Which civ LEAST deserves to be in the original 18?

[Kraznaya]

America. Commercial...eww... captilism is bad.

 

[Karnak]

I think they should all stay,b ut if I had to pick, I would say Egyptions. I don't think they had as much impact on wolrd history as the rest of the civs, their empire has not been around for many thousands of years, and a lot of what we know as Ancient Egypt was an invention by the French under Napoleon..

Please, please, please go read some history. Egypt lasted, in one form or another, for nearly 30 centuries and you think they had no impact on the development of civilization? Are you mad?

I'll grant they didn't have as large or direct an impact on modern governmental or philosophical systems as the Romans or, esspecially, the Greeks, but they nonetheless had profound impacts on the ancient world. They also had major impacts on world religious traditions such as Christianity.

Where the heck do you get the idea they were made up by the French? Yeesh.



I'd say Mali or Americans. I agree that the Aztecs should have been Olmec or Maya with the Maya being my preference due to the profound lack of hard knowledge about the Olmec. We don't even know what the Olmec called themselves, "Olmec" just means "rubber people" because rubber trees are common where their ruins are.

 

[Karnak]

Japan. Remove and replace with Pacific Islander civ to cover a much ignored area of the world. There has never been a civ from the Oceana continental area. This could also have a rondomized capital just like the Native Americans.

The pacific islanders were not a civilization. They were a culture, but they never developed the key things that are required for a culture to be considered a civilization, namely cities and the specialization that ensues when large populations are supported by others and can turn 100% of their efforts to things not even indirectly related to food production.

The Australian Aborigines fall into the same category.

 

[Ville]

Americans.

 

[Jonathan]

It doesn't look like either side is ever going to covince the other side that they are right, because in fact, we are both right (on our own little worlds). So this argument is futile and I will stop here and call a truce, unless another valid point is posted, or unless another comment is posted that I don't agree with. It was nice arguing with you, for now.

I'll shake hands on that. Yes, different people see the game in different ways, and therefore play it in different ways. Freedom is good. Politeness is good too, so thanks for that.

I never liked Star Trek, so clingons wouldn't be interesting to me. Football however is good...

I've never followed football (in any of its forms). I don't really rate Star Trek, which was mostly fairly ludicrous, but I must have seen most of the episodes of the original TV series at some time or other. They repeat endlessly all over the world. I think the last time I saw any of them was about 13 years ago, in Sweden with Swedish subtitles.

 

[thehouse]

It was christian monostaries protected the anceint greek texts the only probably was most of these monostaries were in areas taken by arabs. It was a christian monostary near bagdah which made it important place of learning. The arabs burnt down the great library

 

[diet_punk_rock]

bye france, MUAHAHAHAHA
i hate france

 

[Tiberius209]

The Arabs are the main reason a lot of ancient Greek text are still in existence, the christains just burned and destroyed them. Except a few 'selective' text that were specifically kept mainly for christain links, which those were just locked up in monostaries for centuries. The Arabs treasured the Greek text and educated their people with them...

Uh, I understand where you're coming from due to this being one of the main myths being taught in US schools, but it's not true.

The reason Greek antiquity survived are many, and I will allow that the Arabs may have played a small part, but the principal reason is the Byzantine Empire, which became increasingly less Roman and increasingly more Greek in its outlook - I would say even to the point of being highly 'Greco-centric' by 800 AD or so. Just for one example, in her famous book 'The Alexiad', Anna Comnena CONSTANTLY refers to ancient Greek texts - Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Plato, Euripedes, Aristotle just to name the few references I can from memory.

 

[PennHead]

In my opinion, every Civ is deserving. They all (though I admit ignorance concerning the Malinese) made contributions to what the world is today, whether in science, technology, military, religion, philosophy, the arts, politics, or government. In my mind, the time frame of that contribution isn't as relevant as the contribution itself. The advances of the ancient age are as important as the modern to me.

I understand those who find Civs out of their place in time silly. That was my initial reaction as well, back in the Civ 1 days. But over time and 4 iterations of the series, my vision of the game has changed. Now, I guess I think of Civ differently than many others here. I think of the game as more of a "What if?" scenario. What if we could take all of these great civilizations of different eras, preserve some of their key characteristics(and now with Civ 4, those of some of their notable leaders) which form an important part of their very identity, and start them out on equal footing in 4000BC? How would history have changed? Who would have stood the test of time? And how can I as a player change and mold that? The fact that the civs come from disparate eras is a big part of the intrigue for me. It's for that reason that I'm bothered by neither American cavemen nor Aztec astronauts.

Unique units representative of each civ's peak will give the civs a potential spike in power at the appropriate technological level as their historical counterparts, but to me, that's where the civilization-specific historical accuracy ends, and I like it that way. I love how Civ approximates the development of humanity itself, rather than that of a specific civ. It creates a sandbox environment with a world history I get to help create. The same acheivements and wonders are there, but the inventors and builders are different, and I get to play a part in that. I know that's where the appeal is in Civ for me, and I imagine it's the same for many others.

 

[crazybeard]

Where the heck do you get the idea [the Egyptians] were made up by the French? Yeesh.

The first organized studies of the ancient ruins in Egypt were conducted by scientists brought there with Napoleon's army. A lot of "conclusions" they came to were dead wrong, but they did (accidentally) discover the Rosetta Stone.

It seems like archaeologists discover something that disproves the "facts" (as they were taught in schools) every few years.