Austria, with Maria Theresa
The Byzantium, with Theodora
Carthage, with Dido
The Celts, with Boudica
Ethiopia, with Haile Selassie
The Huns, with Attila
The Maya, with Pacal
The Netherlands, with Willem of Oranje
Sweden, with Gustav Adolphus
None; I am far too disheartened by the exlusion of another civ (such as the Zulu)
I hold my hands up there - I phrased that badly. The Inca do count as early-civilised. My intent was to point out that it is not their ability to live in mountains that makes them civilised. It's things like their large cities, grand buildings, roads and knot-based number / writing system.Originally Posted by JFD
You're assuming that the Vedic-Aryans count as civilised beyond what you'd expect in about turn 5 of this game :P
No, my point was that the Vedas, one of the most influential collection of works in the East (and the world in general), was produced by a group of people without writing and that many people on the boards would argue as un-civilized. Just because a society is what you would classify as "primitive" doesn't mean they can't produce something of significance or have an impact that in many ways rivals that of more traditionally "civilized" societies, i.e. the inclusion of such people doesn't immediately devalue the word "civilization" as you put it in an earlier post.
I know you've recanted on the Incans, but the Tibetans also don't deserve to be lumped in the same category as others.
As for Africa, the most advanced civilizations were always in the North, the Nilotic trio (Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia) or West (Mali, Benin, etc.)
Since there are many definitions of Civilization, which one are you asking for? The Zulu fit some of the definitions, not all of them.
The Zulu had developed Cities, and got alot of their food from agriculture.
They had their own culture, and did have scientific progress, not alot, but some.
It is true however, that the Zulu never had developed a system of writing because they deemed it useless to them.
Again I am not arguing for Africa when I say this, the Zulu made the best of their situation. They where unlucky where they where placed and when they where placed [Even though this luck was their own fault]. However they became a powerful kingdom between 1816-1879. Not a very long time, however they where fighting with spears and shields against Bolt-Action rifles and cannons, and the occasional Gatling Gun. This is impressive, maybe not the only case but impressive none the less. Now their language has more speakers than any other Bantu language, but Swahilli. This is again impressive, considering the short reign of their kingdom.
Edit: IsiZulu has the most 1st Language speakers with 10-11 million, but Swahilli has way more 2nd language speakers.
Fun Fact: The Zulu had bricks, although they where made out of mud they where still bricks.
Fun Facts Again: The Zulu have something Called Zulu Stick Fighting, it is very brutal and can knock parts of the skull off.
Here, http://www.ehow.com/about_6392642_zulu-culture.html
http://www.zulu-culture.co.za/index.php
http://www.drakensberg-tourism.com/z...raditions.html
http://africanadrenalin.co.za/Isibin...lu_history.htm
http://www.ehow.com/about_6457490_zu...e-history.html
http://home.intekom.com/ecotravel/cu...lu-history.htm
Last edited by PachaMinnie; 04-26-2012 at 03:32 PM.
And as others have said there is no one definition of civilization. And thats far from the only civ in South America (The Inca) that revolutionized tehconology in pottery, architecture, warfare, trade, etc.
Its just the other civilizations are far less known in South America. The Chachapoya for example created cities with populations comparable to the Maya (Kuelap their most important varying from 20k-60k over the centuries) and created magnificent buildings, fortresses, and established trading routes throughout South America before the Inca.
And that is just one civ. There are plenty of civs in South America that created large cities, new styles of weapons, calenders, etc. The Huari, Tiwanaku, Chachapoya, Nazca, the Moche, the Chimu, etc all established empires/confedarations and contructed massive architecture in each of their respective territories. And each had a distinct style. Each have fortresses, aqueducts, monolithic structures (i.e. Puma Punka a structure that is so precise that some architects have said only with modern lasers would it be possible to re-construct it without whatever techonology/style of building they had then).
The Inca were an iteration of the most dominant empire of the time.
=======
And the Tibetans had quite an extensive empire and organization.
They even marched into Tang territory and razed their capital... Coupled with infrastrcuture and technology that in fact was later exported to silk road empires for trade, of course the Tibetans would be an interesting civ. They were a hill/mountain based conquest civ and their spread helped the spread of Buddhism. Tibetan conquests facilitated its spread to China and it was later carried by other empires (such as the Mongols) and spread then on from the Original Tibetan assaults throughout Asia.
Pretty Chunks of Marble? You mean shiny mud? Never been to the U.K. by the way, I've heard it is beautiful but I have just never gone, so I have never been to any Museums in the U.K.. Refer to the lower comment for the answer.
