[R&F] PC Games N interview with Anton Strenger

[stealth_nsk]

Hm, so realism is pretty low on on the Civilization importance scale, but either:

1) There are 10+ immortal beings named Liang that all decided to take up an occupation in finance, or

2) There are seven immortals that are involved in running every single major goverment in the world, probably wielding more power than the world leaders themselves given how many empires they have a hand in (say, Persia and China may be the two biggest superpowers in the game, but guess who manages both of their treasuries).

Yes, luckily, realism is pretty low on the importance scale.
And since you can't communicate with other civ governors, it doesn't matter whether they have the same name or not.

 

[Ondolindë]

The main thing I'd like to say here is - congratulations to the journalist. The questions were really good.

I must agree wholeheartedly. Often these interviews, at least to me, seem to be very superficial or go for the usual questions, and seldom go into the real concerns of the players. I was happily surprised with this one. Congratulations to the journalist, indeed!

 

[Haig]

Hakan-I-Cihan:

Well Ottomans didn't have far away overseas colonies like Portuguese etc. but if you can call their areas in Arabia, Africa etc colonies, they had those governors.

Funny thing I have learned quite recently: Sweden had colonies in South America and Africa!

 

[Ferocitus]

Hakan-I-Cihan:

Well Ottomans didn't have far away overseas colonies like Portuguese etc. but if you can call their areas in Arabia, Africa etc colonies, they had those governors.

Funny thing I have learned quite recently: Sweden had colonies in South America and Africa!

Ikea are now everywhere.
Seriously, where were they?

 

[Haig]

"Sweden established colonies in the Americas in the mid-17th century, including the colony of New Sweden (1638–1655) on the Delaware River in what is now Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as two possessions in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Swedish Gold Coast (Swedish: Svenska Guldkusten) was a Swedish colony founded in 1650 by Hendrik Carloff on the Gulf of Guinea in present-day Ghana in Africa"

 

[Guandao]

"Sweden established colonies in the Americas in the mid-17th century, including the colony of New Sweden (1638–1655) on the Delaware River in what is now Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as two possessions in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Swedish Gold Coast (Swedish: Svenska Guldkusten) was a Swedish colony founded in 1650 by Hendrik Carloff on the Gulf of Guinea in present-day Ghana in Africa"

The Caribbean is not part of South America.
I'm familiar with the Swedish failed colonies in North America.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Hakan-I-Cihan:

Well Ottomans didn't have far away overseas colonies like Portuguese etc. but if you can call their areas in Arabia, Africa etc colonies, they had those governors.

So, I did not encounter this view before and was a bit curious. I was sort of curious if you meant this or had some new information I was unaware of. Lands in Africa or Arabia were either incorporated into the Ottoman empire or were some sort of vassal or tributary state like Khedivate of Egypt, Sherifate of Mecca, Qatar. Finland was also not a colony of Russia or Sweden, but a integrated part of those states/empires.

Funny thing I have learned quite recently: Sweden had colonies in South America and Africa!

I recently learned that Sultanate of Aceh was part of Ottoman empire as a protectorate state. That is land that can be considered quite overseas. But the sources does not mention it as a colony. The definition of colony means much more than land that is overseas. Probably that is not what you are saying. But I checked some websites to understand if the Ottoman empire was considered colonizing other lands. But in general the perception was it was not a colonial empire, but had some characteristics of colonialism at most.

 

[Guandao]

So, I did not encounter this view before and was a bit curious. I was sort of curious if you meant this or had some new information I was unaware of. Lands in Africa or Arabia were either incorporated into the Ottoman empire or were some sort of vassal or tributary state like Khedivate of Egypt, Sherifate of Mecca, Qatar. Finland was also not a colony of Russia or Sweden, but a integrated part of those states/empires.

I recently learned that Sultanate of Aceh was part of Ottoman empire as a protectorate state. That is land that can be considered quite overseas. But the sources does not mention it as a colony. The definition of colony means much more than land that is overseas. Probably that is not what you are saying. But I checked some websites to understand if the Ottoman empire was considered colonizing other lands. But in general the perception was it was not a colonial empire, but had some characteristics of colonialism at most.

