I don't see the point of adding in civs like Assyria....

Colmar said:

Wow, Ptolemy sure did take creative liberties with Portugal and the Bay of Biscay...

Click to expand...

Nah, close enough.

To me assyria is the best of the new civs. I love those ancient cultures, and it makes more sense to me to play 4000 years bc as them.

Tycho Brahe said:

Nah, close enough.

To me assyria is the best of the new civs. I love those ancient cultures, and it makes more sense to me to play 4000 years bc as them.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I really hope Sumer, the Hittites and Phoenicia will all make it into CiV eventually
I would also love to see Armenia with Tigranes the Great, altough it's from a slightly later time period

aluelkdf said:

There are differences in knowledge, due to 2500 years of separation. I am talking about a person's natural ability. The Greeks were relatively enlightened considering the age they lived in. When you look at 2013 America by contrast, most Americans probably can't even find Greece on map.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPvBK3sbd4Y
Hihi, sorry I just had to post that because that comment reminded me of it.

I agree on the topic that the 'average' person would be similar like the 'average' peasant 6,000 years ago. However, 6,000 years ago they had better things to do than learning the locations and capitals of nearby states; they were more busy with their own survival. Knowing where Persia is doesn't help you grow crops or survive through the winter. Nowadays everyone is supposed to stay at school until their 16/18th birthday, instead of growing your own food you buy it in the supermarket, there are libraries available and now especially with the internet there is, unless there is a genetic flaw involved, no reason to be stupid.

For me Assyria is more interesting of Brazil and also his power can be funny. I hope also for Hittites and Phoenicia

steveg700 said:

Except for when you suggest that people from civilization A are dumber than people from civilization B. A civilization with public education--even bad public education--is going to have a population far ahead of one without. You think finding a foreign country on a map is a measure of intelligence? In some nations, the ability to write your own name is nothing to take for granted.


Yes, it's an odd blend of populism and elitism.

Click to expand...

I was talking about people on AVERAGE. This means that everybody is taken into account, the smartest the dumbest and everybody in between. I was NOT saying that ALL ancient Greeks were smart. I think what I was saying was actually quite simple to understand, and if it's not understandable then it just proves my point.

And education just allows a person's natural ability to do more. Education has no effect on a person's natural ability. If Issac Newton grew up on a deserted island and never even saw a book in his whole life, he would still be naturally intelligent even if he could not read or write.

aluelkdf said:

I was talking about people on AVERAGE. This means that everybody is taken into account, the smartest the dumbest and everybody in between. I was NOT saying that ALL ancient Greeks were smart. I think what I was saying was actually quite simple to understand, and if it's not understandable then it just proves my point.

And education just allows a person's natural ability to do more. Education has no effect on a person's natural ability. If Issac Newton grew up on a deserted island and never even saw a book in his whole life, he would still be naturally intelligent even if he could not read or write.

Click to expand...

The only thing that possibly helps prove your point is the fact that you can't eveb realize how ridiculous it is to say Group A is smarter, higher IQ, than Group B. Hey let's change that to the ethnic group "Greeks" is smarter than another ethnic group. Now you also sound racist.

What you could argue is that the cultural milieu of the time along with Greece's position and interaction with the surrounding world, and, later, the Greek language itself helping to share ideas in the post Alexendrine world, fostered an atmosphere that promoted new ideas. You can't argue that the Greek's were just smarter. There's no basis and it's a type of thinking that belongs to outdated notions of one race being superior to another.

turingmachine said:

The only thing that possibly helps prove your point is the fact that you can't eveb realize how ridiculous it is to say Group A is smarter, higher IQ, than Group B. Hey let's change that to the ethnic group "Greeks" is smarter than another ethnic group. Now you also sound racist.

What you could argue is that the cultural milieu of the time along with Greece's position and interaction with the surrounding world, and, later, the Greek language itself helping to share ideas in the post Alexendrine world, fostered an atmosphere that promoted new ideas. You can't argue that the Greek's were just smarter. There's no basis and it's a type of thinking that belongs to outdated notions of one race being superior to another.

Click to expand...

I really don't care about being politically correct. I love how people throw around the race card to get their way and to prove points. I know that I'm supposed to cower in fear at these accusations, but this type of thuggery doesnt work on me. Throwing around the race card is a form of racism, and people and groups that do it ought to be ashamed of themselves.

aluelkdf said:

I really don't care about being politically correct. I love how people throw around the race card to get their way and to prove points. I know that I'm supposed to cower in fear at these accusations, but this type of thuggery doesnt work on me. Throwing around the race card is a form of racism, and people and groups that do it ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Click to expand...

What thuggery?

You don't seem to get it. YOU threw in the race card, not me. YOU are the one that said that one race (the Greeks) are inherently smarter than another race.

You seem to be against your own tactic, as your entire argument rests on a racial assumption, so, by your own words, "you should be ashamed of yourself".

turingmachine said:

What thuggery?

