Who are the zulus

i dont need to say anymore than that.. else than thank you for your replies

South Africans

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

ok, i see, thank you. And if the zulus have appeared in previous civilization games, and youre wondering how coe i dont know them, its because i havent ever played civilization. but eversince ive seen the previews for the third one (which was yesterday), i know i like it, and i think i know enough about already to be on this board, especially since most of the discussion IS about civ3, which no one has played yet anyways.

It's good to hear more players take interest in this awesome game.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

The Zulus: African tribe of South Africa. These folks were cattle herders and were rather insignificant until the British colonized South Africa. Under Shaka Zulu, thier Impi mass-attacked some British positions. They had no guns, but their spears won them a few victories. Eventually, they were defeated.

This tribe is no more significant than any other specific African tribe except that they fought the British long after tribal armies had ceased to be effective. A real civilization would be a better token for Africa: Mali, an Islamic trade center; Ethiopia, a very stable eastern orthodox kingdom; or Great Zimbabwe, a city builder.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

didnt the zulus BUILD zimbabwe?

Great Zimbabwe occurred in the European Middle Ages. The designers probably chose Zimbabwe as the Zulu capital to represent this (the Zulus didn't build cities).

I forgot one: Nubia. Probably part of Egypt in game terms, but these folks built Pyramids and were a competitor of Egypt from the south.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

thx... it helped a lot

the Zulus only real claim to fame is their lemming style warfare against the British. I agree with EtR that a better African civilization could be found. Ethiopia would be an excellent choice.

Originally posted by thedirk:
the Zulus only real claim to fame is their lemming style warfare against the British. I agree with EtR that a better African civilization could be found. Ethiopia would be an excellent choice.

Click to expand...

Maybe its because the Zulus reflect better Africa as a whole.

eh, like the previous posters said, Zulus fought and killed some Brits. Later on, westerners brought down their newly made invention, the maxim machine gun and used the tribesman as test targets before fully adopting it in the first world war.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://encarta.msn.com/xmedia//IMAGES/PID/T041/T041194A.JTN" border=0>

Just wanted to add our praise for Ethiopia. If we are not mistaken Ethiopia
is the only country that never allowed itself to be colonized. Therefore it would indeed be an excellent choice.



------------------
TTFNFm & MTFBWY moof

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,

and I'm not sure about the former. " - Albert Einstein

Bad ass africans from like the 1700's who massacred the english colonists!

i think that sid first chose the zulus to represent sub-saharan africa because they are colorful and tie in to the idea of primitive african tribes, so they could symbolize the whole conglomerate of tribes in africa - kind of like the iroquois represent ALL the north american indian tribes.

and they fit into the game pretty well because they add color and are fun to play with and against. so if you look at it from a realism point of view, treat the zulus like a conglomerate of all the african tribes south of the sahara, and if you look at it from a strictly gameplay point of view you should be happy anyway.

I think the Zulus are definitely a bad choice for representing central-southern aftica in Civ. For traditional purpose (since they are in from the very begining of the game) they are OK, but I'd rather see the Nubians in the game - they had a thriving civilization as far as 2000 B.C. and they made it well into the A.D. era.

But I'd like to point out that there should be an arabic civ. The Arabs, for instance, or some Turkish civ. It's just not fair - the Arabs conquered half of the known world between 7th - 11th century and they had (and still have) a significant impact in the history of the world.

Why did the folks at Firaxis left them out? Just because Arabic countries are not into the target groups of their product?

Doh!

I think that's why they put in the Persians--as somewhat of an amalgamation of Arab nations. I could be wrong. Although I like the Zulus, I think they could have done better using a West African tribe, or maybe the Ethiopians. I think that they really didn't think much about Africans--just added them as an afterthought so that people wouldn't scream. Otherwise, I think that they would have taken the same care that they took with the other European civs.

------------------
"Shake the world beneath your feet up"
--Johnny Clegg

i dont know whether that was firaxis' intent, but persians are a poor representation for arabs

persians are a totally different race who created an empire in ancient times when the arabs were just a meaningless people that lived further south in the sinai peninsula than anyone else bothered to go

i think if anything, the arabs would fall under the babylonians because firaxis stated that the babylonians already represent assyrians, babylonians, hebrews, etc. and other such semitic peoples that lived in modern iraq and i think that is reasonable.

and the turks are also left out - but maybe it doesn't make sense to include BOTH turkey AND persia (iran - persia was really just a province of the iranian empire) because medeival and modern turkey could really fall under persia (the persians didnt really play a big role in medeival and modern times, but they were certainly islamic and situated near the turks, so why not just assume the turks "took persia's place" per say without really changing to a totally new civ)

the spanish definitely should be included, though (are they supposed to be part of france?) as well as scandinavians. i dont think its so important to have the mongols because their place is "taken" by the russians, without really changing the civilization structure.

