How many European Civilizations!?!

[Urederra]

i voted for 9+ but i thought that this was for the final x-pack. I think that 7-8 are enough for the first 18. Perhaps Spain could go to leave space for Babylon.

I will leave out Greece instead. The second largest empire ever cannot be out of the game.

It would be funny to have the Incas and the Aztecs and not having the Spanish. Or having the romans, the arabs, the English, the French and not having the Spanish, also funny. Who are they going to fight with?

Having christianity and not having the Spanish does not make sense either. Nobody have spreaded christianity more than the spanish.

Besides, the spanish market is way higher than the greek one, so, I would remove Greece first.

oooohhhh. varwnos, my second favourite greek philosopher... until now.

 

[Kyriakos]

you wouldnt be, uh, *spanish* by any chance? (although your location is supposed to be the pacific?)

Greece wouldn't be left out, due to ancient greece that is, and it is more influencial than probably all of the other euro civs. Besides Spain wont be left out, and neither was i really advocating it (now i am on byzantine mode), i was merely making a theoretical suggestion, from the safety of knowing that it cannot be materialised anyway, so now i would only had left myself open to criticism from someone who was very fond of the spanish. Sometimes just the cercoporta is left open though and that still makes Constantinople fall

 

[Urederra]

you wouldnt be, uh, *spanish* by any chance? (although your location is supposed to be the pacific?)

Yeah, I am spanish, how did you know it?

You are right, and I was trying to joke about Greece, which obviously is not going to be out of any civ game. BTW, I prefer to call it Hellas, but these dumb english (j/k) had to change it to greece, because there was grease in the islands (olive oil). (that is what a second generation greek-newfie told me).

Tranquility sea is a place in the moon. I put that place after seing that most people don't put their location. I am working in the US, actually. But I am from Pamplona. (the running of the bulls thing).

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that "greece" came from the "graikoi", citizents of the greek city state "Graia" somewhere in Italy. That is just one theory though.

 

[frekk]

Well, I know that the early Romans were referring to the Greek colonies in Sicily as "Magna Graecia" or Greater Greece, so the name is alot older than the English language.

Also, Alexander's empire would only be the second largest Eurasian empire, not second largest world empire. Britain, France, and possibly Spain, at the height of their colonial empires, all had signifigantly larger landmasses under their control globally, but I think Alexander's empire would qualify as the second largest amount of land held in Eurasia alone.

 

[Urederra]

Ok, So this greek-newfie guy that told me that Greece was named after grease (olive oil) was wrong. But I still prefer Hellas.

And when I said the second largest world empire ever, I was talking about the Spanish one, during Phillip the second (born in Valladolid, Spain) Sorry, I was replying to varwnos post. I should have stated that I was referring to the Spanish empire.

According to Himalia, It was the second largest. The largest one being the english. France is way under, I think. Russia and Mongols had larger empires than the French one.

 

[Kyriakos]

hm the ancient greeks were calling italy "great greece", so the romans took it from that. The real guestion is how hellas got to be called graecia though Some claim that it was due to the citizents of Graia, who supposedly were the first to come to contact with the latins.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Well, as long as the list includes: Rome, England, Greece and possibly Dutch, Portugal and Ottoman in the expansion i'm fine with it.

 

[frekk]

Russia and Mongols had larger empires than the French one.

Probably, but those were also larger than Alexanders' empire (particularly during the USSR period, for Russia).

This is Alexander's empire at it's height:

As you can see, this falls far short of Mongol possessions (the Il-Khan sector alone encompassed almost this entire area) as well as the USSR at its height.

And here is another empire in the same general areas that I have not yet mentioned:

France's possessions changed quite a bit over time, but either their holdings in North America (from the upper Mississipi, all across the Great Lakes region and up the St. Lawrence) or West Africa were quite large in terms of square miles.

I think the confusion arises because historians like to say that Alexander's empire was the largest the world had ever seen ... meaning nothing before it was larger. But there were many after it which were much larger.

