I'd like to know how @Xandinho would answer this?
Considering we know that the Norse arrived in Greenland in the Middle Ages does that mean Greenland is actually the oldest nation in America?
Brazil Unique Unit
- Thread starter Henri Christophe
- Start date
Considering we know that the Norse arrived in Greenland in the Middle Ages does that mean Greenland is actually the oldest nation in America?
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
You mean Vinland, don't you.I'd like to know how @Xandinho would answer this?
Considering we know that the Norse arrived in Greenland in the Middle Ages does that mean Greenland is actually the oldest nation in America?
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
I never met anyone from Greenland to ask. I'm curious for the answer. We need to remember Greenland still part of Denmark kingdom, so, that may mean they aren't a country yet too.I'd like to know how @Xandinho would answer this?
Considering we know that the Norse arrived in Greenland in the Middle Ages does that mean Greenland is actually the oldest nation in America?
I mean physically the island of Greenland is located in North America and was discovered and colonized before Vinland (Newfoundland), despite it being more culturally aligned with Europe.
Then I guess the answer would be Canada.I never met anyone from Greenland to ask. I'm curious for the answer. We need to remember Greenland still part of Denmark kingdom, so, that may mean they aren't a country yet too.
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
Yeah, I had a brainfart when I said Vinland.I mean physically the island of Greenland is located in North America and was discovered and colonized before Vinland (Newfoundland), despite it being more culturally aligned with Europe.
Then I guess the answer would be Canada.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
We said country. Greenland is an autonomous territory, not a country. The country is Denmark and that's not American at all .
Aztec practice of human sacrifice and Christian practice of heretic-and-witches burning *are* most certainly comparable: they're both killing people in brutal way - in the case of burning people, in one of the most painful way possible - in the name of your religion.
And even if all bad things are equally bad, some of them are far enough in the past that they can actually be adressed today as game mechanism without reopening old wounds. Others are too recent and cannot. The last Aztec human sacrifice was almost five hundred years go. Nobody alive had any relative they remember, or probably even any hint of knowing anyone who was sacrificed by the Aztecs (Even if they did, the people whom the Aztecs sacrificed, by and large, were people who also practiced human sacrifice on captured Aztecs; it was a mutual way Mesoamerican people treated their war captives). European Witch hunts, for that matter, are probably old enough too.
The last slaves of the plantation slave system were set free less than 150 years ago, and there are plenty of people alive today who knew former slaves, who spoke to them, whose recent family history is still deeply impacted by the legacy of slavery, let alone by the racial dehumanization that slavery was built on and that was then turned into a segregation system that still has lingering effects today.
These are different things. Not because of how bad they were, but because of how they can be handled as a freaking game mechanism.
. Aztec practice of human sacrifice and Christian practice of heretic-and-witches burning *are* most certainly comparable: they're both killing people in brutal way - in the case of burning people, in one of the most painful way possible - in the name of your religion.
And even if all bad things are equally bad, some of them are far enough in the past that they can actually be adressed today as game mechanism without reopening old wounds. Others are too recent and cannot. The last Aztec human sacrifice was almost five hundred years go. Nobody alive had any relative they remember, or probably even any hint of knowing anyone who was sacrificed by the Aztecs (Even if they did, the people whom the Aztecs sacrificed, by and large, were people who also practiced human sacrifice on captured Aztecs; it was a mutual way Mesoamerican people treated their war captives). European Witch hunts, for that matter, are probably old enough too.
The last slaves of the plantation slave system were set free less than 150 years ago, and there are plenty of people alive today who knew former slaves, who spoke to them, whose recent family history is still deeply impacted by the legacy of slavery, let alone by the racial dehumanization that slavery was built on and that was then turned into a segregation system that still has lingering effects today.
These are different things. Not because of how bad they were, but because of how they can be handled as a freaking game mechanism.
Last edited:
I'd like to know how @Xandinho would answer this?
Considering we know that the Norse arrived in Greenland in the Middle Ages does that mean Greenland is actually the oldest nation in America?
Regarding to the age of countries, for civilization purposes, I usually think about the independence date. So as @Evie said, America and GC would be older than Brazil. Canada and especially Australia would be younger.
Perhaps Brazil has more history because its first settlement was earlier than some countries.
Overall, I don't care much about it. Some decades in the great history of humankind is nothing. Not even America being ~50 years older than Brazil is nothing in millennia of history.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I tend to think first settlement is the better date actually, personally. Independence is a political step, but the culture - and thus the civilization - had already been growing and becoming distinct long before then - given the sheer distance from the motherland, and the limited sample of original inhabitants, colonial cultures tended to become their own things very quickly.
