Chris85
Emperor
Can I get in on this bet? I need to make some quick cash.
New UU's
- Thread starter Michael York
- Start date
Necromancer
Chieftain
Uhhh... Isn't this supposed to be about UU's rather than Dutch History?
downwithgravity
Zen Rocker
just because the leaderhead is roman RIGHT NOW doesnt mean they wont be in the game...it's still being designed, remember? besides if firaxis has confirmed it, you'd be silly not to believe them...
not to threadjack here, but im just curious, does anyone think there will be another religious/industrious civ? those are my two favorite traits and so far only egypt has both...i could see the incas having that, or the mayans...heck, any of the ancient civs could have both of those traits.
not to threadjack here, but im just curious, does anyone think there will be another religious/industrious civ? those are my two favorite traits and so far only egypt has both...i could see the incas having that, or the mayans...heck, any of the ancient civs could have both of those traits.
Leha
ooseepoosee
" Although Byzantium is not around anymore, it has been around for twice the amount of time that Holland has been around for so far... If we take 400 AD as a starting point (roughly) Byzantium has been around for as long as the Roman empire itself: a good 1000 years. Holland only became a real independent nation after the treaty of Utrecht in 1648. That makes about 350 odd years of Dutchies... "
Right , but most of their time they fought off barbarians , payed
other empires for peace and looked pretty pathetic in military
sence ( but great in cultural of course ) .
Right , but most of their time they fought off barbarians , payed
other empires for peace and looked pretty pathetic in military
sence ( but great in cultural of course ) .
Iztvan
the Terrible
Pathetic military? I wonder what the Vandals, Goths, Persians, Bulgars and Vikings (among others) would have thought about that statement?
Ok, they had problems with the arabs and got conquered by turks, but then again... who didn't have troubles with those two peoples during the middle ages?
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
"Ok, they had problems with the arabs and got conquered by turks, but then again... who didn't have troubles with those two peoples during the middle ages? "
The Mongols
IMO the Byzantine Empire only weakened to a point when the various Islamic states could destroy it was when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204. The empire fragmented into Thessalonika, Epirus, Thessaly, Morea, Monemvasia, hundreds of Greek Islands, Nicaea, Constantinople, Trapezus, etc. etc. etc. and remained like this for a long time. Before then IMO the Byzantines were not weak at all.
"The Mongols
IMO the Byzantine Empire only weakened to a point when the various Islamic states could destroy it was when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204. The empire fragmented into Thessalonika, Epirus, Thessaly, Morea, Monemvasia, hundreds of Greek Islands, Nicaea, Constantinople, Trapezus, etc. etc. etc. and remained like this for a long time. Before then IMO the Byzantines were not weak at all.
Iztvan
the Terrible
Well... You can't realy count the mongols, now, can you? That's not exactly fair! 
Yepp, stabbed in the back by their so-called allies... I guess all Civ:ers know the feeling.
But even though I have the greatest respect for Byzantium, I don't think they should be included (except in a "conquest") for the same reason the Goths, Prussians, Ukraineans or Italians shouldn't: They are just the different incarnation of a Civ that already is in the game (Greeks or Romans, take your pick).
Yepp, stabbed in the back by their so-called allies... I guess all Civ:ers know the feeling.
But even though I have the greatest respect for Byzantium, I don't think they should be included (except in a "conquest") for the same reason the Goths, Prussians, Ukraineans or Italians shouldn't: They are just the different incarnation of a Civ that already is in the game (Greeks or Romans, take your pick).
Darkness
Shadow creature
@Xen: check the front page. The article posted by Thunderfall on the Conquest preview of wednesday july 9th. (you might need to diplay more news updates to see it)
It clearly states The Dutch, Portuguese and Sumerians are in Conquests and I highly doubt Thunderfall would lie about something like this, especially on the front page of his own site...
It clearly states The Dutch, Portuguese and Sumerians are in Conquests and I highly doubt Thunderfall would lie about something like this, especially on the front page of his own site...
