mention acquire European firearms. Who had the upper hand? The Europeans. Not Ethiopia.
Now, some people like to say, "Yeah, but it's been European military advantages that make them favored." For much of the West's early history, it was considered backwards in both military and economy. For example, Persia's invasion of Greece was supposed to be a walkover. Persia's triremes at Salamis were no better than the Athenians', and the Greek hoplite was actually considered inferior for Persian contemporaries at the time. The Greeks won because their military advantage came from a cultural advantage in that everyone in Greece was relatively free, compared to a state such as Persia, where no one had a voice but the king. Citizens could vote in an assembly on pretty much everything, including how to fight wars. It was the Athenian polis that decided to abandon Athens and make a stand at Salamis. It was that same polis, along with Themistocles, that came up with the strategy that would ultimately defeat Xerxes' fleet. Citizens could voice opinions on what worked and what didn't, which allowed for a more flexible military that could defeat a much larger one, like at Darius' at Marathon and Xerxes' at Plataea.
Europe's military advantages came from its cultural advantages over its non-Western enemies. Over time, this translated into a distinct military advantage in technology as the West was more open to embrace new technology and use it for applied military purposes than anyone else. Non-Westerners ended up trying to imitate them by buying Western firearms or trying to incorporate their tactics, but in the end it was the cultural baggage that came with it that allowed the West to stay on top. It's why Europe ended up with the distinct military advantage.
I however, also agree that it's not Europe that makes up the world, and that Civilization does not mean "Western Civilization". It's all about bringing any civilization, any tribe, from history and leading them to stand the test of time. The more civs, the merrier.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Superkrest said:
Tenochtitlan was the largest city in the new world with a population of 200,000 at the arrival of the Spanish.
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
once again..the civs you are so adimitly fighting..are not the 18 in civ 4...
I still don't see how the Iroquois did more than the moors. If taking over half of Europe and helping to bring the Renaissance, steel smolting, advanced map making,tetracycline, mathematics, agriculture and advanced architecture, advanced markets, and influencing music and their machines isn't enough then what is. If I understand you correctly the Iroquois should be out the game. Maybe an African civs should take their place maybe not but Iroquois don't seem to have done much to me they seem to be a parallel of Zulu.
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
at the time superbeaver 
i belive tenochetlan was the biggest in world at the time..not sure though..and yes i think the iriqoius were an apeasment..but they were there to repersent. kinda like the mali. and when did the moors come up? i dont think anyone has argued against them.
i belive tenochetlan was the biggest in world at the time..not sure though..and yes i think the iriqoius were an apeasment..but they were there to repersent. kinda like the mali. and when did the moors come up? i dont think anyone has argued against them.CTM
I choose no avatar.
For some clarification...it makes much more sense to say the Arabs, not the Moors. The Moors were the name given to the Arabs in Spain by Europeans.Ghafhi said:
The Iroquois were the most powerful group represented in the five tribes that united together to form the Iroquois Confederation (hence, its name). Other than that, I know little about them, but they are a solid choice for a civ if you're looking for more North American civs than just the Aztecs and Americans (which is always the oddball because the Americans in question are based off of English settlers and are thus European, but just based in North America). Before someone jumps on me for excluding the Mayans and Inca, I was talking about North American civs. The Mayans more or less inhabited Central America and bits of Mexico, and the Inca of course were in South America. Civs from the Americas, though, no doubt. Depends on how people like to group them.
The Mali and the Zulu are the only two distinctive African civs to be in the game, correct? (Don't give me that crap about Carthage and Egypt. For crying out loud, Carthage was originally a Phoenician colony and Egypt is more Middle Eastern than African, anyway. We're talking about Sub-Saharan Africa here.) I suppose some people think that's an underrepresentation, but pardon me when I say I don't know of any others that were very important throughout history. The Zulus are questionable, though: they were the terror of South Africa, but only for a short period of time, relatively speaking. People like me know very little about Africa, and the good people at Firaxis of course don't want to be confusing people with adding in a bunch of civs no one has ever heard about.
Only so many civs can be represented in a game that allows for a limited number (especially if that number is only 18). Keep your cool, wait when you get the game, and mod it to your gaming pleasure, as the game is supposed to excel in that regard. Expansion packs will undoubtedly add more civs anyway. No one can really say that enough; enough people have said it already, and it makes good advice to live by.
CTM said:
Britain lost Italy lost twice and turks never came no where near ethiopia. You are only saying they are embarassments cause you are trying to take away from the Ethiopian accomplishments. Of course if my army has a gun and your army has a knife I will win. Now you critizes Ethiopia for beating Europeans with weapons they use. America invented the nuke doesn't mean they should be the only ones with a nuke. Europeans didn't really invent the gun they just modified a chinese idea. Europes military advantages came from the gun and that is shown in that when countries like ethiopia have guns they beat europe. If Europe had such great culture then why did they loose to the moors why did Geghis Khan beat European countries. Why did America loose in Vietnam I don't see Vietnam great culture they used guns
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Ghafhi said:
It has already been stated that the Iroquois were an appeasement civ, to include a native American civ.
