For more information on the Romani people please visit Writing.com and view the portfolio of Nebroc, there are two timelines there that, in all, start from before 400 AD. and continue through to our Modern times (It's a really big timeline, so try to find the dates that you are interested in! There is a lot on the Second World War in the second half of the timeline!). I'm sure many of you would be interested since if you are a Civilization fan - like me - you must like learning about history (even just a little bit).
Expansion Civilizations
- Thread starter Xineoph
- Start date
- Status
Rod
King
Sorry, I was wrong by 100 years. The Black Death ravaged the 14th, not the 15th century. Nevertheless it certainly took a long while to overcome the effects especially as the Plague was a recurring phenomena till the beginning of the Industrial Age
From Wikipedia:
The Black Death, or the Black Plague, was one of the most deadly pandemics in human history, widely thought to have been caused by a bacterium named Yersinia pestis. It probably began in Central Asia and spread to Europe by the late 1340s. The total number of deaths worldwide from the pandemic is estimated at 75 million people;there were an estimated 25-50 million deaths in Europe.The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population.It may have reduced the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400
But the idea that the Roma are responsible for the Plague sounds more like a piece of racist and xenophobic propaganda, than like a historical fact.
The Sinti and Roma (aka Gypsies) are certainly not the healthiest nor cleanest people but to assume that they carried the Plague from Central Asia to Europe in only a few years is absurd.
The Plague was spread not by small groups of Gypsies roaming the land, but by ships ! Ships were able to travel the distances between Asia and Europe in weeks. The Plague reached on Arabian Ships from Asia to the Middle East and then from there it reached the ports in Italy and France. It is no coincidence that Italy and France were most severely affected by the Plague but large parts of Eastern Europe were almost spared. Therefore it is obvious that the Plague did not travel on foot, but on planks.
But it is also true that the Gypsies were condemned as disease bringers by the Europeans. This is majorly due to the fact that the Gypsies had no hygiene to speak off and their nomadic lifestyle is certainly not healthy as well. On the other hand there are also many less objective reasons that lead people to believe every crap regarding the Gypsies. Basically the Gypsies are nomads, they pay no taxes, they are poor, they speak another language and they were no Christians, but Pagans.
It was easy for the opinion leaders in Mid Age and up to the Modern Age to single out these people as responsible for every terrible event happening in the neighbourhood.
So you have correctly heard that very often Gypsies (and also Jews) were accused of poisoning the wells and therefore spreading the Plague by the people. The following exile and often slaughter of Jews and Gypsies certainly did not prevent the Plague but the people had somebody to exercise vengeance on ..
From Wikipedia:
The Black Death, or the Black Plague, was one of the most deadly pandemics in human history, widely thought to have been caused by a bacterium named Yersinia pestis. It probably began in Central Asia and spread to Europe by the late 1340s. The total number of deaths worldwide from the pandemic is estimated at 75 million people;there were an estimated 25-50 million deaths in Europe.The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population.It may have reduced the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400
But the idea that the Roma are responsible for the Plague sounds more like a piece of racist and xenophobic propaganda, than like a historical fact.
The Sinti and Roma (aka Gypsies) are certainly not the healthiest nor cleanest people but to assume that they carried the Plague from Central Asia to Europe in only a few years is absurd.
The Plague was spread not by small groups of Gypsies roaming the land, but by ships ! Ships were able to travel the distances between Asia and Europe in weeks. The Plague reached on Arabian Ships from Asia to the Middle East and then from there it reached the ports in Italy and France. It is no coincidence that Italy and France were most severely affected by the Plague but large parts of Eastern Europe were almost spared. Therefore it is obvious that the Plague did not travel on foot, but on planks.
But it is also true that the Gypsies were condemned as disease bringers by the Europeans. This is majorly due to the fact that the Gypsies had no hygiene to speak off and their nomadic lifestyle is certainly not healthy as well. On the other hand there are also many less objective reasons that lead people to believe every crap regarding the Gypsies. Basically the Gypsies are nomads, they pay no taxes, they are poor, they speak another language and they were no Christians, but Pagans.
It was easy for the opinion leaders in Mid Age and up to the Modern Age to single out these people as responsible for every terrible event happening in the neighbourhood.
So you have correctly heard that very often Gypsies (and also Jews) were accused of poisoning the wells and therefore spreading the Plague by the people. The following exile and often slaughter of Jews and Gypsies certainly did not prevent the Plague but the people had somebody to exercise vengeance on ..
