Greek Civ

[ilkka]

Why did Firax decide to put Alex the Great as the leader of scientific and commercial Greece?

I mean Alex wasn't even Greek, and was not a leader during the Golden Age of Athens or anything. All he did was take over the entire world (almost...). If he is the leader the civ should deffinately be militaristic and expansionist.

I expected Pericles (sp?) to be the leader since he was the most famous of the Greek Golden Age leaders. The most important contirbution by the Greeks are the philosiphies and the multitude of sciences they invented.

I also find it dumb that Romans and Greek are both included, even though they are basically the same civilization, just like Byzantium. Just moved the center of power, changed name... Culture and everyhting is very similar. If both Greek and Roman people are included, where is the Byzantine empire? They lasted longer than either one of the other Greco-Roman civs, and deffinately were very important.

 

[elfstorm]

Roman and Greek civilisation was different. Yes lots of Greek culture was assimilated by the Romans - but it had a distinctive flavour all of it's own. It's like saying America shouldn't be in the game because it's the same as Britain.

As for Byzantium lasting longer than Greece or Rome that depends on your interpretation of when Byzantium starts. In the past most historians called the Eastern Empire after the fall of the west Byzantine - but recently many have moved away from this interpretation. I would say the Byzantine Empire wasn't a substantially DIFFERENT entity from the Roman Empire until around the 8 or 9th Century - In which case it didn't last longer than Rome or Ancient Greece.

 

[SKILORD]

Greece and rome were VERY different to say the are the samme is like our descendents centuries from now while discussing Civilization 3 million wondering why both britain and America were included because they'r the same. The Britih and the American cultures are increadibly different just as the Roman and greek cultures and millitaries were. Besides to take one of those two out would be to loose either the legion or the hoplite both of which are good units (i think).
i do agree about Alexander though he was technically macedonian and only conqured greece. he might as well have been put as leader of persia for that matter.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

I can't agree to view Alexander as "definitely non-greek" or "as persian as greek".
It's true that the Macedons were viewed as semi-barbarians by "proper" greeks for a long time. But the Macedon kings, quite some time before Alexander were "philhellenic", they tried to enforce greek culture in their reing and become accepted as greeks, not just conquer them. And in southern Greece, when the Macedons became powerful, there always was a "promacedon"-party and an "antimacedon" party. An athenian rhetorian (can't remember who right now) suggested before Alexander that a panhellenic army should conquer Persia and he included Macedonian Cavalry in his plans. Altrhough it's true that Philipp still had to do "propaganda" to become fully accepted as greek, but there can be no doubt that the Macedons were very greek in their culture throughout the 4th century, in big parts already in the 5th.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by ilkka

I also find it dumb that Romans and Greek are both included, even though they are basically the same civilization, just like Byzantium. Just moved the center of power, changed name... Culture and everyhting is very similar. If both Greek and Roman people are included, where is the Byzantine empire? They lasted longer than either one of the other Greco-Roman civs, and deffinately were very important.

Sorry, but I find that insulting. The Greek and Roman civs were very different. Here are just a couple examples:
-Greek govt = polis; Roman = republic (later empire)
-Greeks were philosophic and peaceful; Romans were militaristic and aggressive

As for your comment about Alexander the Great, that is very true. He was not a Greek. But, then again, he was the only rulerof Greece as a whole other than his father, Philip. The Greeks had a govt called the polis, which is a real, true democracy. There was no king or one ruler. To give Greece one ruler, you'd have to limit it to one city. Therefore, sincealexander did much more than Philip (hence 'the Great'), he is the best choice.

Regardless, I fixed this very minor error by changing the Greeks to the Macedonians. Check it out.

And yes, I love ancient Greek history and know lots about it. Ancient Greeks RULE!

 

[hzm]

Catherine the great is German but she is still a reasonable pick for a leader.

