Arkaeyn
King
I like your culture idea, but I'm unclear on your hundreds of civilizations idea. How does that show the growth and appearance of civilizations?
Historiography of Civ pt. 3: The Nation-State
- Thread starter Arkaeyn
- Start date
Interesting thread.... 
Tang and Qing were not foreign dynasties.
The Tang royal house were of the Han race, although the second emperor Taizong (Li Shi-Min) and his son had Xianbei mothers. But the Xianbei tribe was assimilated by Hans by that time and was considered Chinese. In any case, Tang is an ethnically Han dynasty.
Qing was formed by the Manchu people when they took over China. They are ethnically not Han, but we still consider them "Chinese". China has always been a multi-ethnical country, though dominated by the Hans.
This is how we Chinese look at it.
So we would only cosider the Yuan dynsaty as foreign, as the Mongols ran over the whole China (took some time) and we kicked them all out after 100 years of brutal and corrupt rule.
Hmm, about Civ 3. One interesting thing was that, in Civ 3 terms, China actually went from Feudalism to Monarchy. The Zhou dynasty was like Feudal Europe, when the Zhou King (son of heavens) gave out land to his sons/relatives/great generals/etc., and they in turn gave out land to theirs. Chin (a Duke under Zhou) ended this mess by changing their feudal kingdom to an absolute monarchy and ran over the rest of China. This was 221 BC.
So it's kind of wierd to discover Monarchy before Feudalism. It's kind of "Euro-like".
Please forgive my bad use of English....
Tang and Qing were not foreign dynasties.
The Tang royal house were of the Han race, although the second emperor Taizong (Li Shi-Min) and his son had Xianbei mothers. But the Xianbei tribe was assimilated by Hans by that time and was considered Chinese. In any case, Tang is an ethnically Han dynasty.
Qing was formed by the Manchu people when they took over China. They are ethnically not Han, but we still consider them "Chinese". China has always been a multi-ethnical country, though dominated by the Hans.
This is how we Chinese look at it.
So we would only cosider the Yuan dynsaty as foreign, as the Mongols ran over the whole China (took some time) and we kicked them all out after 100 years of brutal and corrupt rule.
Hmm, about Civ 3. One interesting thing was that, in Civ 3 terms, China actually went from Feudalism to Monarchy. The Zhou dynasty was like Feudal Europe, when the Zhou King (son of heavens) gave out land to his sons/relatives/great generals/etc., and they in turn gave out land to theirs. Chin (a Duke under Zhou) ended this mess by changing their feudal kingdom to an absolute monarchy and ran over the rest of China. This was 221 BC.
So it's kind of wierd to discover Monarchy before Feudalism. It's kind of "Euro-like".
Please forgive my bad use of English....
Arkaeyn
King
From what I've read, the Tang's relation with the Xianbei makes calling them Chinese questionable, though as you say, perhaps not wrong.
The Qing, on the other hand, I will say are a foreign dynasty. Manchuria was not generally part of China until the Qing. More importantly, anti-Qing elements in China were constantly attacking them for not being true Chinese. Those who wanted to revert to the Ming for the first few centuries, and the revolutionaries at the start of the 20th century, of course, were violently opposed to having non-Chinese rule over Chinese. It might not have been fair, and it was often racist, but it was certainly there.
About the Monarchy and Feudalism thing, yes, I find that strange as well. I spoke about how there was a universal idea of progress in the second part of this little historiography. Though in Civ wouldn't be THAT strange to go to Feudalism before Monarchy. They can be discovered within a few turns of one another.
The Qing, on the other hand, I will say are a foreign dynasty. Manchuria was not generally part of China until the Qing. More importantly, anti-Qing elements in China were constantly attacking them for not being true Chinese. Those who wanted to revert to the Ming for the first few centuries, and the revolutionaries at the start of the 20th century, of course, were violently opposed to having non-Chinese rule over Chinese. It might not have been fair, and it was often racist, but it was certainly there.
About the Monarchy and Feudalism thing, yes, I find that strange as well. I spoke about how there was a universal idea of progress in the second part of this little historiography. Though in Civ wouldn't be THAT strange to go to Feudalism before Monarchy. They can be discovered within a few turns of one another.
colontos
King
Whoa, don't get your feathers ruffled there, buddy. My post was, to an extent, an attack (or more of a critique) of leftist history, and given your admittedly left-leaning thesis, I hardly think that offering such a critique is unjustified. My post was not, however, an attack on you personally, although you chose to view it that way. That's unfortunate. If your project is to "raise the intellectual bar" for game reviews and discussions about games, then I don't understand why you reacted that way to an different viewpoint. That viewpoint does not agree with yours, and you may find it incorrect, but it's a fairly common one, and your wholesale (and sarcastic) rejection of it seems to reinforce my claims about elitism. For the record, if you'll look at my post again, I did not say "Arkaeyn is a *&#@ elitist pinko! Let's get 'im!" but again, this was the way you chose to interpret it. I did say that your argument has elitist connotations, something that, as far as I'm concerned, you simply confirmed both by rejecting my argument as inadequate without really offering any real refutations and by 'passing' on having a discussion with me because I committed the sin of disagreeing with you. You also restated your original argument that "simply the act of describing [cultural bias] in relation to a game is something many people have not considered." Many people haven't, but you have, so it's your job to let them in on it. That's elitism! It doesn't help that the only palpable argument you offered to refute what I said about elitism was, "Hey, I said I'm not an elitist!"
Your project here is to inform people about the biases of Civ and (presumably) about their own biases, and what I did was offer a critique of the cultural bias (and its particularly spotty record of self defense and consideration for other points of view)from which you are currently operating. Your knee-jerk reaction to my post pretty much confirmed what I was saying.
