Sixty Five Civilizations

[Superkrest]

having a native american civ in the 18 in crucial for fraxis on sales...the united states and canada are its largest market and would probably loss sales for not having one..but sales aside..even as half indian..i think there are bigger civs that got cut..but the game tries to at least give a sample of every region...and the iroquios are better for america then america or canada imho.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Hmm. I shall add a list of Civs I'd (have) like(d) to make 'the cut':
-2) Abbasids
-1) America
0) Apache
1) Arabia
2) Argentina
3) Assyria
4) Australia
5) Austria
6) Aztecs (Mexico)
7) Babylon
8) Belgium
9) Benin
10) Boers
11) Bohemia
12) Byzantine
13) Canaan
14) Canada
15) Carib
16) Celts
17) Chavín
18) China
19) Crete
20) Denmark
21) Egypt
22) England
23) Ethiopia
24) Fatimids
25) France
26) Germany
27) Goths
28) Greece
29) Hittite
30) Holland
31) Hungary
32) Huns
33) Inca (Peru)
34) India
35) Indus
36) Inuit
37) Ireland
38) Iroquois
39) Israel
40) Italy
41) Japan
42) Kanem Borno
43) Khmer
44) Kush
45) Libya (Numidia?)
46) Luxembourg
47) Macedonia
48) Mali
49) Mamelukes
50) Maya
51) Media
52) Moche
53) Mongols
54) Moors
55) Mycenae
56) Nazca
57) Nok
58) Normandy
59) Norway
60) Nubia
61) Olmecs
62) Pakistan
63) Persia
64) Phoenicia
65) Picts
66) Poland
67) Polynesians
68) Portugal
69) Prussia
70) Pueblo
71) Rome
72) Russia
73) Scythia
74) Serbia
75) Sea People
76) Sioux
77) Spain
78) Sukhothai
79) Sumeria
80) Sweden
81) Switzerland
82) Syria
83) Toltec
84) Troy
85) Tupi (Brazil)
86) Turks (Ottomans)
87) Walachia
88) Vandals
89) Zimbabwe
90) Zulu

 

[rhialto]

Well, the Iroquois, did inspire in large part the government model used by the USA, and we all know what happened next. So yes, they have had an influence beyond the NE USA.

 

[frekk]

it should...they had large..albeit wood... lodges that were very very large..and the iroquais used more the wigwam style lodge(permant wood house/shelter) then the sterotypical tee pee....and they would be city states in a way...each a seperate band but united in cultural and permanant settlements...and they were split against eachother during the revolutionary war....and in my opinion even a primitive city is still a city .....is it not??? and the iroquois were not as primative as most tribes for that time period... the facts are worth looking into..they were an intresting tribe

The Iroquouis called themselves Haudenosaunee, meaning People of the Longhouse, which is what they lived in. Longhouses were very large wooden structures with thatch or bark roofing, somewhat analogous to the halls of the early Vikings or as found in the ancient British Isles at various periods, although often quite a bit larger (up to 200 feet in length). Wigwams, teepees, etc are strictly a Plains Indian thing.

A modern day reconstruction of a longhouse:

 

[Kyriakos]

how many metres is 200 ft? the structure in the pic doesnt look big. The stereotype of northern indians was that they were people living in animistic worlds, and doing little more than that. I wouldnt want to be living in that wooden house, together with tens of others...

 

[Urederra]

almost 70 meters. Very communal and smoking weed, oh, my, that's so hippie.

 

[frekk]

how many metres is 200 ft? the structure in the pic doesnt look big.

Up to 200ft ... they were not all 200 ft long.

The stereotype of northern indians was that they were people living in animistic worlds, and doing little more than that.

Well, that is a little stereotypical. The Iroquois had created a confederation of independant states, and operated a vast network of trade routes. Before, during, and after the arrival of the Europeans they were busy creating a massive empire of vassal tribes (subordinate to the states of the confederation), with diplomatic and trade agreements recorded in the form of wampums. Also, the Iroquois religion was quite a bit more complex than animism ... it was built around a mythological figure called the Great Peacekeeper, a sort of prophet, and the Creator (self-explanatory) though it did feature animist concepts. Curiously, the Creator does not figure in the Iroquois creation myth! I'm not really clear on the role of the Creator.

