Unfortunate geographic losers

[Bowsling]

Dude.... CivIV has Persian Immortals on horseback.

 

[G-Max]

Yes, I'm aware of that too. Why is everyone telling me what I already know?

 

[Bowsling]

I was pointing out that using a game oriented around gameplay rather than accuracy is no way to prove a point. Not that your point was wrong.

 

[gangleri2001]

Though I don't like it, I must acknowledge that we Catalans are a good example of geographic loser. Being an obstacle to the expansion of the Spanish, French and Ottoman empires was incredible bad luck

I was pointing out that using a game oriented around gameplay rather than accuracy is no way to prove a point. Not that your point was wrong.

He was not proving a point, he was just stating that he knows that thanks to civ.

 

[kochman]

Though I don't like it, I must acknowledge that we Catalans are a good example of geographic loser. Being an obstacle to the expansion of the Spanish, French and Ottoman empires was incredible bad luck

He was not proving a point, he was just stating that he knows that thanks to civ.

Ottomans?
You mean, the Moors?

 

[Leoreth]

NO WAI!

Seriously, dude... Civ IV has both the Babylonians and Sumerians. I'm not quite sure what you expected to accomplish by telling me that there were multiple mesopotamian cultures.

Wasn't talking directly to you there, so calm down.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Ottomans?
You mean, the Moors?

He's probably talking about Aragonese holdings in Sicily and Southern Italy, which at some point came under attack from the Ottomans. Though I'm not entirely sure if Aragon was still an independent kingdom when these attacks occurred.

Though raid would better describe the action, as no serious campaign into Italy came about from it.

 

[bombshoo]

He's probably talking about Aragonese holdings in Sicily and Southern Italy, which at some point came under attack from the Ottomans. Though I'm not entirely sure if Aragon was still an independent kingdom when these attacks occurred.

Though raid would better describe the action, as no serious campaign into Italy came about from it.

Or referencing the Catalan Company, though that's a bit of a stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company

 

[gangleri2001]

He's probably talking about Aragonese holdings in Sicily and Southern Italy, which at some point came under attack from the Ottomans. Though I'm not entirely sure if Aragon was still an independent kingdom when these attacks occurred.

Though raid would better describe the action, as no serious campaign into Italy came about from it.

Or referencing the Catalan Company, though that's a bit of a stretch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_Company

No, I'm not referring to our holdings in southern Italy and any military action that may have taken place there or the Catalan Company. See my answer to kochman and you'll understand.

Ottomans?
You mean, the Moors?

No, the taifa kingdoms were a blessing. The problem of the CROWN of Aragon (people here really need to learn about the difference between Kingdom of Aragon and Crown of Aragon (aka. Catalano-aragonese Crown)) is that it was a thalassocracy. In fact is the perfect example of a late medieval thalassocracy and, therefore, it had a high dependency on trade in the Mediterranean area. Once the Ottomans begun to be an obstacle in trade across the Mediterranean, the whole net of trade routes on which the power, influence and wealth of the Crown relied begun to collapse.

It's no coincidence that the early explorations of the Americas (including the voyages of Columbus) were funded by Castile but made using Catalan ships and technology since Castile had no navy and we needed to find an alternative to the mediterranean trade routes at any cost since our commercial system was collapsing.

The Catalan funding of Skanderbeg's resistance against the Ottomans, our cooperation in the battle of Lepanto or the fact that the Catalan coast wass infested with barbary pirates paid by the Ottomans for two centuries (thanks US for freeding us) are other good examples of this Ottoman-Catalan rivalry.

 

[G-Max]

He was not proving a point, he was just stating that he knows that thanks to civ.

Actually, I knew it many years before I'd ever heard of Civ. I was just using Civ 4 to illustrate that the unbelievably obvious was being stated.

Wasn't talking directly to you there, so calm down.

Then why did you quote me?

 

[kochman]

No, the taifa kingdoms were a blessing. The problem of the CROWN of Aragon (people here really need to learn about the difference between Kingdom of Aragon and Crown of Aragon (aka. Catalano-aragonese Crown)) is that it was a thalassocracy. In fact is the perfect example of a late medieval thalassocracy and, therefore, it had a high dependency on trade in the Mediterranean area. Once the Ottomans begun to be an obstacle in trade across the Mediterranean, the whole net of trade routes on which the power, influence and wealth of the Crown relied begun to collapse.

It's no coincidence that the early explorations of the Americas (including the voyages of Columbus) were funded by Castile but made using Catalan ships and technology since Castile had no navy and we needed to find an alternative to the mediterranean trade routes at any cost since our commercial system was collapsing.

The Catalan funding of Skanderbeg's resistance against the Ottomans, our cooperation in the battle of Lepanto or the fact that the Catalan coast wass infested with barbary pirates paid by the Ottomans for two centuries (thanks US for freeding us) are other good examples of this Ottoman-Catalan rivalry.

OK, I figured you meant Mediterranean trade, in that case...
And yes, when the Ottoman's put a relative strangle hold on the Med, it did create issues for other traders as well (Venice, Genova, etc).

 

[Tee Kay]

Venice did quite well for itself dealing with the Ottomans, when they're not at war, that is. The decline of the Ottoman Empire coincided with the decline of the Venetian Republic; both were fed on the trade routes from the East.

 

[Leoreth]

Then why did you quote me?

To continue your thought. I was referring to groups such as the Kassites, by the way.

 

[Winner]

Even before the Achaemenids came along Mesopotamia was basically target of constant outside invasions. In fact, who the Mesopotamians were changed quite often during the course of ancient history.

Ha, I remember when as school kids we were taught about the early Middle Eastern states - Babylonia, Assyria, etc., didn't matter, every chapter ended with a variation of "and then tribes from outside Mesopotamia came and destroyed the empire." We always laughed at that and for a time it was a popular meme among my classmates

 

[FriendlyFire]

We have a lot of history addicts around here, what unlucky groups have you encounters who seemed doomed by geography?

Easter Island ?

Chopping all those trees was rather suicidal.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I feel sorry for the easter Islands, they could've been such an awesome civ if they had enough resources for a proper population boom to make massive cities.

 

[Winner]

Easter Island ?

Chopping all those trees was rather suicidal.

But it was entirely their fault. It was their vanity and lack of foresight what destroyed them.

(A lesson contemporary politicians should better remember well...)

 

[Traitorfish]

But it was entirely their fault. It was their vanity and lack of foresight what destroyed them.

That's a pretty glib way of describing it. I don't disagree that it was "their fault", so much as that means anything, but to describe this as nothing more than mass-pathology is to swap out a critical anthropology for finger-waving, which does nobody any good. If you're going to understand why and how people act, you have to understand the context in which they act, in which their individual conciousness is formed and in which they will actually be asked to make decisions. You can't begin with an isolated Cartesian man and then attribute all his folly to just being a tosspot.

/too bloody marxian by half

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Aborigines, nuff said. You could say that Australia ,Papua New Guinea, even the Americas geopgraphicly lost because of the lack of power animals, that is animals that you can use to plow (speeding and improving agriculture) and ride (horses)...

 

[Winner]

That's a pretty glib way of describing it. I don't disagree that it was "their fault", so much as that means anything, but to describe this as nothing more than mass-pathology is to swap out a critical anthropology for finger-waving, which does nobody any good. If you're going to understand why and how people act, you have to understand the context in which they act, in which their individual conciousness is formed and in which they will actually be asked to make decisions. You can't begin with an isolated Cartesian man and then attribute all his folly to just being a tosspot.

/too bloody marxian by half

That's how you read it, I care little for your overintellectualized lectures.