Great Zimbabwe is a lovely Civilization isn't it? Very rich at it's high point, and one I hope they put in the game along side Kongo and the Zulu.
It is quite hard to ignore the "Cards you are dealt with" when you are smushed between two vastly superior nations. Sure, they could have gone a different path, perhaps been more peaceful, adopted cultures and Technology like the Cherokee, but alas they didn't. The founder of the Zulu Kingdom was a warlord and Chetewayo was a warlord, live by the sword die by the sword if you will. I suppose that if they where founded earlier, they would've had much more success, but would have gone into the realms of Greater Zimbabwe or Kongo. Important and powerful, just never caught on. Sad story this is, very sad indeed because if they did I wouldn't be arguing with you about the Zulu [One that neither of us will win I must add because my opinion won't change and neither will yours].
Perhaps some didn't advance [such as the Inuit] because it is hard to build cities and sustain large populations in the Arctic, or mountains, dense jungles, or deserts. Look at Civilization for example, if you are founded near a bunch or mountains, deserts, or tundra you are gonna have a bad time [as in you will fall behind if you don't expand].
The Nile was a great river to develop by because farmers could just throw seeds on the ground and let their animals stomp on them, thus they had more time to advance in the arts. Tigris and Euphrates where a bit trickier, but still easier than mountains or tundra. The Indus river was a lovely place to settle by and the city-states that developed there had a wonderful time, until they where taken over. Greece was founded in a pretty good place to, same with Macedonia. Rich with resources, harder to grow crops, but still easier than growing them in the tundra or mountains. China had the Yellow river, a nice place to settle down and grow crops. Rome settled around hills, so they where protected from various barbarians plus Italy is a okay place for growing foods, some parts of it anyway.
Most great empires had great "Starting places", thus they had more time to advance in arts and science. Others however had trouble with farming and such, so they had smaller populations, smaller cities, less time to work on arts and science, and generally a bad time.
Harvard is no easy school to get into, but you still need a pretty penny.
Point: Certain enviroments can sustain more people than others.
@JFD, Pokemon is awesome.
Last edited by PachaMinnie; 04-26-2012 at 08:58 PM.
PachaMinnie: I suspect he's referring to the Elgin Marbles, that were essentially nicked from Greece, and I believe Greece would quite like them back.
While I'm at it, how do Macedonians feel about, AIUI, having been diplomatically forced to put the "FYR" on the front of the country's name?
Ah, okay I don't much know about Greek affairs as I have never lived there, I was born in Macedonia, but haven't visited since I was 1. Not to mention I hate Greece, so Britain can keep those pretty pieces of Marble. I would rather it in a wonderful Museum than a crumbling ruin.
I cannot speak for all of Macedonia, however I would think that like me they don't much like it. However, when you look at history, Macedonia has been inhabited by Slavs for many, many years. So it is understandable because most nations consider Macedonia to be impersonating Greek history. There are, I would think, many Macedonians that hate this [as they would call it] "lie". I for one do not like the Former Yugoslavian Republic part in front of the country, but my father, mother, grandmother, grandfather, great uncle etc. where all born in Yugoslavia. Some where born in different parts of Yugoslavia. Not to mention, it kept those Greek bastards Fyrom [get it?] rolling into our country. Then there was the Issue with the flag, etc. I don't like Greece.
In short, I don't like it, but I would rather it be there than our lands apart of Bulgaria and Greece again. Most Macedonians however, don't like it that much, and when I say "don't like it that much" I mean they HATE it. There may be some that don't mind, but I would think most hate it. Plus, Most contires don't use FYROM, they just call it the Republic of Macedonia and America is one of those nations.
Fun Fact: Greece blocked us from NATO and hates us.
Nationalism, no matter how wrong your people are you continue to fight for them.
The same goes for membership with the EU, right?Plus, Most contires don't use FYROM, they just call it the Republic of Macedonia and America is one of those nations.
Fun Fact: Greece blocked us from NATO and hates us.
Nationalism, no matter how wrong your people are you continue to fight for them.
As for FYROM, I apologise that NZ recognises it as such. But keep up the defence, and take solace in that Greece is now subserviant to Merkozy.
And yes, Poklemons is awesome. Nobunaga's Ambition is coming out in June, around the time of Gods and Kings. Decisions to be had...
Yes, but the Macedonian government says "The sun, too, is a star." I believe one day Macedonia will rise up, whether that be by diplomacy, or blood.