 

[King]

First Greece has very long history for that we can put a lot of qualities in ancient history was scientific and commence then they become with Byzantium religious when we have far history of a nation we can found a lot of qualities who can put to them.
Alexander it was a greek in those years a nation was not as it is now there where different cultural numpers for each kind of region macedonians according the greek mythology they where sons of Hercules and in persian wars they resist and give the enemy movements to other greeks. Theyr own language it was nothink else than a barbaric grek type language who talked in 1200 b.c and they continued to talk her without progress as they did the south region of greece. The only person who named her barbarians and not greeks it was Dimosthenis because his hate to the new power in greece and that it was not so pwerfull Athens.
The greeks didint married another perwon from other country in those years but the woman of Philipe was from the greeks who lived in Epirus(olimpia).
Even ths sxeletons and the blood type of the ancient macedonians was the same with the athineans spartiats and others.
The only difference was that when a greek tribe when to greece at 1100 Dorieis some they stay to macedonia and not come down to the civilized from mycenen civilization south greece for that the macedonians stay in those kind ofliving for centuries untill Athens come to produce phylosofers who visit all the greek penisula.
Now about Byzantium we can tell it religious and militaristic we have thre dates of the birth of Byantium the 330 a.d with the movement of the capital from Rome to constadinupol.
Then is the 395 a.d with the destroy of the west part of empire from german tribes and last the 500 a.d who the country is taliking anymore only greek and they change their geopolitical view from west to east and we have almost coplete greek way after of 800 a.d in the pick of byzantium at 1000 a.d the roman thinks in the east empire was nothink else than history for that we have and the change of the nae from romans to greeks. Ofcourse when they said romans in the east part they where in reality greek people who they where roman citizens and no roman people. For that and in the only country who spend 3 years to learn history of byzantium is in grece.

 

[O_o]

"He wasn't even Greek"????/ He just wasn't from Athens..Greece isn't and weren't Athens u know.....Totally incorect! (and i thought u r learning some greek history in ur schools )

 

[O_o]

Originally posted by ilkka
Why did Firax decide to put Alex the Great as the leader of scientific and commercial Greece?

I mean Alex wasn't even Greek, and was not a leader during the Golden Age of Athens or anything. All he did was take over the entire world (almost...). If he is the leader the civ should deffinately be militaristic and expansionist.

I expected Pericles (sp?) to be the leader since he was the most famous of the Greek Golden Age leaders. The most important contirbution by the Greeks are the philosiphies and the multitude of sciences they invented.

I also find it dumb that Romans and Greek are both included, even though they are basically the same civilization, just like Byzantium. Just moved the center of power, changed name... Culture and everyhting is very similar. If both Greek and Roman people are included, where is the Byzantine empire? They lasted longer than either one of the other Greco-Roman civs, and deffinately were very important.

In that time there were no united greece,just cities with common language and traditions.Same things were to Italy.That means that noone were Greek that time ???? All those cities geographicly placed in todays Greece's land were Greek,Macedonia were and is a part on North Greece omg

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

O_o: Though I agree with you in most parts (language, most parts of macedonian culture ARE greek), you cannot deny that the conception of "Hellas" and the idea of the "koine Eirene" (and as a consequence the idea of having a united greek army lead against persia) developped in southern Greece, so it was more or less among them to decide who was greek and who not. And in the earlier efforts to envision a united Greece against Persia, the Macedons were not included and even Philipp had to lead the 3rd holy war to become member of the delphian amphyktiony (english sp.?) and finally be allowed to send a chariot to the Olympic Games. The participation in those pan-hellenic games was crucial for "being greek" and for macedonian efforts to propagate a greek war against Persia they needed to be accepted as greeks by other greeks.

Modern nationalistic conceptions simply don't apply to ancient matters...

 

[King]

when we talk we talk with proofs.
In history of Herodotus in E22 we read:
And alexander prooved to the olympics that he wzas greek because his ancestors of macedonians was becoming from ARGOS and they accepte him to get part in the games. ... for those who dont know which is Argos ia a sity in Greece near mycynea first great city state of the greeks in 1700 b.c

 

[Pangur Bán]

originally posted by Exanguination
Greeks were philosophic and peaceful; Romans were militaristic and aggressive

Exanguination, saying that the Greeks were peaceful seems impossible to justify as Ancient Greece was almost permanently in an state of war. Why did you say this?