Superstition appears to have been quite extreme among the Iroquois, but probably no worse than what one might have found in the early Middle Ages in Europe.

 

[Ded Moroz]

The social structure of Iroquois within the period of Iroquois league, as far as I’m concerned, was a form of so called military democracy, i.e. a form of authority organization typical of late primitive-communal society. During that period of society development technology advance allows early metalwork, which leads to strengthening of society’s military structure and enables it to acquire surplus product, primarily as a result of predatory wars against its neighbors and later partially due to improvements of agricultural tools. That is when the background is created to appearance of private property, classes and, as a result, to state. The classical examples of military democracy societies are the societies of ancients Germans, Celts, Normans.
Land and implements of production during that period remain in communal, tribal ownership, all the tribe members remain in equal position toward producer goods and sources of communal goods distribution.
And only later as amount of surplus product grows, its distributions becomes less even, which leads to society stratification, to emergence of populations groups which don’t participate in communal production (tribal aristocracy, regular warriors, priesthood etc). That is the stage when the social structure called STATE emerges.
The true is that not all the scientists share this terminological attitude. For instance, if we go to the works of M.D.Sahlins or E.R.Service, they define that evolution period as a chiefdom, taking it to be a form of a state, although of a primitive one. I wouldn’t like to get involved in that terminological discussion as it revolves on a level of different scientific schools attitude and outsteps this forum’s topic.
Iroquois Five Nations before it was shot out in late 18th century had not reached the stage of state (in the mentioned above understanding) foundation. Their tribal councils hadn’t yet become an early aristocracy groups and chieftains power hadn’t centralize enough.
That is what I mean when I say that in 17-18th centuries Iroquois remained largely barbaric nation. On that social development stage a society already gets access to achievement of the most of technologies, which are positioned as initial advances in the Civ game: Bronze working (there were some exceptions. For example, Maya passed through the stage of primitive communal society to slavocracy and created their state without ever achieving the secrets of metalwork), Ceremonial burial, Pottery and even more advanced like Iron Working and Code of Laws. But with yet unformed state structure the society has no necessity for writing or counting. Initially such necessity appears with a need to redistribute surplus product and to form in these purposes an early fiscal system. Even trade, which appears on the very early stage of getting a surplus product, i.e. on the stage of military democracy, does not require records and complicated counting (for primitive trade well-enough is “one – one and one more – one and one and one more” counting system and later counting by fingers on hands and feet). And only private property leads to necessity in records (gild gathering, records of proprietary rights etc) and in complicated mathematical calculations (for example, geometrical calculations in a process of land distribution).
Germans, Celts, Normans, Greeks at their time managed to use their historical chances and to step up from military democracy further to creation of slavocratic or feudal states. Iroquois were robbed of this chance by European colonization.

 

[rhialto]

Sorry, i don't buy that argument for a minute.

Grant me permission to define my own terms, and to pick and choose from any past writer and ignoring those which contradict what I want you to believe, and I too can prove anything is anything.

 

[Superkrest]

well...going by one mans definition maybe..but the iroqouis did have a law system established and was the cheif model for the united states constitution...this is largely ignored because american forces where (ironicly) the ones who whipped them out during there own revolution. by your own accounts the vikings would have not made it passed "barbaric"...i think thats a little over stated...and also..the thing to remember when comparing western and eastern hemispheres is that the old world had numerouse tribes,few resources, and higher denisties fueling competition,thus fueling advancement. The new world on the other hand had low densities,high resource yeilds, and very little competition. its amazing that tribes even advanced as far as they had. to blame them and label them barbarian is IMHO a little bit ignorant. An acheivment of such a government in a place when one was not neccisary cant be ignored. and shouldnt.

 

[brennan]

They built permanent structures, had a system of government, laws, and even farmed, sounds pretty civilised to me.

