Two biggest problems with Civ right now

[Superkrest]

then your same argument for ethiopia can be used to support the american indians..vastly outnumbered..out gunned...and out" cultured???" they fought on anyways...and lasted hundreds of years against the oppressers...or is that different??? and the moors...they are different then the african civs that i thought you were arguing about...the moors are more north african civs..so if you want to go that route..you already have egypt..at first i thought you had a valid argument about the ignored southern portioins of africa..lol wow i was wrong

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.
Ask any Rastafarian or carribean person what they think of Ethiopia and Haille Sesse. If millions of people think you are G-d incarnate orgiven special powers from G-d isn't great then what is.

That is only their beliefs. What about all the others who don't believe that?

The dutch only controlled a coastal part of south africa before losing it to the british.

It doesn't matter if the Dutch only controlled South Africa for a little while. Look at all the other places they went.

The cradle of civlization is Ethiopia not persia you can ask any scientist or whom ever you want. Life started in Ethiopia. Babylon came way to late in History to have an effect on civlizations. Rome was around before Babylon was a good civ.

The cradle of civilization is Mesopotamia. It is where the first major civilizations formed(Sumeria, Babylon, etc.) Babylon existed long before Rome. Therefore, if Babylon was too late, then that means Rome was to late. And obviously Rome has had an impact.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

By the way I looked up and the netherlands was part of the moorish empire. Turns out that they were also part of spain back then. A small portion of northern Italy was captured for 90 years by the moors.

By the time Spain controlled Belgium and the Netherlands, they were apart of the Habsburg empire. Not the Moors. That happened in the 16th-18th century, after the Moors had been kicked out of Spain.

And another funny thing. I looked up Beethoven on Wikipedia, and guess what? Not once does it mention the Moors. It appears that you are wrong.

 

[apatheist]

Ethiopian kingdom was founded (10th cent. B.C.) by Solomon's first son, Menelik I, whom the queen of Sheba borne.

about 8000 years before china a central gov was in ethiopia.

Er... 10th century BC is 1000 BC - 900 BC. It's not 10,000 BC.

 

[CTM]

Oh, for crying out loud people. Forgive me for being general in dismissing points that mean little to nothing anyway. Let's go over this again:

Wrong. Not all Moors speak arabic. The majority of moors were muslims and they are distinct from arabs. Moors have an entirely different culture than arabs. Moors are african arabs can be of any race. All you have to do is speak arabic and follow the arabic culture. kinda like being spanish. There were never Arabs in Spain but there were moors.

The Moors were the name given to the Muslims in Spain. That's all. The Moors were only in Spain, because that was the name given to the Muslims that lived there. End of story.

The Arabs were a small tribe that converted to Islam and set out to conquer the world under the banner of that religion. Along the way, they conquered and assimilated other tribes, which in turn joined them in their bid for world conquest. That would include peoples like the Berbers, Turks, etc. I was just being general to make a point, sheesh. Get off my back already.

Besides, all Muslims can speak Arabic, because that's the language of the Koran.

I'm going to break this next one down into steps because it's so ridiculous I'm having trouble holding back my laughter.

Britain lost Italy lost twice and turks never came no where near ethiopia. You are only saying they are embarassments cause you are trying to take away from the Ethiopian accomplishments.

No, I'm not. Did you purposely ignore what I posted? They were European embarrassments because they were supposed to be pushovers. Instead, the Ethiopians beat them. Did they lead to the total capitulation of both Britain and Italy? No. Did it lead to a respite for Ethiopia that allowed it to get back on its feet, only to come to blows with Europe again as Italy invaded in 1936? Yes. This only proves that the powers of Europe were far greater in that regard. The fact that we are talking about European invasions of Ethiopia and not Ethiopian invasions of Europe speak for itself. For cripe's sakes, listen already. I've said this same thing three times.

As for the Turks, the Ottoman Empire encroached upon their borders. That's all.

Of course if my army has a gun and your army has a knife I will win. Now you critizes Ethiopia for beating Europeans with weapons they use.

