Two biggest problems with Civ right now

[CTM]

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

Please read my post again. I tend to edit posts a lot, and I added what I had to say after forgetting at first. What I was saying and what you were saying were really adding up to the same thing, really.

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.

Um, yeah, but that does nothing to disprove what I said. Firing in massed volleys has always been a Western tactic in defeating enemies as long as it has had firearms. Before guns, long disciplined lines of infantrymen fighting with melee weapons were the backbone of Western armies. When guns came along, this formation was adopted, but with the new technology. It's why you had European soldiers marching to battle, each side with their own muskets, lining up, and proceeding to fire at one another through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Battles between Westerners ended up being bloodbaths, thus. Europe was using this tactic as late as World War I (where again, Westerners primarily fought Westerners), where they quickly learned that the machine gun shattered such a formation.

And the Gatling gun was a Western invention, anyway.

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.

Shooting as they stabbed. Again, you're speaking of Westerners fighting Westerners, in which battles ended up in very different outcomes than if they were squaring off against non-Westerners. That has little to do with what I'm talking about. Melee will win in close range, however, they have to get there first. The Zulus beat the British at Isandhlwana because the British formed a skirmish line of men faced far apart, they didn't have the ammunition they needed, and, being outnumbered and without a defensive position, the Zulus were able to close in among them and slaughter them.

Western culture, really.

Western culture that translated into Western military advantages. That's what I've been saying all along.

Civilian audit didn't exist broadly until the demise of the monarchies and the rise of democracies.

I'm talking about the broad range of Western history, remember. Civilian audit existed in the city-states of Greece and in the early Roman Republic, and was revived on a grand scale once democracy was revived. And the people who served the state were still generally free in that they enjoyed advantages that couldn't be taken away from them by the king (earlier in England that anywhere else, if the Magna Carta means anything to you). Europe took on the aspects of Western civilization through Rome, but retained its "barbarian" heritage in its concept of kings who ruled lands they controlled alone; thus, fragmented after their death, or their royal line died out. Not to mention the concept of feudalism. As this died away, civilian audit appeared once again. And you're forgetting what I said already: the West has been consistent in its way of warfare, but the blueprint hasn't always been the same.

Popular criticism has always been a dangerous thing to do in every society.

While dangerous, it has been an important factor in Western warfare nonetheless. Popular criticism/self-critique has always been important in improving in how armies fought.

I don't know what shock battle is.

Shock battle is heavy infantry marching face to face to deliver a decisive victory. Greek hoplites, Macedonian phalangites and Roman legionaries are excellent examples of this.

Rational inquiry existed wherever science did. That's not just Greece and Western Europe, but also China, India, the Islamic Empire, and so forth.

However, it's always been part of a scientific tradition that existed amongst Western societies, which furthered technological advancements. Europe took the tech lead, while other societies lagged behind and ended up copying them. Look at your world today. Who leads it, powers like Europe and the United States or states like China and the Middle East?

I assume civic militarism is a volunteer military... I recall that the United States and Allies defeated Japan with draftees.

No, in fact, it's quite the opposite: civic militarism is the notion that those who vote must also fight in turn to protect the very nation that grants them that right.

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

Don't look too much into what I said. Non-Western states that attempted to copy Western tactics were still flawed in that they lacked the cultural baggage to go with it. It's all well and good for the Turks to adopt Western cannon, but if they can't improve on it and make them better, they're going to fall behind as the West continues to innovate.

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.

I am discussing Western history spanning 2500 years, starting from the Greek city-states of 700 B.C. to the present day. There's nothing contemporary about my reasoning. In fact, it's you who's been stating rather more modern examples of Western warfare.

I found a link (http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/736.html) containing an interview based on audio that was apparently on television between the author of the book I've been talking about and the announcer for the program. Take a look at it; I doubt you'll be disappointed in what you learn.

