How about CIV stop being RACIST!!!

[ThePersian]

And i belive the Chartigens did not have one ruler. The G. Fagan explains Chartage as one big company. You have tens of rich ruling families that decided on matters. I belive this ties in to what you said in the last post.

Well as i am still a student i would love to give you samples of my writen work

I think they are well writen. I have a way of combining social sciences with history to in an epic type writings.

 

[FieldMarshall]

Well, the Carthaginians did have more than one ruler. Rermeber, they lasted for a few hundred years. Nobody lives that long (unfortunatly).

If you'd like, ThePersian, you can PM me with you work. I'd be happy to read and perhaps help with it.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

Mali and Ethiopia are good civs for Africa.

Otherwise, Carthage was a kind of oligarchy - more strictly than Rome.
There was a council and two major officers leading the state day-by-day, they were called suffex
Carthage could not reach a homogenity in populace like Rome (mostly latin-speaking tribes or latin-relative speaking tribes) in the hinterland. They used mercenaries in their army while Roman legions were recruited from native population through conscription.
Thus, they just fall apart when Scipio Aemilianus Africanus arrived...

 

[Kyriakos]

In the end there were/are probably going to be at least two african civs (in the final x pack i mean). So in a way we aren't really arguing for anything constructive... (by african i mean eg Mali and Ethiopia. Carthage-Egypt, as has been noted a lot of times here, are more med)

 

[Atrebates]

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.

Did this happen? Okay the Senate controlled all military matters etc... but I believed family animosity just moved into the political arena, the rise of Caesar was possible due to his Julii ancestry and family politics appear to be present when the empire split.

There's two reasons I'm asking this 1) personal interest and 2) It might show how a 'tribal' system can survive transition into 'civilisation'

 

[Superkrest]

you can find family connections in almost any governemt though...even modern democracy..bush's for one..kennedys for another. ..it helps to know someone sometimes... i dont know if it should be implemented into the game...or how for that matter.(you are the sole livelong leader)

 

[ThePersian]

good modern example.

 

[Hyronymus]

Mali and Ethiopia are good civs for Africa.

Otherwise, Carthage was a kind of oligarchy - more strictly than Rome.
There was a council and two major officers leading the state day-by-day, they were called suffex
Carthage could not reach a homogenity in populace like Rome (mostly latin-speaking tribes or latin-relative speaking tribes) in the hinterland. They used mercenaries in their army while Roman legions were recruited from native population through conscription.
Thus, they just fall apart when Scipio Aemilianus Africanus arrived...

I thought Carthage fell when Rome won the First Punic War and gained control of almost all metal deposits in and around the Mediterranian Sea. It also didn't help that General Barca decided to start it's own capital (New Carthage) around the same time.

 

[doronron]

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).

A strong grasp of history does help make games like Civ more enjoyable in the long run. While I don't consider Civ's approach to grand strategic warfare to be all that well done, the series as a whole does a pretty good job making sure all of the powers presented are on a more-or-less even playing field and the empire building portions of the game are top notch. Nations are only limited by their starting locations and the terrain that surrounds them. The malleability of history through Civ is also a strong point. I always loved playing a Meso-American empire to dominance, or at least parity, to their counterparts in other regions of the world. It's kind of fun playing a communist Aztec clearing out the Amazon for farming while playing a game of brinksmanship with fascist Carthaginian boomers around the Azores (or the equivalent thereof on a random map...). One of my best games was as the Persians racing to consolidate the whole world under my rule before my space ship landed on Alpha Centauri. Fun stuff.

 

[Kyriakos]

I nominate some greek city state in Cyrenaica as an "african" civ to be added.

j/k

 

[Joey_Ramone]

I haven't posted here in forever but this is an incredibly ridiculous post and I feel that I must respond. First of all the developers of the game are not racist - they simply put in the civilizations that they feel had the biggest impact on history. You may disagree with them, but that is their opinion and does not make them racist.

Secondly, I find your post to be exceedingly racist itself, and the fact that most of the posters here won't call you on it shows just how PC and anti-white many people have become. Why is it ok for you, a black person, to show ethnocentrism but not ok for a white person to do the same?