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Aren't you refering to Vasco da Gama, Port who discovered the maritim way to India?
The name of that Super-caravel was Nau and it is already in the game as the English UU (Yes, the MOW)
Port should have a pike...
Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
Xen, I would pick that bet proposal Easy money 
(TF has confirmed both CIVs so I'm sure of that!!!)
Easy money (TF has confirmed both CIVs so I'm sure of that!!!)
nalves
sailing in a NAU
Yes Portugal will be in. (i hope)
Their UU must be a medieval unit. So a pike could do it.
Their UU must be a medieval unit. So a pike could do it.
A) I just got done with me FITH run up and down the main page- and I cant find this quote by TF- if some one could find it for me it would be greatlly appreciated
B)of the dark ages, going into it the Byzantines had the graetest military of any on the planet, and it shows
-Justininas general Belisarius was able to defend (tghe recentlly re-conqoured)Rome every time it was attaced by barbarians even when vastlly outnumberd, this same general CRUSHED easter attempts at invasion as well
-The Byzantine Emperors Basil IIs' campagin of CONQUEST in modern Romania was so compleat, that for over 40 year AFTER his death NO ONE attacked the Byzantine empire
-In my opion, it was the resettiling of the land doctrine into a pseudo-feudal system that hepled do in the Byzantines, as well as even trying to hold on to Italy as opposed to asia minor (turkey in paticular)
-although I dont know of any battles off-hand- I think its pretty evident that if there was a war with the mongols, the Byzantines won and why not, the Cataphracts were made archers, as well as the spear , swoard,& shield heavey shock cavalry in response to the stepp peoples tactics of mounted archers- giving them an effective way to act as a skirmishing troop type as well
to every one who doubts the effectivness of the Byzantine military, please read this post here-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55736
B)of the dark ages, going into it the Byzantines had the graetest military of any on the planet, and it shows
-Justininas general Belisarius was able to defend (tghe recentlly re-conqoured)Rome every time it was attaced by barbarians even when vastlly outnumberd, this same general CRUSHED easter attempts at invasion as well
-The Byzantine Emperors Basil IIs' campagin of CONQUEST in modern Romania was so compleat, that for over 40 year AFTER his death NO ONE attacked the Byzantine empire
-In my opion, it was the resettiling of the land doctrine into a pseudo-feudal system that hepled do in the Byzantines, as well as even trying to hold on to Italy as opposed to asia minor (turkey in paticular)
-although I dont know of any battles off-hand- I think its pretty evident that if there was a war with the mongols, the Byzantines won and why not, the Cataphracts were made archers, as well as the spear , swoard,& shield heavey shock cavalry in response to the stepp peoples tactics of mounted archers- giving them an effective way to act as a skirmishing troop type as well
to every one who doubts the effectivness of the Byzantine military, please read this post here-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55736
wildWolverine
L'Etat, c'est moi
Minor point: current beliefs are that there were no "Dark Ages," that instead, rennaissance historians, convinced of their own period's utter superiority, vastly exaggerated the "descent" after the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, many civs, not just the Byzantines )) flourished during the period you are describing.
)) flourished during the period you are describing.
downwithgravity
Zen Rocker
well, there were arabian civs...and the chinese civ...but i think the point is that it was a "low point" in culture in Europe at that time. i think most people know that there were many culturally advanced civilizations in the world at that point, but the term Dark Ages refers mainly to europe.
wildWolverine
L'Etat, c'est moi
I am referring to Europe as well. The so called Dark Ages are a myth created in the fifteenth century.