 

[Ded Moroz]

Personally I'd redo the European civilizations away from an idea of nations and more towards an idea of cultural groupings of nations. To that end, I would have this list:

1) Hellenic
2) Latin
3) Celtic
4) Germanic
5) Norse
6) Slavic

I think that would pretty much cover all the bases without there being too many civs in Europe.

I would agree with this idea. Why argue about who's history role was more important: Rome, France or Spain - when all of them can be derived from Latins? Each civ will have several optional leaders at the start, so let there be Caesar, Napoleon, Isabella and several more optional leaders for Latins. And with era changes civ names should be changed from ancient to modern so everybody will be satisfied. Each initial group will have the same specific units, a single list of cities.
Say, for example, a player chooses Slavic as his civ and a leader Carl IV (king of Bohemia). The Cities in the list will be Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Kiev, Belgrad and other slavic cities. With an end of ancient era the name of civ changes to Moravia, then later to Bohemia and finally in modern times to Tchechia. If a player would have chosen Ivan the Terrible as a leader for Slavic then the evoilution of his civ name from era to era would have been, say, Slavic - Rusj - Russia, and the cities would have remain the same.

 

[sassoundwave]

Has anyone even read my post?!?! I think it includes enough European civs to cover everybody who was important without being overly dominant because I raise the number of total civs without making it ridiculously long by not including civs that aren't large enough or overlap with a more important civ.

The largeness of an empire is not the only defination of being important or playing a great role in history.
In example take the Netherlands. The country is smaller as an ant, but it ruled the oceans for a while above the Spanish, French and the English. It was the only country that was allowed to trade with Japan, and it had small collonies all over the world. However there was not a such thing as a Dutch Empire, as the total landmass was still small. So it is not all about landmass, it is also about influence and putting yourself in History, like Shaka Zullu did, to name another small group.

 

[Himalia]

According to Himalia, It was the second largest. The largest one being the english. France is way under, I think. Russia and Mongols had larger empires than the French one.

If we are talking about Spain here i agree that there in the top ten largest but not second. No matter how i look at the figures. Heres the top ten as i see it.

1 British Empire 1920 12.5 million sqaure miles
2 Soviet Union 1945 9.5 million square miles
3 Mongel Kanate 1259 9.3 million square miles
4 Russian Empire 1900 8.9 million square miles
5 Spanish Empire 1759 7.1-7.5 million square miles
6 Russian federation 1991 6.6 million square miles
7 Chinese Empire 1792 5 million square miles
8 3rd French Republic 1930 4.5-4.8 million square miles
9 United States 1945 4.1 million square miles1
10 Gokturk khanate 580 4.0 million square miles

There is some debate over Spain being abit higher due to the fact at one poit the rules Portugal thus there teritoy would count towards there onw however even then i cant manage to push them further up the list. It could also be argued that since the Soviet Union, Russian Empire and the Russian Federation should be counted as one nation. In which case just take the highest one to represent Russias peak and move others up accordingly.

In which case the following should be added to compensate.

11 Canada 1990 3.9 million square miles
12 Holy Roman Empire 1550 3.7 million square miles

 

[Atrebates]

Ideas here seem to be moving towards Evolving civs - I like that idea

Anyway here's the main idea for the majority who don't bother with link

IMO the effects of evolving is a realism of sorts, part of it is my personal opinion that I would like to lead a barbarian tribe to nationhood (okay, this is what happens but you always play as the nation you hope to become before you actually match (or get near) their achievements)

The secondary point would be having it as a way of marking achievement with your nation/leader earning titles as you progress.

Other links: Evolving Civs 2

 

[Urederra]

Hi, Himalia,

Well, you know what I stated, Phillip the second united the iberian peninsula during his reign, that meant that Portugal was also a part of Spain for some time. In the late 1500's (too lazy to look at the actual dates). And you told me that if you take that into account, It will be over the Mongol empire. Thanks for the list.

Have a nice day.

Edit: @ frekk, I think that the Alexander empire was the largest empire ever until that point in history, the same happen to the Mongol empire and the Spanish empire in 1590 (when it joined Portugal and it overseas colonies). Then other empires came later that surpassed them.

