How many European Civilizations!?!

[Crayton]

Israelites post/quote:
"I personally heve compiled a list of 30 or so civilizations I think give enough coverage of the world as to be sufficent. Of that list 14 are European (I included the Romans and Greeks as everyone seems to be considering anything on the continent of Europe as European). This list includes: 1. Portugal 2. Spain 3. France 4. Celtica 5. Romanium 6. Greece 7. Germany 8. Scandinavia 9. Hungary 10. Poland 11. England 12. the Netherlands 13. Byzantium and 14. Russia"

This follows Civ3 fairly well. The Maygars/Hungarians are in (I like this choice) and so is Poland. The Ottomans are out (I'm guessing in an Asia based 'Turkic' civilization)

I think this list is well thought out, Israelite9191. Which of these civs are among the top 18 of your chosen 30? Your Europe is more dense than Civilization 3's Europe; so, I'm hoping that all 14 of these civs are not in the top 18.

 

[SonicX]

Europe's history is too complicated to simply make a ranked list of civilization. Almost every country has it's ups and down. I've made a small list of civilizations with it's advantages and disadvantages, but except for the certain few (Rome, France, England, ...) I can't really say why some deserve it more than other to be selected.

Roman Empire
+ Supreme power in for centuries
+ Culturally very important for Europe
Greek Empire
+ Supreme power in the ancient age
+ Also culturally imporant, perhaps even more than Rome.
- Meaningless in the last 2 millennia
Britain
+ Largest empire in colonization age
+ Leading force behind the industrialization
+ Victorian age in the medieval period
+ Already there in the ancient age
France
+ Important in medieval ages
+ Once ruled half of Europe
+ Major colonial power
- No important ancient history, except the Gauls perhaps (if you look at it as a civ)
Spain
+ Major colonial power in the Americas, major influences as well
+ European power from 1500 to the late 19th century
- Uninfluential before 1500 and after 1900
Germany
+ Conquered half of Europe twice
+ Was militarily tough in the Prusian, pre-German period
- Relatively new nation, little history
- Prussia lacked a lot of culture
Russia
+ Still the largest nation in the world
+ Important player in European history
+ Culturally important (slavic culture)
Scandinavia
+ Represent a lot of land
+ Vikings are one of the most remembered cultures
- Represent only 25 million inhabitants
- Viking culture only existed for three centuries (1000-1300)
Celts
+ Ancient to medieval culture with remnants today
- Never had much land of influence
- Lacked a significant culture
Holland / Dutch
+ Was an important colonial power
+ Was a strong naval competitor
- Always has been a small country (without the colonies)
- Their period of power didn't last long
- Didn't leave a significant influence behind (except in Suriname or Aruba perhaps)
Portugal
+ Large colonial power in soutern Africa and Brazil
+ Important European power in the early navigation age (1500-1700)
- Are too similiar to Spain
- Have never reached Spain's levels of power
Ottomans / Turks
+ Culturally very important in south eastern Europe, culturally unique as well
+ Still a large country today
- Always powerful, but also always "close but not quite"
- Unimportant before that period
Austrians
+ Have played a huge role in European history from the medieval ages up to 1918
- Easily confused with Germany
- Not a remarkable culture (in terms of uniqueness)
Magyars / Hungarians
+ A strong nation in the late industrial period
+ Culturally unique
- Left no remarkable legacy
- Was only powerful for one and a half century
Poland
+ Has always been a special area with it's own culture/mentality
- Has also always Europe's "ugly duck" that lost close to every war it fought (with all due respect)
Byzantine
+ Ruled for a millenium over a large part of Eastern Europe and the Middle East
- Were actually the remnants of the Roman Empire, without a whole lot of own cultural additions (more of mosaic of Roman and local cultures)
- Are geographically colliding with the Ottoman Empire
Belgium
+ I live there
- It sucks though

 

[Nyvin]

Britain
+ Largest empire in colonization age
+ Leading force behind the industrialization
+ Victorian age in the medieval period
+ Already there in the ancient age.

Victorian age in the medival period? I think you mean during the 19th century, but wouldn't this go along (pretty much the same thing)with the other two stated above? And britain wasn't 'there' in ancient age...? Saying something about their government might be better.