 

[Furry Spatula]

as Exsanguination was talking about Rome and Greece being different. wasn't it also true that they worshiped completly different gods? I know thats only one thing, but face it, everything back then revolved around that.

Also romans were Italian, correct?

And greeks were from greece, correct?

If those 2 statements are correct its like saying a germanic person is the same as a french person b/c napolean controlled the germanic principalities durring his rule.

But im not sure about those 2 statements so if somebody with more knowledge about this topic could spread some light it would be appreciated.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

king: What are you talking about? Herodot lived 100 years before Alexander was born!:crazyeyes

About Exanguination's post: LOL, ROTFLMAO, that's the lamest prejudice I've seen for quite some time. Greeks were different than romans, but peaceful? Barely. Philosophical: Partially, but don't identify Greeks with Philosophy, that was a few people there too. It's mainly paintings from the Renaissance that want to make us believe this...

 

[O_o]

Originally posted by Nahuixtelotzin
Modern nationalistic conceptions simply don't apply to ancient matters... [/B]

u r right,it's just silly to hear ppl say alexander wasn't greek and socrates was egyptian,it's just rediculous

 

[Jolly Gnome]

Originally posted by Furry Spatula
as Exsanguination was talking about Rome and Greece being different. wasn't it also true that they worshiped completly different gods? I know thats only one thing, but face it, everything back then revolved around that.

well, basically roman deities were different from grecian (sp?), but later romans decided that the deities were same, just the names differed (fe. Juppiter was same as Zeus).

Also romans were Italian, correct?

No, Romans were Romans, and later conquered Italy (which was then in the northern part of modern Italy)

The ancient Rome adopted a lot from Greece/hellenistic civilization, when it conquered them, and became the large empire we know. Basically it's wrong to say that Rome and Greece were the same, but it's not that far from truth.

 

[Jolly Gnome]

Originally posted by Nahuixtelotzin
king: What are you talking about? Herodot lived 100 years before Alexander was born!:crazyeyes

About Exanguination's post: LOL, ROTFLMAO, that's the lamest prejudice I've seen for quite some time. Greeks were different than romans, but peaceful? Barely. Philosophical: Partially, but don't identify Greeks with Philosophy, that was a few people there too. It's mainly paintings from the Renaissance that want to make us believe this...

What I'd like to make, is all the different hellenistic civs to C3: Athens, Sparta and Corinth mainly... they all were very different, Athens being cultural and commercial, Corinth commercial and Sparta very, VERY militaristic. Also, the different kingdoms that came from the hellenistic empire (that Alexander created) after Alexander's death (Ptolemaic Egypt for example (with Cleopatras))...
BTW, how many of you know, that the capital of Alexander's hellenistic empire was Babylon, and NOT Athens?

 

[King]

nahelotzin (sorry if i dont rememper your name properly i am not doing under purpose). If someone dont know well then he better try to found what the other says.
Alexander the great was not the only alexander in the macedonian kingdom they are aksi a lot of others who where ruled macedonia and theyre name was alexander. Herodotus writes aout the alexander the A the king who his kingdom felt to persians and he was trying to help the other greeks givving tha plans of persians to the other cities in greece.

 

[Jolly Gnome]

Originally posted by Exsanguination

The Greeks had a govt called the polis, which is a real, true democracy. There was no king or one ruler.

Well, if you consider democracy to be "only free male citizens can participate in politics" then you're right

Sidenote: I think there should be the ancient versions of republic, democracy and monarchy (governments), as well as modern versions of them (the current ones)... anyway, the government and politics system are way, way too limited in C3, you can't even ask your military ally to stop the war with someone!

 

[King]

Jolly gnome if you consider that in those years in the other civilizations all they worshiped Gods_king or had monolythic goverment monarchies then you should not ironically talk to that. It was a great step this think no matter is humiliating with your words especially when you conseder that humanity to see again democracy nedd it 2.000 years also i will remind you that the rights of women in the modrn democracys obtained with a lot of fights from feministic parts. The birth of democracy happened there now ofcourse the thinks are progressing by the time dont make critique between today and in those years when we talk historic we think and the years the event happened.