No, I'm saying Ethiopia had to use European weapons to beat Europeans. You're looking at this through a standpoint in which a gun and melee weapon are standard and everyone knows about them. There was such a time when the gun was a revolutionary weapon. The Ethiopians had to acquire guns in order to beat the Europeans, because they had guns. And your "of course guns beat knives" argument is stupid, because it doesn't hold any relevance. Of course the Ethiopians had to use guns. The Europeans had them, and would have knocked the stuffing out of them if they hadn't used them in turn. The Europeans sent relatively small expedition forces that made stupid tactical mistakes as well, which helped bring about Ethiopian victories.

America invented the nuke

America was the first to develop it, but they weren't the "inventors". I don't think I need to say anymore on that subject.

doesn't mean they should be the only ones with a nuke.

Of course not, but you're missing the point, as usual. Who cares if the Ethiopians had Western firearms or not? The point is, they needed them in order to even stand a chance.

Europeans didn't really invent the gun they just modified a chinese idea.

The Chinese invented gunpowder, which they primarily used for fireworks. Europe expanded on the idea by using it for cannon and later, firearms. China played no role in this whatsoever.

Europes military advantages came from the gun and that is shown in that when countries like ethiopia have guns they beat europe.

Europe's military advantages have been proven long before the invention of the gun. The Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon and Plataea with superior military tactics and formations, and they beat them at the naval engagement of Salamis. The Romans periodically beat its enemies with its unheard of military system and a state that operated like a nation-at-arms. Alexander the Great annihilated the Persians and pretty much anything that stood in his way when he set out of Macedonia to conquer Asia. The Crusades, while not ultimately successful, were amazing nonetheless that Europe had the logistics to transport men and materiel to a land far from Europe, the Middle East, and carve kingdoms into it. Not to mention capture Jerusalem. All before gunpowder.

If Europe had such great culture then why did they loose to the moors why did Geghis Khan beat European countries. Why did America loose in Vietnam I don't see Vietnam great culture they used guns

All you're doing is stating exceptions that prove the rule. The Mongols are one of the few civilizations in history that actually beat Europeans in Europe with non-European weapons. There is almost no record of something of this nature ever happening. The Arabs relied on speed and ambush to meet their objectives. Most of their enemies were unable to stand against such an onslaught. When they came face to face with shock battle with the Franks in 732, they were soundly beaten. The same was true in the East when they attacked Constantinople around the same time.

Ugh, and you're even ignoring points you made yourself when you talk about Vietnam. Vietnam was a war against insurgents supplied by the Soviets and Chinese, who gave them the weapons needed to effectively fight the Americans. Plus, the Americans were also fighting under absurd rules of engagement, with things like "we can't invade North Vietnam, we can't bomb their harbors, we can't follow them into Chinese airspace", etc. Not to mention we also were trying to fight a conventional war.

Peh.

And doronron is right. Most of your comments are offensive and racist, and aren't helping you all that much. All you've been doing is blabbing.

 

[doronron]

Ghafhi, on the technical aspect, your cause is moot. Ethiopia will not be released in the original retail version of Civ IV, no matter how loud you yell.

On the historical aspect, all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. Every one of your contentions have been dismantled and proven wrong, even when you chose to refine your point. Your rabid desire to see Ethiopia as anywhere near the same caliber of civilization as Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, or Persia -- much less Portugal, Austria, or the Dutch, has blinded you to the points we've been making. We have historical and scientific material to back our statements. You simply insult others' heritages and expect it to prove your point.

The history books and archeaology tell us that the Ethiopians have provided no great works of art, no architectural wonders, no scientific advances, no social changes. The Ethiopians have proven themselves the be lacking militarily and aren't known for being explorers. They've contributed nothing of great enough importance to history to assure their slot in a video game, a toy. You're arguing over a toy.

I've asked for specific times, places, events, names, etc regarding the wars Ethiopia has won against Europe and those that could be considered Rembrandt's equal as an artist. You've ignored those requests because you know there are no such comparisons to be made.

You can refuse all you like. Make assertions all you like, but that doesn't make your statements true, no matter how much you believe them to be true.

As I've stated several times so far: Put the Ethiopians in, but they are not among the top civilizations and should not replace any of the nations already in the game.

You realise half the posts you've made in this thread are blatently offensive and bigoted towards other cultures? Do you realise that the cultures you've bashed were bashed because they were not black? You've attacked them for no reason other than they aren't black.