 

[Hyena]

Hehehehe. Ghahfi, I think that before you start making inflamatory statements about the effects various civilizations have had on world history, you should at least know what you are talking about. I must agree with you, however, that Ethiopia should be included over some of the other civs (Zulus come to mind immediately). Many westerners have not studied history enough to realize the depth of Ethiopian culture, or the effect they have had on Africa and the Middle East, as well as reciprocal effects or Greek, and later European culture. I know it's a bit of a small thing, but I thank God every day that an Ethiopian goatherder was curious enough to wonder why his goats got high by eating these funny beans on some wierd plant. Without him, I would die of coffee withdrawal.

Back to my first point though, please read or study a bit more about the colonial period before you say that the Dutch don't deserve to be in the game. Also, the Morrs controlled Spain for many years, as well as Sicily. They did NOT control France, or the majority of the Italian peninsula. As a Sicilian who is descended from there Morrs, I know what I am talking about on this one. As for India and Portugal, please study a bit more before you say ignorant things. They are far more important to world history than many African civs. Please read some more, and then come back. Ciao.

 

[warpstorm]

Why are we having this discussion in English?

 

[doronron]

Why are we having this discussion in English?

English language good! English language absorb all other languages! English language take many words from puny German, Celtic, French, and Ameriindian languages!

The study of linguistics is also a neat little trip.

 

[apatheist]

I'm talking about the broad range of Western history, remember. Civilian audit existed in the city-states of Greece and in the early Roman Republic, and was revived on a grand scale once democracy was revived.

Er... there are about 2000 years between the early Roman Republic and the growth of democracy in the Western world. It's 1500 years or more even if you're only counting to the Magna Carta.

And the people who served the state were still generally free in that they enjoyed advantages that couldn't be taken away from them by the king (earlier in England that anywhere else, if the Magna Carta means anything to you).

I'm guessing serfs and slaves didn't serve the state?

While dangerous, it has been an important factor in Western warfare nonetheless. Popular criticism/self-critique has always been important in improving in how armies fought.

Have you an example?

However, it's always been part of a scientific tradition that existed amongst Western societies, which furthered technological advancements. Europe took the tech lead, while other societies lagged behind and ended up copying them.

Er... you realize the Renaissance was basically triggered by the flow of philosophical, scientific, and mathematical texts from the Arab world, right? Many of those were retranslations of lost Greek and Roman works, but there were many more original works of Islamic scholarship. The word algebra comes from the name of an Arab text on the subject. The famed Avicenna was actually Ibn Sina. According to Wikipedia, the scientific method was first pioneered in the Islamic world. You can't have real science without it. Then there are the obvious, oft-cited examples of Chinese gunpowder and Indian numerals. You can't seriously be saying that Europe has been the world's technology leader (or leader in anything, really) continuously for the last 2500 years.

Look at your world today. Who leads it, powers like Europe and the United States or states like China and the Middle East?

The Middle East sure looks like the tail wagging the American dog. And China, well, China's going to stomp the rest of us. Assuming they don't collapse in on themselves, of course.

Have you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel?"

I found a link (http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/700/736.html) containing an interview based on audio that was apparently on television between the author of the book I've been talking about and the announcer for the program. Take a look at it; I doubt you'll be disappointed in what you learn.

I'll get around to reading that book. It's on the list.

 

[CTM]

Er... there are about 2000 years between the early Roman Republic and the growth of democracy in the Western world. It's 1500 years or more even if you're only counting to the Magna Carta.

Keep in mind what I said about the Western blueprint. Everything I listed were distinctly Western ideas...however, not all Western states incorporated all of them at any given time. However, it's still a Western concept.

I'm guessing serfs and slaves didn't serve the state?

In a system such as feudalism, such freedom was limited, however, as feudalism was gradually lifted, that freedom was extended. It's what the Age of Enlightenment was all about. The men lowest on the chain who fought at Lepanto on the Christian side were basically slaves, however, they bear a much closer resemblance to the Greek seamen who fought at Salamis then they do towards the sultan's men or those of Xerxes. The point is moot, as such states were still distinctly Western.

