How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[doronron]

Sorry for the double post here, Mods, but did anyone else involved in this discussion just get private message spam from Ghafhi? It wasn't even worth replying to (same old, same old -- no hard evidence to support his stance, complete dismissal of the material provided to refute his stance), so I went ahead and deleted the thing.

 

[Chieftess]

Sorry for the double post here, Mods, but did anyone else involved in this discussion just get private message spam from Ghafhi? It wasn't even worth replying to (same old, same old -- no hard evidence to support his stance, complete dismissal of the material provided to refute his stance), so I went ahead and deleted the thing.

I wished you sent us a pm instead. But, we'll deal with it.


Moderator Action: And let's keep the discussion away from particular users, too.

 

[doronron]

I wished you sent us a pm instead. But, we'll deal with it.


Moderator Action: And let's keep the discussion away from particular users, too.

Certainly. I apologize for not pm'ing you.

 

[FieldMarshall]

Originally posted by K. F. Huzar
I just want to ask about Numidians.
I think maybe some black tribes lived there in the region called "Numidia" but "real" Numides were a kind of berber folk - they were semi-nomadic people, riding horses etc. Masinissa does not look like a "black" in his portraits.

Otherwise, this guy Ghafhi - i hope not only that he leaves this thread but also, he is getting convinced.

Field Marshall
I checked all the famous Numidian kings, Juba (Iuba), Jugurtha (Iugurtha), Masinissa, Hiempsal. They do not look to be black.
Every source wrote that Numidians were berber. Whitish, hear me, Ghafhi?

Sorry I've takin this long to get to your query. I've been locked in a cursing match at File Front Forums. My understanding is that the majority of Numidians were black, or black-ish. But there were indeed white-ish ones, and these have been known to reside closer to the Mediterrainian (sp? -- I can never remember that one) coast.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Field Marshall

Maybe the berbers were the ruling, warrior class - however, numerous enough not to merge into the black tribes.
I don not know. I think i look for some Tunesian sites to read about the problem.

 

[doronron]

To be honest, I only know of the Numidians in relation to Carthage as mercenaries for their armies. I will have to go do a bit more research on them.

 

[Legionary37]

Whoa, i'm sick for a week, come back and this thread is still here!!

I don't really think we need more "African" civs. What we need is more "gameplay" civs. Any new civs that are added should be added because they will bring something unqiue to the game, not for some ridiculous idea of "balance".

 

[Atrebates]

Trying to think back to the original issue . I think any note towards Civ's racism can be disregarded now...

Suggestions for 'African' civs (and by african I mean anyone on the big thing south of the Med, I don't care about white/black)
phoenician
carthage (similar to phoenicians? its been argued but not settled)
Moors
Egypt

I welcome further suggestions, my own knowledge of Africa is to weak to suggest further civs without risk of embarassment

 

[rhialto]

Phoenicians weren't an African civ. The nearest thing they had to a capital (they were a culture rather than a unified nation, similar to the Celts) was Tyre, which is in the near east.

 

[Xen]

*the numidians weren tblack; they were very much, and still are cuacasian; recetn genetic studies in the region have confirmed this beyond all doubt.

 

[ThePersian]

Phoenicians were not an African civ, they were what is now Lebonan. When the persians took over Tyer much of the populations escaped forming the Chartigians.

 

[FieldMarshall]

Well, more precisly they were in Isreal and Lebanon. Tyre and Sidon, the two major cities in that area, were about 50-100 miles north of Gaza, which is directly above the Sini Penisula. But yes, Phoenicians were not African, and the Carthaginians were only in Africa. Techinically, the majority of them weren't what you could call "true natives," as in they've been there for many generations.

 

[LoughlinNR]

God people love a little nag don’t they? now lets make this nice and simple, civilization is made to be sold to an audience, now if the audience is mostly made up of Europeans and north Americans then they will cater to their wants, so if an American wants to play as America s/he can, and if a Greek wants to play as Greece s/he can, see where this is going? if you want to be politically correct and moan about how developers (who lets face it are out to make money) are racist for not putting in every African country then why don’t you add them with a modpack made by very those smart cfc'ers?

Civ is a game targeted at America and Europe so American and European civilizations are put in, now stop nagging. And Ghafhi, you are silly, try to base your arguments on facts not on looking at Nelson Mandela slightly to the left....

 

[ThePersian]

Amazing how people can be creative with so limmited bits of information. I am currently studying World history and its remarkable that Ghafhi could get so creative with history.

The thing to keep in mind here is that there is always a mix of populations. To speculate the exact pixment of Hanibble is difficult. I would not call him white or black.