If that's not racist, I don't know what is.

 

[apatheist]

Besides, all Muslims can speak Arabic, because that's the language of the Koran.

I don't think that's quite true. I'm pretty sure that there aren't 1.1 billion Arabic speakers, but there are 1.1 billion Muslims.

The Chinese invented gunpowder, which they primarily used for fireworks. Europe expanded on the idea by using it for cannon and later, firearms. China played no role in this whatsoever.

Europe's military advantages have been proven long before the invention of the gun. The Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon and Plataea with superior military tactics and formations, and they beat them at the naval engagement of Salamis. The Romans periodically beat its enemies with its unheard of military system and a state that operated like a nation-at-arms. Alexander the Great annihilated the Persians and pretty much anything that stood in his way when he set out of Macedonia to conquer Asia. The Crusades, while not ultimately successful, were amazing nonetheless that Europe had the logistics to transport men and materiel to a land far from Europe, the Middle East, and carve kingdoms into it. Not to mention capture Jerusalem. All before gunpowder.

All you're doing is stating exceptions that prove the rule. The Mongols are one of the few civilizations in history that actually beat Europeans in Europe with non-European weapons. There is almost no record of something of this nature ever happening. The Arabs relied on speed and ambush to meet their objectives. Most of their enemies were unable to stand against such an onslaught. When they came face to face with shock battle with the Franks in 732, they were soundly beaten. The same was true in the East when they attacked Constantinople around the same time.

But they eventually won. Turkey still owns Constantinople and some European territory.

This article claims that the Chinese did invent cannon: http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1225.html

As far as Europeans getting beaten by non-Europeans in Europe goes... The Moors did manage to beat them for a while. So did the Ottoman Turks. You can argue that those victories weren't final, but I could say the same about any European victory; just wait ;-). Europeans got defeated by Americans and Russians, who are admittedly European-ish. Many of the various barbarian tribes that attacked the Roman and Byzantine Empires (Huns, Slavs, Bulgars, etc.) came out of Central Asia.

I am curious to know what you mean by Europe's military advantages. You refer to a consistent advantage over some 2500 years of history.

 

[CTM]

Those Muslims that wish to read the Koran have to know Arabic if they want to read it. No, I don't know personally if all Muslims do or not; I was just making another generalization. I tend to do that to make general points.

But they eventually won. Turkey still owns Constantinople and some European territory.

The Turks aren't Arabs. They were a tribe that converted to Islam and took up the cause the Arabs started (since you know, their empire stagnated and then fragmented during the 8th and 9th centuries). The Turkish victory at Manzikert is one of those examples of a non-Western army beating Westerners, though again, it's an exception. The Byzantine army was wracked from within through deceit and intrigue over its own commanders, vying for the throne. They eventually adopted cannon and of course, used them to capture Constantinople in 1453. An already weakened Constantinople, at that.

As far as Europeans getting beaten by non-Europeans in Europe goes... The Moors did manage to beat them for a while. So did the Ottoman Turks. You can argue that those victories weren't final, but I could say the same about any European victory; just wait ;-).

The Turks used firearms and cannon (keep in mind that I said "non-European weapons" as well). They at pretty much every opportunity looked for ways to match technological parity with the West. However, they lacked the added cultural baggage to improve on existing designs because of the state they were ruled under, which didn't encourage rational inquiry and the like. They thus never developed the proper tactics of shooting in massed volleys to accompany the firearms they used, as the Europeans did and, they didn't because it was against their own idea of personal bravery of the individual warrior. The same went for engagements at sea, in which the powers of the West adopted cannon to go on their ships, while the Turks had to "borrow" their ideas by buying cannon from them and trying to mount them on their own ships without the real technical know-how (in fact, the Turks often hired Western engineers to do the job for them). How else do you think that a few Mediterranean powers such as Spain and Venice were able to take on the fleet of an empire that stretched from North Africa to Anatolia to the Balkans? How else were states that were often conflicting with themselves able to hold them off at all?

Western victories in battle often led to the complete destruction of the opposing force. Whether or not the main campaign was a success matters little; what matters is the lethality of Western combat to its non-Western enemies, which often did lead to ultimate victories.