The Acehnese were a protectorate state of the Ottomans? That's interesting to learn. I wrote a paper concerning the Acehnese attacks on the Dutch in 1800s.

 

[nzcamel]

But I checked some websites to understand if the Ottoman empire was considered colonizing other lands. But in general the perception was it was not a colonial empire, but had some characteristics of colonialism at most.

Meh. Colonisation is a most overrated word in terms of meaning. It was originally used by the European Nation States to make out that what they were doing was more enlightened than conquest; and these days it is used to suggest that what they did was far worse than conquest. Neither is especially accurate, nor informed by history.

 

[Haig]

Ok I have thought of a colony as a general word for a place added into an empire via force or by settling (overseas). Good to learn more.

 

[nzcamel]

Ok I have thought of a colony as a general word for a place added into an empire via force or by settling (overseas). Good to learn more.

Granted, that is what most of us think of. So based on that - is that what the Romans did when they entered Africa? And it wasn't what they did when they entered Gaul, simply because of a lack of a large body of water in between them and the Gauls? In the end it's a bit nonsensical.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Colony, Latin Colonia, plural Coloniae, in Roman antiquity, a Roman settlement in conquered territory. The earliest colonies were coast-guard communities, each containing about 300 Roman citizens and their families. By 200 bc a system of such Roman maritime colonies maintained guard over the coasts throughout Italy.

From googling Wickepedia

 

[nzcamel]

Colony, Latin Colonia, plural Coloniae, in Roman antiquity, a Roman settlement in conquered territory. The earliest colonies were coast-guard communities, each containing about 300 Roman citizens and their families. By 200 bc a system of such Roman maritime colonies maintained guard over the coasts throughout Italy.

From googling Wickepedia

Yep. But how often does that come up in any modern conversation about "colonialism"?

 

[sonicmyst]

May I chime in?

As per Google:

Colonization -
the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.
"Africa boasts a tradition of higher education institutions that predate Western colonization"

Thus in my opinion, colonization has a negative connotation because it requires "control" over another set of people (indigenous people as per definition)

 

[nzcamel]

May I chime in?

As per Google:

Colonization -
the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.
"Africa boasts a tradition of higher education institutions that predate Western colonization"

Thus in my opinion, colonization has a negative connotation because it requires "control" over another set of people (indigenous people as per definition)

And how does that differ from conquest per say? I'll admit that you could argue that not every conquest involves putting down roots; hence many conquests throughout history weren't colonisations. But just as many were...in fact probably more. My point is that the differences between colonisations and conquests are exaggerated by many in the humanities, and the more common similarities ignored.

That and I don't see beating up the first people who found an area to be especially more compellingly bad than beating up people who came later.

 

[Guandao]

And how does that differ from conquest per say? I'll admit that you could argue that not every conquest involves putting down roots; hence many conquests throughout history weren't colonisations. But just as many were...in fact probably more. My point is that the differences between colonisations and conquests are exaggerated by many in the humanities, and the more common similarities ignored.

That and I don't see beating up the first people who found an area to be especially more compellingly bad than beating up people who came later.

Well, I see a lot of overlap between Colonization and Conquests and I think Anthropology counts as part of the humanities.
I'm not sure how to respond to your last statement. It's a little awkwardly phrased. Reminds me of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Is killing (beating isn't the right word here) the people who lived in the area before any worst than killing the people who settled there later? Nope, they are equivalent. Is taking the land from indigenous peoples by force worser that taking land from the non-indigenous peoples who settled later in that same area by force? Not really. They're equivalent in a sense.

I'm really disturbed by the colonizations/conquests of different peoples throughout history, by Empires/Kingdoms/nations all over the globe (not just European ones). I usually feel more sympathy towards the conquered than the conquerors.

But this is getting off topic.

 

[bite]

Hello everyone, just a reminder that this is not really the forum to discus the ethics of colonization in the real world

 

[Guandao]

For those who have read this interview, does it reveal any new info about the expansion?
I'll probably take a look tomorrow, but I'm curious.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

For those who have read this interview, does it reveal any new info about the expansion?
I'll probably take a look tomorrow, but I'm curious.

It's all summed up in the OP.

 

[Guandao]

It's all summed up in the OP.

Okay I looked at the OP, they didn't really reveal much.