New Civilizations

[Mongoloid Cow]

Yeah, but the whole western focus pisses me off. To be honest, many of the civs of Europe and the Middle East are completely worthless from a world-historical point of view - Babylon (Assyria and Sumeria were far more important; Babylon was rather ignorable and weak), the Celts (at the ire of Calgacus and other Celtocentric forum members - I don't mean this in a bad way), Egypt (I mean come on. They were not at all important as they were largely focused on themselves, and they influences almost nobody and contributed nothing to anyone else), Byzantium (one empire, very poor influence, and it was only the continuation of Rome) and the Vikings (a bunch of raiders which eventually petered out in history, being absorbed by the French, English, Germans, Sicilians, etc.).

But if Egypt wasn't included, people would be claiming foul. So why not the same for other interesting and just as unique and inspiring empires?

 

[Spatula]

I had a load of arguments lined up.....but I decided not to say them. It would take too long and you probably won't have changed your mind anyway.

But the western thing is important - even though I judge the civs from a global perspective. In a game where you re-write history by advancing along a largely Western (especially as the eras go on) tech tree, it is very difficult to ignroe that Western influence.

PS: Babylon and Egypt are not countries of 'the West' anyway, and the Celts & Vikings laid down a lot of the foundations for the Middle Ages for many civs. They did not simply 'disappear' or become 'absorbed'. Would you care to go to Scotland and say they are the descendants of a useless race 'assimilated' race? And before you come up with this particular counter-argument, I'm not saying that the indigenous tribes of America and Oceania are uselss at all: but they are certainly nowhere near even the Vikings and Celts in terms of global importance.

 

[rhialto]

I think the big reason for including more civs for other continents is game balance when playing on world maps. Otherwise, the Aztecs, without any competition, will wipe up with South America while all the European and Middle Eastern civs are fighting each other into oblivion because they are so crowded.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

PS: Babylon and Egypt are not countries of 'the West' anyway, and the Celts & Vikings laid down a lot of the foundations for the Middle Ages for many civs. They did not simply 'disappear' or become 'absorbed'. Would you care to go to Scotland and say they are the descendants of a useless race 'assimilated' race? And before you come up with this particular counter-argument, I'm not saying that the indigenous tribes of America and Oceania are uselss at all: but they are certainly nowhere near even the Vikings and Celts in terms of global importance.

I later added the Middle East as another overcrowded part of the world. I never said the Celts withered and disappeared, I only said they were not important historically as they were largely absorbed by the Romans, or they held out in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Britanny; two of those four places are largely absorbed by the English and French. Vikings raided a bit, founded a couple of kingdoms and within a few hundred years, the only distinct Nordic people left were those in Scandinavia. Big Woop. The fact is that none of those five civs I mentioned were particularily important. The Egyptians and Babylonians did not lay the foundations for later empires. Egypt was completely rebuilt by the Romans, who left only the temples and tombs intact. The Babylonians laid no foundations as they were done so by the Akkadians, Assyrians and Sumerians before them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I never said the Celts withered and disappeared, I only said they were not important historically as they were largely absorbed by the Romans, or they held out in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Britanny; two of those four places are largely absorbed by the English and French.

I'm not sure what you mean. Although Ireland and Scotland have been the most politically resistant, contrary to common belief, Brittany and Wales have proven to be the most linguistically resistant. Culturally, all four have absorbed and reformed the varying brands of "Frankish" culture they've been exposed to. None of them have been "absorbed by the French and English", although in the case of Wales and Brittany, cultural obscurity may make it appear so to the outsider.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yeah, but the whole western focus pisses me off. To be honest, many of the civs of Europe and the Middle East are completely worthless from a world-historical point of view - Babylon (Assyria and Sumeria were far more important; Babylon was rather ignorable and weak), the Celts (at the ire of Calgacus and other Celtocentric forum members - I don't mean this in a bad way), Egypt (I mean come on. They were not at all important as they were largely focused on themselves, and they influences almost nobody and contributed nothing to anyone else), Byzantium (one empire, very poor influence, and it was only the continuation of Rome) and the Vikings (a bunch of raiders which eventually petered out in history, being absorbed by the French, English, Germans, Sicilians, etc.).

