Civilization 4 hates Native Americans

[trotskylite]

Actually, Not any of the North american continental countries or tribes deserves to be in a "civilization" game with so few civs. The Americans are only there for commercial purpose. None of them was around for any longer period of time and did notthing noticeable. Or, like america, basicly just is an branch of the europe civs.

eh... considering america's impact on the world within the last century, it's a bit disingenuous to consider them 'just a branch' of european civilization.

 

[Nyvin]

Actually, Not any of the North american continental countries or tribes deserves to be in a "civilization" game with so few civs. The Americans are only there for commercial purpose. None of them was around for any longer period of time and did notthing noticeable. Or, like america, basicly just is an branch of the europe civs.

Ehh...you sure about that??? The world would be a heck of a lot different today if the USA wasn't around...I mean, can you even imagine a modern day world that didn't have the USA in it?? Who knows what would've happened... It would be totally alien to everyone on the planet!!

America has had undeniable impact on the planet, and it has developed far from it's European orgins to be called it's own culture and civilzation. They have different values, different policies, different customs, different stances, lots of things. Your statement is quite simple minded..."USA was founded by Europeans = USA is just a branch off of Europe's Civs"

 

[Martinus]

None of the civilizations in Civ IV by any stretch is less worthy of being included in the game than Iroquis, Cherokee or any other native American tribe (well, maybe Americans, for reasons of being a very young civilization, but that won't happen and this topic has been discussed to the death already so no point going there)

Americas are represented by true civilizations of Inca and Aztecs. For the same reason they axed the Zulus in favour of the Mali (which is also a step in the right direction).

 

[Martinus]

Ehh...you sure about that??? The world would be a heck of a lot different today if the USA wasn't around...I mean, can you even imagine a modern day world that didn't have the USA in it?? Who knows what would've happened... It would be totally alien to everyone on the planet!!

America has had undeniable impact on the planet, and it has developed far from it's European orgins to be called it's own culture and civilzation. They have different values, different policies, different customs, different stances, lots of things. Your statement is quite simple minded..."USA was founded by Europeans = USA is just a branch off of Europe's Civs"

Well, USA is a branch of the European civilization, really, but considering that the same is true for many European civilizations included (Chinese are really a civilization on the same level as "Europeans" - including French, Germans and English would be like including Cantonese, Manchu etc.) I don't see much of a problem with including them (especially as the European civilization is one of the most divisive and having most internal wars; nb WWI is considered an "European Civil War" by most Oriental historians).

Now, beyond the tenous at best influence on the American democratic system, Iroquis and Cherokee, have really left no last mark on the world as we know it. They had different customs and own culture, but so did Aboriginal tribes in Australia or Africa.

 

[civchu]

"The problem is that the North American civs were to fragmented and small to be any major factor. None of them really deserves to be in Civ on their own."

Since in Civ all civilizations start out equal, the actual world events are not a factor.

My Native American friend says one of the main reason the tribes were fragmented and small was because of diseases and better technology that the invading eurapeons possesed.

Honestly, he found your comment a bit racist.

israel and australia have more chance of being a civ......than a north american tribe

 

[Martinus]

While I agree about Israel, I disagree about Australia (or Canada). Sure, you can say they are just like the US (i.e. an offshoot of the European/English civilization) but at least America has been the world hegemon for the last 50 years, whereas Australia and Canada is a simple run-of-a-mill country like many others (if you include them you should also include Bolivia, Peru or Belgium as world civilizations).

 

[Hannabir]

The mound builders were the only possible civilization in what is now the USA that should make it in. At one time their greatest city had a population in the 30,000-60,000 with huge temple mounds and a very substantial defensive wall. They also existed over a huge area and had trade networks thousands of miles long.

Cahokia, the only native city ever in America north of Mexico, had about 20,000 citizens at its peak - at which point it appeared that it couldn't feed them.

The Iroquois had no major cities or works and the "six nations" at their heights could only muster an army of about 3,000 men. One could make the argument for the pueblo tribe or Cherokee but both make more sense as minor civs.

The Iroquois towns had a maximum size of some 3,000-4,000, comparable to most European towns at the time. They were wiser than the Cahokians and split one community into two when it grew too large for the land to support it. They had the most advanced agriculture, but lived in the dense forests of the north-east.

The reason that they did not have large armies is that they never waged all-out war. A thousand at a time was usually large enough to defeat any opponent, since (a) their rivals were divided and (b) their rivals were less advanced in warfare.

Anyway, the main interest of the Iroquois was not warfare, but trade; the confederation was created with peace in mind. The Iroquois constitution was named the Great Law of Peace for a reason!

They had long trade routes in all directions, with roads that were happily used by the settlers from Europe for the trek west as the were wide enough for wagons, and these roads still exist today.

At the height of their empire, around 1680 AD, the Iroquois territory was comparable in size to many empires in civ.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Unfortunately all the pre-Columbian US Natives (not North Americans because Aztecs made it in) fall into the same boat as the Bulgarians, the Turks, the Koreans, Carthaginians, Celts, Irish, Scottish, Autralians, Austrians, Texans, New Yorkers, Californians, Aryans, Polynesians, Maya, Portugese, and Corsicans of not having enough...

- At least Phoenicians/Carthaginians, Mayas and Portugese should be in expansion.

