Petition

[attackfighter]

I don't agree with that... the Byzantines don't represent Rome, the Ottoman Empire and Turkey as well, nor does Babylon represent all the states that ever arose in it's area, etc..

The devs just make popular civilizations with generic names, so arguing over whether or not one state is represented by another state (ie Russia and USSR) is a rather pointless exercise. The devs didn't bother to properly define what a 'civ' is, nor did they bother thinking about it this much...

I concede that Russia can take credit for the USSR, it was a trivial detail anyways.

 

[Chalks]

The conquistadors didn't possess a huge technological advantage, nor were the natives defenceless. Also, if you're going to deride civilizations based on the ease in which they conquered, then France, Rome and Russia would like to have a word with you (amongst others - many empires rose simply because they lacked opposition).

They had guns, armour and horses. I would be interested to know what technology the natives possessed to even the battlefield there.

France is not included in the game only because of countries it's conquered, but since one of the countries it has occupied is Spain your point here is starting to get rather contradictory.

If all Rome had done was invade massively weaker nations like the celtic tribes in northern europe and, after they left, those lands became under developed backwaters with no successful nation developing what so ever then you'd have a point.

But none of those things are true, so you don't. The Romans conquered extremely powerful nations of the time in Greece and the middle east and much of southern Europe. What they left behind is the European nations, the most powerful and advanced part of the world for a thousand years. To try to belittle the achievements of the Romans as some pathetic colonisation is ridiculous.

Someone has already taken you on on the Russia point so I won't talk about that to avoid redundancy.

 

[need my speed]

But, the conquistadors didn't succeed because of guns. If the Aztecs had united, and attacked before Montezuma was imprisoned and killed, and perhaps if they already had been exposed to European diseases, they could have defeated the conquistadors. Guns didn't make that big a difference, for the number of Aztecs were simply too large. A 1 shot kill sniper won't stand a chance versus 100 enemies using only their fists and charging right at the sniper.

 

[Chalks]

But, the conquistadors didn't succeed because of guns. If the Aztecs had united, and attacked before Montezuma was imprisoned and killed, and perhaps if they already had been exposed to European diseases, they could have defeated the conquistadors. Guns didn't make that big a difference, for the number of Aztecs were simply too large. A 1 shot kill sniper won't stand a chance versus 100 enemies using only their fists and charging right at the sniper.

What are you trying to say? That the Aztecs won? That the Spanish took heavy casualties and had a real battle on their hands?

No, the Spanish won easily, and not through some sort of awesome strategy but because of dumb luck and simply being more advanced than their opponents.

It was not an epic achievement and it was something that ANY European civ could have done with just as much ease. Having a significant navy is pretty much the achievement here they had over some of the other Euro civs so they could actually get to the new world. Their ability to bumble around on the land, looting and killing natives is not a "wow lets replace Rome with these guys" awesome achievement.

 

[need my speed]

Nothing at all, just that the Aztecs could have won too, and that in fact what you just said is correct.

 

[attackfighter]

They had guns, armour and horses. I would be interested to know what technology the natives possessed to even the battlefield there

Cortez's success had more to do with the fact that he slaughtered the Aztec nobility, allied with their former vassals and unleashed deadly deseases on the new world's inhabitants. Their equipment was still primitive and was not a huge factor in their success.

France is not included in the game only because of countries it's conquered, but since one of the countries it has occupied is Spain your point here is starting to get rather contradictory.

I don't see how France's occupation of Spain is a great achievment; it was short lived and Spain never became a great power afterwards, which given your criteria makes it worthless...

Also France was occupied by Germany not once, but twice! Your point is starting to get rather contradictory.

If all Rome had done was invade massively weaker nations like the celtic tribes in northern europe and, after they left, those lands became under developed backwaters with no successful nation developing what so ever then you'd have a point.