But if Egypt wasn't included, people would be claiming foul. So why not the same for other interesting and just as unique and inspiring empires?

Your view of history seems rather odd. Why for instance is Assyria important, but Egypt "completely worthless from a world-historical point of view". What is a world-historical point of view? Cumulative influence throughout history? Well, I'm sorry the cumulative influence of Assyria is miniscule compared with Egypt. Influence on modern civilization? Well, a small area of central lowland Scotland smaller than the area of Puerto Rico has contributed more to modern cultural, intellectual and scientific developments than the whole of Africa and China put together.

To be honest, I'm beginning to reject the "historical importance of civilizations" weighting of argument. Civilizations themselves are incoherent historical fictions. For instance, you say that the English have absorbed Celts and Vikings. I'd put it to you than they both absorbed each other, and they did so under the overlordship of French speaking rulers ... who exactly are the English then? Are they the Celts whom most modern Englishmen are descended from and whose language they spoke little than more than 30 generations ago? Are they the Germanic warriors who slowly conquered southern and eastern Britain in the period between the 5th and 11th centuries? Are they their Germano-Roman rulers whom we now anachronistically call "French", who conquered them and whose descendents ruled for the next half millenia? Such claims about culture X absorbing culture Y are simply linguistic illusions.

Cultural influence work all ways, and it is very difficult to pin great cultural changes on a particular society or groups of societies without distorting the origin of the particular movement of cultural change. The reason people think it isn't is because of ignorance and because large ideologically motivated/prejudiced literate classes distort history. Great cultural changes often stem from one or a couple cultural centers, are morphed by the influence of "peripheral" regions, claimed by great political groupings and regenerated ... not in any particular order.

I'd simply go for state based and/or ethnic-based prominence and historical continuity, exceptional distinctiveness at fixed points, or worthy representation (of a larger area or group of people) at another fixed point. I wouldn't dress it up in any linguistic fantasies.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Whoa. I didn't realise I worded myself so badly until just now. What I mean to say...
About Egypt: Yes, they were a great empire did some great stuff. But as people are saying that only civs which have greatly affected the course of history in the world, I pointed out that Egypt has not. They did great things, but they kept to themselves largely throughout history and their isolated incursions outside of Egypt had little long term influence on said areas (exception being Nubia, but they themselves were largely isolationists).

On the Celts: The Celts were big and widespread, but they were never important. The only important thing they accomplished was to cause great problems across the northern Mediterranean world. The Romans and other peoples had absorbed most of the Celts outside of Britain by 50AD. The Celts continued in Britain, but the Celts there again largely kept to themselves with only Ireland and Scotland really managing to keep their 'Celticness'. The Welsh and Bretons sure have kept their language alive (although it is far less than what people are led to believe) but they are largely English and French respectively. A well-known encyclopedia said of Welsh history 'See: History of England' for good reason.

On Assyria: Well besides the massive technological influences they had (360 degrees in a circle, aqueducts, sewer systems, gold plating, and the who-knows-how-many military technologies), the religious influence (any argument involving relgion is crap I know, but the Assyrians were very important for the spread of Christianity and before that the Sumerian pantheon, and the decline of other religions such as Mithraism) and the linguistic influence (both Syriac and Arabic are heavily influenced and are largely altered clones of the ancient language of Assyria), the Assyrians have had far more influence on the world stage than Babylon and most other Levantine empires (exception: Sumer).

To be honest, I'm beginning to reject the "historical importance of civilizations" weighting of argument. Civilizations themselves are incoherent historical fictions.

