Barbarians are back :(

[em jay]

So I razed their cities.

That's made my whole day worthwhile

 

[brianshapiro]

Exactly, the phrase says a heck of a lot more about the Greeks than the people they hit with it.

Namely that they were a bunch of snotters! They were asking for it, what with their culturally insensitive stereotypes, ethno-centric world view and discriminatory use of an arcane script rather than the hieroglyphs we all know to be superior.

So I razed their cities.

I think when people look down on the Greeks for being ethno-centric thats a bit judgmental in itself. The Greeks believed their world view and values as a culture were better than others around them. And who are we to argue with that, when today, we virtually worship ancient Greece, admiring their art and philosophy, call it the birthplace of democracy, we still learn about their mythology , etc... ?

Its kind of a double-talk when people admire the Greeks so much and then bash them for being ethno-centric.

Also, I think there's some dispute over the etymology of barbarian. Although its generally agreed 'barbaros' in Greek was used to refer to people who spoke funny, there was also a more particular word that meant that (Wikipedia on 'barbarian' mentions this), 'barbarophonos'. In modern English, barbaric can mean anything crude, arbitrarily formed, incomprehensible. Hegel, for instance, used the word to refer to aspects of Kant's philosophy; he referred to certain categorizations created by Kant as 'barbarisms', because they were arbitrarily formed -- crudely slapped together without any sense of necessity, in Hegel's eyes. You could suspect 'barbaros' meant to characterize not only speech but how Greeks saw these foreign civilizations in general. They felt that Greek society had a more reasoned basis for it -- for instance, a democratic state, instead of one ruled by a king. At one point, Athenians began to call all non-Athenians in Greece as "barbarians" because they thought their society and values were more reasoned than the others.

 

[kozzer]

I think when people look down on the Greeks for being ethno-centric thats a bit judgmental in itself. The Greeks believed their world view and values as a culture were better than others around them. And who are we to argue with that, when today, we virtually worship ancient Greece, admiring their art and philosophy, call it the birthplace of democracy, we still learn about their mythology , etc... ?

Its kind of a double-talk when people admire the Greeks so much and then bash them for being ethno-centric.

Also, if you read Plato, when he uses the term he's not using it with the negative connotations we put into the word today. He's essentially saying so-and-so is "non-Greek". Not that they're necessarily uncivilized or somehow inherently less human. They considered the Persians barbarians, and at the time the Persians were way more civilized than the Greeks.

 

[brianshapiro]

Also, if you read Plato, when he uses the term he's not using it with the negative connotations we put into the word today. He's essentially saying so-and-so is "non-Greek". Not that they're necessarily uncivilized or somehow inherently less human. They considered the Persians barbarians, and at the time the Persians were way more civilized than the Greeks.

I just added to my last post about the uses of 'barbaros'. I think its safe to say the Greeks did think their culture was better than others, even if the word could just be used to mean 'non-Greek'. Just because they considered their culture better doesn't mean they thought the other cultures were 'less human' though, I think that would be a projection.

The same thing I think applies to how they perceived their language too, Greek language is structured in a rational way.

 

[kozzer]

I just added to my last post about the uses of 'barbaros'. I think its safe to say the Greeks did think their culture was better than others, even if the word could just be used to mean 'non-Greek'. Just because they considered their culture better doesn't mean they thought the other cultures were 'less human' though I think that would be a projection.

The same thing I think applies to how they perceived their language too, Greek language is structured in a rational way.

Well, yeah, of course the Greeks thought their culture is better. That's true of pretty much every culture ever. But my point is that when they used the term, they weren't describing neandertal-like Conans (as people use the term today), just referring to those who weren't Greek.

 

[Johnny Be]

I want barbarians who say "All your base are belong to us" when they conquer one of your cities!

 

[brianshapiro]

Well, yeah, of course the Greeks thought their culture is better. That's true of pretty much every culture ever. But my point is that when they used the term, they weren't describing neandertal-like Conans (as people use the term today), just referring to those who weren't Greek.

Yea I know -- I'm suggesting to the Greeks 'barbaros' might have suggested something negative but not necessarily neanderthal-like. For example, Athenians might have thought that democratic government was more of a reasoned foundation for a society than what existed in Persia, where a king ruled just for having conquered the land by force. Its possible that 'barbaros' had a neutral use, just to mean 'non-Greek' but also had a lot of subjective meaning for Greeks

...just like for instance how Jewish people have a special word for non-Jews, 'gentiles'. Its used in a neutral sense, but it also once had the connotation that non-Jews were heathens; they didn't just happen to be non-Jews -- they worshipped idols and didn't follow God. Christians at one point also used the word 'gentile' to mean someone who wasn't either Christian or Jewish.