Especially so for culture that became independent gradually (eg, the British colonies), whose actual independence date is disputed (with some even saying they're *still* not independent).
Especially so for culture that became independent gradually (eg, the British colonies), whose actual independence date is disputed (with some even saying they're *still* not independent).
Gran Colombia would be the oldest modern civ in the game and Australia would be by far the youngest of all.
Australia would be the youngest son who would still be at school while GC would be leaving the college and planning the wedding
.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Essentially yes. By that standard, it's GC 1502, Brazil 1532, US 1607, and Canada...nobody actually knows for sure because St John's (sometimes between 1519 and 1630) and Acadia (1605 or later depending how you count the numerous times the English - and sometimes the French! - drove them out and the Acadians just came right back at the first chance) are both utterly confusing, so I guess we just ignore them and focus on Quebec City in 1608.
And Australia way, way, way later.
And Australia way, way, way later.
Just curious because apparently, as a Brazilian, you were supposed to say 1500.
I agree with you though. There's a reason why we celebrate July 4th as the birthday of the U.S. A.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Just curious because apparently, as a Brazilian, you were supposed to say 1500.
I agree with you though. There's a reason why we celebrate July 4th as the birthday of the U.S. A.
By that standard, France is 231 years old since they celerate July 14th lol
Well the difference is France was still called France before they stormed the Bastille.By that standard, France is 231 years old since they celerate July 14th lol
The United States wasn't called the United States before July 4, 1776.
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
They were called the Thirteen Colonies. That would be such a lame name for a Civilisation-what am I doing, we need to get back to the topic at hand!Well the difference is France was still called France before they stormed the Bastille.
The United States wasn't called the United States before July 4, 1776.
Never mind, thought this was a different thread, my brain farted so much. Anyways... A good way to fix this could be giving Pedro II a Persona Pack. Let him have the ability to train Fatherland Volunteers.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The topic at hand is Brazil's UU. We're talking age of nations because the argument was made that Brazil is somehow much older than the other colonies and this justified them having an earlier UU. This is of course nonsense - Brazil is in the same age range as the other colonial nations not named Australia, so there is no particular reason for their UU to be earlier or later.
(And the civilization is called America, not the United States, in game, so the first use of the United States is not relevant)
(And the civilization is called America, not the United States, in game, so the first use of the United States is not relevant
)
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
Sorry, thought this was a different thread.The topic at hand is Brazil's UU. We're talking age of nations because the argument was made that Brazil is somehow much older than the other colonies and this justified them having an earlier UU. This is of course nonsense - Brazil is in the same age range as the other colonial nations not named Australia, so there is no particular reason for their UU to be earlier or later.
(And the civilization is called America, not the United States, in game, so the first use of the United States is not relevant
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Despite @Xandinho answered wrong, Brazil have 520 years old and I still believe it is the oldest country in America.
Who write these history as that was our Emperor Pedro II to justify his family in power in Rio de Janeiro since 1808.
If you search on internet "Brazil 500 anos" you will find a lot of information, because we celebrate our discover in 22 April of 1500 as our birthday.
and as an old country we need one Unique Unit old as Bandeirantes who was around Brazil territory around ~1600
Who write these history as that was our Emperor Pedro II to justify his family in power in Rio de Janeiro since 1808.
If you search on internet "Brazil 500 anos" you will find a lot of information, because we celebrate our discover in 22 April of 1500 as our birthday.
The thing is when they were around Brazil was a Portuguese colony. If anything that should make them be available as a Portuguese UU, not that I'm advocating for it to be.
That's kind of like saying Gran Colombia should get Conquistadors in my opinion, which they shouldn't either.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Bandeirantes are totally different from Conquistadores, first Bandeirantes are overall mixraceThe thing is when they were around Brazil was a Portuguese colony. If anything that should make them be available as a Portuguese UU, not that I'm advocating for it to be.
That's kind of like saying Gran Colombia should get Conquistadors in my opinion, which they shouldn't either.
This only guy, João Ramalho, have more than an hundred sons and start an army in San Vincent (He is a kind of Caramuru of São Paulo)
Very different from Conquistadores who the meaning of history builded by Colombians, they have their own unique warrior Los Llaneros
Besides one being primarily mixraced and the other being made up of fully Spanish people, how are they any different?
They lead expeditions carrying the Portuguese flag into the interior of Brazil colony claiming land, subjugating the native people, and finding gold, sounds similar to me.
I know Gran Colombia has their own UU, which is fine. I was just making the comparison and I personally don't feel the need for the Bandeirantes to be the UU because Brazil was a part of Portugal at that point in it's history.