Agreed. But when people use that argument, it's only one of the few good arguments you can use back at them.

 

[Greek Stud]

Well since I am one that continues to request these Civilizations, as I rightly call them, I will defend my position.

Someone mentioned the Byzantines were not important, I'll just use them as an example because I love the Byzantines and my church still follows Byzantine canon law. The issues that defined the Byzantines as a Civ was, the rediscovery of Greco-Roman technology and architecture, extensive trade route which is being reconstructed today, the global spread of Orthodoxy, the alliance of the First Crusade, unique law, unique diversity, and global influence.

Chippewa and Apaches were refered to as non-influencial. Although they stretched over much of Northern America. Their language is spread just as far, still used today. The have clear knowledge of their ancient history which has been documented into writing. Chippewa had the strongest trade route. Apaches had the fiercest military that even the Europeans feared. The Chippewa used the feared tomahawk axe in battle. Maybe not living in Northern America you haven't seen their influence on American society, but in school we learn much of their ancestorial history. In Arizona, the culture there is strongly influenced by the White Mountain Apache and Navajo tribes. Maybe the mix of speaking American English, and having new technology dilutes the perception of their influence, but just in the way building are made to save energy, particular local words. Natural monuments. Ancient cities and caves. For example the Grand Canyon. I remember ever since I was little jumping off of things and screaming Geronimo! And even if it became famous from a movie, try to think back to how you learned about other civs. Possibly from a cinema or national geographic. Native American food is important. Tomatoes and corn did not become an important luxury until contact with the Americas. Much of the customs of peace and philosophy is still spoken about today in our schooling (California and Arizona since I only went to school there). I think if you also saw the cities in New Mexico like Santa Fe, you would see what an awesome culture some of the Pueblos and Apache related tribes build. New uses in tools. The fur wars, that the Europeans were even overwhelmed by. I'm not sure what you are looking for, but if there are particular factors that make a civilization important to you, write down those factors and I'm more than certain these civs have them.

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

I understand that the Civ can't ad all:Latvia (Zemgale, Kurzeme, Latgale, Seli), Liethuania (Zhemaiija, Ausaitija, Lietuvji), Prussia. I think that the civilization creators could ad Balts which includes all these nations.
And why I think they need to be included in the game?
Because many think Balts was one big empire which was from Central Europe till about China border, from deep north till Mesopotamia. It was in abut 10000 years ago. Balts all time is very peacfull country they have just fight if they were attacked
Even it has aproved that the Balts was one of the bigest countrys in Europe in Roman time. The region was from North Poland including Prussia till Estonia and Moscov where it is today. In this time even the Romans traded with Balts and many people even from Byzantium came to Balts region to cure them or to tell they're destiny. Balts was very advanced country in curing.
In middle age so called "good" Cristian religy camed with crusaders and ocupied most of the Balt region and desteroyed Balts religy, they're saint stones and oaks. In this period many Prussians was killed in the fight against crusaders and German workers and settlers colonized Prussia and centurys later all Prussians were Germanyzed.
In all time many countries have tried to get Baltic region.
But in 1920 Latvia, Liethuania aswell Estonia got theyre freedom. But 20 yrs later they were ocupied by Germans and afterwards by USSR. But in 1991 all three countries once more gained indepandance.
Well it would be easy to create this civ
Civ's name: Balts
Civ spec: Cultural
Special unit: may be better warrior (they could whitstand crusaders) or the rifleman units which was in WWI
Aggresion: none or most least
Cities: All that is and were in Latvia, Liethuania, Prussia
Hm don't recall anything else that was needed for Civilization if there is plz question me.

 

[h4ppy]

Because many think Balts was one big empire which was from Central Europe till about China border, from deep north till Mesopotamia. It was in abut 10000 years ago.

You're not serious, right?

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

You're not serious, right?

