Chinese - still Militaristic and using Rider?

[gettingfat]

Conquest sounds like a good expansion to me and I'm going to buy it. I know it's only a game, but as a Chinese, I'm a bit disappointed to overheard that the Chinese civ remains militaristic and industrious. Industrious is definitely OK. Militaristic? Give me a break! With only a few exceptions, Chinese were almost always in defensive mode in the history.

The game maker actually tried to merge the Chinese and Mongols together at the very beginning. That's why they gave Chinese the Rider and made it militaristic. The bulk of the ancient Chinese armies were usually infantry or archers or crossbowmen. When they added Mongols in PTW they should have made the distinction, gave Mongols the Rider and designed a new infantry or archer UU for the Chinese. They didn't. Instead they gave Mongols Keshik, a highly historically incorrect and weak version of knight that will make Genghis Khan die one more time from heart attack in his grave.

I can still bear with the rider. Ancient Chinese did use a lot calvary units. But I can't stand that militaristic label. Now they have two new Civ-types: agricultural and sea-faring. These are great. And it's the high time to switch Chinese from militaristic to agricultural. They've made the proper correction on England (getting sea-faring), but why would the most agricultural civ in the ancient world get militaristic???

Be a bit more cultural sensitive!

 

[Xen]

it would have nice to give those traits to the civ who obviouslly diserves those traits, mil+ind, and that would be the goold old Roman empire

 

[Djarum Kretek]

I think Militaristic is not a totally out-of-the-question trait for the Chinese. I'm Chinese and I've read a lot about Chinese history. Maaannn, we fought a lot. Most of the damage was done through internal civil wars. You know:
Xia vs. Shang (2000 BC ???)
Shang dynasty swallowed by Zhou
Sping and Autumn era wars...
the Warring States era wars...
Liu Bang vs. Xiang Yu (200 something BC)
followed by the war of the Liu-s vs. Non Liu-s
many border wars with Hsiung Nu
the Three Kingdoms era wars... (200 something AD)
Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms era wars...
Sui vs. Tang
War against Korea during Tang Taizong's time
War against the Turks around the same time...
War against many border kingdoms during Empress Wu
An Lushan's rebellion
Northern and Southern Dynasty wars...
Song dynasty vs. Liao
Song dynasty vs. Jin
Mongols...
Ming dynasty's border wars to keep the Mongols out...
Ming battled the Japanese pirates (in which President Hu Jintao's ancestor took part in, I heard he was the grand General)
War against Qing forces...
Zheng Zenggong's war against Qing and the Dutch in Taiwan; the Europeans call him Koxinga...
And a lot of wars during the Qing Dynasty, but let's not count them because they are NOT Chinese they were invaders who happen to occupy China and they lost most of the wars. They sucked.
Taiping Rebellion (20 million Chinese died or something)
Boxer Rebellion
White Lotus Rebellion
Warlord period in the early Republic days...
War against Japan
Nationalist vs. Communist civil war
Korean War
Border war against the Soviets (maybe with India too, just a little bit)
Battles with Vietnam... (during Deng Xiaoping)

Sorry I forgot many more wars China fought. But those above were the ones that pop into my mind and they are quite compelling that China raised a lot of soldiers for armies over the ages.

My Vietnamese friend once told me that the ancient Vietnamese were pushed south by Chinese because China was Militaristic. At that time I was insulted. But over time, I studied more history and actually start to wonder... what would Chinese neighbours think about China? Being charged of being militaristic is actually not too wrong. The Chinese were just being militaristic not to destroy other Civs, but mainly to destroy other Chinese in civil wars... Our track record showed that....

As for the Chinese being Agricultural... well that's very true.
The Chinese became industrious only later on. For the first 4000 years, we were more Agricultural.

So my vote will be: Agricultural and Militaristic Hey, feel free to disagree with me.

 

[jened]

how about china and india going at it.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Djarum Kretek
I think Militaristic is not a totally out-of-the-question trait for the Chinese. I'm Chinese and I've read a lot about Chinese history. Maaannn, we fought a lot. Most of the damage was done ...

Just because a civ fights a lot, does not make it Militaristic. Chinese History is not my forte so I may be wrong, but most of China's wars were not wars of conquest. They were either defensive in nature or, like you said, internal or wars of consolidation.

Now I would not consider a civ that fights a lot as a militaristic civ. America has been in a good number of wars since its inception but we are hardly militaristic in CIV terms (Lets not get into world perception on America here, this is not the thread of it), espcially if they are defensive in nature, ie. WWII.

A lost of wars of consolidation and conquest would definatley make a civ militaristic in nature. China's warlords (for a lack of a better or correct term) were always fighting each other in order to consolidate and strengthen their holdings. I think that this was the historical context in which Firaxis made their original decision to go militaristic.

But, with the inclusion of the Agricultral trait, this should be given to China in exchange for one of their current ones. And I think that Industrial should get the boot. In my eyes, and maybe in my tweaked game, China should be Agricultural and Militaristic.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by jened
how about china and india going at it.

China over India in the 4th round.

 

[thestonesfan]

I made China Agricultural and Scientific.

I made Japan Militaristic and Industrious. Romans would also be a good choice. I left them with Militaristic and Commercial, but maybe I should switch Rome and Japan.

 

[gettingfat]

A civ with a lot of civil wars is not necessarily militaristic. Besides, put it in historical perspective. One major civil war every couple hundred of years doesn't make this country war like.

In a way, all these civ traits can be regarded as the preferred ways various civs used to generate resouces (religious is a way to preserve resources as it reduces the materialistic needs). A civ has to play aggressor role regularly enough and uses wars as a primary mean to grab resources to be called militaristic. It's true in history China did invade countries at its border like Vietnam and Korea. But considering the power of ancient China, you should be surprised that those invasion actually didn't happen very frequently. And these invasions seldom result in occupation or large scale enslavement.

Compared to the surrounding countries, China has more resources in terms of land and water, human, and almost everything else. It has better weather. Ancient China (even now) generate its resources mainly from agriculture, or even from commerce since Tong Dynasty, not conquering countries and did resource grabbing. Instead, they built the Great Wall to prevent resource grabbing from the nomadic civs.

And there was a popular old Chinese saying, "good iron won't become nail, good men won't become soldiers". How would you call this a militaristic trait?

Roman is more qualified to be industrious and militaristic.

Japan is also industrious and militaristic. It is religious but nobody in the world (maybe Korean) can "outworkalcoholic" Japanese.

 

[PRIMEMOVER]

Why not give the militaristic tag to the country with the largest standing military in the world!!?

And has been documented here and elsewhere, their history as a civilization is riddled with wars, border skirmishes, dynastic battles, etc.

So, defensive or not, I think they qualify...

 

[PRIMEMOVER]

I also disagree with the tags placed on Rome and Greece (Commercial??)...I feel another thread coming on!

How could the civilization that's credited with the greatest military conquest of it's time (maybe in man's history) and has, of all people, Alex the Great as it's leader, not be militaristic??

Take the militaristic tag from Japan and give it to Greece...give Greece's commercial trait to America and give America's expansionist trait to Rome...

Yes, definitely feel another thread coming on!!

 

[Xen]

because modern times should only count for a small factor in civ trait choices- over all, China isnt militaristic, and I'd say that japan isnt any more militaristic then ancient Greece was either 9that said, even excluding the Spartans, and Thebans, there were some devoted soldires in greece, and japan- I see the japnese as commercial-industriuos my self...)