New UU's

[brianshapiro]

oda,

but you have to look at it honestly. several things influenced renaissance thinkers to believe they were in a new era,
one was the increase in wealth, one was civic development. the belief in reason behind governmental institutions which began in the renaissance led eventually to democracy. though certain aspects of the middle ages were more developed than it was believed, you shouldnt discount the rennaissance view too easily ,as if they were looking at nothing when they declared a new era.

 

[Xen]

A) you ALL are forgetting the HEAVEY religious persecution at the hands of the FRANKS AND TUETONS, dont belive me? crack open a history book that deals with the subject in depth, its not usually coverd, but there are horrendous atrocities that you are dissmissing in full

B)again, go look at history, HUNDREDS of YEARS worth of technology was BURNED by the christian church, never mind the fact that monks kept up some

C)the Huns conqoured China, I fail to see how this was the best of times- remember I never said the dark ages for any nation universally ended at the rennisance, only that at the off set they ALL sucked

D)Athens AND the Cuty of Rome, as well most Italy starting during the late republc HAD PUBLIC SCHOOL to any one who had time to attend them,which was not hard to obtain


E)am I a bit biased towards the history of chritianity- some what- I disagree with the way the religion is handaled, that dose not however mean that I hold any one who lives by the religion any less then some one who is that of my own- there is no need to turn this into a personal attack, I am only stating what facts I know, and stateing them for debate

F)my arguments encompassed the world at the beginning of the dark ages, or if you would prefer, the EARLY middle ages

 

[thestonesfan]

I tend to agree with Xen on this one, at least in so far as the fictionality of the dark ages is concerned - compared to Roman society, Europe indeed seemed to be in some bad times.

I don't really see them as "Dark Ages", but the transition of regional power from Rome to European vassals did take several centuries to mature.

 

[Evie]

Because the huns conquered China . Never mind that from 618 to 907 AD China was experiencing a "silver age" (one of many) under the Tang dynasty (Silver Age following a period of civil war ; not a barbarian invasion), and that after a civil war (907-160) they were again united as an empire from 960 until the mongol invasion (throughout the 13th century).

The conquest of China by the mongo begain in the early 1200s, and the Yuan (mongol) dynasty fell in 1368, with the rise of the Ming dynasty.

And if you were only talking about early dark ages, why did you say "from Constantine until the Renaissance"? Please at least try to be consistent.

StonesFan - Agreed, but what I disagree with is the notion that the Renaissance represented an improvement - it did on some levels, but on others, the improvement was already over and done with, and on other levels (read : women's rights for one ; hygien - yes, hygien ; people actually bathed in the Middle Age (if not for hygienic reasons, which they stopped doing around the renaissance because religious good-thinkers closed bath houses) - for another), renaissance was frankly a worsening.

 

[Xen]

whoops, mis stated my self

sorry

 

[Xen]

but my arguments still apply- everything I have said is true, and the dark ages were indeed dark, and just genearl ****, and the Christian Church did not help a great deal, am I bashing christianity, no, not intentionally, though I can see how it might be percieved that way, I'm just critisizing past actions by that religion

also, the simple fact that TECHNOLOGY and SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT reblossemd during the rennisance out way anything which might have worsend with its inception

 

[Evie]

Technology blossomed during the renaissance? How so?

Most of the great technological progress often associated with the renaissance (printing ; compass, etc) were introduced in Europe in the late Middle Age, after all. There was no "reblossoming" of anything in the renaissance - the renaissance was just (on the scientific and technological front) a continuation of a movement that had started in the late middle ages.

The medicine school of Salerno was founded in 750
Research on Magnetism appeared (in Europe) in 1269 (it was first mentioned in China during the elevent century)
Glasses (as in, those used to correct deficient eyesight) in 1285
The mechanic clock appeared around the very early 14th century.
The first cannons (black powder) were deployed on the battlefield at Crécy in 1346.

Of those, magnetism (exploration), the astrolabe (exploration as well ; the oldest kept such dates back to before Y1K) and glasses (lenses-crafting) as well as removable letters printing to a lesser degree were the keys to the development of the renaissance - all stuff that had appeared in the middle age.

In scientifical terms, the renaissance was a logical continuation of the middle age. Were the renaissance truly distinguishes itself is in the return to the roman-era myths and legends (in art), philosophies, and so on.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I think something biases our view of the Middle Ages ("Dark Ages") is simply the fact we associate it with cold windy huts in constantly raining North-Western Europe...and compare that with the Mediterranean, sunny da Vinci image of the Rennaissance.
But, while we all can agree that Rome reached an incredible height in (European) culture that easily needed a Millenium to even be in sight again, there are some more points to make to rehabilitate those days.

