What 5 Civilizations Should Always Be In Civ?

[bman003]

[jk] I think china should be in. However, the People's Republic of Boulder should never be in. [/jk]

 

[Ranos]

1) Egypt - The first great civ that brought many advancements into being.
2) Rome - Bringing "civilization" to most of Europre and northern Africa as well as many great concepts and advancements. The world would not be what it is today without Rome.
3) China - Very old civ and the current largest. This is practically a given.
4) England - Created or conquered colonies on 4 continents (not counting Europe as they never really conquered anything there). They brought technology and civilization to more of the world than any other civ.
5) America - Brought many of the great advancements to the modern world as well as winning two world wars. Yes I'm American, but I'm also right.

 

[Willem]

5) America - Brought many of the great advancements to the modern world as well as winning two world wars. Yes I'm American, but I'm also right.

You mean helped to win two world wars, they didn't exactly do it on their own. In fact in both wars, they didn't enter until everyone else had been fighting for quite awhile.

 

[Bart Simpson]

Plz i want the vikings!!

 

[Ranos]

You mean helped to win two world wars, they didn't exactly do it on their own. In fact in both wars, they didn't enter until everyone else had been fighting for quite awhile.

And everyone else was getting their rears handed to them.

I actually meant what I said.

If the US had not entered WWI, it would have either drug on for much longer or Germany would control parts of France as well as the territory it gave up under the conditions of surrender.

If the US hadn't entered WWII, Germany would have eventually been able to overwhelm England and then turned its full attention on Russia.

The world would look much different had the US not entered those wars when it did.

I know that many other countries had troops fighting in those wars, but it wasn't until the US joined that the tide turned. In my book, that means the US won the wars.

 

[Willem]

And everyone else was getting their rears handed to them.

I actually meant what I said.

If the US had not entered WWI, it would have either drug on for much longer or Germany would control parts of France as well as the territory it gave up under the conditions of surrender.

If the US hadn't entered WWII, Germany would have eventually been able to overwhelm England and then turned its full attention on Russia.

The world would look much different had the US not entered those wars when it did.

I know that many other countries had troops fighting in those wars, but it wasn't until the US joined that the tide turned. In my book, that means the US won the wars.

Well I won't dispute the fact that the US tipped the scales in both those wars, but it seems rather unfair to claim full responsibility for them. And I'm not so sure about the second one. I think Russia was doing a pretty good job of driving the Germans back when the Americans finally came on the scene. But at least it spared Europe from being mainly Communist at the end of the war.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

originally posted by Ranos
The world would look much different had the US not entered those wars when it did

The world would have looked much different if Austria didn´t cause WWI, if the Ottomans didn´t conquer the middle East and the Balkony, if the Germans didn´t participate in WWI and II, if France didn´t almost conquer Europe under Napoleon, if Russia wasn´t opposing the US during the cold war, if Spain didn´t colonise South and Middle America,...

I fail to see how the (late) participation of the US in WWI and II is such an outstanding achievement to include them in the top5 civilisations.

 

[Ranos]

The world would have looked much different if Austria didn´t cause WWI, if the Ottomans didn´t conquer the middle East and the Balkony, if the Germans didn´t participate in WWI and II, if France didn´t almost conquer Europe under Napoleon, if Russia wasn´t opposing the US during the cold war, if Spain didn´t colonise South and Middle America,...

I fail to see how the (late) participation of the US in WWI and II is such an outstanding achievement to include them in the top5 civilisations.

First, Serbia caused WWI by assasinating the Archduke of Austria-Hungary.

Second, if you would read my original post where I listed the five civs I would choose, you would see that there were more reasons for the inclusion of the US than just the world wars.

Many other civs brought many accomplishments to the world by conquering and/or civilizing other nations. The five that I chose are the ones that I think brought the most to this world.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Carthage.

 

[Willem]

Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Carthage.

Why Carthage? They were a pretty minor civ that got wiped off the face of the earth by the Romans. I can't recall anything of lasting value that they contributed to the world as we know it today. Though I must admit I don't know their history very well.

 

[civchu]

Confederate States of America
Texas
California
The 13 Colonies
The Apache

damm yanks

 

[Tiberius209]

Why Carthage? They were a pretty minor civ that got wiped off the face of the earth by the Romans. I can't recall anything of lasting value that they contributed to the world as we know it today. Though I must admit I don't know their history very well.