Besides, serfs had more freedom than you think. They were bound to the land, and served the lord of the manor, but they were a step up from slaves. Slavery was a concept Westerners revived first around the 16th century and then of course later in the 19th century against non-Western peoples. The idea is not that slavery existed, but that not everyone serving under a Western state was one. This was not true in empires like the Ottoman or Persian, where everyone under the sultan or emperor was supposed to be servants to his will.

Have you an example?

I doubt I need to provide one. Failure is how we improve. We learn from mistakes. If popular criticism is not something we listen to, and self-critique not something we take seriously, how does one ever improve significantly to combat future challenges? It's the basis behind the whole darn thing. If you don't learn, you pay for it.

Most books concerning military strategies are written by Westerners. Accounts regarding wars past and present are from the viewpoint of Westerners. If you wanted to read up on an account from Vietnam, you would most likely find one written by the British, Americans, French, etc. Not the Vietnamese. And even so, an account from a Western source is undoubtedly more reliable. Dissemination of information is part of what makes up the Western idea of self-critique and popular criticism and it has paid dividends in improving how we fight and manage our wars. This is something you must know about already, surely.

Er... you realize the Renaissance was basically triggered by the flow of philosophical, scientific, and mathematical texts from the Arab world, right? Many of those were retranslations of lost Greek and Roman works, but there were many more original works of Islamic scholarship. The word algebra comes from the name of an Arab text on the subject. The famed Avicenna was actually Ibn Sina. According to Wikipedia, the scientific method was first pioneered in the Islamic world. You can't have real science without it. Then there are the obvious, oft-cited examples of Chinese gunpowder and Indian numerals. You can't seriously be saying that Europe has been the world's technology leader (or leader in anything, really) continuously for the last 2500 years.

I'm not. The mainstay, however, is the West. It flowed into the Western world, the West used it to meet its own ends, and the West ended up ahead. The Islamic world gradually stagnated. Your argument here is like Chinese gunpowder: just because it started there doesn't mean anything. The people who use it best and improve on it is what counts. And that's something the West has done: incorporating ideas from other societies, moreso and much easier than other societies, as they were much more open to use them. Firearms, when discovered, were rapidly distributed throughout Europe as lords, kings, etc. were eager to lay their hands on the technology to use it to their best effect against their neighbors/competitors. This simply did not exist in societies like the Ottoman Empire, China, or Japan (in fact, in Japan firearms were considered dangerous to the rest of society and warlords tried banning their use). The Catholic Church did at one point try to ban firearms (as well as crossbows when they were invented) but in such a society it's no surprise this went ignored.

In fact, I believe I already said earlier that the West has not always been ahead of its enemies technologically, using the battle of Salamis as an example. This is not the only thing that makes up the West, which I already stated clearly as well.

The Middle East sure looks like the tail wagging the American dog. And China, well, China's going to stomp the rest of us. Assuming they don't collapse in on themselves, of course.

Oh, please, this makes for a weak argument. The Middle East is a collection of nations (I can't help but point out that this is a Western concept) grouped together to form a federation to control oil prices in the region. It is not a world power and it does not exert considerable global influence in the same manner that Europe and the United States do. As for China, it's becoming more of a Westernized nation with each passing day. Have you heard of the concept of Westernization?

The fact we're even speaking from a Westerner's point of view (hell, the fact most of the people who play this game are Westerners) should be enough to end this argument. The West is in the minority concerning the rest of the world; however, the West is what exerts the greatest global influence. What I've been doing is offering insight into how it got that way.

I also find it rather comical that I first started on this tangent in response to some ignorant comments Ghafhi made in one of his posts a while back.

Have you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel?"

No, but I've heard of it.

The West is what is dominant today; nations looking to surpass "the West" instead just become Westernized as that is really the only way to beat Westerners: other Westerners.

 

[Ghafhi]

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

That is true that the south is largely ignored. The difference between Ethiopia and the indians is that Ethiopia didn't loose for the most part. The Dutch who are so great also lost to german troops and so did ethiopia. Although it was Italy who technically invaded it was german troops. Egyptians aren't north africans they are entirely different than north africans. You will notice that most Egyptians are never part of north african empires like the mores or carthage and they also look and speak different

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



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 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.

