Americans ?

[Damien]

I don't think a civ should have an impact in the world.Huns,Goths and other barbarians were not civs.However they had an impact on the world.Aztecs had no impact on the world and yet it is a civ.
It's true;many african kingdoms were not "jungle's kingdoms" (the islamic african kingdoms of western africa,or aksum)but most of em (other kingdoms) don't deserve to be called civs.I don't think that Zimbabwe was a civ.As for native americans.Where did u read that iroquois had a glyph-writing?Knots were not made with shells but with ropes.The iroquois constitution was made of 114 wampums(ropes with knots).Joseph Brant was Mohawk.That's right.Sequoya invented the 86-characters writting.
As for Hochelaga n the other (about)10 towns along the St-Laurent from Quebec to Montreal,they were not there when the french came back.There were other natives.
Writing n sedentarisation are necessary but the real factor to form a civ is its accomplishments(forming the collective memory).
Touaregs have their own writing for a long time but they are nomads.
Writing is actually linked to cities,administration n later money.
Writing is necessary to set the rules,the counts.Remember the sumerians.

 

[Tweedledum]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The Mongols invented the Postal Service, a plague that has continued until today ...

I'd be interested see your evidence for that claim... And could they deliver the stuff on time!? (now that would be a first )

More seriously: why does it matter that certain "civs" were not "civilized" (insert definition to suit). The names are only labels anyway - it's easier to say the "Zulu" the "yellow/black one".
If you want to get historical, then the Romans / Babylons/ Persians / several of the others should be forced to die out by about 500 AD (it's a randomly chosen date, so don't start...) and certainly should NEVER be allowed to build tanks

 

[player2]

Damien,

But would you not conceide that all the 'benefits' of written language (code of laws, complex administrative system, sound educational system) are a means of acheiving the end of making the civ more powerful and influential? It's merely a different means to the same end; some choose cultural conquest, others chose a more militant route, and some chose a combination of the two. But I think the number #1 factor that determines whether a cohesive group of people can be called a civ is their 'impact' upon the world.

You noted that the Azetcs and Iroquoi had no impact upon the world; I couldn't disagree more. They were (arguably) the most dominant and/or influential force in THEIR part of the world at some time (as the Zulu were in Africa for a time) despite the fact that the New World was so sparsely populated. The Aztecs in particular had a HUGE impact upon the world (albeit indirectly) since their huge wealth in gold was attractive enough to incite the Europeans to colonize and conquer the New World. In a way, the Aztecs were indirectly responsible for the large scale European settlement of the new world and the formation of the countries (ie: US, Canada, etc) that followed. Of course the Europeans found other incentives to settle in the west, but the Aztec's role as an initial catalyst for colonization is undeniable.

In short, writing is just a little detail in something that's far more important to a civ's status; their power and influence in the world.

 

[Damien]

As i said b4,writing isn't the only factor(the achievments represent the main one),but if we take ur way to c things,every tribe influenced the world(well their part of the world);Goths don't represent a civ.however c the impact they had in europe.

 

[creilly66]

Ive been reading the thread and something just occured to me...

The Romans have to be in the game. That can be agreed on, I hope. Second, we really cannot outlaw the Romans from later stages of the game just because the remnants of the Empire fell under control of the Turks in 1453. So we are fine with Romans having Modern Armor and Helicopters (though they should really not build Civ III helicopters - waste of shields and upkeep).

So what befell the Romans was an -- unfortunate incident with several angry Germanic barbarian tribes. Now had the Romans beaten off the Germanics, they might have dissappeared...but they didnt. They coalesced through the centuries into the core of France and Germany. But we would have dismissed them if they had been kept across the Rhine.

So why are the Iroquois, the Zulus, and the Aztecs held against a different standard? Why can't we say that they too ran into unfortunate incidents that ended the possiblity of a future nation with the M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank? I mean the Iroquois were wiped out or assimilated by the Americans (Im an American FYI). The Zulus and the rest of Africa were beaten down and colonized. The Aztecs made an unfortunate encounter with Spaniards, whose true weapon was the contagions they brought with them, not a superior army or culture. Are these incidents unfortunate? Yes. Did they cut short empires that could have developed into something more (perhaps with European help or osmosis)? Maybe. Do they qualify to be in the Western white man's video game? Apparently only certain peoples need apply.

Well at least the Romans get Tanks. That is quite cool.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Exactly creilly66 That's why they marketed C3 as something to 'Change History' with...

 

[player2]

What's wrong with making the Goth's a civ? In fact, I believe they were included in Age of Empires II if I recall correctly. You're right, I would include them in the list if their influence/impact on the world was comparably large.

 

[Dell19]

Originally posted by player2
What's wrong with making the Goth's a civ? In fact, I believe they were included in Age of Empires II if I recall correctly. You're right, I would include them in the list if their influence/impact on the world was comparably large.

Yep they were including in Age of empires 2 even though they historically didn't even reach age of empires two later ages...They could be included because in their time they were powerful but they would represent another european civ and the other european civs partly represent the goths in the early ages.