And I already stated that the Moors as well as the Mongols proved to be exceptions. I just didn't say outright with the former; however, I figured it was implied well enough, considering it was grouped along with what I had to say about the latter after the quote I addressed from Ghafhi.

This article claims that the Chinese did invent cannon: http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dum...le/id-1225.html

Maybe, but it was the West that took the idea and implemented it as a device that could pack maximum firepower with massed volleys of soldiers who stood shoulder to shoulder so that they could annihilate the enemy. The idea was to make sure as many people as possible could carry one, and to fight as a single unit, which was pioneered by Europeans.

Many of the various barbarian tribes that attacked the Roman and Byzantine Empires (Huns, Slavs, Bulgars, etc.) came out of Central Asia.

Exceptions that prove the rule. And, I'm sure you know already what the state of the Roman Empire was during the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

I am curious to know what you mean by Europe's military advantages. You refer to a consistent advantage over some 2500 years of history.

Yes I do, and I'm glad you mentioned that. Before, when I saying "Europe", I was using that as a substitute word for "the West", which was what I actually meant. The West has had a distinct advantage over its enemies over 2500 years of history, and that is its lethal way in handling war at the expense of its enemies. Its unique way of fighting was something the world had never seen before and is in fact the basis behind which modern armies around the world now fight today.

There's a whole book that delves into this subject: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. It's a good read; I suggest you take a look at it should you get the chance. The battles they cover include Poitiers, Lepanto, Guagemela, Salamis, Cannae (see, it's not just about Western victories, but rather, how Western warfare ultimately wins), Midway, Rorke's Drift, etc.

 

[Carver]

I guess you claim Rembrandt is now Italian? Name a world renowned painter who happened to be Ethiopian. You still don't get it. China had an ESTABLISHED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT since 2200 BC. They existed long before that time as a group of petty warlords. That part of history is not much different than Ethiopia. The difference is China, like the Dutch, actually contributed something useful to human civilization as we know it. Ethiopia has not. Ethiopia may have been around longer than nations such as the Dutch, Portugal, or Austria, but they've done nothing worthwhile. Nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a great power or a cultural icon.

Your post bleeds with Eurocentrism.

Name a Dutch painter that was "world renowned," known all over the world. You can't, you can name Dutch painters that were known throughout the Western world and maybe in some circles outside the West - but one that was truly world renowned?

Further, small Eurpoean states like the Netherlands and Austria wouldn't be anything themselves if it weren't for their location and interaction with the rest of the Western world. When the Dutch accomplished something in the 18th century that (almost always) was not just a Dutch accomplishment, it was a Western one with the Dutch taking the final steps. (This is why, as someone indicated earlier, the Dutch aren't a civ per se; the Dutch are a state within the Wetsern, or perhaps Northern European civ.)

Also, to state that Ethiopia has never been a cultural icon is, once again, ignorant and Eurocentric. Many people in Africa and the Americas view Ethiopia's history with pride. If you go there, as I have, you'll see white women with African hairstyles touring the country.

The centuries old work of Ethiopia's monks, epitomised by the illuminated manuscripts, has been celebrated by many foreigners. The medeival rock hewn churches of Lalibela and Tigray can't be ignored.

So, when you say that nobody's ever looked to Ethiopia as a cultural icon what you should have said is that you don't look at Ethiopia as a cultural icon - which is fine - you are allowed to be ignorant of other societies and to suggest that they have no worthwhile culture. If you actually go there and speak to Ethiopians you will see how important there culture is to them and how proud they are.

And where are those wars and dates I asked for? You know, the ones where the powerful and mighty Ethiopian armies defeated history's best and brightest nations?

Of course there is the Italian defeat in 1896. And in 1941, when the Italian were ejected, partially by the British, Ethiopian diplomacy won out over British threats to keep Ethiopia as a colony. Those are the only armed conflicts with Europe that I'm aware of. Obviously, if Ethiopia had been weaker it would have been colonized back in the 19th century. Strength deterred invasion.

 

[Carver]

Just for the record, I'm happy with the announced 18 civs. Ethiopia doesn't need to be in; but the ignorant bashing of Ethiopia needed to be countered.

 

[apatheist]

Those Muslims that wish to read the Koran have to know Arabic if they want to read it. No, I don't know personally if all Muslims do or not; I was just making another generalization. I tend to do that to make general points.