Babylonia was a break away tribe so they could not be a cradle of civlization. Babylon was not powerful until after the Romans existed and didn't effect the world much.

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.

Wikipedia is not written by people who offer information online. I could go write in information if I wanted to. There are so many falicies and historical inaccuracies in wikipedia. None the less look up beethoven moorish ancestry on any search engine. Or read the book written by his teacher. What kind of european name is beethoven it is not infact it is more as the king of spain said himself. Don't believe me look it up on any search engine. Actually those two countries only rejoined spain because of the moorsih invasions

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

woops typo. in a ruch to respond to everyone

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:


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.

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.


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


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.


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.

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.

Ethiopia wasn't a pushover because most of Europe can't beat them in war. If Hitler never sent so many German troops then Italy would have lost again. The Italians lost the first four battles in Ethiopia until the Germans came. If beating an occupier is considered beating that country then most of Europe including the dutch got beat by britain. Ok if Italy lost was one simple tactical mistake as you claim then why did they have to wait 50 years before they re-invaded ethiopia it is because not only did ethiopia win but Italia was slughtered and Italian troops feared Ethiopian troops. It is essentially true that no other weapon besides the nuclear bomb and the tank changed war as much as the gun and possible the bow because it changed war fare. Why don't you tell everyone about how lously europe was in war before the gun. They did win the first crusade on jerusalem and lost every single one there after. How about the childs crusade were 12 year old kids were sent to fight because all the capable men in europe were dead or injured. The point Europe is ok without the gun but not so hot as you believe. Yeah the Romans were tough but why don't you recognize that much of the Roman empire was black. Septimus Severus black ruler of Rome in 193 ad. Surely you cannot deny the black presence in Rome if an African was a leader. America doesn't even have 1 black president think about that.

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.

Ethiopia is no egypt or rome but sure did more than the dutch. Ethiopia has lots of great paintings they just don't trust westerns enough to make them see. In fact some Ethiopian paintings are gaurded by more than 100 armed gaurds at once. Archaelogy tells us that life started in ethiopia. You clearly have never seen ethiopian church which or considered advanced structures even today but they were built in the 8th and 7th century. The churches of Lalibela world known.The ancient Persians believed there were four great civilizations in the world: Persia; Rome; China and Ethiopia. Ethiopian history is the story of a great sea-faring nation. This was the time, when an African Imperial and Maritime Navy, the greatest naval power of their time, sailed the Red Sea, the Indian Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. At their zenith, they ruled the Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yemen and Southern Arabia. The Ethiopian city-state of Axum was an imperialist power, who minted their own silver, gold and copper coins and wrote in a written script called Ge'ez. Goods were traded and sold in Spain, on the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, Egypt and India. This was the Axum Empire. A lot more than those Dutch and indians. Seemed to contribute more than you give credit to. Ethiopia was the first christian nation seems like a social change to me. I have not bashed other culture for not being "black" I said they suck cause its the truth. Dutch has one artist and Iroquis are an appeasement so whats wrong with that. Thats not racist to me its thr truth. Ethiopia is a great culture and has had high and low points which will obviously occur when you exist for so long but their "golden age" is mostly along time ago but that doesn't make it any less signifcant because you don't know about it.

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.

Thank you these guys are off the deep end

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.

Wow. I accept history as much as the next guy but look at what your saying. Moors owned portugal for more than half of itstechnical existance yet portugese get recognized. I never bad mouth austria I said they make more sense than the dutch. I didn't bad mouth mongolia I just don't see what so amzing about taking over half the world and loosing it in 5 minutes big woo. Most the countries GenghisKhan invaded were weak anyways Once he fought real militaries he could go no further

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)-

I can ask the chief curator of art or a bum on the street and they will both say ramb-what and say I know Michangelo though. Like it or not Italia has the best painters.

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....?

