What makes a Civilization?

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, since the root of the word "civilization" comes from the word for "city", I am rather biased in that direction. It need not carry any implicit moral judgment, so a culturally advanced society can exist without being civilized.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

What makes a Civilization?

A language that has the word 'civilization'.

 

[Blue Monkey]

Well, since the root of the word "civilization" comes from the word for "city", I am rather biased in that direction.

As were the Romans

A language that has the word 'civilization'.

So I guess only the English speaking cultures? For example, the Australians, but not the Japanese?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As were the Romans So I guess only the English speaking cultures? For example, the Australians, but not the Japanese?

[sarcasm]
He's quite obviously referring to the rightful domination of the world by the Anglicanized peoples. I mean, what do we have colonies for, anyway?
[/sarcasm]

 

[Blue Monkey]

He has to mean Americanized, since he spelled it with a z rather than an s.

 

[brennan]

In which case I must point out that the correct spelling is Civilisation.

 

[Swedishguy]

Blasphemy! The correct spelling is (1^111$^10/

 

[Zenon_pt]

What makes a Civilization?
For me, nation/state/kingdom/empire had to contribute something positive, e.g. knowledge, to the world, to the society, to the terms of living in a community with people!

 

[Angst]

The ability to make a rude hand gesture.

 

[Blue Monkey]

The really cool thing about this thread lately is that it's really helping me pad out my ignore list.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The really cool thing about this thread lately is that it's really helping me pad out my ignore list.

Do you really feel that strongly about the definition of the word "civilization"?

 

[Blue Monkey]

Do you really feel that strongly about the definition of the word "civilization"?

No, only about those who prove they have none by their "answers". Since I posted

Okay. With sound academic backing from the relevant disciplines of archeology and anthropology, the sedentary=civilization argument boils down to must have cities. And that's certainly the way Civilization (the game that is our mutual obsession) is set up.

But here's the question. Put aside the legitimately falsified hypotheses. Brainstorm, especially those of us that are skeptical. Can we create a working definition of a civilization that would fit nomadic cultures.

For example, apart from the Polynesians version of plant domestication by transplant - allowing their continued voyaging because of predictable availability of standardized resources there is also the Samis domestication of migratory reindeer. Traditional shepherds such as the Basque, who do have permanent settlements, also engage in seasonal migration to follow their flocks' food supply.

So let's try to create a new definition that is inclusive of nomads, that can then be implemented; stretching Civilization 3: Conquest in a new direction.

only your own and one other post have been actual replies. I'm responsible for the moderator(s) combining pieces of two design threads that got OT into this more abstract discussion. To further a discussion that might lead to a mod of interest of many players I'd hoped for posts that more directly address the challenge I presented. But I guess dealing with those whose goal is a high post count and who mistake the Three Stooges for the Marx Brothers is the disadvantage of seeking intellectual acrobats possessed of virtuosity (inclusive of autodidacts and dilettantes, as well as genuine mavens & doyens of their respective fields) in the OT forum.

 

[Stormrage]

I have to admit you people talk to much for me to join in, but I do wish you the best of luck in reaching a conclusion

 

[Zenon_pt]

The really cool thing about this thread lately is that it's really helping me pad out my ignore list.

Sorry but what are you saying?

 

[Blue Monkey]

Sorry but what are you saying?

As part of our accounts here each of us has an "ignore list". By putting someone's name on the list the contents of all their posts are automatically blanked out on your screen (others see them as normal). It's kind of like being able to turn off the sound when there's obnoxious inane commercials on tv.

 

[Cannae]

It's a subjective matter that is silly in large part to define.

 

[Blue Monkey]

It's a subjective matter that is silly in large part to define.

Okay. With sound academic backing from the relevant disciplines of archeology and anthropology, the sedentary=civilization argument boils down to must have cities. And that's certainly the way Civilization (the game that is our mutual obsession) is set up.

But here's the question. ... Can we create a working definition of a civilization ... that is inclusive of nomads, that can then be implemented; stretching Civilization 3: Conquest in a new direction.

Does no one actually read a thread before posting?

 

[Cannae]

Does no one actually read a thread before posting?

Yes I did, also I don't disagree with the intentions you have. In fact, from the basics I know it sounds like a good idea to me. If you really want to have a good way to judge things don't look at how the build cities or were nomadic, look at the overall impact the said group had on world and local history. For instance you could say that the Tupi(I think that the right group) are a good nation to have because they managed to give the Portugese government a lot of problems in Brazil. Some other exsamples are the Caribs because the entire fate of the Americas and in effect the world depened on them.

 

[Elrohir]

Part of the problem with the whole game is that it's never clear what a "civilization" actually is. Is it a country? A race? A region? Or what? A term that apparently can refer to both the Celts (but not the Bantu!) and the United States of America (but not Brazil!) doesn't mean an awful lot to me. So arguments over whether Sumeria and Babylon should both be in the game, and so on, can't really be resolved, because there's such vagueness over what the criteria for inclusion are.

Well first, I'm not sure that it'd be accurate to say that there's no "Brazilian" civilization. Just because it isn't in the game doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But I suppose you're interested in general definitions of civilization, not just in relation to the game, right? OK then, my thoughts are below. Keep in mind that this is largely a subjective topic.

In many ways, civilization is a concept that is a combination of things, but is truly none of them. A civilization often has a common language and religion, and exists in a geographical area. When we say "Western Civilization", we're thinking of the civilization that originated in Western Europe, which has several main languages (English and the Romance languages) and a common religious heritage (Christianity of varying stripes). And yet, no single thing is necessary for having a civilization: "Western Civilization" DOES have different languages, as noted. The religious beliefs and geographical areas are often highly fragmented and diverse. (I would say the US counts as part of Western Civilization, but try comparing the Vatican to the Westboro Baptist Church, or the New Mexico desert to Switzerland, and you'll see what I mean) So it isn't accurate to say that a civilization truly is any of these things, even if they commonly come along with civilization. What is a civilization?

Personally, I'd say it is a functional society with common values based upon common elements in a common heritage. Furthermore, there are "levels" of civilization, and the larger and higher you go on the scale, the fewer common elements tie them all together.

For example, I would say that Western Civilization does exist, as an abstract. But so does American civilization, as a subset of Western civilization. And there's a general human civilization what covers Western civ. but is much more general and in some ways less important.

Also, while civilizations commonly have permanent residences and cities, I don't think they are truly necessary for civilization, at least as I define it. After all, what makes a civilization is its people, not its buildings - the buildings are shaped by the people and exist for the people, not the other way around. However, there must be a fairly large population in order for a true civilization on any real scale to develop, and they must live in at least some sort of proximity to each other. I wouldn't say that small groups of hunter gatherers of 10-20 people could have a civilization, just a small social group. Nomadic people like the Bedouins, who travel in larger groups and interact with other large groups with common values, language and heritage, would probably qualify as having their own sort of civilization, even if they do not have cities per se.

That's my somewhat rambling and incomplete view on the subject. I'll be sure to think on this more later.

 

[Blue Monkey]

For instance you could say that the Tupi(I think that the right group) are a good nation to have

Thanks for the pointer to the Tupi, that lead me also to the Guarani. I was looking for some other forest dwellers to complement the Mbuti. If I do eventually make a mod I want culture groups based on geography - Desert Dwellers, Plains Nomads, Forest Assarters, Seafarers, Tundra/Mountain Herders.