For the record I am not white. I am an Arab (Christian) from Lebanon who has lived in this country for most of my life. It amazes me the kind of racism that black people are allowed to get away with that other groups simply would not. For instance blacks complain about lack of blacks in NASCAR and it is considered legitimate. But if whites were to complain about lack of whites in the NBA that would be racist. Note also that Asians and other non-white groups also do not complain about their lack of representation in Nascar, NFL, NBA etc. It is only blacks that do this.

You want more African nations in Civ, that's fine. Heck I'm all for more Civs myself, but using race as your factor makes you a racist. You're not African you are an American (I assume). Based on his last name, Sid Meier, is probably Jewish or at least of Jewish descent but that doesn't mean he wants to push Israel on the game purely for his own ethnocentric reasons.

 

[ThePersian]

I not sure even thought yours set out to be the lest racial, when i read it allowed it seemed the oposite.

If you read carefuly the most here were not racist. You only need one extream person and alot of people with alot to say to argue such a thing and make it seem likey racism.

 

[FieldMarshall]

Originally posted by Hyronymus
I thought Carthage fell when Rome won the First Punic War and gained control of almost all metal deposits in and around the Mediterranian Sea. It also didn't help that General Barca decided to start it's own capital (New Carthage) around the same time.

Carthage only lost Sicaly and all of its isands in the Mediterrainian, along with all claims to Northern Spain. The First Punic War (264-241 B.C.)was more or less a naval war, though.

In the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.), Hannibal comes along, and invades Rome, but was called back to defend Carthage when a Roman force under Scipio Africanus landed and threatened Carthage itself. Hannibal managed to muster an army some 50,000 strong, nearly identical to the size of the Roman army, and he had elefants. However, Scipio managed to defeat this army (I don't want to go into details 'cause I don't want to make this a really long post) and then forced Carthage to sue for peace. She had to give up almost her entire navy and merchant fleet, pay reperations, and I believe she also lost Spain -- I'll need to think on this.

In the Third Punic War (149-146 B.C.), Carthage again tried to challenge Rome, but instead got an invading army which captured Carthage and burnt it to the ground. This was when the Romans went with total anniliation and destroyed everything.

Originally posted by Atrebates
Did this happen? Okay the Senate controlled all military matters etc... but I believed family animosity just moved into the political arena, the rise of Caesar was possible due to his Julii ancestry and family politics appear to be present when the empire split.

Yes, that did happen, but it was more on a political scale than militarily. Each family was in itself its own faction, having dominance in certain areas of Italy, such as northern Italy for the Julli. Now, the Senate acted as the binding between these factions, and the senators would be family members from their home regions who would represnt their family's intrests in the Senate, as well as those of Rome as a whole. When it came to influence and power, military conquest did become a factor. Caesar's campaigns, and his lavish spending, won the support of the populance and with that came considerable influence (Ghafhi -- pay attention to this; my source: Caesar Against the Celts, by Ramon L. Jimenez), and thus that won him a consul-ship and a governor ship in Transalpine Gaul. When Rome ceased to be a Republic and became more of a true empire (which means that it had an emperor), the whole faction thing pratically disaperred, though it still lingered as certain families would try to get someone to be emperor.

 

[Carver]

For instance blacks complain about lack of blacks in NASCAR and it is considered legitimate. But if whites were to complain about lack of whites in the NBA that would be racist. Note also that Asians and other non-white groups also do not complain about their lack of representation in Nascar, NFL, NBA etc. It is only blacks that do this.

Not even 1% of the African-American population in the US cares about how many African-Americans there are in NASCAR. I know NASCAR has sought to diversify itself but it's not due to any complaining by mainstream blacks. Furthermore, mainstream blacks have never complained about their representation in any sport, even the overwhelmingly white ones like golf and tennis.

Don't make sweeping statements about "blacks" when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

 

[FieldMarshall]

Originally posted by Carver
Not even 1% of the African-American population in the US cares about how many African-Americans there are in NASCAR. I know NASCAR has sought to diversify itself but it's not due to any complaining by mainstream blacks. Furthermore, mainstream blacks have never complained about their representation in any sport, even the overwhelmingly white ones like golf and tennis.

Don't make sweeping statements about "blacks" when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly.