- Jews should not be in. Also judaism as a religion (in CIV 4) is a joke. They are just too small. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and many other religions have been much more important. Jews propably took the idea of One God from Egypt, where pharaoh Ekhnaton tried to turn Egypt monotheistic (without long standing success). Also dualistic Zoroastrianism had great impact on jewish religion. Judaism is more syncretistic religion that one could realise (in fact all religions are). So there really is no real reason to have judaism as a religion in Civ 4.

- Civ team chose good civs. The only major error is the lack of mesopotamian civs. It was after all the place were "civilization" was born. I would say that Assyria would be the best choice from that area. New archaeologigal findings indicate that Assyria was not only military superpower but cultural superpower as well.

 

[TerraHero]

They should also add in the Dutch, wich dominated the world in the 17th century. And is still an economical superpower. One of the first countries where religiosn freedom became a standart in europe and where respect for other people opinions is a virtue. With a history spannign far more then America and being trough alot more aswell.

Having done several breaktroughs in science and a peak of culture still culturely important upto this day i think Holland deserves by all right the title of a succesfull civilization that left his print in the modern day and still writes history.

 

[ferenginar]

You have a point about the Dutch, but I think "Dominated the world" is a bit of an exageration.

 

[TheNiceOne]

israel and australia have more chance of being a civ......than a north american tribe

Well, since we know that CIV3 contained a north American tribe, but not Israel or Australia, I would put my money on a North American tribe before the other two.

 

[Tigerclaw]

- Jews should not be in. Also judaism as a religion is a joke. They are just too small. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and many other religions have been much more important.
.

Careful now. I know what you meant to say (that in terms of numbers, Judaism isn't an appropriate religion to be included in Civ4: I disagree, there are many other reasons it's included, but that's just a matter of opinion really), but I'm sure that there are better ways of articulating it than statements like that (ie: "Judaism as a religion is a joke"), which someone could very easily misunderstand, and become quite offended by, leading to flames and arguments, as it's obviously an issue close to people's hearts...


The whole issues of religion and what Civs are included in the game are a right hornet's nest, and people should be quite careful with what words they use...

 

[dc82]

Or, like america, basicly just is an branch of the europe civs.

Yeah, I mean you can't argue that the United States has its origins from Europe - but the thing is, it definitely branched into a completely different direction since its colonial roots. Especially as you look away from the Eastern seaboard, the face of America is very different than that of Europe - Texas, California, Arizona, even Florida and New York - some of the largest states - are very different in look, feel, culture than France, Germany, etc.

Even politically, the United States has often found itself at odds with Europe, especially from the mainland - esp. France and Germany. Culturally, religiously, etc. America can definitely be differentiated from the rest of Europe.

Especially after WWII, the contributions and role the United States has made is definitely beyond measure and in itself is more than enough to merit "civilization" status.

 

[Inhalaattori]

- USA deserves to be in. I dont value US "culture" that much personally, but one must admit that US "culture attack" against other cultures has been very succesfull. US is also militaristic superpower.

- Germany is not that obvious choice. German history is quite short and not that succesfull.

- The "worst jokes" from the Civ I, II and III are Sioux, Iroquois and Zulus. These tribes had no real chance against white conquerors. I admire North -American indian life style and teachings, but they really didnt have that much impact to our world. Zulus are very bad choice from Africa and Mali is indisputably much better choice.

 

[trotskylite]

- Germany is not that obvious choice. German history is quite short and not that succesfull.

are you joking

 

[Inhalaattori]

- Well, if we look the Civ 4 civs from Europe. England, France, Spain, Russia, Rome and Greece all have longer history and also more success than Germany.

- History of Germany as a state is quite short. From year 1871 to present. If we dont consider "Holy Roman Empire" as a predecessor of Germany.

- Im not saying that Germany should not be in, im just saying that is not that OBVIOUS choice.

 

[dc82]

- Germany is not that obvious choice. German history is quite short and not that succesfull.

- The "worst jokes" from the Civ I, II and III are Sioux, Iroquois and Zulus. These tribes had no real chance against white conquerors. I admire North -American indian life style and teachings, but they really didnt have that much impact to our world. Zulus are very bad choice from Africa and Mali is indisputably much better choice.

I don't think a "short" history necessarily means its exclusion - after all, what's "short" - America has a "short history." Compared to Egypt and China, Russia or France would be "short" as well. Germany has been rather successful - despite its losses in WWI and WWII, the fact that it was able to rise as a major power against the Allies as well as it's rise as a leader among the European nations today - it goes to show that Germany definitely should be considered.

Native American actually has had profound influences - the American goverment actually drew a lot from the Iroquois ideas in its confederation. While it's prob. more lip service than anything, numerous US states, cities, and town names are all based on Native Americans. At the end, while they lost, the native Americans did put up a fight and I personally think they should be in. Besides, the beauty of civ is also playing a what-if game - what if the Native Americans advanced themselves to fend off against the Europeans.

 

[trotskylite]

that's like saying the history of england stopped when the united kingdom was formed.

 

[trotskylite]

i mean, clearly, you cannot exclude german history prior to unification because of its political status. well, you could try, but you'd have to square yourself with the fact that firaxis made frederick the great one of the german leaders although he was the king of prussia and not germany.

 

[Stilgar08]

My civ has a bigger ***brromstick**
than your civ!!!

Grow up, kids! Too me this repeatedly stated

"MY CIV isn't in but it deserves more than your civ!! *boohoohoo* " is getting on my nerves and disturbs the fun I'm usually having on this forum!

For peace-sake: Just stop this stupid comparison of uncomparable histories...

BOOORING!!!