What in the world is this? I find it extremely offensive that Arabia was given autocracy! Also, the ones chosen for Arabia also, in general, have the feeling of the extremely biased stereotype. Get your facts straight! Also, rationalism would probably be a more historically accurate choice than piety.
Roleplaying Civs and the Policy Tree
- Thread starter Becephalus
- Start date
builer680
eats too much Taco Bell
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 525
Make your own and shut up.
Moderator Action: This isn't constructive or civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
He analyzed the history of these civilizations from their beginning and chose the social policies that better fits to their histories . The choice of Piety for Arabia seems very obvious,since the religion influence of their society is huge and Autocracy was chosen to Arabia because they were been a military and a hostile empire during Muslim conquests (622-750),which is a very important period to them. It's good to remember that they weren't the only one which has Piety and Autocracy together(Aztec,Ottoman,Persia and Spain also has this combo)
I had tried a similar project, but ended up frustrated since I felt that the vast majority of civs would have taken tradition. If you want to force roughly equal numbers of each policy tree, you will have some historical inaccuracies. Honestly, that is fine. After all, it is just a game.
As far as Arabia is concerned, I doubt the original poster meant to offend anyone. Piety refers to the prevalence of Islam in the founding of the civilization and is certainly appropriate. Rationalism is also appropriate since the height of the Arabic empire was marked by important scientific work not to mention arts (patronage?). Unfortunately, the game only allows one of these. This is the same problem with the USA. In reality, the rift between science and religion is relatively modern and many famous scientists were also theologians. Blaise Pascal comes to mind.
Looking at the individual policies, would you argue that the scientific revolution wasn't important to America? Would you argue that the reformation wasn't important to America? I mean a really accurate policy count would not be game-legal. We have a professional army, but definitely not a military caste. I could go on.
The real problem is that of Autocracy, Order, and Freedom, only Freedom will probably be considered 'good' by people. So any civ assigned the other two may be offended. I don't know about Arabia as an autocracy (referring to various dictatorships in the region in modern times I guess) but I am not sure Freedom fits, since even at the times of Harun, it was clearly not democracy as we know it. Mostly the choice is up to the player.
As far as Arabia is concerned, I doubt the original poster meant to offend anyone. Piety refers to the prevalence of Islam in the founding of the civilization and is certainly appropriate. Rationalism is also appropriate since the height of the Arabic empire was marked by important scientific work not to mention arts (patronage?). Unfortunately, the game only allows one of these. This is the same problem with the USA. In reality, the rift between science and religion is relatively modern and many famous scientists were also theologians. Blaise Pascal comes to mind.
Looking at the individual policies, would you argue that the scientific revolution wasn't important to America? Would you argue that the reformation wasn't important to America? I mean a really accurate policy count would not be game-legal. We have a professional army, but definitely not a military caste. I could go on.
The real problem is that of Autocracy, Order, and Freedom, only Freedom will probably be considered 'good' by people. So any civ assigned the other two may be offended. I don't know about Arabia as an autocracy (referring to various dictatorships in the region in modern times I guess) but I am not sure Freedom fits, since even at the times of Harun, it was clearly not democracy as we know it. Mostly the choice is up to the player.
The problem is the mind of the people is affected by the era and by the culture that these people live(iirc,this is called "Zeitgeist") . In our age,we prioritize individualism more than the other ages and this makes us prioritaze Freedom over Order or Autocracy . You can blame the western culture and "America Dream" industry for this situation . I like to wonder if this situation will remain the same in the next years . About the scientific work of Arabia,I think this happened because of the network trade of the empire,which became wide because of the military conquests,hence autocracy(it's like generating science through high population) . Not all military empires had chosen autocracy,and an example of this would be Mongolia,that had Order,because of the communist period .
I've to disagree with your point. That way you should give Alex autocracy as well because of his world conquest plans. Many empires went to the route of conquest/colonization when they became powerful (eg Germany, America, Russia, England, Spain, France etc) so I think the best you can do is give the order instead because of their strong law & order in earlier period. In ciV terms Arabia is not meant to be a conqueror either, but having a big empire Arabia will be strong (UA, UB & Piety + Order).
Good point, thanks for saying this point before I could manage to do so!
Sadly, each patch rebalances the policies for gameplay reasons, which makes them kind of arbitrary and generalized to the point of having very little in common with actual history. Imagine civ traits changed like that. You'd soon feel there is nothing except the title remaining. Which takes roleplaying to the extremes of make-believe. Not fun.
Unfortunately many people think that Arab muslims were barbarians who conquered a large amount of land & forced people to accept Islam by sword. That is a big misconception. Infact some wars were even started by their foes (Persia -> Battle of Mutah). Their treatment towards non-muslims was also examplary & many conquered people's life were spared unlike Mongols or crusades. Power struggle & succession was however a big problem, for example Abassids massacred Umayyads and so on.
About Alex,I've researched a little and I found out that his empire fell when he dies and that was a exception in Greece's history,that is more remembered by the "Democratic" city states of Athenas,hence Freedom . And I think you didn't understand when a Empire had chosen Order or Autocracy . for the little I understood,Order is for multi cultural empires which has been united through diplomacy of the local leaders and Autocracy is for empires which has been united through the force of the army(aka opression as soon someone start trying to separate from the others) .
