Tarkhan
King
CrazyMrLeo said:
I agree, also being Canadian. Also, try telling someone from Scotland he's from england, since they're on the same island.
Anyone find it bizarre that there is no African Civilization?
- Thread starter vertigofm
- Start date
- Status
I agree, also being Canadian. Also, try telling someone from Scotland he's from england, since they're on the same island.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
^alon^ said:
Despite what you may have heard,
Size matters,
Almost all the civs on the list at one time controlled an empire of a few million square km, some were short lived-1 leader-empires, but the only exceptions I can think of are the Egyptians, and possibly the Aztecs and Mali (don't know how big they got) Aztecs and Mali get the geographic exclusion rule and Egypt...well their Pyramids get them really good publicity (that should be the effect of the Pyramids, the civ that builds these will be in all computer games made by any civ for the rest of the game.)
You could possibly consider the Israelites a comparison with Egypt except for the fact that even after it fell to outsiders Egypt remained a powerful political player in the Mediterranean.
I don't understand why Negro means only West African or African American from West Africa. Is this because it is the only black people that American know of? Do americans not understand that West african originate from East africa in the way that whites are believd to orginate from the caucaus region. To say only West Africans are black is like saying only Russians or people who still live in the Cauacus regions are white. Brutal ignorancemossmonster said:
This is not the case for 95+ % of African civs. In fact for most it did the opposite. The Kongo for example was one of the most advanced countries in the world at its time now look at it. I could see how say SA benefitted technologically but other than it is the opposite because european tool eveything when they left.Pazarius said:
Krikkitone said:
I agree with much of what you say I just don't see any Israel accomplishments but there are jewish ones. The Aztecs and Mali where both rich and I don't know about the Aztecs education but Mali was a centre for learning at it height. I don't see how Israel could superceed someone like Songhai or Portugese who both had massive empires.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
There were cities with over 10,000 people. Ancient Rome is an example of that. Of course, when they started out, cities weren't as big as they grew.
Plus, something like that is very arbitrary when you consider that details like city population (in people numbers, not city size) mean nothing and could be changed to be 10 times larger, or 10 times smaller without affecting the game.
Plus, something like that is very arbitrary when you consider that details like city population (in people numbers, not city size) mean nothing and could be changed to be 10 times larger, or 10 times smaller without affecting the game.
Hannabir said:
Au contraire! :S There were plenty of cities of that size even at 2500 BC.
Just think of Babylon, Sumer, Thebes and so on.
Even my hometown (Cologne/Köln) had about 20000 inhabitants at 100 AD and was, during the medieval ages, one of the biggest European cities (with some 50000 inhabitants).
cicero
P.S. oh sorry, perhaps you meant a settlement filled up with 10000 settlers instantly... that effort would've been achieved by the germanic tribes on their treck through europe, e.g. the vandals, the goths and so on. Although they preferred to settle down in weakened cities like carthago...
EvilGuy
Chieftain
CdGGambit said:
You didn't understand correctly, i was refering to the french word as an example. Meaning in french, we use an extention to the word United-States instead of America, hence, inhabitants are United-Sta... (insert extension) instead of Americans.
I know it'll never change in english, but there's a push in french for that change.
CrazyMrLeo said:
I must agree, since the US adopted "americans" for themselves, the rest of us on the continent are forced to be more specific
All in all its just an odd fact of life that the US is the only country in the world to use the name of the continent it's on to name its people.
elderotter
Otter King
EvilGuy said:
Well perhaps you should read about the land down under.
Continent = Australia
Country = Australia
People = Australians
Yes I know it is their country name but it is also the continent so even if justified it is another people whose name reflects the continent. Point of Info only.
EvilGuy
Chieftain
elderotter said:
Correction:
Continent = Oceania
Country = Australia
People = Australians
elderotter
Otter King
EvilGuy said:Correction:
Continent = Oceania
Country = Australia
People = Australians
Correction Austrailia is a continent Oceania is a collection of Islands near Austrailia. So: Continent = Austrailia
Country = Austrailia
People = Austrailians
As I said.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
As I was about to say before the sever disapeared. Oceania is a region, Australia is a continent. BTW, if it were possible for the European Union to become a hemoginous entity, and not a collection of independant, sovereign states, wouldn't they call themselves European? (not something like European Unionists or whatever). What if the EU didn't include Bosnia-Herzegovinia? It wouldn't be all of Europe the continent. Of course, the EU isn't likely to become a United States (I don't think that anyone wants that, even if they do want a greater European identity), but, than again, the United States was once made up of Virginians, Pennsylvanians, Rhode Islanders, etc (and those are adjectives that people can't argue about). Still, its something to think about.
EvilGuy
Chieftain
I guess we're both right, though Oceania seems to be a growing term in modern Geography:
OCEANIA, the smallest continent, is one of the most diverse and fascinating areas on the planet.
A large percentage of geography experts now consider the long-established continent of Australia to be more accurately defined as Australia/Oceania.
Collectively it then combines all of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, as well as the thousands of coral atolls and volcanic islands of the South Pacific Ocean, including the Melanesia and Polynesia groups.
Oceania also includes Micronesia, a widely scattered group of islands that run along the northern and southern edges of the Equator.
Some links...
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm
http://reference.aol.com/atlas
http://www.worldatlas2000.com/
Apperantly The National Geopraphic Society still refers this continent as Australia. So if they are the true keepers of the TRUTH, then you're right
OCEANIA, the smallest continent, is one of the most diverse and fascinating areas on the planet.
A large percentage of geography experts now consider the long-established continent of Australia to be more accurately defined as Australia/Oceania.
Collectively it then combines all of Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, as well as the thousands of coral atolls and volcanic islands of the South Pacific Ocean, including the Melanesia and Polynesia groups.
Oceania also includes Micronesia, a widely scattered group of islands that run along the northern and southern edges of the Equator.
Some links...
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/au.htm
http://reference.aol.com/atlas
http://www.worldatlas2000.com/
Apperantly The National Geopraphic Society still refers this continent as Australia. So if they are the true keepers of the TRUTH, then you're right
EvilGuy
Chieftain
Louis XXIV said:
Well yeah, then it would make sense if their entire continent was united. Its just a different story with the US...
trotskylite
Warlord
this discussion about the classification of americans is getting rather tired.
although i think a lot of it has to do with the anti-nationalist sentiment in the country prior to the civil war. even as high up as the supreme court, there were references to states being their own domain, in much the same way england is its own domain. so americans were largely referring to themselves according to their state, and when the nationalist sentiment rose after the civil war, 'american' was the only obvious label to use.
although i think a lot of it has to do with the anti-nationalist sentiment in the country prior to the civil war. even as high up as the supreme court, there were references to states being their own domain, in much the same way england is its own domain. so americans were largely referring to themselves according to their state, and when the nationalist sentiment rose after the civil war, 'american' was the only obvious label to use.
- Status
Similar threads
