Americans ?

[SvenSlayer]

None of the civs in Civ 3 were around in 4000 BC, whether you believe in creation or evolution. The Zulu weren't even around; the Bantu tribes only started wandering south one or two thousand years ago to escape Arab slave traders.

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by SvenSlayer
None of the civs in Civ 3 were around in 4000 BC, whether you believe in creation or evolution. The Zulu weren't even around; the Bantu tribes only started wandering south one or two thousand years ago to escape Arab slave traders.

India had been around for a millenium as of 4000 BCE. Also I believe it was the Akkadians who settled on the Tigris River not too long after 4000 BCE. And there's evidence that an impressive civilization of sorts existed in America perhaps as long ago as 8000 BCE.

 

[WarlordMatt]

When Civ III PTW comes out Firaxis may include breakaway civs-which are civs that "break away" from an already-existing civ through war or constant civil disorder-and the Americans might be one of them.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
Btw,i don't think the iroquois n zulu should be in civ3,neither amazones or tribes like that(they are tribes,not civs).Culture is different from civilization. [/B]

So you defend against America-bashing, but participate in the Iroquois- and Zulu-bashing, which means you're not any better.

Instead, why don't you inform us about your criteria of what constitutes a civilization and we'll have a discussion about that.

 

[Damien]

a civilisation must know writing.(iroquois didn't write;they conserved the information in wampoums;making knots);The Cherokees(actually one person:Joseph Brant i think) invented a writing around 1820.that writing had 85 characters.There was even a newspaper:the Cherokee Phoenix.There are many other stuffs that make a civ;their achievments for example;they mustn't be nomad.It isn't a tribe.What makes the difference between that civ and other civs.Na,it's quite hard to explain but i think i've done it a little bit.

 

[player2]

What difference does it make whether they had a written language? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? I think the most important thing is that the civ had some kind of signifigant place or impact on world history. The Iroquoi certainly fit that category, not because they influenced the rest of the world but because they were the dominant indian tribe in North America for hundreds of years. Same goes for the Aztecs down south, who despite having an impressive empire did not have a written language either (if I recall correctly). The Zulus were a dominant tribe in Africa (but as some have pointed out there may have been others who were even more influential; Zulus were probably chosen since most people knew about them)

If I am incorrect about my facts I'm sure someone will correct (or flame) me

 

[Damien]

History begins with the invention of writing.
Code of laws lead any civ.
Aztecs had a writing(glyphs).There are still some codex.
As for those who say"we should have a civ from polynesia;austrailia etc" just to represent every continent;i disagree with them.
Unlike in civilization,whole parts of the world knew no development.Aborigenes were hunter-gathers;most african kingdoms were "jungle's kingdoms" led by smith-kings.
As for America;it's discovery should have been very dangerous for europeans(what if we'd have found superior civs?).Luckily,in northern america we found only tribes.Some were nomads;some lived in temporary villages;some were sedentary.Iroquois were for example cannibals.Yet,in the 1820s,five tribes(including the Cherokees) adopted the american system(which may come from the iroquois system);a writing;created schools n published newspapers.800 years ago(i think i'm sure about the date),the was the mississipian culture.Its biggest town was Cahokia(near Saint-Paul);50,000 inhabitants.That culture is also known as "the mound builders".
It collapsed somehow(like the Mayas);we still don't know what happened.The Natchez came from that people but they were crushed when the europeans came.One of the biggest(maybe THE biggest) native american(northern american) town we knew was Hochelaga(nowadays Montreal).Aztecs n Incas began their expansion one century before the spaniards arrived n were at the level of the mesopotamian world(the Incas had no writing;as the iroquois they made knots).The western,asian and arabic worlds are to develop.However,other civs are to develop as well(the Empire of Ghana maybe).To my mind,the europeans were superior because europe is a small continent n knew the influences of many cultures.

 

[God]

Iroquoius weren't cannibals!!! I never heard of that.

And I don't see why the Europeans are superior. Maybe now they are more advanced but 1000 years ago half of them were brain dead. Just because some part of the world is more powerful now, doesn't mean they have always been more powerful.

Hell, the Europeans, except some Mediterraneans, were still in the Stone Age while Egypt had its Middle Kingdom.

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by Damien
The only good history is white history.

I trimmed down your post a bit for you.

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by DelinquentRock
how did I know it*

well there are three possiblility's as to why you know that

1. Your a Commie spy!
2. You play as India in Civ
3. You have something that has common in the name but it really is not that Common?

 

[Sixchan]

History begins with the invention of writing.
Code of laws lead any civ.
Aztecs had a writing(glyphs).There are still some codex.
As for those who say"we should have a civ from polynesia;austrailia etc" just to represent every continent blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Well, the Celts, whom the Romans could not defeat in Ireland and Scotland, and who the Romans stole their sword, armour and helmet from (thanks for this, Calgacus!) Don't qualify as a Civilization because they didn't learn to write?

And therefore shouldn't be in the game?