This is exactly what I am talking about. White civs being selected simply because they are white or whites claim to know the better. He hasn't even seen Tinkle's work yet he says the Vong Goat is automatically better. Why? Because he is white and from Europe so no one who is not white european can paint better than a white european accroding to this dude. You are the racisst not me.

Hehehehe. Ghahfi, I think that before you start making inflamatory statements about the effects various civilizations have had on world history, you should at least know what you are talking about. I must agree with you, however, that Ethiopia should be included over some of the other civs (Zulus come to mind immediately). Many westerners have not studied history enough to realize the depth of Ethiopian culture, or the effect they have had on Africa and the Middle East, as well as reciprocal effects or Greek, and later European culture. I know it's a bit of a small thing, but I thank God every day that an Ethiopian goatherder was curious enough to wonder why his goats got high by eating these funny beans on some wierd plant. Without him, I would die of coffee withdrawal.

Back to my first point though, please read or study a bit more about the colonial period before you say that the Dutch don't deserve to be in the game. Also, the Morrs controlled Spain for many years, as well as Sicily. They did NOT control France, or the majority of the Italian peninsula. As a Sicilian who is descended from there Morrs, I know what I am talking about on this one. As for India and Portugal, please study a bit more before you say ignorant things. They are far more important to world history than many African civs. Please read some more, and then come back. Ciao.

It is possible but as I said highly unlikely that your ancestor are moors considering the southern portion of Italy was not held long by the moors it was in France and parts of Northern Italy were the moor strong hold was in Europe includeing spain and portugal. You are more likely a descendent of carthgians than moors if you are from sicily because that was owned by a long time by africans. It is not fair that Portugal is recognized but moors aren't. You can't tell me the Moors didn't control France because I know that is a load of deleted. I took history ok and I'm from Algeria so don't piss in my ear and tell its raining excuse my french.

Moderator Action: Warned for langauge.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CTM]

I'm done replying to Ghafhi. Every time I read a post of his I get this recurring pain in the side of my head like I just read something really friggin' stupid.

You sir, are an idiot. Forgive me for being harsh, but nothing you've said (and I'm just talking about your rebuttals to my posts) stands up to reason. I really don't give a damn what the moderators think

Moderator Action: Maybe you should when it comes to the forum rules. Also, hard warning for flaming and harsh tone.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

, either: it needs to be said. Give it up, Ghafhi, and mod the damn civ into your game when it comes out. That way, we can avoid topics like this.

Any topic complaining about what civ isn't in the game is a lost cause. Give it up, cry to yourself, and mod whatever unpleases you. Isn't that a basic concept behind the game to begin with? Sheesh.

 

[10Seven]

You sir, are an idiot. Forgive me for being harsh, but nothing you've said (and I'm just talking about your rebuttals to my posts) stands up to reason. I really don't give a damn what the moderators think, either: it needs to be said. Give it up, Ghafhi, and mod the damn civ into your game when it comes out. That way, we can avoid topics like this.

You could simply choose to agree to disagree, rather than being abusive.

 

[doronron]

Here's the link where Ghafhi picked up his most recent information, and this already shows Ethiopia is nowhere near the oldest civilization in Africa or anywhere else. It also shows how dependent Ethiopia was on Europe. One of the major events listed details Ethiopia asking Portugal for help. For those just tuning in, Portugal is one of the Civilizations Ghafhi considers a "do-nothing".

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/ethiopia_history.asp

Here's more detailed reading for those interested:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/spaansen/history1.htm

Funny, though, none of these seem to show Ethiopia to be the powerhouse Ghafhi claims it to be. Ethiopia made agood local power, and wouldn't be a bad expansion civ, but it's not the equal of the nations he's been bashing throughout this entire thread.

EDIT: I also just noticed this webspace is hosted in the Netherlands. By the way Ghafhi, the Netherlands are the Dutch! It seems this Dutch person cares a bit more about studying others' cultures and history than you do!

Oh, and here's something on Beethooven:

http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/beethoven.html

Mentions no Moors there and shows that most of his work would have been impossible if not for the Patronage of the Austrian king.