France
+ Important in medieval ages
+ Once ruled half of Europe
+ Major colonial power
- No important ancient history, except the Gauls perhaps (if you look at it as a civ).

Charlemange? And also the area of France was important for early christainity and all that.

Spain
+ Major colonial power in the Americas, major influences as well
+ European power from 1500 to the late 19th century
- Uninfluential before 1500 and after 1900.

I don't really see how England was influential before 1600 and after 1945....if your saying it about one, say it about the other too.

Germany
+ Conquered half of Europe twice
+ Was militarily tough in the Prusian, pre-German period
- Relatively new nation, little history
- Prussia lacked a lot of culture.

Germany would be the one that's 'already there' in ancient age. It was the only area of western Europe not conquered by Romans!

Russia
+ Still the largest nation in the world
+ Important player in European history
+ Culturally important (slavic culture).

And second largest empire, and the cold war stuff.

Scandinavia
+ Represent a lot of land
+ Vikings are one of the most remembered cultures
- Represent only 25 million inhabitants
- Viking culture only existed for three centuries (1000-1300).

Viking culture existed way more then that, and during their time there were quite a large number of vikings in comparrison to some other countries.

Celts
+ Ancient to medieval culture with remnants today
- Never had much land of influence
- Lacked a significant culture.

One of the few matriartical societies (Women ruled) ever to exist might be good to add too.

Holland / Dutch
+ Was an important colonial power
+ Was a strong naval competitor
- Always has been a small country (without the colonies)
- Their period of power didn't last long
- Didn't leave a significant influence behind (except in Suriname or Aruba perhaps).

Saying something about government might be good too, also the uniqueness of their culture. And all the success stories they have against larger foes.

 

[jwijn]

Holland / Dutch
+ Was an important colonial power
+ Was a strong naval competitor
- Always has been a small country (without the colonies)
- Their period of power didn't last long
- Didn't leave a significant influence behind (except in Suriname or Aruba perhaps)

No significant influence? The Dutch East India Company was the first modern corporation and you also forget the lasting influence of the Boers in South Africa.

 

[Colonel]

I will most likely get flamed for this but I say they run the vannilla version with straight all European Civs or Eurocentric Civs. ie Western Powers(includeing America) and Eurocentric civs like Ottamans, Carthage, Eygpt, or others that play signifigant roles in European affairs within Europe. This way they get all the Europeans in right away, then have each expansion cover a contient, one would go for North and South American Native Civs, then another expansion for Asian Civs, China, India, Asia Minor Civs, Israel, Palestine, Persians, Korea, Vietnam, and so on. Then a last one to cover Africa, Zulus, Mali, and such like that.

Solve everyones problems with Civs in the game and allows for 3 expansions possibly 4 if you split Asia into Asia Minor and SE Asia.

 

[jwijn]

I will most likely get flamed for this but I say they run the vannilla version with straight all European Civs or Eurocentric Civs. ie Western Powers(includeing America) and Eurocentric civs like Ottamans, Carthage, Eygpt, or others that play signifigant roles in European affairs within Europe. This way they get all the Europeans in right away, then have each expansion cover a contient, one would go for North and South American Native Civs, then another expansion for Asian Civs, China, India, Asia Minor Civs, Israel, Palestine, Persians, Korea, Vietnam, and so on. Then a last one to cover Africa, Zulus, Mali, and such like that.

Solve everyones problems with Civs in the game and allows for 3 expansions possibly 4 if you split Asia into Asia Minor and SE Asia.

More expansion packs = more money I have to spend = bad. They could just keep the current civs and then launch into continent-specific expansion packs, with unique scenarios and units. But as far as the starting game goes, give me a mix.

 

[Kyriakos]

Greek Empire
+ Supreme power in the ancient age
+ Also culturally imporant, perhaps even more than Rome.
- Meaningless in the last 2 millennia

sorry, but this is just silly. Greece was very important as a military power until around 1204 (fourth crusade), very important as a cultural power (by itself, regardless of influencing others) until a few aions after that (up to the ottoman conquest), and hugely important culturally for europe + the world ever since, although not due to the country itself, but its legacy. True, Greece isnt in the game due to modern Greece, no one claims that, but overall it is one of the most important civs there, if not the most important, and that isnt just my partial view
moreover i do not understand why it is "meaningless" today. I cannot think of many nations which today would be "meaningfull". Perhaps only china, japan, usa, canada, india, france and germany should be in the game?