Cyrus_the_Great
Warlord
From Encyclopedia Britannica
European Diplomacy and Wars (c. 1500-1914)
This article is intended to provide a broad narrative of the diplomatic and military history of Europe form the beginnings of the European state system at the end of the 15th century to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. The end of the 15th century roughly marks the transition of Europe from a congeries of petty feudal interests under the theoretical rule of the Holy Roman emperor and the pope into a system of competing sovereign nation-states. Hence forth, relations between the nations of Europe must be seen through a prism of constantly shifting national alliances entered into for fear that one nation might become too strong and upset the "balance of power."
Also, as you must know, when I said the 16th century that refers to 1500-1599.
And Nationalism is about loyalty to the nation-state you are from and not about the creation of the nation-state.
Rod
King
Encyclopedia Britannica is not public domain, please quote more extensively in such cases, otherwise it is difficult to follow your argumentation line.
I will quote from a public source (Wikipedia)
"The modernist theories imply that until around 1800, almost no-one had more than local loyalties. National identity and unity were originally imposed from above, by European states, because they were necessary to modernize economy and society. In this theory, nationalist conflicts are an unintended side-effect. For example, Ernest Gellner argued that nations are a by-product of industrialization. Modernization theorists see such things as the printing press and capitalism as necessary conditions for nationalism."
Personally I would see the French Revolution 1789 as the first appearance of Nationalism. When the French introduced the general mobilization and extensive drafting in the Revolutionary Wars they used the idea of the 'Grande Nation' as a tool to prevent extensive upheaval of the drafted masses.
I would believe that since those days the idea got momentum. But as the French Revolution was not borne out of thin air I assume that a number of most probably French philosphers hat already outlined the basics for Nationalism during the 18th Century.
(Naturally 16th Century is the time from 1500-1599. If you would have seen my little list of events from the beginning of the 16th century you SHOULD have understood that by yourself)
I will quote from a public source (Wikipedia)
"The modernist theories imply that until around 1800, almost no-one had more than local loyalties. National identity and unity were originally imposed from above, by European states, because they were necessary to modernize economy and society. In this theory, nationalist conflicts are an unintended side-effect. For example, Ernest Gellner argued that nations are a by-product of industrialization. Modernization theorists see such things as the printing press and capitalism as necessary conditions for nationalism."
Personally I would see the French Revolution 1789 as the first appearance of Nationalism. When the French introduced the general mobilization and extensive drafting in the Revolutionary Wars they used the idea of the 'Grande Nation' as a tool to prevent extensive upheaval of the drafted masses.
I would believe that since those days the idea got momentum. But as the French Revolution was not borne out of thin air I assume that a number of most probably French philosphers hat already outlined the basics for Nationalism during the 18th Century.
(Naturally 16th Century is the time from 1500-1599. If you would have seen my little list of events from the beginning of the 16th century you SHOULD have understood that by yourself)
Cyrus_the_Great
Warlord
Rod, the formation of the nation-state has never been questioned by our company CFO (Chief Financial Officer) who has a degree in history and is an avid reader of history. Also, may friend almost caught a degree in history but he left school before he finished. HE also never questioned me when I said the nation-state was formed aroung 1500AD.
Nationalism is not the formation of the nation-state and I don't understand why you keep mentioning it. I did not question your date as to when you think that Nationlaism came about, I was only saying that the nation-state was formed. Of course the nation of France had not formed its present size at that time and it was Napolean that solidified the nation by declaring Frence as the national language. Before Napolean, there were many languages spoken in France and to have a true nation with the possiblity of Nationalism, you need a common language.
Peace, Mark
Nationalism is not the formation of the nation-state and I don't understand why you keep mentioning it. I did not question your date as to when you think that Nationlaism came about, I was only saying that the nation-state was formed. Of course the nation of France had not formed its present size at that time and it was Napolean that solidified the nation by declaring Frence as the national language. Before Napolean, there were many languages spoken in France and to have a true nation with the possiblity of Nationalism, you need a common language.
Peace, Mark
So the plague entered Europe around the 1340's, so I was right with the time, but I do know that people in those times believed some strange things about the Gypsies. You are right about the reason for this, I have already heard of this reason before while I did research on the subject.
You are wrong about part of it though...The early Romani were actualy quite clean people, these are just some of their customs that they used to practice and some still practice today: They wash man and female clothing seperatly, they don't eat food that has fallen on the floor, they will never have pets inside their living quarters.
True, many Romani living in poverty today live in dirty conditions, but during the middle ages things were different...For one thing, if a group of Romani were cooking food in a cooking pot, then it was made a law that people could come up and tip all the food out to see if there were human parts being cooked, because people also believed that they were canibals, and because of this the Roma often had to remake the entire meal or go without because they refused to eat off the ground.