- Population density: Due to the Great Migration and a number of plagues in the early medieval, Europe was extremly sparse inhabited; it is really questionable if ANY culture could have done better. That is not an argument against calling those days 'Dark Ages', but to clarify why development was so slow.

- Religious Prosecution? Can you give me ANY example of that? I mean, religiously motivated prosecution, with approval of the clerical authorities and common people? Of course, there were anti-Jewish progroms during the Crusades and the Great Plague, but can you name any period without them? And of course there were the so-called crusades against Catharens (sp?), or independent peasants, and the Charlemagnes campaign against the Saxon, German raids against the infidel Slaves...but honestly, all of them were for land, gold or power, regardless of a christian disguise!
Compare that with the Witch-Hunting, Hugenots, etc...

- Agricultural Prosperity: Yes, really. Due to a period of raised temperature during the whole Middle Ages, you could even grow grain on Iceland, and live rather comfortable in Greenland. Whine was common in England or Northern Germany...
So no, this weren't days of famine and shortage.

- Architecture: The best example of the prosperity and artistry. Do you think the 'Gothic' (a classical Rennaissance word to diss the former Ages) cathedrals were built by starving slaves, paid by money pressed out of humilated infidels?

And don't forget, thanks to the wars following the Reformation, in combination with the changed climatic conditions, Germanies population was decimated more than by the Plague, but now Trade and Infrastructure were also destroyed...I for one would prefer to live in the 1100ADS than the 1600ADs, no question.

Now, back on topic:

7 new UUs....
Enkidu, the Hittite Chariot, the Chaspi Scout are confirmed, right?
So, we need Portugal (the Pike, most likely; would be fine, IMHO), and Dutch (another naval UU? Again, though everyone says 'Naval UUs s***!'? I want the DAF, preferable with a Caravan! A Recon/ Settler unit, able to retreat its full range when attacked, and best used to completely block your neighbors road net exactly when he needs it desperatedly). Mayan's, no idea.

 

[Xen]

A)you need an example of religious persecution?-during the middle ages it was not uncommon to find teutonic nobles rounding upand either force converting, or outright killing non-christians(and they wernt just slaves or peasents of theres either, not that that makes it any more right, its a barbaric act, one of many that took place during the time), how this contiuouslly escape everyones attention I dont know, of coarse...there is also the inqusition, though that might be rennisance barbarism,I'm not sure on the dates

B) go to this link-
http://archive.dailycal.org/archive/1999/2/23/drought.html

so now your going to tell me that there was no famine?Your just not researching your opinon well enough, need more? how about-

http://gchbryant.tripod.com/Articles/darkages0999.htm

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc090900.html

I'm not sure about the second, but the first and the last are backed by well known universities

C)No re-emergence of technologicla development you say?No re-emergence? so your going to tell me the little spark of a plethora of inventions made in such little time set off be classical Graciean envy had no effect?That inventions the like of those imagined by the great Leonardo Di Vinci were all just coming down tho road, no need for the church to relax its pressures on non-theological sujects to pressed off?Or how about all those scientific theories regarding the earth NOT beieng center of the universe...well I suppose the church would have come to that conclusion to....right?- NO it would NOT have happend that way, the renaissance trully was a rebirth in almost every sense of the word

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Please don't shout at me...

Nobody claims those days were peaceful, but religious fanatism, and organized religious prosecutions were much more common before (Christians in Rome!) and after (witchhunting etc), with, of course, the big exeption of the Crusades. But it is a convincing theory that the crusades were initiated to get rid of unwanted marauding 'Nobles'....

Of course people starved during every period of time, but from 11th century, famine was much rare than say from 1600 to 1900AD.

And who are the Teutons you always refer to? Do you mean the Teutonic Order?

(BTW, with 'Slaves' I meant the Slavic tribes in Middle Europe, who's name derives from 'Slaves'...being sold to the Arabs, mainly. A dark point in history, clearly)

C) Seems not addressed to me, so I don't answer on that.

In general, the point we're all trying to make is not those days were a Golden Age, but that also applies to the famous Rennaissance and the Early Modern Ages (Industrialisation someone) to the same extend, if not more.

Edit: Just took a look at the links...I think they don't say anything I don't concur with. Of course, around 600AD there was somthing like an all-time low in human civilisation, due to climatic effents and plagues. But that is hardly related with the way the world looked like in the High Medieval 500 years later, especially compared with the so-called Rennaissance.