-obviously i am advocating a unisson of civ Greece and civ Byzantine empire, which would also save a civ spot. However the byz empire can always stand alone as a civ, it has tons of culture.

 

[Truronian]

And britain wasn't 'there' in ancient age...?

It was just as 'there' as Germany

I don't really see how England was influential before 1600 and after 1945....if your saying it about one, say it about the other too.

Two things:
England was influential before 1600 (Crusades etc.) and is still influential nowadays (Not as influential as the US, but the UK is still in the top 5)
Secondly every civ has a period of time when they are more influential (I assume you mean on the world stage). This is what Civ3 golden ages simulate. It was not just England and Spain who have gained and lost influence (the US as only really been influential fo the past century).

Germany would be the one that's 'already there' in ancient age. It was the only area of western Europe not conquered by Romans!

There is a big difference between the 'Germany' of Roman times and the modern nation that Civ Germany is based upon.

One of the few matriartical societies (Women ruled) ever to exist might be good to add too.

Is this any reason to include it over another civ. Besides which, the vast majority of Celtic leaders were still men.

 

[Atrebates]

Yes there is a big difference between having [in relation to others] less power than you did before and not having much power

One of the few matriartical societies (Women ruled) ever to exist might be good to add too.

Erm... have you drawn upon an isolated incident (boudiccea-the icenii)? Its like saying the British monarcy is matriarchal. Tribes valued physical prowess (in general, there a considerable spread between tribes) generally the leaders were men although the Queens did rule when their men died (or were accepted as interims, although I imagine they were often usurped by an influential man) the eldest son would normally take the leadership when they came of age. Put it this way, being a woman was no great advantage, women did rule- but not as a preference.

Oh and I'll say thanks to Sonic for posting a list (he seem to be getting a bit of a battering)- perhaps a little rough but you can't be comprehensive

 

[Israelite9191]

My top 18 would be:

Europe:
England
France
Russia

Medterranean:
Rome
Greece
Egypt

Middle-East:
Arabs
Persians
Babylonians

South East Asia:
India
Cambodia (Khmer)

East Asia:
Mongols
China
Japan

Africa:
Abyssinia

North America:
Iroquois

Mesoamerica:
Aztecs
Inca

Note- I REALLY hate limiting my self to 18. If I were able to add just three more I'd put in: Sioux, Mali, and Germany.

 

[Zenon_pt]

euro civs that are already in: (i am not counting America as one of them)

1. Greece
2. Rome
3. France
4. Germany
5. England
6. Russia
7. Spain

euro civs that could still be added & were in civ3c:

8. Portugal
9. Netherlands (Holland)
10. celts
11. vikings
12. byzantine empire

still more euro civs that can be added for the first time:

13. mayars (hungary)

Imo there are some more, but probably have less of a possibility of being in, eg:
Austria (Germany is already in)
Poland
Serbia
Bulgaria
Sweden

I am not too fond of the celtic civ, and imo the viking civ can become denmark, although i am not too sure if many people would prefer it.

Portugal of course!!!

the byzantium could be add to the roman civ.

I agree with the Magairs (HUN) and Poland (POL). Also with the Vikings.
Dalmacia or Servia or the Austrian-Hungary Empire!!!

AND the TURKS or OTTOMANS!!!

 

[Nyvin]

It was just as 'there' as Germany.

Then any civilization that ever existed could say that about themselves...what's the point?

Two things:
England was influential before 1600 (Crusades etc.) and is still influential nowadays (Not as influential as the US, but the UK is still in the top 5)
Secondly every civ has a period of time when they are more influential (I assume you mean on the world stage). This is what Civ3 golden ages simulate. It was not just England and Spain who have gained and lost influence (the US as only really been influential fo the past century).

England wasn't influential before 1600, in fact before the hundred years war it was largely looked at as a vassel state of France ever since 1066. Them taking part in the crusades hardly makes them influential...

The UK isn't in the top five...that would be USA, China, Japan, India and Germany...in that order. The UK would be 7th or 6ish after France (or maybe before, tight match) What I was remarking to was where he said Spain wasn't influential before 1500 and after 1900, If you say that about them, then say it about the others too.