^
edit: or at least greatly exaggerated
^
edit: or at least greatly exaggerated
Think about it-
-Trade was reduced by agreat extent, with few people other then the Byzantines acting as merchants
-Religious thought in europe was reduced to little else the christianity
-communication between regions was ground to halt
-corruption was rampant as central government had collasped
-diseases ran amoke as the ancient reposatories for "pagan" (I use it in quotes, as the word means "forest people", most definantlyy a word that cannot be associated with Rome) called LIBRAREIS were burned by the chritian/sub group there of, as evil centers of knowledge
-learning ground to halt, except for the rich, and monks
(the only good thing for education came from charlamagenes reforms of latin, a good thing in my opinion)
-In ALL ways, the period between the time of Constantine, and the Rennisance was a great big low point for all nations, from Portugal to China
-Trade was reduced by agreat extent, with few people other then the Byzantines acting as merchants
-Religious thought in europe was reduced to little else the christianity
-communication between regions was ground to halt
-corruption was rampant as central government had collasped
-diseases ran amoke as the ancient reposatories for "pagan" (I use it in quotes, as the word means "forest people", most definantlyy a word that cannot be associated with Rome) called LIBRAREIS were burned by the chritian/sub group there of, as evil centers of knowledge
-learning ground to halt, except for the rich, and monks
(the only good thing for education came from charlamagenes reforms of latin, a good thing in my opinion)
-In ALL ways, the period between the time of Constantine, and the Rennisance was a great big low point for all nations, from Portugal to China
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The Dark Ages were an invention pretty much. Oh, certainly there was a setback in terms of technological progress and trade for a few centuries after the fall of rome, but they ended a lot earlier than we give them credits for, and they were not nearly as bad.
"-Trade was reduced by agreat extent, with few people other then the Byzantines acting as merchants"
-True of the early middle ages, but from the 1100s-1200s onward trade began flourishing again. (Invention of banking, letters of change, etc) throughout Europe.
"-Religious thought in europe was reduced to little else the christianity"
-First off, that's a complete lie : many populations were not converted until late in the first half of the medieval era (the Franks under Clovis, other "barbarian" groups only much later.)
-Religous persecutions were far from a common deal until the era of witch-hunting and the inquisition...which was late in the middle-age and lasted well into the renaissance, which was FAR worst in terms of reduced religious thought.
"-communication between regions was ground to halt"
Only true of the very early middle age. Afterward, communication took time of course due to distance, but it was not grounded to a halt.
"-corruption was rampant as central government had collasped"
Bull****. Central government was just as corruptible as feudalism. And feudalism was hardly the "dark" deal most people see it as : certainly serfdom wasn'T all that brilliant, but it's utter BS to claim lords universally exploited mercilessly their serfs and peasants. Many of the more horribles depiction come from the renaissance and age of reason, where people went out of their way to darken the middle age.
And certainly, serfdom was far better a status than slavedom.
And it's worth noting that just like the serf and free peasants had duty to their lord (note : there was actually at least one advantage to serfdom over free peasanthood : the serf was free of the military service whereas the free men were obliged to spend X days per year manning the lord's fortress), the lord had duty to them (protection, provide a mill, etc). And, given that it was PEASANTS who, until late in the middle age, formed the army of feudal lords, pushing your peasants too much is counter-indicated...you don't want a peasant rebellion when your army is entirely made of the local peasants.
"-diseases ran amoke as the ancient reposatories for "pagan" (I use it in quotes, as the word means "forest people", most definantlyy a word that cannot be associated with Rome) called LIBRAREIS were burned by the chritian/sub group there of, as evil centers of knowledge"
Christians burning libraries. Yep. Absolutely no bias there Xen. No denial of such little facts as the hard work the MONKS did on preserving knowledge throughout the middle age.
Some libraries were burned, yes - but that was mostly the work of invaders who burned them alongside the cities.
"-learning ground to halt, except for the rich, and monks
(the only good thing for education came from charlamagenes reforms of latin, a good thing in my opinion)"
The lower classes had difficulties accessing education. Why, imagine that. I'm sure the renaissance deeply reformed that, too.
Oh, wait. It did not. Public education wasn't an invention of renaissance.
"-In ALL ways, the period between the time of Constantine, and the Rennisance was a great big low point for all nations, from Portugal to China""
Ah, yes. Including Tang China, pretty much one of the greatest age of the Chiness empire.