 

[Xen]

Ah, okay, sorry to shout at you, but the tone that Oda Nobunaga has taken towards me is not at all friendlly, and it has begun to set the standerd for this thread, sorry , I'll be clamer

any way, yes it was the Teutonic order in paticuler, and the mix up terms is because the word that means slavic peoples Slavs

and the point that I'm trying to make is that in comparison to all the rest of history, dark ages are called dark for a reason, and lets face it, compared to the pre-Roman fall of empire, and the Rennaissance, the time in between was ****ty, in every respect, in alomst all places for some amount of time

 

[Xen]

@ Doc Tsiolkovski- you should know that, for the most part I agree with you anyway, it's Oda whom I happen to be disagreeing with.

 

[wildWolverine]

@ xen: ""pagan" (I use it in quotes, as the word means "forest people" -- didn't I tell you that??

I agree w/ the Doc and w/ Oda (they were able to expand well upon what I earlier stated), even if their statements were a little forceful. Xen, I believe that your position is founded on false pretenses (through no fault of your own). Humanist Rennaissance historians were extremely arrogant, and decided to recreate history so that it fit more w/ what they felt it should have been: a dark period full of despair and depravity -- from which they, the superior rennaissance men, rescued the world from. Early Rennaissance historians vastly changed some events, and entirely created others. The problem was compounded when later Rennaissance historians wrote histories based on those erroneous works of the early Rennaissance historians. It wasn't until the last 15 years or so, that modern historians have come to collectively (at least mostly) believe that the so called Dark Ages were indeed a falsification. It will be a long time before such beliefs become prevalent in historical texts and in the general cultural perceptions of the past. What do we know about history, truly? History is indeed written by the victors (most of the time!). Example: we have some horrible nuclear war. 1000 years from now, some archaeologist digs up a Japanese history book from the 1950s. It will tell of this country called the United States who instigated a horrible war, and ended it w/ atomic weapons. What would stop the archaeologist from believing that this same country caused the later catastrophe (which may or may not be true in this scenario)? A bit extreme, I know, but it proves my point: until we create some sort of way for going back upstream in this "river of time" (thanks, Al!), there will be no way for us to ascertain w/ absolute certainty what truly was. Until then, we will need to continue to study historical accounts w/ an extremely critical eye, and w/ an open mind.

On another note -- this is in no means meant to cause offense -- Xen, you constantly bring up the point that the oppressive Christians killed, maimed, and did all kind of horrible things persecuting other religions. Fine. I admit that the Inquisition, and any other events that occurred (which may be fewer than you believe) were indeed cruel and horrible. BUT: every single religion on this planet has been a persecutor and a persecutee at one point or another in its history. The Roman polytheists were very cruel to early Christians, from throwing them in pits of lions to hanging them upside down. I am not angry at polytheists for this, especially those who are alive now, 1300 years after the fact! Humans are stubborn beasts. We love hurting eachother -- if the religions hadn't existed, these events would still have occurred, but for different reasons -- the religion was just an excuse (note: many Catholic on Catholic or Muslim on Muslim wars and atrocities have occurred as well). Does this mean that religion is bad, because it is used thus? That would be like asking if talking were bad because sometimes people say hurtful things. Religion is an idea, a faith; how it is used is up to us. I live in an extremely liberal area (Ann Arbor, MI), and am confronted several times a week on the sidewalk by various missionaries: Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodists, Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus. While I vehemently disagree with most of them, I never fail to show them courtesy and the utmost respect. Many faiths, Christianity included, call for their believers to help save others by bringing them to THE faith. If someone truly believes that they are correct in worshipping their G(g)od(s), then, why shouldn't they attempt to help other people? Missionarism is an integral part to many religions. Being tolerant of other religions also means being able to deal w/ missionaries, whether you believe them or not.

Yeah, so I typed something similar to this long note and then accidentally closed my browser , and had to retype it, so it's not as eloquent as it was originally, but it gets the point across.