There is a big difference between the 'Germany' of Roman times and the modern nation that Civ Germany is based upon..

Just as much as a difference between all countries that existed and their modern counterparts. The fact is it was Germanic people in the area and they were the only Civ in Western Europe to successfully resist Roman control.

Is this any reason to include it over another civ. Besides which, the vast majority of Celtic leaders were still men.

Well it does make them somewhat unique, and would add value to having a 'female leader' for them in the game.

 

[Che Guava]

@Nyvin

I can't say agree with your comments about Egnland/G-B.

First of all, in repsonse to your pre-100 years war comments, England was ruled by the descendants of Normans (actually scandinavians) from 1066 right until the 100 years war, but that hardly made them a vassal state! THe normans wereabsorbed by English culture, and remained french by lineage (and some language) only. THe two countries were tightly linked, but I wouldn't say one dominated the other.

Secondly, despite it's decline,I think Britain is still one of the most influential countries in the worlde! First of all, they have the wrold's 4 largest economy (behind the US, Japan, Germany and China), are fifth in foreign aid, are the hub of the world's financial markets, while still maintaining strong relations and influence in Commonwealth countries across the world.

England deserves a spot in Civilization, no doubt!

 

[Nyvin]

@Nyvin

I can't say agree with your comments about Egnland/G-B.

First of all, in repsonse to your pre-100 years war comments, England was ruled by the descendants of Normans (actually scandinavians) from 1066 right until the 100 years war, but that hardly made them a vassal state! THe normans wereabsorbed by English culture, and remained french by lineage (and some language) only. THe two countries were tightly linked, but I wouldn't say one dominated the other.

Secondly, despite it's decline,I think Britain is still one of the most influential countries in the worlde! First of all, they have the wrold's 4 largest economy (behind the US, Japan, Germany and China), are fifth in foreign aid, are the hub of the world's financial markets, while still maintaining strong relations and influence in Commonwealth countries across the world.

India has a larger economy then the UK, that would make the UK the sixth largest (saying it's larger then France, the two are extremely close...) 1. USA 2. China 3. Japan 4. India 5. Germany 6 UK or France 7. UK or France

Second, foreign aid doesnt mean much for influence, the main reason they can give out so much foreign aid is because of the lack of any major military to be supported.

lastly, the king of England had to pay homage to the king of France each year between 1066 and sometime around 1330. It was a process to show that England was ruled by a French king, and also the king of England was an 'Inferior' to the king of France. England wasn't an all out Vassel state, but it was connected to France and it was obvioius who was the 'big brother'.

And all Royals spoke French, in fact for a lot of English kings throughout history it was their native language! (including Edward, who made the claim to the French throne starting the hundred years war)

 

[Atrebates]

UK economy comes out trumps over the French- the Cia says we do . The difference is around $50 billion and our growth rate is 150% that of the French
Cia statistics

Lack of major military? We have the second largest navy in the world, probably the third largest nuclear stockpile and our elite infantry is the best in the world! Also military and foreign aid don't necessarily equate.

lastly, the king of England had to pay homage to the king of France each year between 1066 and sometime around 1330. It was a process to show that England was ruled by a French king, and also the king of England was an 'Inferior' to the king of France. England wasn't an all out Vassel state, but it was connected to France and it was obvioius who was the 'big brother'.

Well it was certainly meant to work like that but it never really happened, in fact it never happened like that - no French king or line held England in submission, worked the other way round for periods though.

FFS William launched a raid on the king of France 'cos he pissed him off, hardly a demure vassal.
'On 15th August 1087 he [William] captured Mantes and set fire to the town. Soon afterwards he fell from his horse and suffered internal injuries.'
The French King may have laid down this claim to superiority but nobody listened

I could argue the time period of French speaking kings... but that means more sources and background detail that is not general knowledge; so screw that.
I'll stick to the simple, in 1066 William took 1/5 of the land, some remained in the hands of those lords who held it before (and Harold Godwin had been such a lord- these were powerful people) people who could hold influence over the king, we were still fairly english and returned to being entirely so when the lords again took power (based on the ideas currently expressed about culture and identity).

Secondly French speaking does not mean French, if you act in the interests of england against france and sit on an English throne (and this is your greatest title whilst french holdings are held to be in dominion to this throne) then I would say you are some way from french.