But none of those things are true, so you don't. The Romans conquered extremely powerful nations of the time in Greece and the middle east and much of southern Europe. What they left behind is the European nations, the most powerful and advanced part of the world for a thousand years. To try to belittle the achievements of the Romans as some pathetic colonisation is ridiculous.

I don't see how the European great powers owed their success' to the Romans... care to explain?

Also, I'd like to know more about those 'extremely powerful nations' you mentioned... as far as I know all of Rome's enemies were weaker than it

Someone has already taken you on on the Russia point so I won't talk about that to avoid redundancy.

Well yeah, I backed down on my Russian claim in order to stay true and honest, so I guess it's fair of you to ignore that... but do you really have to ignore my points about Germany and the Vikings as well?!

 

[Chalks]

Cortez's success had more to do with the fact that he slaughtered the Aztec nobility, allied with their former vassals and unleashed deadly deseases on the new world's inhabitants. Their equipment was still primitive and was not a huge factor in their success.

How is this relevant?

I don't see how France's occupation of Spain is a great achievment; it was short lived and Spain never became a great power afterwards, which given your criteria makes it worthless...

Spain was a significant nation at the time, France defeated them... in what way is that not an achievement? Especially when you're trying to say that defeating a weak nation is an achievement.

Also France was occupied by Germany not once, but twice! Your point is starting to get rather contradictory.

And Germany is in the game for that. Being conquered doesn't make your previous great conquests disappear. Spain never had any great conquests.

I don't see how the European great powers owed their success' to the Romans... care to explain?

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Also, I'd like to know more about those 'extremely powerful nations' you mentioned... as far as I know all of Rome's enemies were weaker than it

Rome being the most powerful empire on the planet does not reduce it's significance just because everyone it conquered were, by definition, weaker. What a strange thing to try to say.

but do you really have to ignore my points about Germany and the Vikings as well?!

The Vikings are not in the game.

Germany, World war 2.

Who is ignoring who's points?

 

[Ahriman]

Spain's no where near the most powerful colonial power, but yet it should be included in the game (over some of the confirmed EU civs) simply because of its colonial prowess? Explain.

When did I ever say that?

I have no problem with Spain not being included in the 18 civs that make it into the game. Though I'd expect it to be high on the list of an expansion.

My complaint is at your description of Spain as a "mediocre colonial power" that is "not even the second most important colonial power".

Evidence is pretty clear that Spain is the second most important colonial power, under your own criteria which was long-run success of the colonies.
And their involvement in Europe wasn't too shabby either; they were the dominant power in Europe for the 16th century.

Admit you were wrong there and we're fine

I don't understand how you can say that Spain should replace countries like Germany, France or Russia just because of its colonies

Straw man much? I said no such thing.

when, as colonies go, they're really not very impressive at all.

Sure they are. They're more impressive than anything except a handful of British colonies.
Especially if you go back a few decades; in the 1950s Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. 19th and early 20th century Latin America did pretty well. They just missed out on growth during the cold war.

But we judge civs on power, influence and impact, not morality - hence we recognize the importance of the Mongols. Spain's rapid conquest of the New World *was* pretty impressive on a sheer numerical scale - small numbers of soldiers from a European country conquer vast/mighty empires. Similarly impressive to British gaining control of India.

 

[Evie]

I don't agree with that... the Byzantines don't represent Rome, the Ottoman Empire and Turkey as well, nor does Babylon represent all the states that ever arose in it's area, etc..

Counterpoint: China in Civ has represented variously the Qin Empire (Qin Shi Huang), the Zhou/Tang empire (Wu Zetian) of nine centuries later, and the People's Republic of China (Mao) of another thirteen centuries later.

 

[Chalks]

I have no problem with Spain not being included in the 18 civs that make it into the game. Though I'd expect it to be high on the list of an expansion.

Then we're arguing cross purposes. I agree with this.

My complaint is at your description of Spain as a "mediocre colonial power" that is "not even the second most important colonial power".