Also, "...using race as a factor makes you a racist." How? Because I have an opinion on race, does that make me a racist? No, it doesn't. I (or more appropriatly, we) point out the facts, not critize.

Racism n. A thought or belief that one race is better that another race.

Are any of us outright saying that "white's are soo much better than blacks" or "Asian people are stupid when it comes to whites?" No, none of are. None of us are like that either. The only thing we have pointed out is that simply Europeans, Middle-Eastern nations, and Asians have contributed more to history than African nations. Now, I'm not saying that African nations haven't done anything important, but in Civ it's just a matter of who were really influencial in world history.

 

[Joey_Ramone]

Not even 1% of the African-American population in the US cares about how many African-Americans there are in NASCAR. I know NASCAR has sought to diversify itself but it's not due to any complaining by mainstream blacks. Furthermore, mainstream blacks have never complained about their representation in any sport, even the overwhelmingly white ones like golf and tennis.

Don't make sweeping statements about "blacks" when you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Excuse me I should have been more clear. I was not referring to all blacks, I was referring to those blacks with a chip on their shoulder like the first poster "pimpmasta" to whom I was responding.

As for the fact that "mainstream blacks" have never complained about their representation in sports I disagree. For instance certain blacks (Jesse Jackson) have continuously complained about the lack of black head coaches in the NFL. In reality there is nothing to complain about as blacks are about 13% of the population and are about 16% (5 out of 30) of head coaches. Hispanics and other non-whites do not complain about this even though there are more Hispanics in this country than blacks.

Anyway my point is not to disparage blacks as I have many black friends. I am simply pointing out the obvious racism of "pimpmasta". He is not African, he is American. America is represented. Look my ancestors were from Lebanon but I never complained that previous itterations of Civ had no Arabs. Heck, it never even crossed my mind. The fact is "pimpmasta" can get away with racism but if a white were to say something like "there are too many African Civs" they would be called a racist.

 

[Joey_Ramone]

Exactly.

Also, "...using race as a factor makes you a racist." How? Because I have an opinion on race, does that make me a racist? No, it doesn't. I (or more appropriatly, we) point out the facts, not critize.

Racism n. A thought or belief that one race is better that another race.

Are any of us outright saying that "white's are soo much better than blacks" or "Asian people are stupid when it comes to whites?" No, none of are. None of us are like that either. The only thing we have pointed out is that simply Europeans, Middle-Eastern nations, and Asians have contributed more to history than African nations. Now, I'm not saying that African nations haven't done anything important, but in Civ it's just a matter of who were really influencial in world history.

No but it is racist to want an African nation in Civ just because you are black and Africans are black. Just as it would be racist to root for Tiger Woods just because he looks black (and many people do this as well).

 

[FieldMarshall]

Originally quoted by Joey Ramone
No but it is racist to want an African nation in Civ just because you are black and Africans are black. Just as it would be racist to root for Tiger Woods just because he looks black (and many people do this as well).

Not necessarily. A black person might want to have an African civ in the game because he'd like to play as his own "kind" (not to make that sound racist) from time to time, not just because he/she feels that "well, because I'm black, I'm only going to play as a black civ and that's that." Now, if he/she said "I want a black civ because I hate white/arab/asian people," then that's be racist.

And another thing. Black people don't want to see their heritage get left out. How much of an insult do you think it'd be if all there were no African civs in Civilization? Since Civ has always been a historcal game, what would that say if Sid Meier left the African civs out?

 

[Kyriakos]

we are going around in circles...
the simple fact is that if by african you mean subsaharan: there just arent many civs there that were of *global* importance. Infact i can only think of the Mali, who at least created the "voodoo" culture (which is globally known i think, albeit not as influential as greco-roman antiquity). There isnt a single polynesian or oceanian (although i admit that the latter is sort of covered by england, and there arent many aboriginal tribes there) civ, nor is there Khmer anywhere, so i do not see why subsaharan africa should get more civs. According to the final number of the civs in the final x-pack it may be logical to have two subsaharan civs, but more would be needless imo

 

[FieldMarshall]

Ya, we are. We've gone from arguning about why there arn't many African civs, to arguing about Ghafhi, to whether or not Hannibal is black, to why you think a civ should be in the game, and back to arguning about African civs.

Now I'm getting disey.