At this point,you're half right . iirc,they tolerate the religion of the other people,IF this religion is Judaism or Christianity,because they share the same book . but,it's good to remember that many people of that era didn't worship neither of these religions . And I don't think a theocratic empire like Arabia would accept this multi culturalism ,because if they accepted it,the empire would split up quickly,like Mongol empire for example,that accepted this multi culturalism .
qalsip1977
Wonder Lust
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 280
So the OP took Civs in a video game that are based loosely on real Civs and categorized them based on the limited structure of a video game's social policy system in the attempt to have a more "roleplay" feel...and people got offended by this?? I can't help but be a little bit amused. 
Anywho I like doing this sometimes myself. Although I tend to look at everything in terms of "olden times" since I like period movies like "The Last Samurai" and "300". So I might grab up Oda, put it on marathon, and go Tradition/Honor for some samurai fun (since they were very traditional back then, and obviously all about honor). I didn't really think it through nearly as much as the OP...however.
Anywho I like doing this sometimes myself. Although I tend to look at everything in terms of "olden times" since I like period movies like "The Last Samurai" and "300". So I might grab up Oda, put it on marathon, and go Tradition/Honor for some samurai fun (since they were very traditional back then, and obviously all about honor). I didn't really think it through nearly as much as the OP...however.
Well Alex's empire broke because there was no worthy successor. The same thing happened with Timur & Auranzeb. They did not payed much attention to what will happen after them & failed to set a good successor unlike Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & the early caliphs or Changaiz Khan. Interestingly the first 4 caliphs were actually elected. You may call it Islamic Democracy in which the prominent companions had to decide about the next successor.
My understanding of Autocracy in ciV is a conquest driven empire like Mongols, Timurids, Nazi Germany, Aztecs etc. The expansionists however will get Order or in some cases Freedom.
Do you have any source to support your claim ? What about treatment with Zoroastrians ?
Well Alex's empire broke because there was no worthy successor. The same thing happened with Timur & Auranzeb. They did not payed much attention to what will happen after them & failed to set a good successor unlike Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & the early caliphs or Changaiz Khan. Interestingly the first 4 caliphs were actually elected. You may call it Islamic Democracy in which the prominent companions had to decide about the next successor.
Not all muslims accepted these 4 caliphs, The Shias only accepts the cousin of Muhammad as a sucessor,while the Sunni prefers the 3 caliphs that Muhammad choosed. It would be democracy if all the muslims have chosen the successor of their leader . This is more related to Monarchy/Aristocracy than Democracy .
Do you have any source to support your claim ? What about treatment with Zoroastrians ?
I found out something related . Well,I have to admit that they didn't force the other people to worship Islamism,but they charged an extra tax the non-muslins of their empire . This tax is for every free adult male member of the People of the book,which corresponds to Jews, Sabians and Christians,according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
I haven't found anything about how they treated the people that doesn't apply to these rules . But I'd like to know how many Zoroastrians are in Iran now and how many Zoroastrians are in Iran before Muslims got here .
budweiser
King of the Beers
I play France exclusively. Do you really think they shouldn't take Honor considering who their leader is in Civ V? Patronage does not fit at all for a Napoleon roleplay.
You are mistaken. Sunnis believe on all 4 caliphs. Shias however believe that only Ali (RA) had the right to rule after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), they failed to realise that even Ali (RA) did bait on the early caliphs but that is a seperate issue.
Jizya is simply a protection tax so there is nothing unfair about it. If an Islamic government fails to provide protection to its non-muslim subjects then it has no right to collect this tax. Also unlike muslims they did not had to pay other taxes like Zakat, Ushr etc so that is perfectly reasonable.
Regarding the no. of Zorastrians, I would say that many accepted Islam on their own. Islam spread in countries even where no muslim army went (Malaysia for example). The main point is the treatment of non-muslim subjects & as far as I know muslims were quite tolerant. Even later muslim empires like Ottomans welcomed Jews who were exiled from Spain.
And Spain lied to the Aztecs & Tlaxcalans. Oh well !
Guess I've mistaken about it because I thought that this issue would be some kind of competition between them .
Jizya is simply a protection tax so there is nothing unfair about it. If an Islamic government fails to provide protection to its non-muslim subjects then it has no right to collect this tax. Also unlike muslims they did not had to pay other taxes like Zakat, Ushr etc so that is perfectly reasonable.
Regarding the no. of Zorastrians, I would say that many accepted Islam on their own. Islam spread in countries even where no muslim army went (Malaysia for example). The main point is the treatment of non-muslim subjects & as far as I know muslims were quite tolerant. Even later muslim empires like Ottomans welcomed Jews who were exiled from Spain.
Compared to other theocracies like Spain during Inquisition ages, Islamics are more tolerant to other groups of people . But it's very interesting that they forced the people to accept Islamism in a financial way,which is much less harmness than brute force . And I disagree about Jizya not being unfair,because it makes non-muslims different from the others,which can be a persuade way for them to convert to Islam . And one point of Sharia that is good to look is about "leaving Islam" ,which is a crime with a penalty of death . We both agree that this threat is a perfect way for growing a religion,because you intimidates people that have grown on muslims communities to continue with the religion of their fathers(Guess they did this on western Europe,until Martin Luther break Christianism in many branches,which would be considered the first step to Rationalism on many countries,like France,England and Germany) .
Again I have to disagree with that statement. As I mentioned before
- Non muslims were not supposed to pay Zakat & Ushr.
- They either had to participate in military or had to pay Jizya.
Spoiler :
Scholars have different opinions about leaving Islam. MY belief is that if someone leaves Islam & then speaks/propgates against Islam, only then he deserves punishment. (just like a traitor).
Similar threads