I suggest that you verify your assertions in advance lest pedants such as myself focus on minor inaccuracies to the exclusion of your main point.

Arabs are an ethnic group. Arabs were Semitic peoples inhabiting the (duh) Arabian peninsula, who spread out over much of the Middle East as part of the Islamic conquests. The Islamic conquerors who invaded Spain were at least partly Arab, though, of course, by then, the Islamic empire included many non-Arab peoples.

The Turks used firearms and cannon (keep in mind that I said "non-European weapons" as well). They at pretty much every opportunity looked for ways to match technological parity with the West. However, they lacked the added cultural baggage to improve on existing designs because of the state they were ruled under, which didn't encourage rational inquiry and the like.

To be fair, most European nations were similar in terms of rational inquiry.

How else were states that were often conflicting with themselves able to hold them off at all?

Well, the Ottoman empire was kind of a mess politically a lot of the time. That helps. Bigger doesn't always win.

Western victories in battle often led to the complete destruction of the opposing force. Whether or not the main campaign was a success matters little; what matters is the lethality of Western combat to its non-Western enemies, which often did lead to ultimate victories.

I disagree with this statement. Few battles ever led to the complete destruction of the enemy force. I'm sure you can list a bunch of examples, but you're making a pretty strong statement that needs stronger proof.

And I already stated that the Moors as well as the Mongols proved to be exceptions.

Pile on enough exceptions and the rule collapses.

Maybe, but it was the West that took the idea and implemented it as a device that could pack maximum firepower with massed volleys of soldiers who stood shoulder to shoulder so that they could annihilate the enemy.

Which also made them more vulnerable to firearms. It's not clear to me that such tactics were an advantage.

Exceptions that prove the rule. And, I'm sure you know already what the state of the Roman Empire was during the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

I haven't ever understood what that phrase means.

The Roman Empire was in bad shape in no small way due to those very same barbarians. I think you are confusing cause and effect.

Yes I do, and I'm glad you mentioned that. Before, when I saying "Europe", I was using that as a substitute word for "the West", which was what I actually meant. The West has had a distinct advantage over its enemies over 2500 years of history, and that is its lethal way in handling war at the expense of its enemies. Its unique way of fighting was something the world had never seen before and is in fact the basis behind which modern armies around the world now fight today.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you assert that non-Western armies have been less bloodthirsty and ruthless than Western ones.

There's a whole book that delves into this subject: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. It's a good read; I suggest you take a look at it should you get the chance. The battles they cover include Poitiers, Lepanto, Guagemela, Salamis, Cannae (see, it's not just about Western victories, but rather, how Western warfare ultimately wins), Midway, Rorke's Drift, etc.

What's the Cliff's Notes version? Surely you can state what "Western warfare" means and how it is unique and better in a paragraph or two.

 

[Carver]

Ghafhi, you're missing the point. Italy invaded Ethiopia. Britain invaded Ethiopia. The Turks invaded Ethiopia. All of them took a toll on Ethiopia. Ethiopia did not invade Italy, Britain, or the Ottoman Empire.

Ethiopia had to fight for its very survival, for much of its history. Europe, on the other hand, by the 17th century, was basically safe from outsiders. Most of that time they wound up fighting themselves.

Again, the fact that Ethiopia inflicted defeats on the Europeans was that they were European embarrassments. That tells the real story, because Europe was clearly in control. Ethiopia was not.

We all know Europe had better weapons, what is your point? You keep stressing the point that the Europeans were embarrased. Why? The point is that Ethiopia succesfully dettered them and defeated the Italians. The fact that Ethiopia had less advanced weaponry just makes the Ethiopian accomplishments more ingenious.

EDIT: To add to this point, the Russian victory over Napoleon does not fail to be a great accomplishment because the French army was better. The Russians were outmatched but they won anyway by making their enemy "bleed to death."

It's all about bringing any civilization, any tribe, from history and leading them to stand the test of time. The more civs, the merrier.

Well, that's was Ethiopia has done. It doesn't matter if it was by the tooth of the nails or not, or if it was by military means or diplomatic skill; Ethiopia has stood the test of time.