You don't seem to get it. YOU threw in the race card, not me. YOU are the one that said that one race (the Greeks) are inherently smarter than another race.

You seem to be against your own tactic, as your entire argument rests on a racial assumption, so, by your own words, "you should be ashamed of yourself".

Click to expand...

Nobody was even talking about race until you brought it up. So your claims of racism are completely unfounded.

Injecting race into issues is thuggery, and it is racist. What is up with this obsession about race anyway? That just creates racism. All laws should be race and gender neutral. Isn't that what true equality is all about?

aluelkdf said:

Nobody was even talking about race until you brought it up. So your claims of racism are completely unfounded.

Injecting race into issues is thuggery, and it is racist. What is up with this obsession about race anyway? That just creates racism. All laws should be race and gender neutral. Isn't that what true equality is all about?

Click to expand...

YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT RACE!

What do you think saying one group of people, in this case the Greeks, is superior to another group of people is?

You didn't even suggest any alternate factors besides race to support your argument. I, at least, pointed out their geographic location and the fact that the Greek language helped spread ideas in the post Alexendrine world.

Your entire argument was the Greeks were smarter because they were Greek.

It's funny that you don't even realize you're promoting a form of racial superiority and being racist.

And if I'm wrong, then explain, right now, why the Greeks were smarter. Keep in mind, you stated things like education aren't a factor because inherent natural ability would be the same on a desert island.

Or, again, did the Greek people just have greater inherent natural ability?

I'm talking about ancient Greeks, the ancient Greeks are not a race!

Your point would be valid if I was talking about caucasians or Europeans, but I am not. I'm talking about Ancient Greeks, a very very specific group of people at a very specific time in history, and therefore I'm not talking about race.

So I suppose the fact that the Greeks are one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed (at least up to that point) had absolutely nothing to do with them being smart. The Greeks used magic to create their civilization.

aluelkdf said:

I'm talking about ancient Greeks, the ancient Greeks are not a race!

Your point would be valid if I was talking about caucasians or Europeans, but I am not. I'm talking about Ancient Greeks, a very very specific group of people at a very specific time in history, and therefore I'm not talking about race.

So I suppose the fact that the Greeks are one of the greatest civilizations that ever existed (at least up to that point) had absolutely nothing to do with them being smart. The Greeks used magic to create their civilization.

Click to expand...

Once again, you don't offer any explanation for your argument except that the Ancient Greeks, a group of people that were closely genetically related, were smarter.

Just because your shifting the focus from a large scale of Caucasians, to a smaller ethnic scale of Greece, (which, as ancient times were more isolated in general, would have meant that the Greek people were more homogenous of a group than today) doesn't make it not racist.

Why were they smarter besides inherent natural ability? Again, I pointed out other possible factors, you just seem to think its because they were Greek, denying factors like education.

According to your argument:

I take an average American and put him on a desert island. I take an average Ancient Greek and put him on a desert island. The Ancient Greek will always be inherently smarter. Why? If you want to claim something, you need to back it up.

The Greeks were not the greatest anything. Like all others, they benefited from the discoveries of various groups whom they had discourse with. If they benefited to a greater degree it was because of their prolific interactions with a wide variety of cultures. Just as students have teachers, so too do cultures. The Greeks learned from Egyptians, Phoenicians, Persians, and so on. They built upon what they learned just as good students add to what was taught to them, but they could not have done it without the input of others that came before them.

turingmachine said:

Once again, you don't offer any explanation for your argument except that the Ancient Greeks, a group of people that were closely genetically related, were smarter.

Just because your shifting the focus from a large scale of Caucasians, to a smaller ethnic scale of Greece, (which, as ancient times were more isolated in general, would have meant that the Greek people were more homogenous of a group than today) doesn't make it not racist.

Click to expand...

Oh, so you admit that different groups of people have different genetics. I thought that this notion was racist.

[/QUOTE]
I take an average American and put him on a desert island. I take an average Ancient Greek and put him on a desert island. The Ancient Greek will always be inherently smarter. Why? If you want to claim something, you need to back it up.[/QUOTE]

Why are you using the word "always", when I have kept repeating the word "average" over and over again. You seem to not comprehend the concept of what agerage is.

Edit: I'm using a phone right now and I can't get it to quote properly.

Eagle Pursuit said:

The Greeks were not the greatest anything. Like all others, they benefited from the discoveries of various groups whom they had discourse with. If they benefited to a greater degree it was because of their prolific interactions with a wide variety of cultures. Just as students have teachers, so too do cultures. The Greeks learned from Egyptians, Phoenicians, Persians, and so on. They built upon what they learned just as good students add to what was taught to them, but they could not have done it without the input of others that came before them.

Click to expand...

The Greeks learned from others, but they then built upon that and improved it to a great extent. Ancient Greece probably had a larger impact on western civilization more than any other group. Their impact is undeniable, whether the impact is direct or indirect.

aluelkdf said:

The Greeks learned from others, but they then built upon that and improved it to a great extent. Ancient Greece probably had a larger impact on western civilization more than any other group. Their impact is undeniable, whether the impact is direct or indirect.