 

[Left Foot]

This is pretty pathetic. ‘The xxxxxxs shouldn’t be in CIV 3 because they do not fulfil my subjective requirements for Civdom!!!!’

Imagine you’re playing a game as the Greeks, and in 2950 BC a Persian horseman takes your capital having razed your other city 2 turns beforehand. Game over. No more Greeks! That’s a nice turn of events isn’t it? How many potentially great civs have met such an unfortunate end at the hands of roaming armies / barbarians / disease / providence? In history anything is possible.

This game is about rewriting history, not reviewing it. What if a small band of nomads in [insert place] had managed to become great in lieu of [insert civ here]? That’s the beauty of the game, and not bickering about the inclusion of a country because it was not as influential as you consider some other to be.

I for one would like a random civ generator as well. In theory, it wouldn’t be very hard to do. The game generates it’s name and cities by selecting a random prefix, noun and suffix from a list depending on it’s geographical location (Med, Europe, etc…), selects random attributes and modifies a random unit for the better in order to make a UU. The player thus wouldn’t know that the newly discovered Zagumatic civ is religious/industrious (worshipping the great goat god Megakatsika) with a Middle ages UU (flying rocket launching horsemen) requiring salt pepper and iron. It would also eliminate some of the “I’m going to destroy the Germans ASAP because I know they’re going to piss me off with their demands and expansion” situations. It would give the game a bit of suspense and variety. What am I going to find across the channel?

The more civs, the better no matter how small and insignificant they may have been. It could have been different for them. We’re rewriting history here.

End of rant.

 

[Damien]

na,u do whatever u want;u r totally free luckily
It's just my point of view.
The difference between the romans and the iroquois is that there was a roman civ n THEN it was defeated by germanic tribes.Most native americans didn't develop(they started when the europeans arrived to cope with the danger).Danger forces people to step forward.Ex:The cold war.Aborigenes were alone on their continent n were still hunter-gathers when Brits arrived.The goal of civ3 is to rewrite history.
Some rewrite history;making civilizations with tribes;a world where Australia was the Atlantis;Aborigenes developed easily and were irrigating the last km2 of australian desert when the brits arrived in 1788.
Some rewrite history with non-existing civs.Unlike our europe where the center is the rhine valley;an europe where it is still the mediterranean sea.In the 13th century,facing the mongol threat;european and arabic countries stopped fighting;unified;reckoned the 3 religions n their common history linked to the mediterranean sea and their will of tolerance;making a civ where islamic , christian and jewish scientists and architests worked together whereas asia was still under the rule of mongol hordes.
Some, like me,rewrite history with civs that existed.I like to c roman tanks and american warriors.Leading the swiss,i spread the swiss democracy around the globe and fight against the roman fascists "dying for rome".
I'm not telling what u have to do with the game or what is intended to be done.I'mjust explaining my point of view.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by creilly66
I mean the Iroquois were wiped out or assimilated by the Americans (Im an American FYI).

That ain't true. The Iroquois are still in existence and their numbers are larger than ever. While some accepted the American way of life - of their own free will, I stress - others still value Iroquois tradition, thanks to ao the teachings of the Seneca prophet Handsome Lake.
The Iroquois have their own government, for local matters the USA have no jurisdiction over them.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
Aztecs had no impact on the world and yet it is a civ.

For the short time they existed, the Aztecs had a considerable impact on the region. But I'd be interested to hear why you think it's still a civ when impact doesn't count.

Where did u read that iroquois had a glyph-writing?

Try one of the many websites maintained by Iroquois, I'm sure that with a little effort you could find one so you can get rid of your fascination with knots.

Sequoya invented the 86-characters writting.

He built on the work that others did before him, the Jesuit priests I mentioned before.

As for Hochelaga n the other (about)10 towns along the St-Laurent from Quebec to Montreal,they were not there when the french came back

That's because the French murdered all the citizens of Hochelaga.
Other Hurons fell in battle with the Iroquois or were adopted or chased off by them. The Mohawk built new towns along the St. Lawrence.

The real factor to form a civ is its accomplishments (forming the collective memory).

And ways. Here I can agree with you, which is one of the reasons why the Iroquois cannot be dismissed. Their accomplishments in the fields of agriculture, government and society helped shape the modern world.

Writing is necessary to set the rules, the counts.

No, it isn't.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
Most native americans didn't develop (they started when the europeans arrived to cope with the danger).

You really think that the Tiahuanaco, Inca, Olmec, Maya, Anasazi, Pueblo, Adena, Hopewell, Seminole, Iroquois, Cherokee, Algonquin, etc were still nomads? Can you even give one example of an Amerind tribe that were in 1492 AD?

Their general level of development was comparable with that of the Europeans. Ahead in some fields, behind in others. For example, The Iroquois created a participatory democracy in 1460 AD.

 

[Damien]

I spent much time today surfing on many history sites:http://www.dickshovel.com and http://www.cherokeehistory.com were interesting.
I discovered http://www.historychannel.com which is VERY interesting.

Whereas i had read everywhere wampums were ropes with knots,i read on that site that it was made with beads n shells.
I discovered the pictographs(even saw five of em representing the league).