 

[troytheface]

To Carver there.........
lol ...Name a Dutch painter that is truly world reknown outside of the western world? Ever hear of Van Gogh? The Japanese have -since they bought "Irises" for the highest amount ever paid for a painting-
And to Ghafi- who stated Rembrandt was not of the calibre of the renessaince painters.....ur right - he was better - paint was thicker- his subjects oft times used the common man instead of the rich- ect.
Micheangelo's work has not been matched because of the scale and scope of his work- but rembrandt was a better painter- renessaince (sp) painters were still bound to drawing the images - then filling in the drawings - - ur knowledge of aesthetcis and painting matches ur knowledge of world history-
I edited a dis about ethiopia out of this- it was suppossed to be humor but reading it it looked like mean humor - one thing about this thread is that i am picking tons of information about these african civs -(course don't know what in the hell is true or not)-

 

[CTM]

There's a problem with posting online. People often misread what you're saying.

Arabs are an ethnic group. Arabs were Semitic peoples inhabiting the (duh) Arabian peninsula, who spread out over much of the Middle East as part of the Islamic conquests. The Islamic conquerors who invaded Spain were at least partly Arab, though, of course, by then, the Islamic empire included many non-Arab peoples.

Never denied that, of course. I totally agree. Nothing more to say here.

To be fair, most European nations were similar in terms of rational inquiry.

Well, yeah, but I was talking about the Turks. The Turks lacked this concept in their own empire.

Well, the Ottoman empire was kind of a mess politically a lot of the time. That helps. Bigger doesn't always win.

Yes, of course, but this is again another assertion I never really denied, nor really mentioned. However, it is true, in addition to what I already said. Heh, keep in mind that your last sentence is another bold, "strong statement" that people could hotly contest to. Besides, concerning the things I've been talking about, it adds up to rather the same assertion: bigger isn't always better.

I disagree with this statement. Few battles ever led to the complete destruction of the enemy force. I'm sure you can list a bunch of examples, but you're making a pretty strong statement that needs stronger proof.

Not complete destruction, but something more like, out of 10 men, 8 are killed or wounded. You hit it on the head for me already: I made a pretty strong statement to further a point. It's a rather common phrase to use to describe utter defeat and the massive casualties inflicted on that same defeated force, anyway.

Pile on enough exceptions and the rule collapses.

Yeah, so? It doesn't apply here.

Which also made them more vulnerable to firearms. It's not clear to me that such tactics were an advantage.

Well, that's where your lack of knowledge on such a subject shows. The tactic of firing in massed volleys is what gives you the maximum firepower you can get out of firearms. Think about it for a minute: 20 soldiers all firing at once in a line is a lot more effective than 20 of them firing at different intervals, and from all over the place.

I haven't ever understood what that phrase means.

The Roman Empire was in bad shape in no small way due to those very same barbarians. I think you are confusing cause and effect.

No, see, I never lost track of my general discussion on Western warfare. By that time, a lot of the soldiers in the Roman Army were themselves the very barbarians Rome was fighting, and Rome ended up losing its tactical edge as it began to rely more and more on them. They even sometimes used their weapons and formations (the Gothic wedge, for one thing).

I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you assert that non-Western armies have been less bloodthirsty and ruthless than Western ones.

I never made that assertion. You read it differently than what I had in mind. I was merely saying that Western warfare amounted to its being so amoral: "shackled rarely by concerns of ritual, tradition, religion, or ethics, by anything other than military necessity" (from the book).

What's the Cliff's Notes version? Surely you can state what "Western warfare" means and how it is unique and better in a paragraph or two.

To break it down: self-critique, civilian audit, popular criticism, shock battle, rational inquiry, civic militarism, etc. All things unique of Western armies. Often imitated. Never duplicated, unless such imitators become "Westerners" themselves and adopt all that cultural baggage that defines Western warfare.