 

[Damien]

I never said white were superior!!!
Putting a community over another or putting 2 communities in competition is a good way to make em not look at what the gov does-it's an old strategy and i'm totally against it.
2000 years ago white people were Celts and had a lower knowledge than the mediterranean ones.I never said white history is the only important one.Asian and arabic ones are very important as well.I just say that we should consider other civs as they were.Maya and Incas had better knowledge on astronomy than us;Nazca were the first to invent the montgolfiere(i don't know if it's the right word in english,maybe baloon);that's how they did the Nazca trail.However they had no writing.European civs were superior to the precomlombian ones as arabic civs were superior to the european ones in the middle ages."Let's not see those civs are more advanced than they were" is my point.
About iroquois cannibalism i read that somewhere and i'll try to find it again.

 

[Damien]

Found it:http://www.tolatsga.org/iro.htlm
It's very interesting.
As for the Celts,they knew how to write;well at least the Celtibers n the venets(more than 500 shelves were found).
Besides,some bantu tribes around the victoria lake knew how to make steel before the christ was born.Metallurgy was born in Nigeria with the nok culture.Pottery was born in the sahara.Thus,those people stayed proto-historic because they didn't know how to write.Mongol bows impressed the romans;however Attila and his troops were barbarians.

 

[Akka]

I think that someone arguing about how writing is the main requirement about being a civilization should :
a) Talk a hint about "culture" ;
b) Learn himself proper writting skills and the use of the space key, return key and adequate separation in different paragraphs.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
a civilisation must know writing.(iroquois didn't write;they conserved the information in wampoums;making knots);The Cherokees(actually one person:Joseph Brant i think) invented a writing around 1820.that writing had 85 characters.There was even a newspaper:the Cherokee Phoenix.There are many other stuffs that make a civ;their achievments for example;they mustn't be nomad.It isn't a tribe.What makes the difference between that civ and other civs.Na,it's quite hard to explain but i think i've done it a little bit.

Knots?? I wonder how you do that with shells .....
And Joseph Brant (aka Tyendinaga) was a Mohawk. Brantville was named after him, it has a statue in his honor.

No, the Iroquois had a glyph-like script comparable to that of the Maya or the Egyptians (with one interesting addition: color and margins added nuances to the meaning of a record).

Then in the early 17th century, still at the very beginning of the Iroquois Golden Age, Jesuit priests created a phonetic alphabet for them which later was generilized into the Pickering alphabet, still in use for all the North Amerind languages.

I don't agree with Writing being a criterion though. While it is great to have, there is a lot you can do without it in the early stages of civilization.

I do agree with the criterion that they must be settled (no nomads).

Obviously it has eluded you that the Iroquois lived in houses. In addition, they traditionally had granaries, guesthouses, palisades, gardens, sweatlodges, harbors and fishing lodges. Some of their towns were moved every 20 years or so to let the soil/forest revover, but others were as permanent as London.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
Most african kingdoms were "jungle's kingdoms" led by smith-kings.

Only a part of Africa is jungle.
Ever heard of Nubia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Great Zimbabwe, to name just a few?

800 years ago(i think i'm sure about the date),the was the mississipian culture.Its biggest town was Cahokia(near Saint-Paul);50,000 inhabitants.That culture is also known as "the mound builders".

The 'moundbuilders' were called the Adena people.
At its peak in 1150 AD, it is estimated that Cahokia had 20,000 citizens (not 50,000, or even 1,000,000 as someone on these forums claimed a few days ago). AFAIK they never did anything remarkable that would make we want them in the game.

It collapsed somehow(like the Mayas);we still don't know what happened.

Nothing drastic happened to the Adena people. Their culture slowly changed into what we call the Hopewell culture, as a consequence of the introduction of maize. Cahokia eventually grew smaller because temperature changes negatively affected the maize production. (The Maya, otoh, suffered from a major climatological change which changed their fertile fields into jungle and forced them to abandon their cities.)

One of the biggest(maybe THE biggest) native american(northern american) town we knew was Hochelaga (nowadays Montreal).

Hochelaga was an Iroquois or Iroquoian town (both Mohawk and Hurons claim the heritage) of some 3,000 citizens, a normal size for such towns.

 

[God]

most african kingdoms were "jungle's kingdoms" led by smith-kings.

Thats was one of the common beliefs by the Europeans that Africa was all jungle (Dark Africa), and also that Africans were savages and all the same.

 

[player2]

Damien et al,

The historical background is fascinating but you're missing the point; WHY is a written language a requirement to be considered a civ? It sounds like you're making the argument that 'if a civ isn't 'cultured,' it doesn't belong in the game. I'm not saying that it's not important, certainly, but shouldn't other factors such as their influence/impact upon the world take precedence? Case in point; the Mongols didn't have much of a unique culture compared to the rest of the world, but they made a huge (and arguably negative) impact and influenced the world in ways we can never measure. The same cannot be said for many of the civs we consider 'cultured.'

I know I'm playing right into the European attitude of 'American Cretanization' by saying this, but... culture isn't everything.

 

[Ribannah]

The Mongols invented the Postal Service, a plague that has continued until today ...

 

[Slive Draver]

In Civ3, do civs ever split apart? I remember in Civ 1, at least, sometimes when you took a capital, the civ would sometimes split into two separate civs, giving each new civ about the same amount of cities as the old one. The first one I saw was, I believe, England breaking up into England and America. Has anybody seen this in Civ3?