Willem, Carthage was originally just a colony of the Phoenicians which, in time, became far more powerful than the mother country - and lasted far longer. They were the primary reason why the Greeks gave up their colonization movement in the western Mediterranean and instead focused their efforts on the Black Sea area. To further clarify, the Greek era of colonization was from roughly 750-550BC. The first century of that was primarily to the west and the second to the east. A principal reason for the shift was that Carthage was becoming a major military and naval power at the time and was simply conquering the Greek colonies - i.e. Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily.

Really, I always thought the Carthaginians were an odd tribe to include. Maybe someone with more knowledge can flesh them out, but I always viewed them as the inheritors of a great tradition that did nothing to really expand on it and instead focused their entire energies on military expansion... until they came up against someone bigger and badder (or at leats 'badder'). The Phoenicians, from which Carthage sprang, with their alphabet would have been a more accurate representation of a true 'Civilization'.

Still, the average person knows more about Hannibal and the Punic Wars than they do about Phoenicia, and I suspect that it was that familiarity that made the choice for Sid.

Actually, the AVERAGE person probably knows nothing of either.

 

[Mirc]

First, Serbia caused WWI by assasinating the Archduke of Austria-Hungary.

This was just the fact Austria-Hungary needed to start the war. The war would have started even with Franz Ferdinand alive. The real reason for the war was that there were to many powerful countries who became strong too late, and they didn't have the possibility to expand even if they were much more advanced than some big countries (i.e. Germany was an advanced country who became strong too late to get it's part of the world, like the other countries did).

 

[EdwardTking]

If the US hadn't entered WWII, Germany would have eventually been able to overwhelm England and then turned its full attention on Russia.

Do check your facts. Germany had already failed to overwhelm England and turned its attention on Russia.

The world would look much different had the US not entered those wars when it did.

The USA did not enter WWII. Japan and Germany attacked the USA.
The USA's policy was of craven cowardice. Its policy of strict neutrality was exactly the same as Sweden and Switzerland without even the excuse that they were small and vulnerable, and unlike them, unsuccessful.

I know that many other countries had troops fighting in those wars, but it wasn't until the US joined that the tide turned. In my book, that means the US won the wars.

Consider this.

Joe goes out for a meal with four colleagues. Bill comes to $100 dollars.

Chang puts $25 dollars on table. John puts $25 on table. Ivan puts $25 dollars on table. When Joe realises that nobody else is going to pay his share, he puts $25 dollars on the table and then says "I saved you all because your $75 dollars wasn't enough to meet the bill".

Joe then goes back to the office and spends the next 60 years telling the story of how he bought everybody lunch and how ungrateful they are.

Needless to say Chang, John and Ivan are not impressed.


And that is exactly how the rest of the world sees your claims.

 

[EdCase]

Edwardtheking.......I applaud your analogy...but beware, as an Englishman with children in the American education system I can state quite confidently that..........
Everything I have ever learnt about history post 1776 is in fact fairytales (or at least as far as the history they are trying to teach my children).
I have a greater understanding now of the "tunnel vision" outlook sometimes encountered when conversing with Americans.

 

[Tiberius209]

The USA did not enter WWII. Japan and Germany attacked the USA.
The USA's policy was of craven cowardice. Its policy of strict neutrality was exactly the same as Sweden and Switzerland without even the excuse that they were small and vulnerable, and unlike them, unsuccessful.

"Craven cowardice"? Nice. I suppose you would apply that label to the Soviets then too? Put that way, only the U.K. was not a "craven coward". I'm not going to say anything else about the U.K. here. As far as I'm concerned they, like their leader, were very heroic.

By your logic, though, I just have to add that, by your definition, the bulk of the world is now full of the craven and cowardly... Relatively few of us are actively fighting the current "World War" even though these terrorist goons affect us all. Me? I think a fair number of people are "blind" as opposed to "cowards". That same adjective is also better applied to the U.S. pre-1941.

Consider this.

Joe goes out for a meal with four colleagues. Bill comes to $100 dollars.

Chang puts $25 dollars on table. John puts $25 on table. Ivan puts $25 dollars on table. When Joe realises that nobody else is going to pay his share, he puts $25 dollars on the table and then says "I saved you all because your $75 dollars wasn't enough to meet the bill".

Joe then goes back to the office and spends the next 60 years telling the story of how he bought everybody lunch and how ungrateful they are.

Needless to say Chang, John and Ivan are not impressed.


And that is exactly how the rest of the world sees your claims.

Not quite a good analogy. The U.S. didn't eat any lunch. Neither, in fact, did the U.K. or the Soviets.

What happened was "Sam", "Ivan", "Jack", and "Le Wimp" were all sitting at separate tables when they noticed the waiter hitting other lesser patrons up for a bill they didn't earn. "Sam" ignored it, saying it wasn't his problem. "Ivan" made a deal with the waiter by which both of them would go shake down another patron together. "Jack" and "Le Wimp" originally try to talk to the bully waiter, assuming that he's rational and reasonable.