And Rembrandt, a short piece from the National Gallery of Victoria:

http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/collection/international/painting/r/rembrandt/biography.html

It seems at least one curator is well aware of who Rembrandt was. Funny enough -- no Moors mentioned here, either?

 

[troytheface]

lol-- "one dutch painter" .....Vermeer, Ruebens, Van Gogh, Rembrandt...."
"Italia has the best painters" ....lol- tell that to the French
I looked up Tinkels painting and it is really bad- almost naive- stiff -lifeless
areas that looks like they are suppssed to be modeled and are flat-
seen better work from talented high school students.
Not kinda bad -really bad- there is no new innovation- no new style- nothing unique at all about it from what i can see-
looking at that and comparing it to Van Gogh or Rembrandt is laughable-
in so far as racist- never called u one-but now i see the writing on the wall- there is the chip on shoulder syndrome at work-
In so far as Carver's "Japan is Westernized" - u ask for a country outside of the west that knows about Van Gogh- i deliver- and Japan is not really an eastern country....I am sure Chinese Universities know who Van Gogh is as well-
Preferences are preferences based on different criterea and this i understand
and progress may not be one of ur criterea which is cool-

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: CTM, please read your warning on post here
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889.


Moderator Action: Ghafhi, you should edit your posts instead of posting a new one. Posts merged.

Moderator Action: Everyone, let's cool down on the bickering, ok?

 

[doronron]

A little something about Van Gogh:

http://www.artistgarden.co.uk/Van_gogh.htm

A whole lot of little somethings about Van Gogh:

http://www.google.com/search?q="van+gogh+history"&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

It seems he's considered famous. I'm shocked...

Hmmm. Let's try Afewerk Tekle:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q="Afewerk+Tekle+history"

Not much there. Let's try another phrase:

http://www.tadias.com/v1n7/coverstory.html

That's a little better. Hmmm. Seems he was trained in London and generally educated abroad. I bet he studied the works of Van Gogh and Rembrandt while he was there. We'll also need to give him 115 years after his death to see if he's still as well remembered as Van Gogh is.

The thought that Ethiopia would hide its great art is absurd. At the very least, they'd be proud of their accomplishments and want to show it off for the world. It would make the government money if they hung that level of quality in their national museum for the tourists.

Chieftess, I'd be more than happy to stop if Ghafhi would apologize for attacking and making wild claims about people he obviously knows nothing of.

 

[Superkrest]

well..im clearly giving up this argument...i really dont even know if the ghafi knows what hes arguing for anymore...egypt not north africans..look at a map my man..thats as ubsurd as saying the russians dont count as europeans becuase many of them are asian. whatever. its a mute point for someone who refuses to relent...GHAFI...WE HAVE ALL AT ONE POINT AGREED WITH YOU. It was only when you used your acusations of ignorance at us by being..dare i say..extremely ignorant. your from algeria..great ..im a member of an american indian tribe and some of your comments were extremely offensive. but maybe you couldnt see that in your posts..which is fine. i dont take things to heart hear..just be mindfull that when your making an argument about ignorance that you have...1. a clear goal of what your trying to accomplish 2. you are NOT offensive yourself 3. that when you complain of culture bashing you don not do it yourself. as for me..unless i read something totally apaulling (like the beer drinking indians comment) i see no point in further posting. GHAFI ..we may not be as versed as you about certain african points of history...but earlier coments about north america were extremely dumb and not informed... im implore you to get at least some facts..before going on the attack. we all know that history is perspective...but look beyond that and see why theres only one rep from the americas and africa???? as a native i can see it. just as you should see why the malis and only them are there...there are only 18 civs in the game...add appesements (MALI , AZTECS) then go with the cream of the world crop.

 

[doronron]

Superkrest, I also have some Native American ancestry. It's part of why I decided to study world history, linguistics, and focus on a number of different regions to understand their culture and what made the world we live in today.

 

[CTM]

But hey, I'm in the mood to argue, let's go over what good ol' Ghafhi had to say:

Ethiopia wasn't a pushover because most of Europe can't beat them in war.