I'm very serious if you study history especally archeology you will see that in this region almoust until our era were typical things that did match
1) in this whole wide region all people were buried by Balts tradition: on left side head facing East and all covered with red minerals.
2) in all this big region there were many ceremonies for example all celebrated comming of summer, harvest day, the winter celebration (later to delete this ceremony christians made that Jesus was born in this day thus making Christmas. Smart ppl know that Jesus was born in middle of February) and many other celebrations which I can't translate.
3) all had almoust identical santcuarys
4) almoust all had the same Gods just names could differ a bit!
But with time the conquerers from other lower cultural developed civilizations camed and in centurys destroyed most of the balts other was culturaly conversed to they're ocuppers.
Do you have more questions? Or maybe you want me to ad something more?

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

You're not serious, right?

You're not serious, right?

I'm very serious if you study history especally archeology you will see that in this region almoust until our era were typical things that did match
1) in this whole wide region all people were buried by Balts tradition: on left side head facing East and all covered with red minerals.
2) in all this big region there were many ceremonies for example all celebrated comming of summer, harvest day, the winter celebration (later to delete this ceremony christians made that Jesus was born in this day thus making Christmas. Smart ppl know that Jesus was born in middle of February) and many other celebrations which I can't translate.
3) all had almoust identical santcuarys
4) almoust all had the same Gods just names could differ a bit!
But with time the conquerers from other lower cultural developed civilizations camed and in centurys destroyed most of the balts other was culturaly conversed to they're ocuppers.
Do you have more questions? Or maybe you want me to ad something more?

 

[mitsho]

Well ok, but who says that this is typically Baltic? It's more Indogerman, don't you think... Or another name, I'm not a specialist regarding that topic.
But you are quite nationalistic by claiming this 'civilization' being Baltic....

(Hell, you don't get your own citizens to sing for your country at the Concours eurovison de chanson.... ) Oh, sorry, just saw you're from Latvia, not Estonia.

mfG mitsho

 

[h4ppy]

I was actually worried over the term "empire" which would mean it was under one government centered around the baltic region. That particular culture was, as has been said, the Indogerman. (or whatever they're called)

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

I was actually worried over the term "empire" which would mean it was under one government centered around the baltic region. That particular culture was, as has been said, the Indogerman. (or whatever they're called)

Thats right althought it was that age and that big it was centeralized. For culture it even had library but it was destroyed in later years.
And for Indogerman if honestly I know that many think that underneath all european languages (I think not slavic) is indoeuropean language. About indogerman I haven't heard. But the point is that many discoveries has proven that the undearneath language was Balts language.
BTW very interesting thing I have found out: Balts in latvian means white (english). And the point is balts flag was also white. And in nowaday what do white flag symbolize? Correct, - peace! And that was the way how balts lived. Also that simbolized the white mages that lived in Baltija.

Of course I'm happy that you ask me questions. And if I may by any chance know your oppinion what was Indogermans???

 

[Spatula]

I think the big reason for including more civs for other continents is game balance when playing on world maps. Otherwise, the Aztecs, without any competition, will wipe up with South America while all the European and Middle Eastern civs are fighting each other into oblivion because they are so crowded.

Aren't the Maya and Incas in C3C?

 

[rhialto]

ok, you have 3 civs in central/south america, vs 12 in Europe. Guess which continent is about 4 times the size of the other?

Hint: It isn't Europe.

 

[Spatula]

ok, you have 3 civs in central/south america, vs 12 in Europe. Guess which continent is about 4 times the size of the other?

Hint: It isn't Europe.

My point had nothing to do with area size. And I haven't seen anyone ask for another South American civ, only Native American and Ocenian.

 

[Greek Stud]

Empire doesn't imply a government. It refers to an imperialistic idea, that deals with the span of ones influence.

For example, when you look at any map of any Empire you aren't dealing with secure borders and one race. The Empire (brb)

 

[Spatula]

Greek Stud is right - I can't think of a territorial Empire that only had one race.