To quote the book. I find this prudent for the conversation:

There is no Egyptain idea of personal freedom in the ranks; no Persian conception of civic militarism or civilian audit of the Great King's army; no Thracian embrace of the scientific tradition; no disciplined files of shock phalangites in Phoenicia; and no landed infantry of small property owners in ancient Scythia--and thus no military in the ancient Mediterranean like the Greeks at Thermopylae, Salamis, or Plataea.
This 2500 year tradition explains not only why Western forces have overcome great oddds to defeat their adversaries but also their uncanny ability to project power well beyond the shores of Europe and America. Numbers, location, food, health, weather, religion--the usual factors that govern the success or failure of wars--have ultimately done little to impede Western armies, whose larger culture has allowed them to trump man and nature alike. Even the tactical brilliance of a Hannibal has been to no avail.
That is not to say that throughout three millennia all Western forces have shared an exact blueprint in their approach to war making...
...nor should we forget that the non-West has also fielded deadly armies, such as the Mongols, Ottomans, and communist Vietnamese, that have defeated all opposition in Asia for centuries and kept Europe at bay. But the military affinities in Western war making across time and space from the Greeks to the present are uncanny, enduring, and too often ignored.

 

[CTM]

We all know Europe had better weapons, what is your point? You keep stressing the point that the Europeans were embarrased. Why?

Read Ghafhi's post, and you'll see why. This guy either can't read, or is selectively deaf. He completely ignored what I had to say on the issue and instead kept trying to reinstate his own points that had already been proven wrong.

The point is that Ethiopia succesfully dettered them and defeated the Italians. The fact that Ethiopia had less advanced weaponry just makes the Ethiopian accomplishments more ingenious.

But they weren't using less advanced weaponry. They were using European weapons. Incidents like Rorke's Drift are the result of a Western force badly outnumbered using proper tactics to repel an enemy many times greater than their own, an enemy of which was sporadically equipped with rifles and not using them the proper way. This was not the case in battles like Adawa (the Italian defeat in 1896) or Isandhlwana (skirmish between the British and the Zulu).

EDIT: To add to this point, the Russian victory over Napoleon does not fail to be a great accomplishment because the French army was better. The Russians were outmatched but they won anyway by making their enemy "bleed to death."

I don't give a damn about that battle. It's a battle between Europeans and thus has nothing to do with my argument regarding Western and non-Western encounters.

 

[doronron]

Just for the record, I'm happy with the announced 18 civs. Ethiopia doesn't need to be in; but the ignorant bashing of Ethiopia needed to be countered.

And what of the ignorant bashing of the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Babylon, Sumeria, Persia, Mongolia, China, Korea, Mayans, Incans, Iriqious, and the rest of the northern Native American tribes? This is exactly what Ghafhi was doing. My view of the nation of Ethiopia at least comes from the history books.

I am not Eurocentric, but I do not try to rewrite history because it does not match what I wish it to be. I accept the good and the bad. Ghahfi quite obviously does not, based on his half-cocked assertions and attempts to belittle nations more deserving of the title.

 

[Carver]

I don't mean to come off as mean, but whether or not the state of Ehiopia being currently weakened or not is an opinion. What you have stated here is a continual shift of capitals, which could be interpreted as instability.

Over the course of about 2000 years? I don't think we can state that moving the capital necessarily equates to instability.

I am not saying that you are incorrect, however without a very indepth knowledge of the situation or some proven facts, I, as well as others would most likely induce that the state has undergone significant and weakening changes because of revolts, wars, and capital shifting.

Well, it has undergone revolts and wars but it always managed to reemerge united; and the general effect over time has been the enlarging of the nation. In other words, if Ethiopia was weakened in the short term by revolts etc. it has grown stronger over the long run and become more consolidated as a nation.

You also did not include any other accomplishments of Ethiopia, I plead ignorance here, as I am not versed well in African history, but you should bring up those points if you wish to claim he is ignorant.

There is the work of Ethiopia's very secluded monestries, including the illuminated manuscripts. There is the rock hewn architecture of Lalibela and Tigray, and the Axum stelae field.

 

[apatheist]

Yes, of course, but this is again another assertion I never really denied, nor really mentioned. However, it is true, in addition to what I already said. Heh, keep in mind that your last sentence is another bold, "strong statement" that people could hotly contest to.

Bigger doesn't always win isn't a strong statement. Bigger always wins is a strong statement; its negation is pretty weak.

Well, that's where your lack of knowledge on such a subject shows. The tactic of firing in massed volleys is what gives you the maximum firepower you can get out of firearms. Think about it for a minute: 20 soldiers all firing at once in a line is a lot more effective than 20 of them firing at different intervals, and from all over the place.