In the earlier posts someone said that the elefents did not win wars. I agree, animals do not win wars. Hanible was able to bring 100 elefents over the alps, this method was only to scare the Romans. And for Habible taking rome, this is most false. Hanible was a great fighter.

He was the first to creat a tactic to beat the romans wedge formation. THe fame of the Roman legons come from tehir tactic of forcing great amounts of strenght to the middle of the enemy flank, brake the flanke apart and kill the individual people.

In one battle Hannible told the middle of his ranks to withdraw, leaving the Roman legions traped in the middle and killed, he later used the elefents most effectively to brake the very tight roman ranks and to creat havic killing thousands of Romans in a single battle.

Hanible never took cities, this was this characteristic fighting style. He draged the Roman forces out and while waiting set Roman farm lands to flame.

Hannible advanced right into the depth of Rome but hearing news of his cousins death in a battle within modern day Spain he withdrew back to see Chartaige burt for the secound time. He escaped to the far east and his story stoped being recorderd.

If i had to bet on Hannibles color (only bet) i would say he would look like your tanned greek or egyption. Why? He came from a rich ruling family in Chartage. teh rich or chartage were the settlers who came to the area from the far east. Simply its more likely that he was more white than black.

I would rather they have less but more characteristic African Civs. I personaly feel trying to force too many civs would creat imbalence in the game.

 

[FieldMarshall]

If I may, Hannibal brought 100 elefants to the base of the Alps, but only managed to get about 20 or so through the passes alive. Now, at Cannae (the battle to which you were referring, ThePersian), August 2, 216 B.C., 8 legions and 8 allied alae (allied contigents of units which were designed to support the Ploybian Manipular Legion, the type used by Rome at the time), totalling 80,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, engaged a Carthaginian force of 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry. Now, contary to the Roman's standard battle tactic, which favored manuverability, they deployed their legions in a deep formation, aiming at pure strength. The only weakness of such a force was the small number of cavalry to defend the flanks. Hannibal's plan was to chace the Roman cavalry off the field, and then luer the legions into attacking the center of his line, which they did. The center fell back, and then the wings of the Carthaginian line, containing the elite of the Carthaginian force, the Libyan Spearman, not the elefants, moved around the legions and stuck them on the flanks. The Carthaginian cavalry reformed, and struck the legions the rear (kind of like giving them a spanking for sacraficing manueverability for strength, something you should never do). No Carthaginian elefants were present at Cannae. The majority of them had to be killed between the battles of the River Trebia and Lake Trasameine, since the Romans learned that horse blood sent elefants into sheer panic, and the handlers had to kill them.

Frankly, I believe that maybe one or two African civs should be in Civ IV, one of them definatly being Egypt, and the other, maybe either the Carthaginians or the Zulu.

 

[ThePersian]

Feild Martial ty for giving a more "detailed" explanation of what i just said.

I am no do belive i know my Roman history well, hoping the leading historian on Roman History G.Fgan is correct. Cannae did have elefents present. Why, the Romans were so desprate to get rid of them before the battle that tehy awarded money for their tusks to whom ever roman got them.

But as i said, since Hanible did come from a rich ruling family he was most likely more white than black.

FieldMarshall, i am intristed in knowning where you got that bit of information from, becuse it is not parallel with the things i have been studying.When the Roman forces withdrew a small force of elefents and spear men circled and closed them in, so by the end of the battle Hanible had the enemy encircled. I am sure the dipiction of the battle states that the Romans were unaware of teh elefents presence untill the closed the passge from which the Romans where planing to escape.

 

[FieldMarshall]

ThePersian, I had a slightly hard time reading that, but I think I can answer your question.

My soucres are The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, Universal History of the World, Volume III by James L. Steffensen, 100 Decisive Battles by... can't find his name (the book's cover is gone), and my personal knowledge. And the History Channel.

You are correct that he came from a rich family, but it was more or less a military family. Hannibal's father, Hamilcar, was a senior general in the Army, and Hannibal's brother Hanno was both a general and a make-shift admiral, as was his other brother Hasdrubal. Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Hanno were all on the Roman campaign, I beleive, and Hamilcar managed to get back to Carthage and then led a small relieveing army into Italy to link-up with Hannibal in an attempt at taking Rome itself. Unfortunatly for Hannibal, Hasdrubal was both defeated and killed in a battle with a Roman army, under the command, of all people, Consul Nero (I don't think there's any relation to the emperor).

I'm not quite sure where you're getting the evidence that elefants were at Cannae, but every soucre, and every history teacher I've had have pointed out that Hannibal's elefants were killed by the time of the battle. At the River Trebia, Hannibal had lost only several elefants, but it was at Trebia that the Romans learned that horse blood sent them into a frit. By the battle of Lake Trasameine, the Romans had by then engage the Carthaginians several times before, and at each engagment had slit their horse's throats so that the stench of the blood would disrupt any elefant attack, and cause the handelers to kill the elefants t keep them from running into their own troops. By Trasamein, Hannibal had only several elefants left, and they were all killed by the end of the battle.

