Is this the reason for the 4000BC start?

[idle]

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

Really Sid? You have got to be kidding me!

The genius of the 4000BC start is astounding. It appeases the religious loons, and the rest just never thinks about it.

Or maybe it's just me being as dense as a white dwarf, since I haven't thought about this at all...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I believe Sid read in a book "4000BC: first cities founded" so that's the date he went for.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

^^ That's a win!

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Without upsetting the apple cart of the religious right, I believe the date of 4000 BC was chosen because that was the year that the dinosaurs finally reached a trade agreement with the Denebian Hegemony on Deneb Six, and were relocated to Betelgeuse.

Since it then allowed human tribes to flourish without the interference of great terrible beasts, we were able to form societies, technologies, and the like.

Or it could just be that 4000 BC is the time frame most commonly accepted (by most people who are not anthropologists) as a time when actual civilizations began to form from the various hunter-gatherer tribes...

 

[WolfHound22]

Oh no... the religious right dating has nothing to do with it I'm confident. Remember every game of vanilla Civ IV has a long introduction describing a scientifically oriented origin of the earth, life, and humanity narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Further, all civilizations begin without any of the "great religions", including Christianity and Judaism, which are portrayed as the by-products of new ideas. Religion in Civ IV is also not a matter of truth but rather a tool which a wise leader can manipulate to serve his or her own ends.

Also, the starting date of 4000 BC doesn't fit in with the origin of civilization in the young-earth creationist chronology, which states that a worldwide flood occurred at c. 2000 BC, wiping the slate clean and forcing the origin of modern civilization forward (In addition, this forces an even more cramped timeline on creationists, forcing them to denounce or re-date much of ancient history, though they usually ignore these issues).

 

[r_rolo1]

For heavens sake, don't you know that history started in Sumer 6000 years ago?

More seriously, most likely Sid ( or whoever decided this ... most likely with a hand of Shaefer ) read about the begining of the Uruk period in Sumer around 4100 BC and decided that 4000 BC was a good round number for starting date.

 

[King Flevance]

Without upsetting the apple cart of the religious right, I believe the date of 4000 BC was chosen because that was the year that the dinosaurs finally reached a trade agreement with the Denebian Hegemony on Deneb Six, and were relocated to Betelgeuse.

Since it then allowed human tribes to flourish without the interference of great terrible beasts, we were able to form societies, technologies, and the like.

QFT. I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[Junuxx]

More seriously, most likely Sid ( or whoever decided this ... most likely with a hand of Shaefer ) read about the begining of the Uruk period in Sumer around 4100 BC and decided that 4000 BC was a good round number for starting date.

Jon Shafer had a hand in Civ 1? Having game design discussions with Sid Meier in kindergarten?

 

[r_rolo1]

Jon Shafer had a hand in Civ 1? Having game design discussions with Sid Meier in kindergarten?

In civ IV ... for some reason they have not changed the date They could had made something like they did with the SS destination target in Civ IV ( that is still Alpha centauri , but that is never said ingame besides civilopedia )

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

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

Really Sid? You have got to be kidding me!

The genius of the 4000BC start is astounding. It appeases the religious loons, and the rest just never thinks about it.

Or maybe it's just me being as dense as a white dwarf, since I haven't thought about this at all...

Umm, have you not seen the little movie spock narrates at the begining of any civ game, where he describes how the earth itself was formed? I don't think Sid was worried about offending creationist loons.

 

[Nicodemus22]

I always liked it in RFC how you start in stone age go to bronze age then iron age etc I think that could work for normal civ as well

 

[idle]

Umm, have you not seen the little movie spock narrates at the begining of any civ game, where he describes how the earth itself was formed? I don't think Sid was worried about offending creationist loons.

Well, of course I don't think Sid was worried about creationists' rage.

I just thought it was a funny coincidence, that's all

 

[Ataxerxes]

I think religious right had some impact in deciding in previous versions, although I don't think it's the only or even major reason. Sumerian cities establishment also has something to do with it. Besides, it has to start somewhere and 4000 BC seems convenient.

A lot of things have multiple reasons or are compromises. There were probably a couple of other factors we're not aware of.

 

[huh?]

Or it could just be that 4000 BC is the time frame most commonly accepted (by most people who are not anthropologists) as a time when actual civilizations began to form from the various hunter-gatherer tribes...

This. Even before playing Civ, my ancient history classes always selected 3500BC to 4500BC as the first organized civilizations. It had to do a lot with the "invention" of agriculture so that people could become stationary instead of roaming to find food.

 

[fdgsgds]

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

Really Sid? You have got to be kidding me!

The genius of the 4000BC start is astounding. It appeases the religious loons, and the rest just never thinks about it.

Or maybe it's just me being as dense as a white dwarf, since I haven't thought about this at all...

Loons? Harsh.

 

[s.bernbaum]

Loons?

But of course, he is referring to the birds with the haunting cry, which can be found in the northeast USA and southeast Canada. Some of them are regular church goers!

 

[WolfHound22]

The religious right would have had to have had very little to do with the selection of the time start because for one it still disagrees with their timeframe, which forces a beginning of "civilization" as we know it to around 2000 BC - 1700 BC with the Great Flood and the destruction of the Tower of Babel and the subsequent scattering of the nations. Naturally this is preposterous because the pyramids and known Egyptian dynasties, Chinese, and Mesopotamian, and Indian civilizations date back long before this period.

Most creationists are either ignorant of this discrepancy or ignore it. I've never seen a creationist give a decent response to this discrepancy nor many people bring it up to them.

 

[fdgsgds]

Ouch.

 

[Akka]

Most creationists are either ignorant of this discrepancy or ignore it. I've never seen a creationist give a decent response to this discrepancy nor many people bring it up to them.

Creationism by definition is averse to logical thinking, proofs and knowledge. Why would you expect them to answer a specific and relatively minor discrepancy when the entirety of their idea is based on willfull ignorance ?

 

[r_rolo1]

Wait ... someone has to explain to me in what exactly the belief that life was created by some outbound entity ( creacionism definition ) has to do with believing that this all started 6000 years ago and that there was a big flood a milenium or two after that ... I could do a page long list of creacionist religions/beliefs that don't require the 6000 years period For heavens sake, even the catholics don't believe in the literal meaning of the 7 creation days ( that BtW is horrible translation of the hebrew original ... the word that is translated by days can reallly means days ... or any other specific period of time )