Guess the New Civs

[Pangur Bán]

That's a very ignorant remark, especially considering what I said before. Go read about the Portuguese Empire in Wikipedia, maybe you'll learn something.

I quote the first paragraph:

"The Portuguese Empire (Portuguese: Império Português), also known as the Portuguese Overseas Empire (Ultramar Português) or the Portuguese Colonial Empire (Império Colonial Português), was the first global empire in history.[1][2][3] In addition, it was the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999 or the grant of sovereignty to East Timor in 2002. The empire spread throughout a vast number of territories that are now part of 53 different sovereign states."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_empire

The map of the Empire is also very interesting.

Radu, I know you mean well and care about your topic, but you're going nowhere here, not understanding the point, and going back to ad hominem.

Portugal got a nice system of trading posts up and colonial cities up and running, and it was a great patron of exploration, but it was never a sizable territorial empire and much of the time it was actually under the monarch of another country.

 

[Radu_Magus]

Radu, I know you mean well and care about your topic, but you're going nowhere here, not understanding the point, and going back to ad hominem.

Portugal got a nice system of trading posts up and colonial cities up and running, and it was a great patron of exploration, but it was never a sizable territorial empire and much of the time it was actually under the monarch of another country.

No ad hominem, I'm highlighting you don't know what you're talking about. Not my fault if you speak nonsense. Look at the map, I'm sure you can do it.

And Portugal was under a Spanish monarch for 60 years. 60. Even then, Spain did not take control of the rest of the Empire. And if you consider that "much of the time", you really can't be helped.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The problem is, the map is a modern construction based on the territory they legally held. The more important question is "What did they actually control?" Pangur Bán argues that much of their direct control was coastal and their influence in the interior depended on alliances with natives or was limited to expeditions. In that sense, it isn't accurate to count as part of their greatest territorial extent.

 

[AbsintheRed]

No ad hominem, I'm highlighting you don't know what you're talking about. Not my fault if you speak nonsense. Look at the map, I'm sure you can do it.

And Portugal was under a Spanish monarch for 60 years. 60. Even then, Spain did not take control of the rest of the Empire. And if you consider that "much of the time", you really can't be helped.

Hey, that's a very harsh response, you should really stop this
Pangur Bán do make some valid points too
In my opinion the reality (or my reality ) is somewhere between your opinions guys
Portugal was very significant, but the size of it's actual territorial empire was very far from the size of it's colonial empire

 

[Pangur Bán]

No ad hominem, I'm highlighting you don't know what you're talking about. Not my fault if you speak nonsense. Look at the map, I'm sure you can do it.

And Portugal was under a Spanish monarch for 60 years. 60. Even then, Spain did not take control of the rest of the Empire. And if you consider that "much of the time", you really can't be helped.

So you are quoting random bits from the Wikipedia article you think will make the "Portguese Empire" sound impressive and hence show my "ignorance", but all you've really highlighted is that you are prepared to throw around insults when you don't like a point someone makes or irks your patriotic ego. I still see no evidence you actually understand the point about Amazonia in relation to the table on the last page.

 

[Radu_Magus]

So you are quoting random bits from the Wikipedia article you think will make the "Portguese Empire" sound impressive and hence show my "ignorance", but all you've really highlighted is that you are prepared to throw around insults when you don't like a point someone makes or irks your patriotic ego. I still see no evidence you actually understand the point about Amazonia in relation to the table on the last page.

How would it be patriotic if I'm not Portuguese? If you made ignorant remarks about the British Empire, or any other, I would point out the same way. I already pointed out how the Portuguese were present in the Amazon and profited from trading its spices.

Also, answering Louis XXIV, if you look at the map, it's quite interesting on how it divides actual possessions, claims of sovereignty and areas of influence and trade. There was indeed Portuguese presence in the Amazon. Mind you, it was a progressive expansion to those regions. Not to mention much of the Amazon was under Spanish rule as well. Besides, even if you took off the Amazon from Portuguese Empire, it would still be pretty large. But following this logic, we would have to shorten most of the Empires in the world, so I don't understand why applying this logic only to Portugal.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Pangur, can I ask you 1 thing ?

Is it better to project an empire over rain forest, desert, steppe, tundra or mountain range ?