At Cannae, the total Roman casualties totaled 45,500 dead, 18,700 captured, for a total of 64,200, of an orginal 86,000. That leaves only 21,800 survivors. This included almost all of the Roman cavalry, which fled the field, and a small amount of Roman legionaries which managed to flee through a small, temporary gap in the Carthaginan line. This would also include any reserves and any troopes left to guard the Roman camp. The Carthaginians basically didn't have to hunt down the Romans, since they had them surrounded. The ones that escaped were allowed to do so, in that they would spread news of the defeat and cause both fear and panic throughout Rome.

 

[ThePersian]

I will have to look into this, please understand this has little to do with competition i have to write an artical and this missing peice bothers me.

Its good to know you have some solid sources and that you watch the History Channel.

 

[Xen]

You all need to remember-

1)the white/black "caveat" dosent matter; thier wer eno black people in numidia or most of Saharan africa at the time; even as far down as Ghana and Ethiopia, major center sof th epopulation are gene-coded for caucasian ancestry (more information can be given if desired)

2)Hannible was a great feild general, but a horrible stratician- he know how to win a battle, but not how to capitalize off it; regardless he woudl have never taken Rome- winning a feild battle is a differen tmatter entirelly from a seige, and Hannible woudl never have won a seige; he didnt have enough troops, and throughout the war, Rome kept two legions on Sicilly to keep its precious resource -seige workshops- safelly in Roman hands- without those workshops, Rome could never have been taken

 

[FieldMarshall]

ThePersian, I also have a degree in military history (I'm majoring in this, and I'm also working on my Ph.D in this) and a seperate degree on Mediterrainian civilizations and what-not. So, ya, that and good sources, and a little practice with Civ III (on taking out everyone -- military history related), would make me a lugatimate historian who (obviously) knows his stuff, unlike Ghafhi. Now, I'm by no means trying to bragg (I HATE bragging), but, if you need to know anything historically related, I'm the guy to see. Not to say that there arn't other people out there who are as good as/better than me (Belcarius seems to be an example of this -- he knows his stuff).

Perhaps a benifit of this is that you gain an edge when playing Civ. For example, knowing how the ancients built their civilizations gives you handy knowledge as to how to build yours. And, espically related to this thread, it gives you the necessary knowledge to know which civs in Civ III should be used in Civ IV.

Most of the European civs are what you can call real civilizations, except the Celts. Though they are the precedents of the French and English, and perhaps a little of the Spanish, they weren't an actual civilization, just a collection of tribes. Same with the Iroquois. Granted, I like the fact that they're in Civ, but as a civilization, they just don't work, again because they are tribal-based. Since they are tribal-baesed, that generally means that there is no central government, no standing army, no set form of currency (this becomes a necessary factor in the later ages), etc. Now, when you look at the Romans, yes, they were based on a family-like thing, where each family was it's own sort of faction (this is true, not out of Rome: Total War), but they were all united under one central government, and eventually these sub-factions dissapered all-together.

Some civilizations are wrongly critizied in this manner, though. The Zulu, for example, are generally thought of as a purely tribal soceity that had none of the characteristicts of civilization. BUT, the Zulu were actually a true African civilization. They had a central government, centered at Great Zimbabwe. They had a standing army, public agencys -- basically everything that is used to define a people as a civilization. Though I'm only directly using a central government and a standing army to justify which is a civilization and which is not, there are many more ways to define this. I'm only using these examples just for the sake of simplicity (for me). The only reason why the Zulu are mistook for "barbarians" is that this central government disapeared circa the Middle Ages. For what reasons, nobody is actually sure. But whatever the case, they degenerated into a tribal soceity (I'm in no means calling a tribal society uncivilized or bad, just not what you'd could call a nation).

Of course, the Americans can be attacked for being in Civ, simply because they are only 230 years old, and were once a former colony of Britian. Because they are what some would say "off-shoots" of the British, generally people feel that the Americans shouldn't be in historcal games such as Civ. However, the reason they are in the game is because A) Americans buy Civ and B) the Americans have been extremely influencial in the past 100 years. And thus they are included in game. And then this could leed to why the British and French are in here since they are from the Celts, but they are in the game for the same reasons as the Americans: they've been influencial in world history (and Civ sells in those countries).

I don't want to go into anymore detail in one post, since this is already getting long (sorry), but if you feel necessary to question anything in this, please do so. But, none the less, I feel that the Africans are represented in Civ fairly.