And for the record, I didn't call you (nor consider you) an elitist hypocrite, and if I didn't make it clear why I considered your argument to be somewhat elitist in my first post, I believe I've done so above. If you think that I ignored the "scientific text" of your argument, I can assure you that I didn't. But that's not what I was posting about, really, I was simply trying to show that your position for attacking the conservative American bias of Civ is nothing more sacred than a modern leftist Western/American bias. If you have such a problem with that, I have to ask why you started such a discussion in the first place.
Your project here is to inform people about the biases of Civ and (presumably) about their own biases, and what I did was offer a critique of the cultural bias (and its particularly spotty record of self defense and consideration for other points of view)from which you are currently operating. Your knee-jerk reaction to my post pretty much confirmed what I was saying.
And for the record, I didn't call you (nor consider you) an elitist hypocrite, and if I didn't make it clear why I considered your argument to be somewhat elitist in my first post, I believe I've done so above. If you think that I ignored the "scientific text" of your argument, I can assure you that I didn't. But that's not what I was posting about, really, I was simply trying to show that your position for attacking the conservative American bias of Civ is nothing more sacred than a modern leftist Western/American bias. If you have such a problem with that, I have to ask why you started such a discussion in the first place.
Tom_Bombadil
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Messages
- 47
"I like your culture idea, but I'm unclear on your hundreds of civilizations idea. How does that show the growth and appearance of civilizations?"
I thought I was posting on the civ 4 suggestions forum, sorry.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112524
In the ancient period there were only a few civs around flood plains and where-ever it was easy to raise livestock. As technology progressed these civs discoverred how to survive in harder and harder environments and this technology spread to hunter gatherer tribes whom founded their own civilisations. This could be respresented by there being a chance that a civilisation appears on an uninhabitted part of a continent and the chance of this civ appearing increasing as the civs already on that continent discover new techs. These new civs would have the technology that allows them to exist in their environment and an appropriate regular defensive unit.
100s of civs would represent the diversity of the world above 20 or so grand empires and generate areas of the world that are wartorn and in dispute where a player can rise to power. Like China before it's unification.. Maybe different cultures under the rule of another can be corrupt, like the Romans, whom were not as succesful as the Chinese in terms of longetivity and were in a similiar beginning situation in the mediterranean.
I want to play a game of civ4, where lots of small states compete in a malaise of machiavellian intrigue to gain power over one another, where cultures, empires and ideals spread, unify, divide and clash. Where powerful nations staple down their neighbours and become rich, only to grow old and corrupt and have to face their wrath. A more political game, where you start off small and attempt to control your region, then your neighbours, then your continent, then the world! I want to choose whether to be the first civilisation or an underdog in the modern world who after much blood and tears comes to rule it all!!
********
********
I wrote this first, but I'm putting it last because it is just a silly little quibble to counter a silly little quibble. You know, when someone insinuates that you are a stereotype so they don't have to prove it, because they know they can't. Feel free to turn this forum into a maelstrom of pointless drivel, but put it at the bottom of your post and past some *s so people who can't be botherred can completely ignore your fallacious statements without having to even glance at it.
civ3 isn't eurocentric, the Ancient Egyptians had monarchies a long time before feudalism of any sorts appeared and a long time before the europeans and chinese had a civilisation of any sorts.
It is a fact that there were monarchies long before feudalism, not some element of european culture or whatever you great big lefties have a problem with.
Maybe the Chinese didn't discover monarchy before they enterred the rennaissance, then discoverred feudalism, then exchanged feudalism with the indians for monarchy!
P.S. I'm not a righty or a lefty. They lie a lot, don't like them.
I thought I was posting on the civ 4 suggestions forum, sorry.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112524
In the ancient period there were only a few civs around flood plains and where-ever it was easy to raise livestock. As technology progressed these civs discoverred how to survive in harder and harder environments and this technology spread to hunter gatherer tribes whom founded their own civilisations. This could be respresented by there being a chance that a civilisation appears on an uninhabitted part of a continent and the chance of this civ appearing increasing as the civs already on that continent discover new techs. These new civs would have the technology that allows them to exist in their environment and an appropriate regular defensive unit.
100s of civs would represent the diversity of the world above 20 or so grand empires and generate areas of the world that are wartorn and in dispute where a player can rise to power. Like China before it's unification.. Maybe different cultures under the rule of another can be corrupt, like the Romans, whom were not as succesful as the Chinese in terms of longetivity and were in a similiar beginning situation in the mediterranean.
I want to play a game of civ4, where lots of small states compete in a malaise of machiavellian intrigue to gain power over one another, where cultures, empires and ideals spread, unify, divide and clash. Where powerful nations staple down their neighbours and become rich, only to grow old and corrupt and have to face their wrath. A more political game, where you start off small and attempt to control your region, then your neighbours, then your continent, then the world! I want to choose whether to be the first civilisation or an underdog in the modern world who after much blood and tears comes to rule it all!!
********
********
I wrote this first, but I'm putting it last because it is just a silly little quibble to counter a silly little quibble. You know, when someone insinuates that you are a stereotype so they don't have to prove it, because they know they can't. Feel free to turn this forum into a maelstrom of pointless drivel, but put it at the bottom of your post and past some *s so people who can't be botherred can completely ignore your fallacious statements without having to even glance at it.
civ3 isn't eurocentric, the Ancient Egyptians had monarchies a long time before feudalism of any sorts appeared and a long time before the europeans and chinese had a civilisation of any sorts.
It is a fact that there were monarchies long before feudalism, not some element of european culture or whatever you great big lefties have a problem with.Maybe the Chinese didn't discover monarchy before they enterred the rennaissance, then discoverred feudalism, then exchanged feudalism with the indians for monarchy!
P.S. I'm not a righty or a lefty. They lie a lot, don't like them.
Similar threads
