The remaining Civ

[SoCalian]

The Ethiopians have been arournd almost as long as history itself, and have survived to the modern day. Not only that, but they have maneged to remain independent for all of it. They have never been conqured, and were very powerfull at several points in their history. They alone would be enough to warent an African cultural group to be added, even without the Zulu. In Civ3 terms Ethiopia is perhaps the most deserving of all civs to be added. They should be added before Byzantium, Mali, Israel, Khemer, Polynesia, or anyone else.

 

[Furius]

You have one bloody good point! Would they be the Ethiopians or the Axumites, though? Axum sounds better in my opinion, but others might think otherwise (Them being others and all).

 

[Pangur Bán]

Sources for "Ethiopian" history are scarce, but I find the idea that they were never conquered to be absurd. It probably rests on laying down absolutely no definition of what made "Ethiopia", as you call it, a continuous civilization. Is it their state? Coptic culture? Or the arbitrary landmass which constitutes that modern nation's territory? It may also rest on the complete absence of knowledge that we have for large chunks of "Ethiopian" history!

BTW, I recall vaguely in my own head that it was conquered by neighbouring barbarians a few times. And, of course, it was conquered by Italy - temprarily at least.

Not sure what you mean by "Ethiopian" anyway. I should point out, and I'm sick of doing this, that the term "Ethiopia" does not historically mean Abyssinia. It is a very old term that simply means "Black Africa", and is the equivalent of the Arabic "Beled es-Sudan" and the Berber derived "Guinea". All three terms mean "Black Africa". It is important to point this out, because the unwary will be led to attributing everything said in historical sources about "Ethiopia"like references in the Bible for instance, to Abyssinia or the modern day country which has usurped the name "Ethiopia"

 

[Inhalaattori]

Furios, Sumeria is fine, but there is also Babylonia.
Babylonians are in many ways same as sumerians, not racially but culturally.

Ant what this poll tell us? Something should be done to history teaching in US. (and maybe in Europe also)

 

[Xen]

I think Babylon and Sumeria are very alike culturally, and probabley the same racially, as to be very honest I think there are alot fewer "races" then most people who belive in the distinction of seperate races in humans belive.....

 

[Xen]

@ Calgacus- It may have no basis in reality for Eithiopia being conqoured- but niether dose the sumerian UU

 

[Pangur Bán]

...and neither does the Iroquois mounted warrior, map-trading or temples to Zeus that make soldiers better, but hey, that's civ3!

 

[Xen]

as a ploytheist I dispute Zeus not making you a better soldier- as it certainlly helped Xenophon(and the Spartans, Athenians, Boetians, ans so on...) when he knew he had the great king of the gods on his side.....

 

[Xen]

It gives a moral boost, when you have the love machine of the gods on your side

 

[Pangur Bán]

But Zeus?!

Well, I guess that explains why those Eleans were such great fighters!

 

[Xen]

ares is far overated by those whom do not worship- true he is indeed a force to reckoned with, and no disrespect meant to the great god- but he epitomizes the worst in warfare- such as blood lust, that is why there are no great city temples dedicated to him, nor his patronage taken even for Sparta, or the Thracians, despite him being so associated with those peoples-better to dedicate to Zeus or Athena to win ones battles- make no mistake however, Mars is a distinct diety away from Ares, and has a differnt aspect in the Roman religion, one more befitting the benificent father, and protector or Rome, then the bloodlust, violence that epitomizes Ares

 

[Inhalaattori]

Babylonians were Semitic/Semite, but sumerians were not. Babylonia still plagiarized much from Sumeria.
And babylonia was part of sumeria, like Sumeria was later part of Babylonia. They are like Macedonia and Creece

Xen, you know, that Asatru is official religion with Christianity in Iceland. Asatru is based in ancient beliefs of vikings.
(They have this book called Edda)

Im not aware about your religion, but there were great number of different religions in ancient Rome, like "Mithra".
Romans were very tolerant religiously. Christianity was tolerated as long as they didnt make troubles. So the christians got what they deserved.