 

[Ded Moroz]

originally posted by Supercrest
by your own accounts the vikings would have not made it passed "barbaric"...

Anyway they made it. They created the state of their own and even were called to Ancient Rusj (if we beleive traditional history version) to create state structures in Kiev.
The same was with Galls, Celts, Germans and many others. Its a national process of evolution from stone age to more civilized forms of economy and social organization. There were also many nations which didn't manage to pass that border. the competition, as you mentioned, Supercrest, was really strong.
Iroquoise were among the nations which reached the last stage of primitive-communal structure and for sure they would have been among those indian nations who created strong empires on american continent, like Maya, Inca, Aztecs, but the european invasion wiped off even more powerfull nations then Iroquois were.

to blame them and label them barbarian is IMHO a little bit ignorant.

As I mentioned before I mean no offence to anybody. Its not Iroquois but rather Europeans to be blamed for this situation. And I don't use the word 'barbaric' as a label or judgement, but only as opposite to governmental.

Originally posted by brennan
They built permanent structures, had a system of government, laws, and even farmed, sounds pretty civilised to me.

No they didn't have a system of government. The Council of Iroquois League was a council of elders and chieftan was a warlord whos rule was not ancestral (correct me if it was). That doesn't make any difference with power structure of any stone-age tribe.

Originally posted by Supercrest
having a native american civ in the 18 in crucial for fraxis on sales...the united states and canada are its largest market and would probably loss sales for not having one..but sales aside..even as half indian..i think there are bigger civs that got cut..but the game tries to at least give a sample of every region...and the iroquios are better for america then america or canada imho.

Can't disagree. That is the reason which can not be beaten, and which makes all the previous discussion a little bit senseless.

Anyway thank you, guys, for the interesting and educational argument. It was very challenging to see you uncompromising stands. Although I never thought that it would call for such acclaim reaction. By the way nobody reacted to Zulu's How about a small excursion into their history as well?

 

[brennan]

No they didn't have a system of government. The Council of Iroquois League was a council of elders and chieftan was a warlord whos rule was not ancestral (correct me if it was). That doesn't make any difference with power structure of any stone-age tribe.

They were a group of related tribes with a combined leadership, their leaders were chosen by others, hardly a case of the bloke with the biggest club is da boss.

You sure are picky with your definitions. If you defined a civilisation by the presence of sewers then most of western Europe was barbarian until fairly recently. Perhaps you should be a little more flexible...

 

[Atrebates]

Governmental type does not confine scientific advancement to the degree stated (admittedly Ded Moroz did say the mold could be broken with the Maya), having surplus allows individuals to dedicate their time and [mental] resources to science or whatever else they please; and as such a society that produces surplus is far more likely to achieve technological advancement.

This means that having a surplus is important, not necessarily the government type that controls it, any political or economic situation can support scientific advancements, be they in metallurgy or geometry; primitives can beat the more 'advanced' race to technological achievements- for instance there is a supposed story that an Incan artefact was brought back to Europe, a silver and gold fish with jewels for eyes. It came into the possession of the papacy, which sent for Europe's finest smith who was unable to hint at its manufacture.

 

[jaap_jan]

BAD idea. If you take it this way you can come up with over 1000 civ's. Every society changes in the course of history, so do the civ's. In fact E.G. the Germans are NOT Germany, they represent the German culture group. It is something the English did wrong in their name giving. As the Germans call it Deutschland (called after a specific German group).
The Scandinavians, German, Dutch and Austrians all are Germans (And no German citizen, don't confuse those 2 things).
Same goes for the Roman (Spain, Italy, France (partly), Switserland (partly) and Romania. But since the Spaniards had a huge influence in the course of renaissance they were taken as a specific Civ. Same goes for the French with Napoleon etc.
In my H.O. I beleive the Americans should be taken out of the different civs. They are just English, as good as the Australians. You could see the American as a revolted civ (like in Civ II), but not a civ with a history of 6000 years (not even 250 yet).
There are a few basic Civ's, and that are (according to me) Roman, German, Russians and English (Goths if you want) (for Europe), Egyptian, Zulu and Ethiopians (?) (for Afrika), the Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Arabians (or Babylonians if you like) (for Asia), Aztec and Inca's and one other native N. American civ (for the Americas).
For the rest you could add some other great civs if you like that played a MAJOR role in the course of history, like the French, Spaniards, Greek (perhaps the should be basic too), Mongols, Ottomans, Cartagians etc.
But please, what did the Danish, Dutch, Austrians, Portugese, Irish and a lot more civs contributed in the course of history?
They all emigrated to the America's, yes, but never had a great empire. (No, not even the Dutch), and yes I am Dutch.
New York is and will be New Amsterdam!!! LOL