Click to expand...

Our relationship to the Greeks is the same as the Greeks' relationship to the other cultures I mentioned. We stand on their shoulders and they stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. They are only a great influence on us because we gained the knowledge from them first. If all the knowledge of Rome and Greece had been completely lost after the fall of Rome, we would be attributing great influence to the Arabians, who themselves benefited from the Greeks, Romans, etc.

The factor that makes cultures "smart" is a value system that holds knowledge and learning in high regard. It's not a factor of genetics, race, or ethnicity. Anyone can be "smart" if they value knowledge. No one is born that way. You have to go through life accumulating knowledge from others, or by adding to it through experience and experimentation. In order to be particularly intelligent, you have to interact with a large variety of different people and their stores of knowledge, and you have to have the free time, finances, and desire to have experiences and devise experiments to increase your own knowledge independently. This is what the Greeks did, or at least the best of the Greeks who we remember today. All societies who have left a legacy of science have done this as well. We can do this too; any of us who have the right value system. Unfortunately, the majority of any given society lacks the time, finances, or values to pursue knowledge. Which is why the peasant-minded people you may run into at the mall won't find Greece on a map.

To say that someone or some group is smart because they are born that way is patently false.

Eagle Pursuit said:

Our relationship to the Greeks is the same as the Greeks' relationship to the other cultures I mentioned. We stand on their shoulders and they stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. They are only a great influence on us because we gained the knowledge from them first. If all the knowledge of Rome and Greece had been completely lost after the fall of Rome, we would be attributing great influence to the Arabians, who themselves benefited from the Greeks, Romans, etc.

The factor that makes cultures "smart" is a value system that holds knowledge and learning in high regard. It's not a factor of genetics, race, or ethnicity. Anyone can be "smart" if they value knowledge. No one is born that way. You have to go through life accumulating knowledge from others, or by adding to it through experience and experimentation. In order to be particularly intelligent, you have to interact with a large variety of different people and their stores of knowledge, and you have to have the free time, finances, and desire to have experiences and devise experiments to increase your own knowledge independently. This is what the Greeks did, or at least the best of the Greeks who we remember today. All societies who have left a legacy of science have done this as well. We can do this too; any of us who have the right value system. Unfortunately, the majority of any given society lacks the time, finances, or values to pursue knowledge. Which is why the peasant-minded people you may run into at the mall won't find Greece on a map.

To say that someone or some group is smart because they are born that way is patently false.

Click to expand...

Pretty much everything you say is true, except for the fact that there is such a thing as natural intelligence. A desire to learn may be more important and more influential than natural intelligence, but natural intelligence is still a factor. Isaac Newton invented calculus. Myself and 99.9999% of people would not be able to do that no matter how determined and motivated they were.

Intelligence is just one characteristic. There are different levels of intelligence just like there are variations in height, some people have better eyesight than others, some people have more sensitive hearing, some people are better at sports, some are better at playing musical instruments. Practice is a big factor, most most people will never be a professional hockey player or a world class musician no matter how hard they try. No two people are the same, every single person on this planet is unique. And intelligence is no exception.

Isaac Newton was able to invent Calculus because he was raised to appreciate knowledge and to satisfy his curiosity about the natural world. He was fortunate to be born to wealthy parents. His father died when he was young and his mother sent him to boarding school just to be rid of him. He was essentially raised by a school teacher. He had a curiosity about the natural world, especially the nature of sight. That led him to the field of optics where he invented new kinds of telescopes. That made him curious about the movements of planets and how to explain them. He invented (his own kind) of calculus to explain it. It was his drive for knowledge and his curiosity that led him to develop such things. He did not develop all that knowledge by himself. He was a member of the Royal Society. He communicated with others and read the latest ideas and the oldest ideas. In fact. Leibniz invented a better version of calculus shortly after Newton, coming to it by a different route.

Was there something about Newton that made him more intelligent? No. There is some speculation that he was autistic. That didn't make him naturally intelligent. It might have made him more focused on things that are absolute, like physics, rather than human interactions, a known trait of autistics. But not all autistics are intelligent. What makes people intelligent is that they value knowledge and have the means, financial and otherwise, to gain it. Newton had the money from his landed family to get into Cambridge. He secured finances through the Royal Society to support his later work. He ran the bloody Mint. He had the spare time to stare into telescopes.

Super intelligence is not a thing a person or a group of people are born with. If you meet a genius, don't think he is your superior because he was born that way. Some one made him a genius. Some one taught him the value of knowledge. Some one gave him the money and the spare time to read tons of books and stare into telescopes or microscopes and fiddle with computers. Everyone has this capacity. It is those who have the opportunity and the desire to seize it that become geniuses.

aluelkdf, it is obvious this is boiling down to a discussion of nature vs. nurture. Since that debate rages on in the fields of sociology and genetics, let us leave it to them and we will both stand in the audience and see which is the truth.