Calling it a conquest does a disservice to actual conquests. Alexander conquered, Genghis Khan conquered. The Inuit moved into an area and adapted to live there.
This shows your lack of understanding of Inuit history. The Inuit used violence to defeat their enemies, and even wiped out some of them. There is evidence of them warring with the Vikings, aiding to the Vikings abandoning their settlements in Greenland. The Vikings were not the type to simply give up without a fight, and they were good fighters, yet the Inuit prevailed.
Vinland failed because it was supplied by another colony that was barely self-sustaining. Greenland is the aforementioned barely self-sustaining colony. Also keep in mind we were in a mini-ice age. Once water levels rose, it became more difficult to reach these areas. Such Scandinavian settlements declined at the same time the so-called Viking age ended anyway. The natives they encountered were not the most significant factor.
The mini ice-age actually killed of the Vikings on Greenland who relied on their cattle and were too proud to switch to a fish based diet.* While I do not doubt the war prowess of the Inuit, kicking a few half starved Vikings back into the ocean cannot be compared to the empire building of other civs.
And the "Vikings" in Greenland were agriculturalists not the raiders that pillaged coastal Europe. And once the climate shifted they were way out of their element and at the end of a very tenuous supply line to their native country. Hostile natives certainly contributed to the demise of the colonies, but it was not the greatest factor.
I am not sure that I agree with the age of sweden, sure that it was a bit mixed up now and then with norway and denmark before Gustav Vasa but there was definitely an independent sweden long before that.
That is true. However, in this thread there's already a precedent of a similiar situation with Hungary, where the duration was clipped because it became part of the Austro-Hungary. Also, quoting Wikipedia, "History now views Gustav I as the father of the modern Swedish nation.", which seems to me as a pretty good reason to start the duration count from the reign of Gustav.
HRE should count as Germany
For China:
221 BC (first unified by Qin) - 2012
I think we can even count the disunified periods between the different dinasties in this case
So:
D= 2233
C= 9
CH= 44 China=2233*1.67/11*3.879*44=57861
I would suggest not counting when China was conquered by the Mongols, because according to this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/PremongolEurasia.png, it looks like China became split, and was then invaded by the Mongols. If Hungary's break is conted, shouldn't China's be too?
I would suggest not counting when China was conquered by the Mongols, because according to this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/PremongolEurasia.png, it looks like China became split, and was then invaded by the Mongols. If Hungary's break is conted, shouldn't China's be too?
I got 1,368.8 for USA which is definitely more realistic (did you count USA when you were calculating "C" and did you remember to include the hawaiian sites?)
Egypt existed over many dynasties, has been conquered, obliterated and rebuilt by different people - how do they rate?
Germany has transitioned different forms of government, and liberated itself from the soviet bloc recently (at least on terms of modernity, recently). How do they factor?
This "formula" would be interesting, if used to generate 30 civ's to determine what should be initial civ's and not just for later DLC additions, what would be the "30 civ's" then i wonder...
I am making these nations a point because both are mainstay civ's that are in every civ game, and your model includes china - also a mainstay civ, and rome - a mainstay. Therefore, i feel adding these 2 civ's to the model gives me more comparative work -
Germany has transitioned different forms of government, and liberated itself from the soviet bloc recently (at least on terms of modernity, recently). How do they factor?
This "formula" would be interesting, if used to generate 30 civ's to determine what should be initial civ's and not just for later DLC additions, what would be the "30 civ's" then i wonder...
I am making these nations a point because both are mainstay civ's that are in every civ game, and your model includes china - also a mainstay civ, and rome - a mainstay. Therefore, i feel adding these 2 civ's to the model gives me more comparative work -
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
