Ramesses
Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,176
Well what about having Invention Trees inside each tech of the Technology Tree?
It's a control freak's dream
Some forgotten-but-important technologies
- Thread starter Lordclane
- Start date
Well what about having Invention Trees inside each tech of the Technology Tree?
It's a control freak's dream
Oh Life - it's a game, not a scientific exercise! I don't want 100 different things to do before I can nuke Mooscow!
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
The Mayans did not have an alphabet. Nor did Egyptians. Or the Chinese. Do you understand what an alphabet is?
Wow, I missed that completely. Good catch.
Technically, the Egyptians did have something like an alphabet...the Demotic script, if I recall correctly. Not the traiditional hieroglyphs we think of when we think of Ancient Egypt--that was a different writing system entirely.
Technically, the Egyptians did have something like an alphabet...the Demotic script, if I recall correctly. Not the traiditional hieroglyphs we think of when we think of Ancient Egypt--that was a different writing system entirely.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
So illuminate me. What is the distinction between an invention and a technology? To me, the former is basically the discovery of the latter. Do you disagree?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
ALL alphabets are derived from Egyptian hieroglyphics. Every one everywhere in the entire world. No exceptions (this is, in itself, a remarkable fact). The Demotic script came long after the first alphabet but, in this regard, it is no different than all the others.
That's not entirely true. For the most part, say 99% are, but there are also a few graphically independent alphabets that aren't traced back to Egyptian hieroglyphics, but they were all invented after the idea of an alphabet and for the most part are relatively modern (Zhuyin, Ol Chiki). So it's really hard to call them unique inventions. In addition, there are few alphabets that people constantly debate over (Ogham, Hangul, Tāna) in terms of if they are actually derived from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet or not. However, in many of these cases there are conceptual (not graphical) links to letters.
Also, it should be noted that there are separate lines of ancestry descending from Egyptian hieroglyphics. So that Meroitic and the Proto-Canaanite, although both descended from hieroglyphics are two graphically independent inventions of the alphabet. (Since hieroglyphics themselves were not an alphabet).
Finally, there are instances where several ancient cuneiforms actually used phonetic representations (particularly in Elam and Akkad).
So you have to make the distinction between the graphical alphabet and the concept of the alphabet when thinking about it as a unique invention.
(Braile is a good modern example of this. It is not graphically descended from the Proto-Sinaitic group but clearly conceptually linked).
Conceptually there is a good chance everything can be traced back to Egyptian Hieroglyphics, only because the few graphicaly unique alphabets were often invented in direct response to a Proto-Sinaitic derived alphabet.
Note chinese - there are no letters as such; every word (or at least syllable) is one character. Plus, there are those stone-age ones which are one vertical line with lines coming off it, which is completely different
By 'Note Chinese' I'm pretty sure you're referring to Zhuyin, which I noted above. Which stone-age ones? I'm not implying I don't believe you, this is actually a subject I'm really interested in and had never heard of them -- i.e. so I can look them up and study like a good student. The farthest I knew the earliest writing system that could technically be considered an alphabet was Middle-Bronze Age (Proto-Sinaitic and Wadi el-Hol). I say technically, because the first true alphabet (as we know an alphabet today) is around Greek. The earlier ones are classified more as 'Abugidas' I think.
For the most part Abegweit is right, all naturally evolved alphabets are descended from Egyptian hieroglyphics. Any true alphabet that exists not descended are constructed alphabets, mostly only recently, and thus much later after the concept of an alphabet was already invented.
The stone-age one may be celtic or something, but it's where you carve a line down the stone then carve diagonal lines off it.
whitelaughter
Warlord
Does your definition of alphabet include mesoamerican writing systems? If so, when was this proved? (I know it has long been suggested).
I would lov to see evidence that all alphabets are derived from one source - as stated above, it looks pretty unlikely
Mesoamerican writing systems are Logograms not Alphabets. There is evidence that some of these scripts were beginning to form alphabet like tendencies (similar to certain cuneiform from Akkad and Elam) and thus eventually given enough time would have developed into or inspired an 'alphabet' but you know, the Spanish came and killed everyone and introduced the Latin based alphabet.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Mesoamerican writing systems are not alphabets. See the CIV tech tree. First came writing, then came the alphabet. As for the definition, use it in the widest sense that it has any meaning at all - a writing system in which the symbols represent sounds instead of ideas. Among other things, this definition would include syllabaries.
As for proof, the only real doubt among researchers is how many times alphabets derived from hieroglyphics - once or twice. Judging from his writings on this thread, tsentom1 seems to hold to the "twice" theory. This holds that some dead east African alphabets have a separate origin from the rest.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
They have Radio, but they forgot RADAR and Code-Breaking/Encryption.
They have Fiber Optics, but they forgot my Cable televison. I want my MTV!!!
I also hate how Athenian democracy is ignored in Civ4, but was present in earlier civs.
And there should be an anti-SAM missile / promotion for aircraft. Something that gives them an advantage over SAM units.
They have Fiber Optics, but they forgot my Cable televison. I want my MTV!!!
I also hate how Athenian democracy is ignored in Civ4, but was present in earlier civs.
And there should be an anti-SAM missile / promotion for aircraft. Something that gives them an advantage over SAM units.
Duke Blackstone
John Marchman
One thing. The phlanex is sickly effective against mounted units. Ever wondered how the Greeks built their empire in the northern deserts and mountians (afganistan)? Mobility is the most effective aspect of horse combat. The phlanex uses lines of troop formations to block and trap enemy horsemen, disabling them from litteraly running rings arround the other Greek, killing, and then escaping. I'm on my phone but I would love to draw it out for you when I can I have trouble putting concepts into words. But the point is that the +100% anti horse ability is justified
Great if the men are trained, less good if not -have you ever sttod near the rail at a racetrack? An untrained unit would just run away, andas the phalanx looks classical its effectiveness wouold have not been so great (short spears = not good).
The really forgotten techs are automatic weapons and assault rifles - I actually modded them in.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
I thought the Vikings were island hopping from north Europe to Greenland to northern North American continent?
The same with Micronesia and Maoris. I thought they were island hopping. After all, the only reason the Vikings made it to the (now) American continent is because they went via Iceland - Greenland. And the amount of time it took made permanent colonies impossible. Also, the Micronesians didn't settle North America or South America, so their "ocean going" vessels seem pretty limited to island chaining.
The idea of optics being the ocean crossing technology is that you could go into open ocean without losing your ship. i guess... i don't really know i'm just using logic here
You need to add the modifier "...if the horses are in front of the phalanx". Phalanxes are strong in the front, and weak in the rear and on the flanks because it is a slow moving formation and has all its weapons facing in one direction. Pinning a phalanx with your infantry and then flank-attacking with cavalry was a staple tactics.
However, the game doesn't account for the fact that spearmen were very cheap to equip, and thus a lot of ancient societies used larger numbers of spearmen than you would make to counter mounted units in Civilization.
Similar threads