Wow, what a post, but I think I made my point.

 

[sassoundwave]

But please, what did the Danish, Dutch, Austrians, Portugese, Irish and a lot more civs contributed in the course of history?
They all emigrated to the America's, yes, but never had a great empire. (No, not even the Dutch), and yes I am Dutch.

So am I. But is having a contribution to the course of history only linked to the largeness of its empire?
I think not.
The austrians were part of a very influental royal family in Europe. Even further: they were one of the big reasons WW1 started. Talking about course of history...
The Portugese owned half of the world, were heavy involved in politics and certainly have put their stamp in world history (wasn't Columbus a Portugese?)
For the Dutch: they were ruler of the oceans in the 17th century. And the most important rebel group regarding the Spanish empire (they won). The crumbling of the Spanish empire is a change of course in history. Leaving alone the impact the Dutch had on the colonization of America.
Though I wouldn't mind if the Dutch weren't in on the game. I am glad they were in Civ 3 though. But I think they deserve more credit then you gave them.

 

[Urederra]

Columbus wasn't a Portuguese. His birthplace is not 100 % sure but the main trend it to consider him Genovese.

 

[jaap_jan]

The austrians were part of a very influental royal family in Europe. Even further: they were one of the big reasons WW1 started. Talking about course of history...

Austria ataacked the Serbs, with that attack they triggered WWI, for the rest hey only lost in WWI. Austria-Hungary was NOT of great influence in the corse of history.

The Portugese owned half of the world, were heavy involved in politics and certainly have put their stamp in world history (wasn't Columbus a Portugese?)

All the Portugese have ever owned are Brazil, Mozambique and some minor colonies in Asia (=not half the world)

For the Dutch: they were ruler of the oceans in the 17th century. And the most important rebel group regarding the Spanish empire (they won). The crumbling of the Spanish empire is a change of course in history. Leaving alone the impact the Dutch had on the colonization of America.

I know you have kind of a point here. But they never defeated the Spanish, only won back their country. In North America they had at most 5 large trading posts, which they lost to the Swedes (where did they come from), the English and the French.
The could have captured entire North-East side of S. America, hadn't they had a population of only 5M people, with which they couldn't inhabbit, nor defend the country from the Brazilians.
As a reminder, Suriname was given back to the Dutch as kind of a make up gift after being kicked out New Amsterdam by the English.

 

[sassoundwave]

Austria ataacked the Serbs, with that attack they triggered WWI, for the rest hey only lost in WWI. Austria-Hungary was NOT of great influence in the corse of history.

You forget their influence in the time before WWI started. Believe me, their influence was rather huge.

All the Portugese have ever owned are Brazil, Mozambique and some minor colonies in Asia (=not half the world)

half the world was morely meant as a figure of speach. But OK, I agree with you on this one.

Regarding the Dutch. If we count culture with the score (like civ does), you could think about the numerous of worldfamous Dutch painters. Maybe not so much heroic as a large conquered empire, but it certainly has moved in history.

 

[SonicX]

I think a great addition to allow name changes over time.
Why have one civilization keep the same specifics and name thoughout it's entire history ? In my opinion it would be interesting if civilizations would change over time and perhaps even change their name.
Why ? Well, Iran is a big civilization today, and Persia was even greater in the old days, but they both can't exist at the same time in one game ofcourse, so why not make them evolve from one into the other ?
Cultures change...