Also, there are deffenitly Tribes of Roma and Sinti that live in really clean places today, homes or caravans or wagons, they can live really spotlessly clean!
The Jews also had a hard time, people in those times were quite distrustful of them, they spoke a different language, believed in a different religion...it's the same with any race that has been different to the majority. People tend to be afraid of the unknown, which can end in a lot of bad persacution!
It is nice to talk to someone who knows a thing or two about history!
You are wrong about part of it though...The early Romani were actualy quite clean people, these are just some of their customs that they used to practice and some still practice today: They wash man and female clothing seperatly, they don't eat food that has fallen on the floor, they will never have pets inside their living quarters.
True, many Romani living in poverty today live in dirty conditions, but during the middle ages things were different...For one thing, if a group of Romani were cooking food in a cooking pot, then it was made a law that people could come up and tip all the food out to see if there were human parts being cooked, because people also believed that they were canibals, and because of this the Roma often had to remake the entire meal or go without because they refused to eat off the ground.
Also, there are deffenitly Tribes of Roma and Sinti that live in really clean places today, homes or caravans or wagons, they can live really spotlessly clean!
The Jews also had a hard time, people in those times were quite distrustful of them, they spoke a different language, believed in a different religion...it's the same with any race that has been different to the majority. People tend to be afraid of the unknown, which can end in a lot of bad persacution!
It is nice to talk to someone who knows a thing or two about history!
Rod
King
Hello,
please define nation-state.
Maybe we interpret this term differently. If a nation-state is a territory that is inhabited mostly by people who consider themselve part of one nation then you certainly must agree that there can't be a nation and therefore a nation-state without Nationalism ?
If you define nation-state different then please go ahead.
Btw. we could turn this into a debate whether Nationalism should be outdated in the 21st century. There are several pros and cons to Nationalism and in the age of global migration that we enter into it is questionable whether the cons will not highly outweight the pros.
Cyrus_the_Great
Warlord
A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a common culture, history, and language.
The above is the basic definition of "nation-state". You can find this on many on-line dictionaries. That does not mean you can not have a nation-state without all those. As I said, until Napoleon made French the national language, France was made up of sections speaking differant languages.
Nationalism is defined as:
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
Number 2 is what has many in todays world opposed to nationalism. I like to call myself a nationalist, but I don't see anything wrong in international goals necessarily. Some are good and some are not so good.
Crbarber22695
The Next Great Liberal
canada, new zealand, etc. aren't civ's in the game probably because they are part of the U.K., just like scotland, whales, north ireland, etc. Basically any country that has a flag similar to new zealand's and autralia's is probably part of the U.K., and canada used to have a flag like that, until 1965 when they changed it to that maple leaf.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Crbarber22695
The Next Great Liberal
Like Hawaii?
Spoiler :
well hawaii is a U.S. state, but it may be possible it is used as a civ because it wasnt created by any european country it used to be its own country until we (the U.S.) captured it.
metavyte62
Chieftain
i vote for Vikings and mayans!
hockeyrox38
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2008
- Messages
- 64
id like 2 see all the ones you can get in the civ3 expansion packs.
also i'd like the isrealites and vikings
also i'd like the isrealites and vikings
You need the Civ4 game installed on your computer before installing warlords.
Oh, and questions like this goes in the Newbie/Quick questions thread.
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Just don't play Civilization, period. Even Mario Kart DS packs more fun in 30 minutes than Civ4 does in 3 hours. And that's not quoted from IGN. It's my opinion.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You are aware that this is a forum for Civilization fans, right?
I want to play as Hitler and the Nazis. I notice that this game doesn't have them EVER ;/ BUT they have Stalin :S Shows the hypocracy of this gay world. Anyway anyone know any other games where i can be the germans during WWII? or just in general i'm not too fused....
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Hearts of Iron II lets you play as the Third Reich, Hitler, swastikas and all.
They removed all that from the German version, of course, although, ironically, refused to remove various elements from the Chinese version leading to it being banned in the PRC. Apparently they refuse to comply with censorship up until the point the paying audience becomes big enough for ethics to seem suddenly less important. That'd be the hypocrisy you mentioned, I guess...
Ty for your speedy and sincere reply. Most people simply assume i am some wanna be Nazi etc and get upset lol. That era however was fascinating as were the mechanisms by which Hitler controlled the kind of majorities of a country that would be completely impossible these days. In a western and developed country anyway, if not actually worldwide. Furthermore their soldiers, esp the SS fighting divisions, kicked so much ass it's unbelievable.
- Status
Similar threads