 

[Truronian]

I think any civilization that has some claim to being the most powerful in the world at some point in history deserves to be in the game. As such the following should be in (just European civs):

England
Spain
Germany
Rome
Ottomans
Russia
Vikings maybe

However I also believe those who have had an impact culturally or scientifically are also deserving:

France
Greece
Netherlands

Civs I think are unnessecary:

Celts
Portugal (more of a mini Spain)
Byzantium
Hittites

 

[Nyvin]

If we are talking about Spain here i agree that there in the top ten largest but not second. No matter how i look at the figures. Heres the top ten as i see it.

1 British Empire 1920 12.5 million sqaure miles
2 Soviet Union 1945 9.5 million square miles
3 Mongel Kanate 1259 9.3 million square miles
4 Russian Empire 1900 8.9 million square miles
5 Spanish Empire 1759 7.1-7.5 million square miles
6 Russian federation 1991 6.6 million square miles
7 Chinese Empire 1792 5 million square miles
8 3rd French Republic 1930 4.5-4.8 million square miles
9 United States 1945 4.1 million square miles1
10 Gokturk khanate 580 4.0 million square miles

There is some debate over Spain being abit higher due to the fact at one poit the rules Portugal thus there teritoy would count towards there onw however even then i cant manage to push them further up the list. It could also be argued that since the Soviet Union, Russian Empire and the Russian Federation should be counted as one nation. In which case just take the highest one to represent Russias peak and move others up accordingly.

In which case the following should be added to compensate.

11 Canada 1990 3.9 million square miles
12 Holy Roman Empire 1550 3.7 million square miles

Wouldn't Nazi Germany be somewhere in there? And I don't think it's really right to include Russia three times basically, if you did that then you'd have to include the french twice too, and the Mongols had more then just one empire also. It'd be better to just go by each of the countries peaks. I don't think the brittish empire at 'one single time' ever reached 12 million sq. miles. I think the spainish would be the third largest after Brittish and USSR. And I thought that Canada was a bit bigger then the US? :-/

 

[Himalia]

Errm in the quote you have used it does actually point out that Soviet Union, Russian Empire and the Russian Federation should b counted as one nation, in which case just keep the higher value of the three and to compebsate the chart add Canada and the Holy Roman Empire. The British Empire it seems reached 12.5 at its peak there are even some figure going as high as 14.5 but you enter a hazy grey area there so i just kept with the 12.5 as that didt seem so hard to prove while the 14.5 as i said was a bit hazy it probably just alittle over 12.5 but it serves for comparison purposes.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

CivIII does not count Greece and Rome as European civilizations - rather Mediterranean, and should stay that way.

With Regards to Europe itself, England, France, Spain, Germany, Scandinavia and Russia would suffice.

 

[Crayton]

True. Civ 3 also counted the Ottomans as Middle Eastern.
Presumably, these groupings will be done away with in Civ 4 (presumably).
In which case, this topic originally defined European as Civilizations with a capital in Europe.
I myself would rather have a Turk civilization based in Samarkand, rather than Europe.

I'f I'm counting corectly, you're list is of 8 civilizations (assuming Vladistovok, Antioch, and Carthage are not civilization capitals)

 

[Israelite9191]

The largeness of an empire is not the only defination of being important or playing a great role in history.
In example take the Netherlands. The country is smaller as an ant, but it ruled the oceans for a while above the Spanish, French and the English. It was the only country that was allowed to trade with Japan, and it had small collonies all over the world. However there was not a such thing as a Dutch Empire, as the total landmass was still small. So it is not all about landmass, it is also about influence and putting yourself in History, like Shaka Zullu did, to name another small group.

I believe I did include the Netherlands. If I didn't, than it was a mistake. If you think that I meant "overlap" as by land area, that is not what I meant. I meant like the Romans overlap with the Byzantines, the Turks with the Ottomans, etc. etc.

Now, did anyone else read my quote!