My reasoning for this phrasing is, imagine you make a list of every single former colony created by a colonial power, ordered by their current development index.

Then highlight the ones with Spanish roots.

Not one fully developed colony - and it's not like colonies don't become fully developed. A spread of mid to bottom third world countries.

Admit you were wrong there and we're fine

OK, perhaps mediocre was not the ideal word to use. "Not impressive enough to de-thrown any of the current euro civs" certainly fits.

 

[attackfighter]

How is this relevant?

I was clearing up your misconception.

Spain was a significant nation at the time, France defeated them... in what way is that not an achievement? Especially when you're trying to say that defeating a weak nation is an achievement.

But France was still stronger. Let me explain this to you; it was almost a given that France would be able to conquer Spain, where as Cortez's conquest of the Aztec's was less likely and thus more remarkable.

And Germany is in the game for that. Being conquered doesn't make your previous great conquests disappear. Spain never had any great conquests.

Before you implied the opposite:
"since one of the countries it has occupied is Spain your point here is starting to get rather contradictory."

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

A lot of those achievments are misattributed and anyways they'd largely fallen out of practice during the middle ages. I also fail to see how they're responcible for Europe's colonial ventures.

Rome being the most powerful empire on the planet does not reduce it's significance just because everyone it conquered were, by definition, weaker. What a strange thing to try to say.

China was stronger. Also my point is that you're critisizing Spain because their opponants were weaker.

The Vikings are not in the game.

Germany, World war 2.

The Vikings are in the game, and Germany lost WW2 much like how Spain lost it's colonies. You're saying that one's OK while the others not - that is hypocracy.

 

[attackfighter]

Counterpoint: China in Civ has represented variously the Qin Empire (Qin Shi Huang), the Zhou/Tang empire (Wu Zetian) of nine centuries later, and the People's Republic of China (Mao) of another thirteen centuries later.

Well I guess it comes down to the civ and the popular perception people have of it.

 

[Evie]

Probably, yes.

In which case I would say, for example, that England includes the United Kingdom (but not the thirteen colonies), Russia includes the Soviet Union, the United States includes the pre-independence thirteen colonies, Spain includes the kingdoms of Aragon and Castille. They're all generally seen (in western perspective) as continuations of one another, whereas Byzantium is more generally seen as an offshot of Rome than as Rome itself, continued (even though that's historically inaccurate)

 

[Chalks]

China was stronger. Also my point is that you're critisizing Spain because their opponants were weaker.

No, I was criticising Spain because their opponents were SO MUCH WEAKER that it was no achievement what so ever to defeat them. Learn some context.

The Vikings are in the game,

Are they? I feel out of the loop now, where is the source for this? I am absolutely certain that they are not and if they are, Spain should be in instead of them.

Please provide me with the source on this.

Germany lost WW2 much like how Spain lost it's colonies.

The implication that the German campaign in Europe is on the same level as the Spanish conquest of South America is so stupid I don't even know where to start.

 

[Ahriman]

My reasoning for this phrasing is, imagine you make a list of every single former colony created by a colonial power, ordered by their current development index.

Then highlight the ones with Spanish roots.

You know that I did this above, right? For Britain/France/Spain.

Not one fully developed colony

Define "fully developed".

If you're really using a strict narrow sense, then only 5 countries count (US/Canada/Australia/NZ/Singapore) plus maybe oil states and tiny Caribbean islands. Such a narrow definition is a pretty useless degree of success.

Spanish colonies have done better than the vast majority of other colonies.
And several are doing pretty well by any modern standards - look at Chile, Uruguay, Argentina.

For comparison; Venezuala is $11,800, Uruguay and Chile are ~$10,000 GDP per capita.
Compare to: Latvia $11,600, Lithuania/Poland ~$11,200, Turkey ~$8,700, Russia ~$8,700, Serbia ~$5,800

Are you going to kick Russia, Poland, India, China, Egypt out for not being "fully developed"?