Nah, Persians=Turks won't work, but with the current civ model, I think it would be quite difficult to introduce a new civ within it's appropriate time of birth.

Actually, if we'd believe in historical accuracy none of those civs should be started at 4000 B.C. (the Egyptians, the first real civ in the historical era, didn't get started till 3000 B.C.).

But, my list (if that 16 is the absolute number they could come up with - graphic work and all) would consist of those civs:

- Greek (the founding fathers of the Western Civilization and Democracy and Science... do I have to tell more?)

- Romans (they had a fair share of the foundinf of the western civ, and generally a huge influence thereafter - and one of the largest empires the world has ever seen)

- Egypt (they are the first recorded civilization and they left some great masterpieces behind, to remind us of their greatness)

- Babylonians (yes, they should be adequate enough to represent all the mesopotamia civs that thrived as far as 3 milenia B.C. - sumerians, akkadians, assyrians, hettati etc. etc.)

- Nubians (my choice for "black Africa" - explained why in my previous post)

- Chinese (very ancient, very scientific, very influental)

- Japanese (one of the most fascinating cultures, with great influence and a definite role in history)

- Incas (a great civ in the American continent-destroyed by the ...brave conquistadores and the European germs...)

- Aztecs (same as above, they deserved to be America's second civ)

- Mongols (they had the greatest empires of all times and were the most fiersome warriors for ages)

- Indians (very ancient, very influental, and still a great nation)

- Russians (a civilization that has played a major role in the last 12 centuries)

- Americans (quite fresh, but influental nonetheless, plus the greatest market for Firaxi's products - just kidding, they ought to be in it)

- Arabs (for reasons explained in my previous post)

- Spaniards (after the reconquista, those played a very, very significant role in the world history)

- British (I guess Celts would fall under their umbrella too - they were the USA of the 17th, 18th and 19th century, isn't that enough?)


If further additions would be ok I'd include (in that order) the Vikings, the Franks, the Germans, the Iroqui confederation, the Byzantine, the Turks, the Ethiopian, the Mayas and maybe the Minoans

Don't forget that Civ II originally released in English, French, and German. You've just alienated two of three markets!

------------------
<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT size="4">Phorever</FONT c><FONT COLOR="orange">Phalanx</FONT c></FONT s>

<FONT size="2">"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill</FONT s>

I agree with Ubik01 the nubians better represent black Africa. To think that in older times the Zulu represent what black africa was is ludicrous. The current situation in Africa is fairly new i.e. very tribal and segregated and mostly herders and simple farming reletively poor. Ancient Africa had several LARGE empires up until 1000 A.D. When a decline was seen in many parts of Africa partly because of the expansion of the Sahara and partly because of Arab and European Influences.

Nubia/Aithiopia encompassed what is considered the birthplace of man. The civilizations that developed here were actually precursors to the Egyptian/Khemetan civilization. In the modern Sudan there are more Pyramids than any other place including Egypt, they are just smaller than the Great Pyramids of Giza. Around the ancient Nubian capital of Napata they and other signs of an advanced civilization can be found just as in Thebes or Amarna. The Nubian/Aithiopian Civilization also typifies other civilizations that could be found in all parts of Africa at different point in History such as the Mali who had Timbuktu, which was easily one of the richest cities of medival times as one of there capitals. The empire was also bigger and had a higher population than the Holy Roman Empire. Also there are the Songhay, Ghana, Kuba, Angola, Zimbabwe to name a few. These were all "civilizations" in the since of a stable government, builders of cities, and commerce.

Do not underestimate the effects of ann detiorating climate and constant slave invansions for over 1000 years on the continent of Africa. There was and still are signs of Great Civilizations of the past. The Zulu just happened to be one that gave Imperial Britain all kinds of fits.

------------------
"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

[This message has been edited by hannibol43 (edited August 29, 2001).]