I don't agree on the fact that native americans were at the level of the europeans.They were better in astronomy.Iroquois used to live in long houses and villages(even if there were some towns,they were scarce and not so populated).Iroquois were 25,000 in 1600 then decreased to 5000 after the american revolution and are 50,000 today.They are behind the Cherokees with 370,000.
As for the difference between culture n civ it's a bit philosophical.
Cultures don't automatically give birith to civs and nations,modern civs(i don't hold all nations for civs),can live with no culture(USSR for ex) or with many cultures binding em with one common culture(the USA or Switzerland for ex).
Ideological nations can be seen as more civilised or likely to last than other civs.It's not based on language but on an ideology.

 

[Damien]

What kind of participative democracy was the iroquoian one?
I've read that the representatives were nominated for life by some women.there were 50 representants for the whole league.Unanimity was the rule.food was stored collectively and not owned.Breeding didn't exist i think;men used to hunt.
This kinda state was the one existing before civs.Karl Marx tried to come back to that state.For him,civ and culture was made by an elite that took power for its interests.The members of the elite were so-called representatives of the gods.In most nations,the elite took the power by making the people believe in "common values" and that they represent em n do what's the best for em.
A real communist state would be an "anti-civ" civ.
What were the great iroquois achievments?The american might have taken example on their political system n that one was later adopted by the 5 civilized tribes.That's a great achievment.(direct democracy existed in switzerland since the mid-13th century n other europeans took example on it).What are the others?Bronze(or rather iron i think)working came very late in some parts of america or didn't come at all.Sedentarisation,agriculture and breeding are neolithic ones and i don't hold that for achievments.
P.S:i don't agree with many things that Karl Marx said,however i think he's right on many things.
And Ribannah...are you iroquois or from another native american nation?

 

[God]

In the 13th century,facing the mongol threat;european and arabic countries stopped fighting;unified;reckoned the 3 religions n their common history linked to the mediterranean sea and their will of tolerance;making a civ where islamic , christian and jewish scientists and architests worked together whereas asia was still under the rule of mongol hordes.

What empire was this? Europe didn't unify to defeat the Mongols. They got lucky that Ogadai died while Batu and Subedei were conquering eastern Europe. Subedei died in the campaign but Batu returned to get his share of the splitting of Ogedai's possesions and all. If Batu stayed on Europe would have fallen.

And at that point India and more than half of China and southeast Asia remained independent.

I think the few times that the 3 religions were unified under one rule was in Spain under the Arabs. And also the Ottomans.

 

[creilly66]

This "unified" front against the Mongols certainly didn't help the Russians... Where did you find this info Damien? just curious not critical...

oh, and ribannah...just because there is a growing and healthy Iroquois population today does not mean that they were treated any differently than other tribes...the Cherokee may have a larger population today (280,000), but they were reduced to 11,000 by smallpox brought by Cortes, and lost over 4000 on the Trail of Tears...oh and by the way they live predominantly in Oklahoma now. So todays numbers and self-government today alone do not indicate a lengthy healthy Iroquois-American relationship.

An interesting side note - Cherokee is of the Iroquoian family of languages.

 

[Richard III]

I don't buy the "participatory democracy" stuff, although it certainly had traditions that resembled democratic consultation. A better way of putting it is that the Iroqious had designed a working, recorded federalist constitution, which was an innovation, no question.

And as for writing being "necessary" to be a civ, well, no. Technically speaking, for example, China has no alphabet, nor did Ancient Egypt. They do have ideogrammatic systems, as did the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, who were all clearly civs. To set the rules, what's needed is not writing, but codification, which can take several forms that are not per se written, e.g. wampum.

R.III

 

[creilly66]

A thought about the writing debate -

i agree that writing is a necessary factor of civilization...here's why. Coming off my sociology class, im thinking in terms of it.

According to soc theory, societies must fulfill somehow these institutions:

Education
Power Structure
Religion
Family
Economy

Now education, power structure, and economy all require some form of written or non-oral communication to move beyond even the most basic levels. Most religions are and have been based on written scripture, myth, or some recorded tradition. You have to agree that the lack of writing makes fulfilling these needs more difficult.

Education has a great need for writing. Ever since the invention of the printing press and many centuries before it in the Church's universities of Europe, written record and education have been inseparable. All of the great monotheistic religions have large volumes of scripture and written tradition. Economics cannot move beyond basic bartering, and prohibit merchant trading due to lack of record-keeping, let alone accounting.

The point is that writing greatly aids all parts of society, and though a group of people may get by without, the ones with writing are vastly more successful.

 

[Damien]

What empire was this?
Read the whole post.No need to browse ur history books...this never existed.This a civ that could be a suggestion for a scenario.
I WAS TALKING ABOUT people playing with non-existing civs.Aztecs,Olmecs etc were not nomads.Many natives were nomads in 1492.
EX:The Sioux(who were in civ2 );the Navajos;the Apaches.
Besides,that debate was held(not so deeply as i remember) on that forum a long time ago.A guy quoted the definition of what's a civ in the civ 1 manual.He told the requirements and said that they were all necessary to from a civ.
Egyptian and other writings that don't use syllabes are writings.