For Greeks, Greek ways were more than just familiar, they were better, more rational, so to be non-Greek, I think would have been seen as something negative.. ie, not just happening to be non-Greek

 

[Zhahz]

(See the signature, it's the bottom line).

I think the barbarians are a fine GAMEplay mechanic. They keep the player honest early, add some potential risk to exploration, etc.

They are likely done a little differently this time around with the whole citystate thing.

 

[Pouakai]

I think it would be better if you could negotiate, not as a regular civ, but rather pay them gold in exchange for them attacking your opponent, or giving you troops etc.

 

[Ahriman]

If you want to negotiate, do it with city states and other civs. By design, barbarians are those warriors against whom you just have to fight.

 

[Aeon221]

Cool. Well from now on I'm referring to all Europeans as Blahblahstupidfaces. I'm sure it will go over well, but honestly I couldn't care less since they're utterly inferior and incapable of speaking American. After all, they don't even have Leno! Cultural wasteland say what?!

I mean, really, you don't think the Greeks were ethnocentric? Is you smoking something? Because the average Greek sounded a lot like what I typed above, if their historians are anything to go by.

Also, Athenian Democracy: No Retards or Women Allowed. Also no Furriners.

 

[brianshapiro]

Cool. Well from now on I'm referring to all Europeans as Blahblahstupidfaces. I'm sure it will go over well, but honestly I couldn't care less since they're utterly inferior and incapable of speaking American. After all, they don't even have Leno! Cultural wasteland say what?!

I mean, really, you don't think the Greeks were ethnocentric? Is you smoking something? Because the average Greek sounded a lot like what I typed above, if their historians are anything to go by.

Also, Athenian Democracy: No Retards or Women Allowed. Also no Furriners.

I dont even know exactly what this is in response to..... The Greeks were ethnocentric, I was just pointing out that we talk admiringly of ancient Greek culture so its a bit of double talk to bash them on being ethnocentric, because obviously we think Greeks had a lot to be proud about.

Its not even necessarily wrong to be ethnocentric, if it doesn't cross over into bigotry. A lot of Europeans today think their govt & culture is better than American govt & culture and vice versa. French complain endlessly about the 'anglosphere'. Where its not bigoted I don't care. A lot of it is stupid, but thats another issue.

 

[dra]

CornPlanter, just treat those nasty barbs as organized brigands, pirates or warbands of 3rd world countries. It is kinda realistic this way, initially world is full of those but as your Empire grows it has more and more ways of proper policing it's region and surronding lands. Eventually, they become something of a nuisance in far away lands.

I would love an idea of basic negotiations with barbarians (before sacking city or to pay for redirecting them to bother another civ.

Also, based on screens and information so far, one would assume that early war is somewhat nerfed in civ5. I mean, for efficient warfare you would require larger number of resources as well as different unit types (mounted, range and melee) in order to use even basic tactics. Hopefully I am wrong here but if not, there would be nothing to do for initial 100 turns or so. Having oportunity to move some soldiers around to repel barbarian invasions could be very attractive.

AFAIK, term barbaria in ancient Greek meant "not speaking greek language" which in practice meant foreigner. Term was borrowed by Romans and from there became popular in Western World.

 

[Svip]

Also, Athenian Democracy: No Retards or Women Allowed. Also no Furriners.

Sounds like sensible policy to me.

 

[AriochIV]

But now for the real question: will barbarians be preceded by wild animals?

 

[ninerzfan_22]

Interesting.
I was always a big fan of Terra maps, and if all you can find in the new world are small city states then that will change the flavour of Terra games significantly; unless there is a way to spawn actual Civs at later start dates to spread and provide some resistance (and diplomacy options) for old world Civs discovering the new world and flooding it with colonists.

For a player who is trying to better simulate the colonial era I feel that barbarians with cities does a better job than city states of re-creating the era in most instances. For the most part, colonizing civs were in perpetual war with the natives and did not seek to court them. There was no effort on the part of the colonizers to preserve their culture or protect the natives. While the French befriended some natives and some tribes took sides in intra-European wars (7 years war), barbarians with cities is a better representation of the new world in terra maps. A good example of how city states might pose problems is RFC. In RFC the Inca and Aztec were often vassalized instead of conquered as they were historically. No offense to RFC though I'm a big fan.

 

[Peng Qi]

Can we take this to mean that barbarians will not be founding actual cities in the later game the way they did in IV.
(On Terra maps those size 15 cities complete with wonders were a bit of a shock!)

Spoiler :

 

[mjs0]

The funniest thing about that screenshot is that Shaka has adopted one of the the barbarian religions and, of course, is currently at WAR.

 

[Louis XXIV]

How did the barbarians manage to get two holy cities?

 

[azzaman333]

How did the barbarians manage to get two holy cities?

Poorly defended Dutch city which built the Oracle and bulbed Theology from it. Probably because one of those crap barbarian spawning events.