So now we're making a leap of faith and including "most of Europe" instead of the original European nations involved (two) when discussing this subject. Peh. Nothing more needs to be said here.

If Hitler never sent so many German troops then Italy would have lost again.

Of course, you would not know that for sure, but I seriously doubt it, given this time around Italy made itself committed to its conquest. Having already conquered most of it (and attempts made at colonizing it), it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. It would take Westerners to drive Westerners out of Ethiopia, in the end.

The Italians lost the first four battles in Ethiopia until the Germans came. If beating an occupier is considered beating that country then most of Europe including the dutch got beat by britain.

Ignoring your sweeping generalization, that logic makes absolutely no sense. Britain occupied "most of Europe", which ended up in turn "beating Britain"? Excuse me sir, but what exactly are you talking about here? I have trouble even following it.

Ok if Italy lost was one simple tactical mistake as you claim then why did they have to wait 50 years before they re-invaded ethiopia it is because not only did ethiopia win but Italia was slughtered and Italian troops feared Ethiopian troops.

Italy did not invade Ethiopia again because it saw no need to invade again. The "invasion" in 1896 was an expedition force sent in to reinforce an Italian claim to the territory. After losing at Adawa, Italy signed a peace treaty recognizing Ethiopia's independence. Italy in 1936 was not the same Italy of 1896. Mussolini saw a chance to increase his prestige and that of his nation by invading the country again, which meant violating the peace treaty signed those forty years previous. It had nothing to do with "Italian slaughter" or whatever you were getting at. "Oh, yeah, they got slaughtered, let's wait 40 years before we invade again!" And the statement following it is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on it. Waste of time anyway.

It is essentially true that no other weapon besides the nuclear bomb and the tank changed war as much as the gun and possible the bow because it changed war fare.

"The atomic bomb and tank changed war because it changed warfare." Um, all right. Please tell me you just weren't paying attention while you were typing.

They did win the first crusade on jerusalem and lost every single one there after.

However, the fact that they were able to carve Christian kingdoms right into the heart of Islam is a feat of itself. They were eventually driven out, but that's just it: they had to be driven out, as they were the invaders. Europe possessed the ability to invade faraway lands. For the Muslims at this time, it was simply impossible. These same Europeans would go on to explore the New World and establish colonies all around the globe.

How about the childs crusade were 12 year old kids were sent to fight because all the capable men in europe were dead or injured.

That's believed to be false. Anyway, the reasoning given behind it had nothing to do with the reasons you posted, which again appears you made up on the spot.

The point Europe is ok without the gun but not so hot as you believe.

The point is, you make stuff up and pass it along as fact to try to make your own assertions look like they have credence when in fact it's all a bunch of horse****.

Yeah the Romans were tough but why don't you recognize that much of the Roman empire was black.

What? When did race come into this? Now the Romans are tough because most of the empire was black?

Septimus Severus black ruler of Rome in 193 ad. Surely you cannot deny the black presence in Rome if an African was a leader.

Surely you must realize I never said anything about this whatsoever and that you brought it up. However, now that you did, I can tell you right now you're again making things up. Most of the Roman Empire was not black; at its height, it was made up of peoples from Italy, the Balkans, Gaul, Britain, Spain, bits of Germany, and the near Middle East, as well as North Africa, where "black" would have come in.

As for the comment about America, again, you've taken the whole subject off some wild tangent that has nothing to do with the argument.

And you wonder why I have issues with this guy.

 

[Superkrest]

and besides most north africans(LIKE EGYPT) we not black africans..though alot were ..not all alot of them (carthage egypt,,,,the whole medditeranean basin) were moslty arab africans.....the only valid point of power that i can think of for ethopia's world force would be the kingdom of nubia, which sent troops to aid egypt. but as i said before its dumb that i even made this post because in no way will it matter. some people only hear what they want to hear

 

[Civrules]

Moderator Action: This thread is going nowhere. Closed.
CTM, banned for three days for ignoring a moderator's warning.
Everyone else, hopefully next time you can lead an intelligent conversation, not a messy argument.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889