Talking about christian martyrs is also quite funny, becouse after christians got the power they destroyed everything that was thought "pagan".

Like in northern- Europe, it was "you turn to chritianity or you die"! That is the reason why so many people in Scandinavia, Finland and Baltia dont really care about Chritianity. Our ancestors never wanted to became christians, they were forced to. There have been much more pagan martyrs than christian martyrs.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori

Im not aware about your religion, but there were great number of different religions in ancient Rome, like "Mithra".
Romans were very tolerant religiously. Christianity was tolerated as long as they didnt make troubles. So the christians got what they deserved.

Whatever your personal prejudices are, no one deserves being torn apart by starved lions for public spectacle.

Talking about christian martyrs is also quite funny, becouse after christians got the power they destroyed everything that was thought "pagan".

Unlike the Vikings, who just destroyed everything.

 

[wildWolverine]

Right. So I'm too lazy to go back and find the original post, but I have to agree w/ stones here.


Off topic: how rude are you when KEITH RICHARDS tells you to shut up (Toronto...)? I hate the music made by Justin Timberlake, but no one should be booed off stage at a charity concert...

 

[thestonesfan]

WW - He did seem odd with that line-up, but I had no idea they booed him off the stage. That is harsh. Geesh.

 

[Yom]

It is true that Ethiopia was never conquered, and the only exception to that would be the temporary occupation by the Italians in WWII. Also, there are not large chunks of ethiopian history missing. I know a lot about Ethiopia's history, at least from the first millenium to the present, and the only part of history that is not yet well known of ethiopia is the time before the 1st millenium. Also, this is only because archaelogy has not existed in Ethiopia for a long enough time, as in egypt, for much if its ancient history to be uncovered. Even recently, archaelogists have found more and more ancient artifacts in Ethiopia. In fact, they found a piece of "teff" (one of the first grains ever to be cultivated that is not found outside of Ethiopia) in an ancient Egyptian mud brick once.

As for the name Ethiopia, it is true that it was often used to describe all of black Africa, as well as Ethiopia itself, but if Ethiopia is the remaining civ, its name should rest as Ethiopia, and not as Abyssinia or Axum. Abyssinia is a newer name for Ethiopia and was used to denote the northern area of Ethiopia. Also, Axum was more of a dynasty, and to name the civ Axum would be like naming the Chinese civ Zhou.

As for the actual region that "Ethiopia" denotes, Ethiopia was not simply used to determine black africa. More accurately, Herodetus used it to describe Nubia, Ethiopia, and India, as the three ancient states had similar features. Ethiopia, however, was refered to the bible, and you cannot dismiss all references to Ethiopia as being about other places. Even if Ethiopia wasn't an accurate term to describe the nation today, Ethiopia as a civilization was still important and should be recognized by Sid, and put in as a civ in conquests under the name Ethiopia.

Sorry for the long rant, but I just had to clear some stuff up.

Edit: What neighboring barbarians are you speaking of? If you mean the war against Ahmad Gran in 1541, somalia was often a part of Ethiopia and Ethiopia ultimately won that war. Could you clarify when and by whom Ethiopia was conquered?

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Yom
It is true that Ethiopia was never conquered, and the only exception to that would be the temporary occupation by the Italians in WWII.

even if it was only for 6 years they were conquered, theres no limit saying that if its under 10 years or something it doesn't count

 

[thestonesfan]

"Temporary Occupation?"

Just like the Romans "temprarily occupied" Gaul? Or the British in India?

 

[Yom]

um... there's a HUGE difference between 6 years and a century. Plus, Ethiopia eventually expelled the Italians through military force, whereas the Gauls were really just a bunch of tribes that got lucky when barbarians sacked rome and India was freed by Britain's own free will.

 

[pawpaw]

no, the british western desert forces ejected the italians out