Finally there is a flaw in your arguement(s) in that you [Nyvin] seem to (IMO) be taking brief sections of history and expanding them to apply to several epochs, perhaps I'm wrong. (although 'no English influence before 1600 or after 1945' double check your european history, if you say it about England you should apply it to all of Europe).
If you wish to see Britain excluded because France is so totally better as to eclipse English civilisation then lets hear some positives for France rather than negatives against England, although if you have some underlying reason for not liking England then fair enough.

 

[Truronian]

India has a larger economy then the UK, that would make the UK the sixth largest (saying it's larger then France, the two are extremely close...) 1. USA 2. China 3. Japan 4. India 5. Germany 6 UK or France 7. UK or France

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

We are fourth. Besides which, influence is not just economy. It also includes historical importance, military power, nuclear power and cultural significance.

 

[Himalia]

There are many variations on this world economy factor and ive seen many different charts and ways of working it out. Simply by bringing more in does not mean that it has a great economy. It means it brings alot in and no more. The same goes for what goes out, national debts etc. Typically you see USA on the top spot. Japan second and there seems to be some debate about third place of which the UK is one of the contenders for that along with China, Germany and India. The PPP of the UK is alot higher than would normally be expected and some of these countries unlike the Uk have awful national debts which while they apply counter effect the good parts of there economy. The conclusion to this is to judge a countries economic power you must consider all factors not just a select few. Considering the size of the UK its economic power is huge and even without that taken into consideration (which it wouldnt be for the big picture) it still is a major player. Germany is a powerhouse theres no doubt in that, however after all these extra factor are kept in place the Uk moves up a slot. What good is money if you lose a whole load of it due to your economy. Is it best to have say £100 for nothing or £130 if you have to give a third of it away ? Another intresting factor is the US$ vs the Euro. According to the world bank the US$ is worth very slightly more in its total economic value however the IMF value the Euro slightly higher. If the UK were to join the the Euro it would swing it instantly in the favour of the European Union something of which the US is very keen to not happen as that would be a major blow to the US$.

Once all these factors come into play the UK slots into third place and Germany falls into fourth. Both China and India lose out big time and fall a fair few places down this chart. However China is a growing economy that could very well become a massive player in the vey near future.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Europe in itself is a eurocentric concept. There's no better reason for Europe to be a continent than for India or North America. However, there's more people considering the Americas (North and South) as one continent than people considering Europe is not a continent.

Anyway, I don't believe either that civilizations should be determined according to the continent they belong to. Asia represents half of world population and it would be stupid to give them as many civs as America or Africa for this reason.

 

[Nyvin]

UK economy comes out trumps over the French- the Cia says we do . The difference is around $50 billion and our growth rate is 150% that of the French
Cia statistics.

I would not say 150% is a very large deal when your talking about numbers like 3.2% and 2.1%...lol. In less then two years China's growth more then quadroupled. The same could apply to either of the two countries, and a difference of 1.1% isn't all that much.

Any also 50 billion isn't neccessarily a concrete fact. You'll see different statistics and numbers using different methods from different sources. In the end it's a simple fact that the two are 'extremely' close, and neither can just say that they are 'on top' of the other. (notice how the CIA world factbook and wikipedia give different numbers...)

Lack of major military? We have the second largest navy in the world, probably the third largest nuclear stockpile and our elite infantry is the best in the world! Also military and foreign aid don't necessarily equate..

Last I knew Russia and the US had the largest navies in the world, and China would probably be third. France has a larger military budget then the UK and the EU as a whole would probably have a larger navy also.

Having the best army in the world is a fantasy, you see every nation in the world trying to take this title. It's all about patriotage and propoganda than it is about actual fact.

And it's shame that most of the UK's nukes are US made and US given...course what does 400 nukes mean compared to 20000 or 11000?

 

[Himalia]

Once you have that many nukes its pretty pointless. It only takes 1 to do the damage. Even as little as 50 would be deadly to anyone. Infact not even that many.
Whats even more worrying in was a handful or nukes can do in say a nuclear submarine. One thing is for certain in the unlikely event of a nuclear war the winner will be whatever nation (if any) that decides to take advantage of the situation.