You seem to evaluate grassland more than anything else but you are misguiding yourself. Every empire start from a geographical location and grom from fear and conivence, or else it stops at a regional level at best (kingdom, emirate, whatever ... ) You can see the persian empire as one, but it was, in fact, many ; and the Majapahit, in this regard, is very much the same.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think jungle is hard to administer while grassland (particularly with rivers) is relatively easy. It's not a value judgment, just a judgment over what effective rule means.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Reduce the amount of personal remarks.
You're here to discuss the game, not to discuss each other.

Edit: That was before Louis posted.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, it's about understanding how states work. Jungle and mountains don't have many people in them, and it isn't actually possible for a pre-20th century state to rule such regions when they are extensive. Claiming such regions in a state's territory for the purpose of using such an area to evaluate the said state vis-a-vis other "empires" is not very helpful. It's obvious when you think about it. States are about people and settlements. Rome is clearly worthier as an "empire" than Aguirre's "empire of the monkeys", even if the latter laid claim to a larger numbers of acres.

@Radu_Magus, don't think it's a good idea to continue talking to you. I understood you to be Brazilian btw, but I apologize if I mistook your nationality.

 

[CivOasis]

Jungles and mountains actually have a lot of people in them.. some of the largest cities in the world are in jungles, and many actually are on or near mountains...

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, the point is that you need intensely farmed land to support large populations. Jungles and mountains absolutely do not support large populations. No large city takes its food base from jungle or mountain.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

If you're clear then you should make your own list. This way you'll fall in a GDP paradox. I'm counting on you !

 

[CivOasis]

Perhaps not independently and currently, but many have in the past. Lakeside valleys in the mountains, riverside cities in the jungle - all were (and are, in some cases) quite large.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Farming is the prerequisite of state-level society (needed for "empires"), and very basically you need food to have people. There is of course a difference between cities near jungles or in clearings, than in jungles; or on plateaus or valleys, than in mountains. Jungle and mountain themselves are limited in value for a state-level society as long as they exist as jungle or mountain.

 

[Radu_Magus]

I just don't understand why the need to take the merit of Portuguese deeds. No Empire effectively occupates all its domains, but exercises control some way or another. Take the British Empire, for instance. Most of Canada was ice and most of Australia was dust and sand, do you think there were British people settling all over there? Remove them and the British Empire will look much smaller.

The problem is that, especially in the English speaking world, too much emphasis is given to the Spanish conquests, probably because of the proximity to the British conquests (and Mexico to the US), the fascination with the Aztecs, Mayas or Incas, or even the mystery of El Dorado. So people know little about Portugal.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes, the same issue makes the British Empire look far more impressive than it actually was. UK was at its height in the interwar period, yet all that Canadian tundra and Australian desert (or trapped Indian consumers) was not enough for the UK to stand up, alone, against another European power with a slightly larger population and no "empire" to speak of (Germany -- making the assumption that UK would have been beaten by Germany in a one-to-one conflict c. 1939 onwards).

 

[CivOasis]

Farming is the prerequisite of state-level society (needed for "empires"), and very basically you need food to have people. There is of course a difference between cities near jungles or in clearings, than in jungles; or on plateaus or valleys, than in mountains. Jungle and mountain themselves are limited in value for a state-level society as long as they exist as jungle or mountain.

Not entirely true. State level nations have lived almost entirely upon other sources (most notably fishing, or, in one particularly famous case, trading with people inland). Regardless, these regions have been noted for very large cities - I point to the Andes, much of Mesoamerica, and large portions of southern/southeast Asia - though usually with the aid of coasts or large bodies of fresh water.

 

[Pangur Bán]

State level nations have lived almost entirely upon other sources (most notably fishing, or, in one particularly famous case, trading with people inland). .

Societies known to have lived on fish, like Pacific North West Indians, are normally classed as chieftaincies not as states. But, no, any state stately enough to be called an "empire" is relying on agriculture.

Regardless, these regions have been noted for very large cities - I point to the Andes, much of Mesoamerica, and large portions of southern/southeast Asia - though usually with the aid of coasts or large bodies of fresh water.

Read my 2nd from last post please. Depending on the crop and particular climate you can sometimes grow on the sides of mountains. You definitely cannot grow crops in jungles, nor can central states control communities based in jungles without far more effort than reward.

 

[CivOasis]

I cite the Swahili, known to have cities so specialized that they needed to trade with inland nations to support them.
As for the fish, I was actually referring to
some of the Pacific Rim states, especially on the Asian/Oceanian side.