 

[Xen]

What anyone would do with out your fine argument I do not know- your a fine speaker wildWolverine, damn fine

but thats not going to stop my rebuttle

first off, I;m not going to be able to make any more aruments after this, as I am leaving for a familly reunion type affair, this said, dont expect an arguments from me for about a week, unless I find access to a computer

now then-

A)I'm starting to feel that I am arguing a differnt point then every one else, that is, that the dark ages can be justified being called dark because, lets face it, the collaps of central government, religious persecution by most faiths, and the all around ****tyness of the era sucked- there is absolutley no denying it, they sucked big ones, any one who denys it either dosnt have enough information to accuretley represent the era, or is broadining the scope of the argument to include dose nopt pretain (note; this may be viewed as a commrent towards Oda, it is not, as it is I who made the statement for Constantine to the Rennaissance, it was indeed a misstatement, as the dark ages only pretain to the early middle ages, however, I still feel that the middle ages on a whole sucked big ones compared to ANY other post bronze age period in time, with the exception of the post bronze age dark ages)

B)as for religion, yes almost all religions have commited rathert heinous acts(the only I cant think of ithout any are some of the eastern religions, but I know little of the east in detail)- the point being that such acts grew shockinglly common during the period, and are another reason why the period sucked bigguns- not to mention there is a BIG difference between attempting, and forcing ones religion onto others

C)another reason for my argument is that there is a great deal of literary evidence that the dark ages, litterally were dark, those links regarding famine all point to either a volcanic eruption, or somthing along those lines as causing a very noticable dimness for about 5 years, which caused crop failures, and famine, thus anothe big reason why the period sucked, not to mention that it also means that the name can be applied no matter what, although for differnt reasons then I am arguing

D)I also argue that the Rennaissance was indeed a rebirth, as the people having a voice in thiere government was beginning to be the rule, and not exception,the humanists also came back, and I'm sure no explenation is needed for thire good value, and the many inventions, and innovations in the sciences that quite frnkly would not have come about in any other atmosphere outside that of classical Alexandria, or Rennaissance Europe

there is more I could say, but I have to go now

p.s- yes you did teach that to me wildWolverine, whih just goes to show that I'm not a close minded, unwilling to learn, conceeded ass, I'm a open minded,and willing to learn conceeded ass

 

[wildWolverine]

Methinks I chose the wrong major...


Back to being on topic: if enough people petition, would there be ANY way the Americans could get a better UU? An Abrams, maybe? Or a Frontiersman (think Daniel Boone, Kit Carson, etc.) -- somewhat like a Jaguar Warrior?

 

[Joseph Stalin]

Originally posted by W S Churchill


Just to correct my fellow Dutchie:

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...

The Dutch are way older than 350 year. The dutch where conquerd by many nations like the romans. so that means we where a nation when the romans conquerd us in. i think it was 100 b.c. the north part of our country was still under dutch controle. and the north part fought the romans untill the fall of the roman empire.

after this we where sone conquerd by the Franks and some part conquerd by vikings. but still the dutch fought there way to freedom untill the next conquerer came that was spain.

we fought our way out of that mess and declared our selfs free. We even became a world power just untill soem idiote like napoleon thought "Why not conquer those Dutch people".

So we where again under a foreign rule untill the defeat of napoleon we again got the rule in our one hands. But not for long.

WO II was the last time we where conquered.

And after all these conquests we are still here so don't say we're only 350 years old. because where way olderd than that.

 

[el_picaro]

Well, Since it is confirmed that the Dutch ARE in the C3C, it would seem a evident choice to give them a naval UU, but was about the fact the the Dutch have gained territory from the sea... about 1/3 I think !?. I would be cool to give them a worker as a UU, with the ability to push away water, either completely or partially so that it can irrigated. Of course, alot of tweaking will be necessary as some players will find a way to abuse this and terraform the entire Earth. Also, does anyone think that any city on a lake should have the ability to build a harbor. Fresh water fish exist and are a profitable business. If the Dutch have a naval UU, it should be able to go really far. Australia is pretty far away from the Netherlands...

 

[Black Waltz]

Do the Dutch REALLY want a Naval UU after what happened with us poor Brittish?

 

[SoCalian]

@ Xen:

First off I am a Christian. So, I may be slightly biased towards the Christian perspective of things, Just as you are towards the Roman polytheist view. I also live in probobally the most Christian place in California (Bakersfield,CA).

I have no promlem with your arguments concerning religious persecution, because it is for the most part true. I do however have a problem with you calling it Christian persecution, indicating that all Christian denominations are to be blamed. This is not true It was the falut of the Catholic church, which at that time was so distorted from the New Tesament Church that it probobaly shouldn't really be considered as Christian, just as Mormonism is not considered, by many Christians, to be Christian.

So, your calling the persecution Christian is false. It is Catholic, and should be called such. I do not recall ever reading anything in the Bible saying to persecute anyone, let alone to"burn the pagan Libraries". I do however recall Mathew 28:19 which in the NIV says "Therfore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,".

I could go on further but, I have to go to church soon.
BTW, please don't turn this into a theological debate like the "The remaining Civ" thread.

 

[Gen]

This thread already has nothing to do with original topic (new unique units). Why don't you just open new thread in history talk forum?