The really sad fact of course is that colonial status today is very highly correlated with the degree to which indigenous peoples were annihilated or displaced by European immigrants.

 

[Chalks]

Define "fully developed".

I have referred to this directly already I think, but I'm referring to the Human Development Index.

Are you going to kick Russia, Poland, India, China, Egypt out for not being "fully developed"?

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about kicking countries because they are not fully developed, because you can still have had historical significance without being fully developed at this point in time. I'm talking about kicking colonial powers for being incapable of spawning any fully developed nations from their colonies, when the only thing they have done is spawn colonies.

Being unable to found a colony with stable infrastructures and societies is a fundamental failure of the colonists.

When you are trying to say that your colonies are SO IMPRESSIVE that you don't need to have done any of the other things that the other European powers who are included have done... your colonies probably need to be pretty bloody fabulous.

 

[attackfighter]

Probably, yes.

In which case I would say, for example, that England includes the United Kingdom (but not the thirteen colonies), Russia includes the Soviet Union, the United States includes the pre-independence thirteen colonies, Spain includes the kingdoms of Aragon and Castille. They're all generally seen (in western perspective) as continuations of one another, whereas Byzantium is more generally seen as an offshot of Rome than as Rome itself, continued (even though that's historically inaccurate)

In my haste to discredit Chalks I appear to have sided with a poor argument

In light of this I renounce my previous assertions

No, I was criticising Spain because their opponents were SO MUCH WEAKER that it was no achievement what so ever to defeat them. Learn some context

Cortez and his men were outmatched by the Aztec empire. If it was not the disruption he caused and the alliances he was able to strike, he would have lost. In fact, Cortez was very much the underdog in his conquest.

Are they? I feel out of the loop now, where is the source for this? I am absolutely certain that they are not and if they are, Spain should be in instead of them.

Please provide me with the source on this.

Source: they're in the trailer and every other civ game.

The implication that the German campaign in Europe is on the same level as the Spanish conquest of South America is so stupid I don't even know where to start.

I didn't compare WW2 with any sort of conquest, I compared Germany's failure with that of Spain's. You've stated repeatedly that failure, even on a grand scale, is not grounds for inclusion in Civilization.

 

[Ahriman]

I have referred to this directly already I think, but I'm referring to the Human Development Index.

Which was my point; calling a colony a failure unless it has HDI > 0.95 is a ridiculously narrow requirement.

Source: they're in the trailer and every other civ game.

We really don't know if they're in or not. The trailer could easily just be fluff, or they could be barbarians.

 

[Chalks]

Cortez and his men were outmatched by the Aztec empire. If it was not the disruption he caused and the alliances he was able to strike, he would have lost. In fact, Cortez was very much the underdog in his conquest.

Is this about including Cortez and his men as a civilization or Spain? If there is a massive nation and they only send a handful of guys to go do something it doesn't become more of an achievement.

Source: they're in the trailer and every other civ game.

Then you're wrong. They're not on the roster of confirmed civilizations. Regardless of the trailer. They have also never been in a vanilla version of civilization.

If Vikings were in I would say "That's stupid, Spain is more important than the Vikings". But they're not in. Sorry mate.

You've stated repeatedly that failure, even on a grand scale, is not grounds for inclusion in Civilization.

No, I said that the feat never being particularly impressive in the first place was not grounds for inclusion. If they had not completely failed to sustain first world nations from their colonies then it would be more of an achievement.

Germany conquering almost all of Europe, on the other hand, was a massive achievement. The fact that they lost it does not make that initial feat any less impressive.

Which was my point; calling a colony a failure unless it has HDI > 0.95 is a ridiculously narrow requirement.

Even when there are a significant number of colonies that meet these requirements? Almost 400 million people are residents of countries that meet this criteria. That sounds like a pretty wide requirement for "outstanding colonial excellence" which is what is being claimed here for Spain.