When he proves that he's not and goes to bully still more tables (who haven't yet ordered anything, mind you - keep in mind that the waiter just wants money!), Jack and Le Wimp finally intercede. Of course, Le Wimp gets punched once and immediately decides to 1) not fight the waiter anymore and 2) actually JOIN the waiter in bullying others (even though Le Wimp will always be a second class citizen to the waiter). After the waiter and Jack fight for a while, the waiter gets bored and so attacks Ivan (even though they were both friends when they shook down that other table).

Somehow, neither Ivan nor Jack combined can get a grapple on the waiter, though, until Sam is forced into the fight by another waiter... at which point Sam beats the living crap out of both waiters.

THEN, Sam also 1) pays all the medical and food bills for everyone at the restaurant, 2) gets all the downtrodden patrons new jobs, 3) rebuilds all their homes, 4) protects most of them from Ivan, who wants to be the new big bully (after all, he has mucho bullying experience already), and then 5) goes home, after which for the next 60 years he is badmouthed by the children of the very people he helped. After all, cite the CHILDREN of the patrons who were in the restaurant that day, "our parents had the waiter right where they wanted him... until Sam came around".

Now the children of Sam wonder why their dad even bothered helping a bunch of ingrates - not the beating the waiters, of course. Sam was attacked and so had to do that, but he sure didn't have to pay all the bills, find jobs for everyone, etc.

 

[Willem]

Now the children of Sam wonder why their dad even bothered helping a bunch of ingrates - not the beating the waiters, of course. Sam was attacked and so had to do that, but he sure didn't have to pay all the bills, find jobs for everyone, etc.

You forget to mention that Sam's children were car salesmen/women, and that finding jobs for everyone ensured that they had people around who could afford to buy their vehicles.

 

[Tiberius209]

You forget to mention that Sam's children were car salesmen/women, and that finding jobs for everyone ensured that they had people around who could afford to buy their vehicles.

Oh, of course, Willem. How silly of me. We did it all for us. There is nothing in the American heart but greed and love of profit. How typically cynical of the Canadians and Europeans.

Of course, it begs the question of why we just didn't keep Germany for ourselves. Look at all that wealth we could have sucked into our economy. And don't say we couldn't have done it. The Soviets kept their piece after all... And then there's Japan. We could have just owned that country too.

At the very least, why did we forgive all the debt - not just of Germany, but also Japan and the rest of Europe? Shouldn't we still be charging interest on it? After all, we're only after money, right?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually I think England makes reasonable sense as a representative for all modern+Western Civs if one is limited to 5 total. And for the previous argument, had Columbus really been right, then England wouldn't have been Lend-Leased equipment so Germany probably could have at least forced a favorable peace treaty. (considering the war went on for 3 years even After the US joined)

The only reason any of the patrons got involved because they were afraid that the waiter would start hitting Them up for money soon enough

 

[Willem]

Oh, of course, Willem. How silly of me. We did it all for us. There is nothing in the American heart but greed and love of profit. How typically cynical of the Canadians and Europeans.

Of course, it begs the question of why we just didn't keep Germany for ourselves. Look at all that wealth we could have sucked into our economy. And don't say we couldn't have done it. The Soviets kept their piece after all... And then there's Japan. We could have just owned that country too.

At the very least, why did we forgive all the debt - not just of Germany, but also Japan and the rest of Europe? Shouldn't we still be charging interest on it? After all, we're only after money, right?

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the motivation of the US was purely selfish and based on greed. But it wasn't entirely based on altruism either. It was to the best interests of all involved to see Europe rebuilt. The US at that time had a smoking economy and was producing goods at a phenomenal rate. It had to do something with them, and getting Europe back on it's feet was the best course of action it could take in order to get rid of them, especially since it would now have to move away from wartime production. Otherwise, the US may very well have slipped back into a Depression. No markets, no sales. No sales, no jobs.

Just don't claim that it was done "purely" out of the goodness of the American heart. There were other factors at work that are quite plain to see if you look.

PS: Being European born, I'm grateful that the US finally dragged their butts into the war. Otherwise I might still be in Holland speaking German. But I'm getting heartily sick of hearing that the world owes the US something for it. As can be seen by Pearl Harbour, it was becoming an issue for domestic security for the US just as much as for everyone else. They didn't do it just because they were such nice guys, they just finally realized that they might be next and it was to their own best interest to help everyone else to put an end to it.