nzk13
Some Jew-boy on Noble.
although, what I was saying does also apply to the native americans.
Which Civ do you want in Civ V?
- Thread starter nzk13
- Start date
And what makes Natives Americans barbarians?
nzk13
Some Jew-boy on Noble.
well, the definition of a barbarian nation is a nation that is not controlled by a defined code of laws, that govern commoner and monarch alike. The native americans did not posses that, did they?
The Iroquois CONFEDERACY would LOVE to have a word with you.
awesome
Meme Lord
well, there are over 500 federally recognized native american tribes in the united states alone, plus countless more that are either not federally recognized or were wiped out, so i'd say that you can't really group them together anyway other than where they lived. i'm not up on my native american history, but though there were definitely tribes that can be considered barbarian by the definition you gave, there were many that can't.
anyway, i'd to see brazil. gran columbia would be okay, too, but it existed for less than 20 years, if i remember correctly, so chances are it won't be in there.
anyway, i'd to see brazil. gran columbia would be okay, too, but it existed for less than 20 years, if i remember correctly, so chances are it won't be in there.
nzk13
Some Jew-boy on Noble.
The Iroquois Confederacy was an alliance of different independent states under a central federal government, similar to the United States, ancient Israel, the EU, and I'm sure there are many other examples. I'm talking about INDIVIDUAL states. The individual tribes of the iroquois confederacy did not have such laws. And when I say Native Americans, I mean in general, not in particular. The Incans have a sucky UU, so there. And on-topic, I believe that the youngest civ in the game should be the americans.
Well, America has the worst UU in the game while Huayna and the Quechua are considered one of the best leaders in the game
But generally, I can't disagree. It's most certainly true that in generalizing terms, that the Native Americans COULD be considered barbarians. In some cases. Not all.nzk13
Some Jew-boy on Noble.
Really? what's so good about the quecha? It isn't that good and it obsoletes so fast that it can only be used for the earliest rushes, which huayna's traits aren't good for; they're more designed for a builder style.
I've been asking for the Vietnamese to be added since Civ 2. Not in the main game of course but in an expansion pack.
The fact that they defeated three major military powers in the 20th century (France, USA and China) should be reason enough. They also defeated the Mongols circa 1280.
The fact that they defeated three major military powers in the 20th century (France, USA and China) should be reason enough. They also defeated the Mongols circa 1280.
Churchill's Hat
Mortal
So you spend the very early period quechua rushing and then you build for the next 5000 years if you want to. What, exactly, is the problem? Furthermore, a code of laws that govern the commoner and the monarch alike is hard to find. If you mean equally, that would be almost every civilization, with a few exceptions here and there. E.g., a citizen of the United States doesn't have veto power, and therefore the US are barbarians. If you mean, both are governed by them, then absolute monarchies in Europe would dip in and out of barbarism.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Well, you see, if you put that as a criteria, then ALMOST EVERY SINGLE CIVILIZATION ON THE PLANET until the last couple of hundred years would be "barbaric".
Rule of law is a concept that not all civilizations really applied or even considered.Code of laws does not separate between "civilization" and "barbarian". One of the most important traits of a civilization, as opposed to "barbarian" is urbanization, NOT laws. Urbanized societies. If so, a good number of 'native american' groups would qualify as civilizations - the MesoAmerican civilizations such as the Aztecs, Mayans, and Olmecs; the Andean civilizations like the Inca, Tiahuanco, or Huari; and a few others, such as the Missisipians.
Interesting discussion with the barbarians... although I'll stay out of it.
I'd love to see Israelites in Civ V (as mentioned above) and also the Hungarians. The case for having a Jewish civilization is soooo obvious I am not going to make the case here. As for Hungary, I believe that they were important first off as the Huns in Late Roman period (although they are slightly different from modern Hungarians/Magyars) and as a key player (sort of) in the Great War.
I'd love to see Israelites in Civ V (as mentioned above) and also the Hungarians. The case for having a Jewish civilization is soooo obvious I am not going to make the case here. As for Hungary, I believe that they were important first off as the Huns in Late Roman period (although they are slightly different from modern Hungarians/Magyars) and as a key player (sort of) in the Great War.
Churchill's Hat
Mortal
The case for a Jewish Civ is not so obvious. Especially not in Civ 5, given only 18 spots. While Israel was important religiously, that is not enough. The other centers of world religion (Arabia, India) had other things going for them, namely Arabia's dominance during the Middle Ages, and India's had many empires and is still a huge power. With 18 Civs, Israel really shouldn't be considered.
villagelder
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 26
I want the Hittites with their three-man chariots!
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
A barbarian nation is...anyone not defined as Roman co-opted from the Greeks, it is a word used by the Romans to describe anyone not of Rome....and earlier by the Greeks.
Though the modern word derives from the Latin.
By your definition, most nations were barbarian until the early 20th century.
On other points. Jewish..hmm not so much, since the dominant Abrahamic cultures were born from the "child" religions and impacted the world in a much more dramatic fashion.
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
Without wishing to seem overly confrontational. In what way has Israel impacted and influenced the world stage?
Before you mention anything religious..let me stop you, Christianity became a force due to the Roman adoption, and Judaism is exactly that a religion.
I fail to see it falling into ,the top 2 for its region, any of three categories as I see them.
Ancient-Classical-umm nope not overly influential, even within it's geographical region.
Medieval-early industrial- hard to say..since it wasn't in existence.
Modern - makes the news an awful lot around the world but beyond its positional significance, not exactly a game-changing superpower.
Whether it makes the world stage, is it important? No doubt it would be a plus but to solely judge a civilization based on that wouldn't leave much other choices (like the Zulu or Natives or if we were to expand on that idea then the only civilizations allowed for Europe would be either Germany,England and Russia).
What's wrong with religion? It falls under cultural which is an important concept in the game(or at least one precondition to winning).
For modern, Israel gains status through its technological and educational hub(producing the most scientific papers and businessmen(?) per capita by a large margin).
The only thing missing is medieval-early industrial but hey, America hasn't influenced in either ancient or medieval but they're still there (they make it up in industrial and modern).
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
I think France, Spain, Portugal, Italy to name a few would disagree. Israel was not a major player even within its geographical region when compared to its neighbors.
Religion as a concept has been removed from the game. So apparently Firaxis does not agree..plus as I stated in another post..the two child religions of Abrahamic origin had a far greater impact.
Ummm, not sure what to reply to that. Since it seems to have completely past me (and I suspect much of the world) by.
As regards America, indeed they make it as modern.
I'll repeat: 18 civs. 6 Ancient-classical, 6 medieval-early industrial, 6 Industrial-Modern. 2 from each of 3 major geographical regions: Europe/Mid-East, Asia/Far-East, The Americas. The two being "game-changers" in their time.
Where does Israel enter on this breakdown ?
Where do many countries?
Most of the lobbying for this nation and that is about NATIONS not civilizations-not "game-changers".