And including of course too Spain under Arab control. Yep, they were really in a low point of religious persecutions, what with allowing Jews and Christian to live in Muslim lands. Certainly. And we all know that Arabia was hitting a low at the turn of the millenium.
"-Trade was reduced by agreat extent, with few people other then the Byzantines acting as merchants"
-True of the early middle ages, but from the 1100s-1200s onward trade began flourishing again. (Invention of banking, letters of change, etc) throughout Europe.
"-Religious thought in europe was reduced to little else the christianity"
-First off, that's a complete lie : many populations were not converted until late in the first half of the medieval era (the Franks under Clovis, other "barbarian" groups only much later.)
-Religous persecutions were far from a common deal until the era of witch-hunting and the inquisition...which was late in the middle-age and lasted well into the renaissance, which was FAR worst in terms of reduced religious thought.
"-communication between regions was ground to halt"
Only true of the very early middle age. Afterward, communication took time of course due to distance, but it was not grounded to a halt.
"-corruption was rampant as central government had collasped"
Bull****. Central government was just as corruptible as feudalism. And feudalism was hardly the "dark" deal most people see it as : certainly serfdom wasn'T all that brilliant, but it's utter BS to claim lords universally exploited mercilessly their serfs and peasants. Many of the more horribles depiction come from the renaissance and age of reason, where people went out of their way to darken the middle age.
And certainly, serfdom was far better a status than slavedom.
And it's worth noting that just like the serf and free peasants had duty to their lord (note : there was actually at least one advantage to serfdom over free peasanthood : the serf was free of the military service whereas the free men were obliged to spend X days per year manning the lord's fortress), the lord had duty to them (protection, provide a mill, etc). And, given that it was PEASANTS who, until late in the middle age, formed the army of feudal lords, pushing your peasants too much is counter-indicated...you don't want a peasant rebellion when your army is entirely made of the local peasants.
"-diseases ran amoke as the ancient reposatories for "pagan" (I use it in quotes, as the word means "forest people", most definantlyy a word that cannot be associated with Rome) called LIBRAREIS were burned by the chritian/sub group there of, as evil centers of knowledge"
Christians burning libraries. Yep. Absolutely no bias there Xen. No denial of such little facts as the hard work the MONKS did on preserving knowledge throughout the middle age.
Some libraries were burned, yes - but that was mostly the work of invaders who burned them alongside the cities.
"-learning ground to halt, except for the rich, and monks
(the only good thing for education came from charlamagenes reforms of latin, a good thing in my opinion)"
The lower classes had difficulties accessing education. Why, imagine that. I'm sure the renaissance deeply reformed that, too.
Oh, wait. It did not. Public education wasn't an invention of renaissance.
"-In ALL ways, the period between the time of Constantine, and the Rennisance was a great big low point for all nations, from Portugal to China""
Ah, yes. Including Tang China, pretty much one of the greatest age of the Chiness empire.
And including of course too Spain under Arab control. Yep, they were really in a low point of religious persecutions, what with allowing Jews and Christian to live in Muslim lands. Certainly. And we all know that Arabia was hitting a low at the turn of the millenium.
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
oda ,
its true that xen seems biased against christianity, but so are a lot of people, which i find disappointing , christianity is much more sophisticated a religion than people give it credit for. you can really see this by looking at the neo-platonist philosophies that christianity grew from , but also the similarities between christianity and buddhism. christianity was good for what it was developed as, a tool of social reformation, and it can be argued, as it has been, that christianity naturally led to secularism, because the nature of the religion supported some of the internal dissension. anyway, i wont go further into arguing these things as i have to go
its true that xen seems biased against christianity, but so are a lot of people, which i find disappointing , christianity is much more sophisticated a religion than people give it credit for. you can really see this by looking at the neo-platonist philosophies that christianity grew from , but also the similarities between christianity and buddhism. christianity was good for what it was developed as, a tool of social reformation, and it can be argued, as it has been, that christianity naturally led to secularism, because the nature of the religion supported some of the internal dissension. anyway, i wont go further into arguing these things as i have to go