Is the effectiveness a result of timing and training or a result of the formation? 20 soldiers all standing erect in a line make an easy target. That was only a good tactic in that brief period when firearms were accurate enough to do serious damage, but not so accurate that massed ranks of troops were slaughtered. Think Gatling gun. Then there are the Swedes of the 17 century. Firearms were in wide use at the time, but a common Swedish tactic was to close the gap while firing and then switch to swords to finish the job.

No, see, I never lost track of my general discussion on Western warfare. By that time, a lot of the soldiers in the Roman Army were themselves the very barbarians Rome was fighting, and Rome ended up losing its tactical edge as it began to rely more and more on them. They even sometimes used their weapons and formations (the Gothic wedge, for one thing).

The foederati were effective soldiers in a tactical sense; what made them a problem was that they had no loyalty to Rome. They were mercenaries, and were thus unreliable.

To break it down: self-critique, civilian audit, popular criticism, shock battle, rational inquiry, civic militarism, etc. All things unique of Western armies.

Western culture, really. Those things certainly had a greater presence in the Western world. I disagree that they were so consistent and pervasive and unique as you assert, however. Civilian audit didn't exist broadly until the demise of the monarchies and the rise of democracies. Popular criticism has always been a dangerous thing to do in every society. I don't know what shock battle is. Rational inquiry existed wherever science did. That's not just Greece and Western Europe, but also China, India, the Islamic Empire, and so forth. I assume civic militarism is a volunteer military... I recall that the United States and Allies defeated Japan with draftees.

Often imitated. Never duplicated, unless such imitators become "Westerners" themselves and adopt all that cultural baggage that defines Western warfare.

In other words, it was never duplicated except when it was duplicated.

The reason I am hammering this point is because it is easy to become myopic due to the dominance of Western nations and culture in contemporary times. That is just a tiny sliver of world history, however.

 

[Carver]

To Carver there.........
lol ...Name a Dutch painter that is truly world reknown outside of the western world? Ever hear of Van Gogh? The Japanese have -since they bought "Irises" for the highest amount ever paid for a painting-
And to Ghafi- who stated Rembrandt was not of the calibre of the renessaince painters.....ur right - he was better - paint was thicker- his subjects oft times used the common man instead of the rich- ect.
Micheangelo's work has not been matched because of the scale and scope of his work- but rembrandt was a better painter- and renessaince (sp)
painters were still bound to drawing the images - then filling in the drawings - - ur knowledge of aesthetcis and painting matches ur knowledge of world history-
In so far as Ethiopia- if someone needs major surgery do they go to Ethiopia? Stating that Ethiopia is a great Civ is indeed amusing.

Van Gogh is renowned throughout the West not the world. Japan wants to be Western so that's hardly an indication. Can you explain to anyone in Ethiopia how Van Gogh has affected their lives?

Also, I don't think you would recognize civilization if it slapped you in the face. You are blinded by your Eurocentrism if you think Van Gogh is a greater man than Afewerk Tekle simply because Van Gogh is known to you and Afewerk is not.

 

[troytheface]

damn u quoted me afor my edit- ah well serves me right-
U may be right - but yes Van Gogh is a far greater man then Aferbut Tinkle whoever that is (I am tempted to draw a linear path from expressionism to film but that may be a stretch- however - if true - film (ie and artistic elements-to which Van Gogh contributed...and spirtual imagery ) affects more people then Alferbutt
- is he a religious leader that Rastafarrians listen to? Is he a spiritual leader ?philosopher? - that other blacks on the continent listen to?
(In other words accusing someone of the over used term Eurocentricism assumes that non eurocentrics ?....believe they have the "true" story" which is what ..Afrocenticism?....) at any rate I am sure if he came up with a cool painting or founded a religion i would know who he was -but maybe there is a Euro conspiracy I fell victem to...
Without seeing an art history book from china or polynesia ect. i would not know if Van Gogh is mentioned- and i doubt u have access to such either-
i suspect however- if u collected all the books in the world Van Goh's name would appear more often than Aferbutt Tinkleberry or whoever he is- as a matter of fact i could do a search and see which has more hits ....
at any rate i like all the african info as i can actually use it- perhaps if i played a better devil's advocate i might get better info....?