Does it make sense?

[Evie]

Ok, this is a topic based on elements of Civ III, much like the barbarian uprising one. However, it is not about the game mechanics et al - it is about debating wheter or not one major point of Civ III make sense in historical terms, which is why I posted it on the history forum.

The element in question is the concept of culture, as used within Civ III.

Keys to this concept are as follow :

-Reward a strong civilization for developing a strong cultural identity (through building temples, library, etc) by making it easier to control neighboring territories (in fact, by extanding the territory under control of that nation).

-Reward a strong civilization by causing cities controled by weaker cultures to "flip" (go over) to the culturaly strong civilization, if the two are nearby.

-Cause citizens of cities started by a different civilization to be less friendly to you, as they favor their former civilization, still holding to their old cultural identity.

-There are generaly speaking three ways to prevent your cities from going over to an enemy culture : razing them (which many liken to genocide), deploying an heavy military presence (up to 4 units per resisting citizen), or simply having a much stronger culture.

So, my question is, according to you, does it make sense *IN REGARD TO HISTORY* to have such a system? I don't want to hear about game balance or mechanics, this is an HISTORY debate around the notion of culture as implemented in Civ III.

The key questions are as follow :

Is it an historicaly logical assumption that a strong cultural identity made empires stronger than simple military power?

Is is accurate to say that at times in history, certain territories "culture flipped" (abandoned one civilization to take the side of another)?

Is it historicaly accurate to open up "genocide/deportation" (razing cities) as a possible way of preventing cities from going over to another civilizations?

Since I want this debate to be on the historical aspect, not on the game aspect o - how it is balanced, how to improve it, etc - I posted it in the World History forum, rather than the Civ III discussion one.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Is it an historicaly logical assumption that a strong cultural identity made empires stronger than simple military power?

Certainly. Like Confucianism which held together the Chinese for over 2000 years, even at times when the empire didn't really exist. Or when China was under foreign rule. In this case, culture is stronger than military might.

Is is accurate to say that at times in history, certain territories "culture flipped" (abandoned one civilization to take the side of another)?

Although it happens very rarely, still it does happened. Esp when the one that flipped was way way behind in terms of cultural and civilisational achievements. But still very rare. Couldn't recall an example offhand.

Is it historicaly accurate to open up "genocide/deportation" (razing cities) as a possible way of preventing cities from going over to another civilizations?

Two words - the Mongols. Cities which refused to submit were put to the sword and destroyed when captured. Examples tended to make the rest fell into line. Even today, Central Asia had not really recovered fr the ravages of the invading Mongols.

Since I want this debate to be on the historical aspect, not on the game aspect o - how it is balanced, how to improve it, etc - I posted it in the World History forum, rather than the Civ III discussion one.

Good idea. Since some here probably don't play Civ3.

 

[Evie]

Time to add my opinion in, now that someone else has gotten the ball started.

Generaly speaking, the lasting empires were the one with a strong cultural identity. Rome, China, Egypt - even America today won the cold war much more through strength of culture than strength of arms. Meanwhile, "blitz" empires built within a lifetime more often than not shattered by the end of that life. Alexander's empire (though it wasn't culturay weak) ; the Mongol empire vanished quickly as well when their armies left. Only the empires which took the time to properly develop, including a cultural identity, as they grew survived.

As for examples which could ammount to culture flipping if one take in account that a civilization in Civ is not necesarily equivalent to a modern country but rather a block of those, well, there are...

-Québec, which has been constantly trying to "flip" out of Canada and back to the "French" block for years.
-Kosovo (and the genocide answer was tried there).
-Northern Ireland.
-The West Bank.

Even Mongolia, to an extent, wound up "culture flipping" to china after they conquered it. And one could make a point about the defection from eastern block to european block of many communist countries when communist fell could amount to a similar phenomenon.

As for making this focus on the historical aspect, well, I didn't want the "Whaaa! I lost my city to culture flip! It certainly make no sense! club to hijack a topic on the historical aspect of it, so I tried to focus almost solely on this aspect.

Though I think I did see the president of the Culture-Makes-No-Sense club in history once or twice.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
The key questions are as follow :

Is it an historicaly logical assumption that a strong cultural identity made empires stronger than simple military power?

Is is accurate to say that at times in history, certain territories "culture flipped" (abandoned one civilization to take the side of another)?

Is it historicaly accurate to open up "genocide/deportation" (razing cities) as a possible way of preventing cities from going over to another civilizations?

Since I want this debate to be on the historical aspect, not on the game aspect o - how it is balanced, how to improve it, etc - I posted it in the World History forum, rather than the Civ III discussion one.

1)yes n i think politics are stronger though.To win hearts n minds has always been the greatest battle in any conquest.

2)Yes,Savoy n the département of Nice in 1860 that flipped to France.Austrians voting to be german in 1919(except Vorarlberger who voted to be Swiss).Texas to the U.S.(was independant from 1836 to 1845n then became an american state.

