jkp1187 said:Since we're talking about inappropriate matches...I think the Ottomans being INDUSTRIOUS and SCIENTIFIC is far more egregious than the Vikings being Militaristic, or the Egyptians not being Agricultural. I mean, how were the Ottomans ever EITHER of those traits? Militaristic, sure. Religious, possibly. Expansionist, yes. But Scientific?
JKP,
I guess I would vote that scientific is OK for the Ottoman Empire. I would say no for religious -- they were very secular for a Muslim country. Expansionist is fine. But Scientific is good, too, I think. I think its best to look at a civilization during its glory period. The Ottomans in the 20th century are a different group.
I think scientific works better than traits like religious and expansionist to contrast them to the Arabs. The Muslim world was very scientifically developed from the late 8th century on. The European world largely closed the gap and started to catch up in the renaissance, but before the Muslim world had terrific science. Not all of this credit goes to the Ottomans, but they lived in a scientifically advanced society.
Examples:
In Mathematics, the Muslims developed trigonometry to its fullest extent before calculus, and Nasaruddin Tusi (13th century) was a great mathematician. The word 'sine' is a translation from the word for curve. The famous Omar Khayyam was a leading mathematician. Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarazami was the founder of Algebra (9th century) -- his name is the basis of the word 'algorithm'.
One only needs to see Muslim architecture from the period to see how advanced their mathematics are.
The Muslim world was the great leader in astronomy. A great mind was al-Biruni (11th century). Ibn al -Haythim (Alhazan) measured the effect of the atmosphere on astronomical observations (also 11th century). Copernicus relied strongly on texts translated from Muslim scholars.
Medicine was also an area of great advancement. Rhazes wrote many books including an important encyclopedia of medicine. Ibn Sina wrote a famous book on Medicine, which was considered a great source for 500 years. The Syrian Ibn al-Nafis (13th century) discovered minor circulation of blood.
All of these great discoveries came before the Ottoman period. However, the Ottomans during their glory period (after the defeat by Timurid, probably starting with Murad II through Sulayman the Magnificent) they lived in a scientifically advanced society with great education and advances.
Like many of the great civilizations, I can justify a LOT of traits for the Ottoman Empire. Militaristic, scientific, even seafaring, commerical, expansionist are all justifiable I would think. My first guess was I thought of them was scientific and expansionist, but the traits they have seem good too.
Breunor
PS I guess I can agree with you on the Egyptians, although I still like Agricultural!
Breunor said:I can object to a lot of placements/characteristics. I'm an American -- and I think commercial may be a better for for the US than expansionist.
That should be France...Breunor said:So, from a practical standpoint, I would like somebody not in the New World to be agricultural, for instance.
Breunor
I totally agree, especially Persia is quite odd.Breunor said:Yeah, while we discuss civ traits, there are some weird picks fo rthe leaders and even the unique units.
jkp1187 said:Someone mentioned this on another thread (I'd link, but I'm lazy this morning)....perhaps it would be interesting if in Civ IV (or whatever) there were multiple leaders for each civ. E.g., Russia would have Stalin, Lenin, Catherine, Peter the Great....each of whom would allow different advantages based on THAT LEADER'S personalities.
luceafarul said:I totally agree, especially Persia is quite odd.
I will use this opportunity to say that I think you are completely right on most of your points from your last few posts, and I should have known better.
Lucearful,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think your points about the Scandanavians are pretty spot on -- it was very appropriate to take up their 'defense'. There is NO doubt that the Vikings suffer from horrendous stereotyping.
Best wishes,
Breunor
thetrooper said:What about modern Norway - are we militaristic and seafaring? No - I don´t think so...
Risbinroch said:I would say we are still seafaring. At least up until the latest years, but still. We have allways had a rather large merchant fleet.
Right now I would say seafaring and commercial is what best suits the norwegians. But all in all - through history, I think it's ok with militaristic and seafaring, suits the whole of Scandinavia. But scientific might also fit (not for us norwegians, but swedes especially)
Smagsdommer said:Well, just my opinion.
I'm new to the forum, and found this thread interesting. Hope I have not bugged anyone by writing so much. That certainly hasnt been my intention.
Smagsdommer said:Interesting thread, not many games would inspire discussions like these. I'd like to give my opinion on a couple of things. I just got my master in history, but of course there is a lot of blank spots in my knowledge anyway, so please correct me if im wrong.
Smagsdommer said:About the scandinavian names.
The citynames are really bad; I think Regnar Lodbrog is an ok choice. Though there are myths about him, we know he is more than a myth; he was some kind of a danish king. Otherwise Canute the Great or Svein Forkbeard would probably have been more appropiate choices, or if they wanted someone for whole of scandinavia: Margrethe the 1., queen of the Kalmar-union. But then they would have moved out of the viking age, and I think they have good reason not to, as I wil return to in a sec.
Smagsdommer said:About the scandinavian traits.
Seafaring..yesMilitaristic..yes, I think it is the right choice. Yes, they were farmers and merchants and artists and so on, and No, they were not just barbaric. Their religion however is extremely masculine and warlike. No matter what happened after Ragnarok it didnt change that if u died in battle u either went to Odins hall to eat, drink and battle or to Freja (goddes of love and fertility) If u died outside of battle u went to Hel, the dark underworld. If that is not a warmongering religion...Of course that dont make them militaristic alone, but they seemed to live after this culture of war and fighting, and with succes. The most revered of the gods were not Odin, the king and father of the gods, but Thor, his muscular son, the god of close combat fighting.
Excavations have hinted the vikings were pretty tall at that time compared to the rest of Europe (around 1,76m), that further gave them an advance in fighting. Much more could be said on this, and u could argument against this, but I think it has some of a connection with the next subject..
Smagsdommer said:On traits in general and civilisations.
As all can see, many of the civs in civilization are not civilisations at all. I mean..the dutch? No offense meant. If they should limit themselves to real civilisations there wouldnt be that many to chose from though, and how do you define them anyway. But it has something to do with the traits and the difficulty of assigning them. The scandinavians, are they a civilisation? (yeah! I'm a Dane) No, of course not. Not today. But in the viking age u could make an argument of it. They had their own distinct way of living, religion, government, culture, social forms, relationship between genders and so on. And it is of cource because of this (glorious
) past, they have been deemed worthy of a place in civ, so it the charateristics and traits of this distinct period in history that should characterize the civilisation in civilization. The alternative, which I think some is actually indicating without saying it, is to try and capture the essence, the spirit, the national character of being eg. a scandinavian throughout a 1000 years. That would be wrong. After the viking age the danes got europeanised, the danish court started to talk german and french as it was considered to be finer. They became a part of european civilisation. But many of the civs in the game, has never had so distinct a way of life compared to their surroundings. Eg. the germans. When did they stand out? During the roman age, where german was the common name for scandinavians, franks, goths, vandals and so on. The german civ lived on in scandinavia through the viking ages, but what the german civ has gotten its traits from in the game is not this period. I dont think u can say the germans is particular industrious, maybe they have been in some parts of their history, in others they dont, more militaristic than most? probably, after Bismarck, otherwise not, and even after bismarck not that much. All in all, seen from the overview of history and talking about civs, the germans have not been that different from their neighbours around them. What I want to illustrate is, that if a civ doesnt have a period in history where they were uniquly different from their surroundings giving them traits in the game is an almost impossible job, and that goes for most of the civs in Civ.
Eg. the americans, they are not that unique today, but a part of western civ. Giving them traits u should look for a period where they were unique, and not try to grasp even their short history with two traits.Smagsdommer