Ghafhi said:
Question: Since when is Spain and Portugal half of Europe as you claim? The Moors conquered all but the very northern portion of the Iberian Peninsula, and made some advances into southern France. That is hardly half of Europe
Ghafhi said:
This is Civ IV, not Civ III. It is pointless to argue about whether the Iroquois or Zulu should be replaced, as they are not in the game.
Was the richest country in the world at the height of its power. It spreda islam in africa to many countries. The mali king was sos rich that when he went to egypt he gave so much gold that the price of gold was inflated for the next 100 years. Hows that for cultureSuperkrest said:at the time superbeaver
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Ghafhi said:
That isn't culture, its economics. And he is asking where the Moors came into the conversation. He isn't arguing about Mali.
Wrong. Not all Moors speak arabic. The majority of moors were muslims and they are distinct from arabs. Moors have an entirely different culture than arabs. Moors are african arabs can be of any race. All you have to do is speak arabic and follow the arabic culture. kinda like being spanish. There were never Arabs in Spain but there were moors.CTM said:
doronron
King
I guess you claim Rembrandt is now Italian? Name a world renowned painter who happened to be Ethiopian. You still don't get it. China had an ESTABLISHED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT since 2200 BC. They existed long before that time as a group of petty warlords. That part of history is not much different than Ethiopia. The difference is China, like the Dutch, actually contributed something useful to human civilization as we know it. Ethiopia has not. Ethiopia may have been around longer than nations such as the Dutch, Portugal, or Austria, but they've done nothing worthwhile. Nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a great power or a cultural icon. The Ethiopians never made any money, except off of those people Arabians could sell. Again you choose to ignore the facts I have provided. Again you choose to reiterate your demands with nothing to back them up. Instead you insult and denegrate other cultures you have no understanding of and then claim moral superiority over others, just because of the color of your skin.
Colonially speaking, at the height of Dutch power, they controlled Dutch Guyana, South Africa, Portions of western India, Ceylon, Singapore, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, New Guinea...I think I'm missing a few here.
As for Persia? Persia is the evolution of two older nations, Sumeria and Babylon. These two were the major powers in the cradle of civilization, and their history we can be greatful for the first written language, the concept and development of a unified code of laws, an agriculturally based society, masonry, pottery, stratification of society so that some can teach or develop new skills. The very foundation of all civilization comes from these people.
And where are those wars and dates I asked for? You know, the ones where the powerful and mighty Ethiopian armies defeated history's best and brightest nations?
Colonially speaking, at the height of Dutch power, they controlled Dutch Guyana, South Africa, Portions of western India, Ceylon, Singapore, Borneo, Java, Sumatra, New Guinea...I think I'm missing a few here.
As for Persia? Persia is the evolution of two older nations, Sumeria and Babylon. These two were the major powers in the cradle of civilization, and their history we can be greatful for the first written language, the concept and development of a unified code of laws, an agriculturally based society, masonry, pottery, stratification of society so that some can teach or develop new skills. The very foundation of all civilization comes from these people.
And where are those wars and dates I asked for? You know, the ones where the powerful and mighty Ethiopian armies defeated history's best and brightest nations?
doronron
King
Ghafhi said:
There were no moors anywhere near belgium. The most the Moors ever took from Italy was Sicily. Making things up and posting them doesn't make your point any more valid.
The Ethiopians are not going to be in the retail release, get over it. If you're that hard up for playing the Ethiopians, you'll have access to the tools needed to code them into the game.
Superkrest
Hero of the Soviet Union
im a lil confused to the point trying to be made..weve gone from africa in general..to ethiopia. to denmark..to american indians ..to moors..we have all agreed that africa should have some more repersentation...but we just question who you would like to see replaced to make room for them??
doronron said:
Rembrandt is a good painter but nowhere near the great Italian painters of the renaissance.
Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba borne.
about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.
Ask any Rastafarian or carribean person what they think of Ethiopia and Haille Sesse. If millions of people think you are G-d incarnate orgiven special powers from G-d isn't great then what is. That is what Ethiopia has contributed. Many AA have wrote books telling aa to back to ethiopia. It is a holy land and so much more. Maybe you don't think ethiopia is culture icon but any one from africa knows different. Ethiopia made other africans believe in decolonization because Ethiopia was not colonized. If declonizing and barring slavery in an entire continent is great then i can't help you. The dutch only controlled a coastal part of south africa before losing it to the british. The cradle of civlization is Ethiopia not persia you can ask any scientist or whom ever you want. Life started in Ethiopia. Babylon came way to late in History to have an effect on civlizations. Rome was around before Babylon was a good civ.
Tell that to Beethoven???? Look up Beethoven ancestry and tell me what you find. Then you can come back and apoligize for calling me a liar. By the way I looked up and the netherlands was part of the moorish empire. Turns out that they were also part of spain back then. A small portion of northern Italy was captured for 90 years by the moors.doronron said:
- Status
Similar threads