3)Yes,genocide always existed.

 

[knowltok2]

Good example damien, but in the context of the game, the flipping cities belong to major powers.

I think culture flipping should turn off after a while, perhaps with nationalism. To me it fits into the ancient world a lot better than it does the modern one.

 

[Richard III]

A number of us argued this to death last fall, and I believe then as I do now that the problem is not the realism of culture flipping per se - yeah, it's real - but the manifestation of it in the game. The shifts are so sudden and random, and they happen without any reference to the context: troops occupying, actions taken to appease the old culture, etc.

People had no problems coming up with examples of flips in history; what they had problems with was examples of instant flips that took out large armies in the process.

R.III

 

[Evie]

Indeed, the army dying is a problem, as is the sudenty of the flip - there should be a short "pro-X" revolution (or movement, in teh democratic states) period before the flip. But the structure is besides the point, and there are some who continuately argue that the notion of culture flipping, in itself, is historicaly irrelevant, and never happened.

Knowltok, if you consider Damien's example, these do represent (fading) major powers.

And if you move to my examples, and take the post-nationalism "civilizations" as block of countries sharing strong common links (beyond a mere MPP) (The Commonwealth ; perhaps the EU, somewhat the Warsaw pact, etc), then the notion of part of these blocks "culture flipping" to the other side makes sense.

And to smaller, regional scales, territories trying to break free of the nation they are part of to either gain their independance as part of a cultural block (Palestine) or join (or at least get very close tie) with another country (Kosovo, Ireland) are not unheard of.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Knowltok, if you consider Damien's example, these do represent (fading) major powers.

And if you move to my examples, and take the post-nationalism "civilizations" as block of countries sharing strong common links (beyond a mere MPP) (The Commonwealth ; perhaps the EU, somewhat the Warsaw pact, etc), then the notion of part of these blocks "culture flipping" to the other side makes sense.

True to a point, but this doesn't cover major regions of a modern power flipping to another based upon culture. Especially without any options or warning for the government. I doubt British Columbia is going to opt for statehood any time soon. I also don't see Algeria deciding to become part of the EU.

I would like to see migrations a part of the game as opposed to culture.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by knowltok2
I doubt British Columbia is going to opt for statehood any time soon.

Dammit!

 

[napoleon526]

Historically, nations with a strong sense of cultural identity as a foundation survived longer than empires built by one charismatic ruler. However, culture can be a double edged sword. The fall of the Western Roman empire was due largely to the fact that the Germanic tribes deisre to have the quality of life enjoyed by Roman citizens. As the US has seen, it can be a problem when large numbers of foreigners immigrate to a nation with a strong culture.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Certainly a nation with a strong identity is less likely to fall apart. I'm not sure about "Culture Flipping." Some peoples have embraced their conqueror's culture. However, the opposite has been more common.
BTW, the Texas-US example probably isn't the best. The vast majority of Texans wanted to be annexed by that nation at least partly because most were of American birth anyway.

 

[Damien]

I meant the opposite
Many Texans were american migrants who settled in Texas n they proclaimed their independance n then joined the U.S.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Damien
I meant the opposite
Many Texans were american migrants who settled in Texas n they proclaimed their independance n then joined the U.S.

Texas works from the standpoint of having two nationalities in one of your cities and then it flips. It doesn't explain when one of your cities full of your own citizens flips.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by knowltok2
I doubt British Columbia is going to opt for statehood any time soon.

No need, it has already been assimilated.

Really, you confuse national borders with culture borders. I think that is the problem most of the Civ3 culture flip naysayers have. The game calls the extent of your culture a "border", a term that refers to a political reality agreed to by those on both sides (at least in most cases )

However, culture is more subtle. For example, nobody would argue that Alexandria was not an Egyptian city; Yet at the same time it was very much a Greek city. Egyptian by geography or politics, Greek by culture. We could come up with an endless list of cities or regions that fit this bill - controlled by one political entity (that associates itself with culture A) while in reality it was more strongly tied to culture B. That could mean actual origin of the populace to language to social structure or historical factors.

Few borders we know today would also demark a cultural boundary, which is fuzzy at best. Ask americans where the mexican cultural influence extends, they will likely draw a line from central california eastward across texas. Ask mexicans where american cultural influence extends, they will draw a line including the major cities of northern mexico and all resort cities farther south.

My point is just that culture flipping is a simplified way of showing something that in reality happens over decades or generations. In the game, it might be better to have individual citizens change to your nationality, with the city following suit once the majority is yours, or something like that.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Sodak



My point is just that culture flipping is a simplified way of showing something that in reality happens over decades or generations. In the game, it might be better to have individual citizens change to your nationality, with the city following suit once the majority is yours, or something like that.

Not a bad idea. As far as borders go, I would like to see a unit that can be sent out to claim land. Treat borders like they are now except when a civ comes in contact with another. Then they become fixed along the contact line. Add to that the unit or whatever that can claim land, and I think things become a lot more interesting.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

Most Texans wanted to be part of Mexico, but Santa Anna became too abusive. I certainly see your point, though, Damien.

Anyway. Though Alexandria was very much a Greek city, it was the Egyptian government that received the city's tax revenue, military help, etc. For the most part, though, I agree with Sodak. One could regard Oregon as "Culture Flipping." The region was originally owned by Britain. However, by the 1840's, Americans grossly outnumbered British settlers, so Britain gave up claim to the area.

 

[Demetrias]

I don't like the sugestion that culture fliping should be turned off when you get nationalism. Most of the culture flipping that i know of is a result of nationalism. The people feel that their identity know longer matchs the one of your nation and so want to become part of another or indepent. For a time up until the World wars there was lots of cultural identities. Then the whole world got flip into about four. Western, Asian Commie, Russian Commie, Muslim. And now they are fliping into one. France sees this. Notice the frantic efforts of france to keep its people from lossing their language and culture to the English. They even had a confrence to make new french words for all tech gadets coming out of America. Sorry guys but the bad news is that we culture fliped the whole world and you guys are barely holding on to your old identies. It is a shame that all that will be lost but hopefully one day it will create a unified earth.

 

[Demetrias]

oh and some of you guys where talking about Texas. now as i learned it we was culture flipped and i will tell you how. its true that a bunch of us was from the good old u.s. of a but thats not the main reason we flipped. Its cause we are a bunch of harded headed old fools. The original settlers from America brought with them the ideas born in the constitution of the united states. now they sold these ideas to some of the mexican settlers. Since the majority of the settlers in East texas wanted and independent State based along those ideas and they tried convencing the Mexican government of this, it did not work. So we revolted and destroyed the Mexican army all of it that was here and that was quite a lot don't remember the exact numbers but more then enough to deal with the number of settlers in the area. Even captured the president. Sound like that instantanious culture flip that destroys your huge army in Civ3. All they would have needed to do was give us state hood with our constitution and it would have never happened.

 

[Evie]

Demetrias, you are very badly informed.

There was no super-special conference to name american tech gadget in french ; that is the job of the French Academy, which has been established since well before english became a proeminent language and in charge of determining the actual word and its spelling for everything.

France is not "barely holding on to its people" - French speakers across the world are holding quite well with minimal protection (and most of it to make sure that they have access to services and shops in their own language - IE "pannels must be at least 51% french" in Québec (and Québec is a special case, being a stronghold of French-based culture in the middle of an Anglo-American continent). And no, the whole world has not culture flipped to America. America may be useing its military power and economical power to force others into doing as it say, but it is a preposterous and arrogant claim to say that the whole world is american by now.

Is Japan american? Most certainly not! Japan has its own, separate culture, and though they have an american-created political system, their culture is certainly not what I'd define as american.

Is Québec american? How can a social democracy be american? How can a strongly french-speaking, anti-guns, rather anti-death sentence, moralisticaly liberal society (age of consent? What for? Marriage? What for? Clinton/Lewinsky Obsession? What for?) be culturaly american when strong parts of america are religious, right-wing (which would pass as very far right here in québec - heck, your left wing woud be center-right here), moralistic, pro-gun, pro-death sentence?

For that matter, is there a true american culture or just a swarm gathering of different cultures?

Are the UK american culturaly? No.
France? Not so either.
Sweden, Norway, Finland? Not by a far stretch either.
Russia? Well, if you want to claim they are culturaly amerians, be my guest...but in their current situation, I wouldn'T be proud of saying they are in my culture...

China? Yeah, right.
Cuba? Hmmm, Fidel Castro sounds like a perfect American.
Iraq? Yup, very american culture, right.

Etc.

There are a number of culture block you are skipping over, and America doesn't have strong enough of a culture to culture-flip them all- not by a long stretch. America is a great military power, a great economical power...but as a cultural power, it is average at best.

You could make a case about "European" culture block (the UE, roughly - they all share relatively similar history, and aren't THAT different, except maybe the UK), "English" culture block, "American" culture block, a scattered variety of minor culture blocks in African, but I guess "African" culture block could be used. "Arab" culture block is most definitely un-american, "Communist" culture block is N Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and China still though slowly flipping to "Capitalist Asia" culture block (Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, S. Korea (far more confucianist)), Japan is as always its own culture block (mostly because the rest of Asia don't like them and they don't care about the rest of Asia), etc.

Countries that could really be defined as part of "American" culture block at present are :
Canada (recently C-flipped from England, many in Québec are trying to c-flip to European still).
Israel (not really part of the american culture block, but still somewhat part of it)
Mexico

A few others scattered here and there.

America isn't as strong as you make it out to be.