No problem, I love New Zealand. Nice country with a cool name and great people.
Macedonia is also number 22 on the Ease of Doing Buisness Index. It was 69 in '09 now it is 22, and Greece is 100
Last edited by PachaMinnie; 04-26-2012 at 06:34 PM. Reason: D
I did not imagine people would be so interested in playing as Sweden, it makes me wonder why.
Good post PachaMinnie, but it´s not completely true. Some great empires didn´t have great starting places.Greece, Portugal,Phoenicians, Castille, Netherlands.
As Armesto has put it, " In the "space race" for early modern empires, it helped to come from behind"
But there's a reason why all of your examples were maritime powers. Good access to the sea/sea resources along with naval trade routes can do wonders if your land is lacking. Sadly, not really much of an option for per-Colonial Era Africa (except of course for Carthage along the Mediterranean, Aksum along the Red Sea, etc.).
Exactly. Poor starting places, lack of natural resources, the need to grow by conquest, acess to sea. Imperialism is sometimes - but not always- see the previous examples -the result of of overflowing resources.
They had access to trade so they could buy there own food, however they never had the best "Starting Places" you are right.
Yes, I would have to agree that access to water is important if you're going to be a maritime power.
As to lousy starting places, let's talk France. These people had to eat snails, frogs, and horses, yet they want on to set the tone for fine cuisine.
Well, it made sense when read in conjunction with what I was replying to (as well as the post before that )Yes, I would have to agree that access to water is important if you're going to be a maritime power.
Eh, I have a rule for mysef in forums not to post in a thread until I've read the whole thing. This one really got off-topic and ugly didn't it?
Anyways I had a hard time choosing between the Netherlands (hapiness looks like it'll be real easy to maintain with them), Austria because of the interesting UA and the Huns. I ended up voting the Huns because they are going to be great for those early rushes, probably even better than Greece since their spearman comes with an advantage for taking cities. The city razing UA is kind of weak but I've always said Civs with weak UAs and strong UUs are usually that way because of balancing issues. All other bonuses aside if your Civ is bigger and stronger early on it's usually really easy to keep it that way. They'll be able to take cities easily without iron which if it gets too much harder to capture a city is something other civs won't be able to do as effectively. Even though this makes it look like theyre only suited to Domination victories they really can win in any way they want, cultural victories are even possible with large empires if enough of the cities are puppets. So I'm excited about the Huns, let the world burn
I wonder how many of you who have voted that they are far too disheartened have done so because of the Zulu's exclusion, or because of the exclusion of another civ. I also wonder how many would vote for that option had it not been specifically tied to the lack of another civ, i.e. I wonder how many have declared that they will not buy this game because they didn't like the included civs - specifically, because they didn't like the number of European civs in the expansion.
I feel people who actually come and argue on a game's forum are far too into a game to not buy it just because one civ got in they didn't like or another civ is missing, despite any threats they may have made on the forums to the contrary.
But yeah, the disheartened vote probably got a few people voting specifically for the Zulu's as opposed to not voting for the nine new civs.
I was thinking the same thing...I expected to see the Celts that high, but the Swedes? Did the whole Swedish nation log on to vote? Who knows...Austria and Ethiopia are about right where I expected to see them...
Oh I suspect that most threats of that manner are empty, but it would be interesting to know just how many had the audacity to claim such a thing. Then again, it might serve to devalue the poll results.
I really didn't suspect Sweden to rank so highly either. I thought I would be among a few who voted for them. Perhaps the anticipation for the last civ is what has driven the numbers. Or perhaps indeed Swedish players, begrudgened by having had to play as Denmark all this time, have surfaced specifically to champion their country.
Acess to water is a necessary condition, but is not a sufficient condition. Until the late middle ages, the only long-distance, ocean going initiatives we know began in relatively poor/peripheral places (hermits from Ireland, colonists/pirates/raiders from Scandinavia)I would have to agree that access to water is important if you're going to be a maritime power.
A misplaced irony. Let´s talk about France.As Armesto has put it,...As to lousy starting places, let's talk France...this people had to eat snails, frogs...
" The empire that in its day sucessfully imitated,challenged and outplayed Portugal´s was the most similarly situated- that of Netherlands,also a marginal and naturally ill-favored place . Castilian imperialism, despicte its many distinctive features, also belongs, broadly speaking, in this category.France and England, places better equipped or more lavishly resourced, and aparently well positionated- were long dogged by ill sucess"
I hope you got the general idea.
----
Carthage.Which of the Expansion Civs do you look forward to most?
Ah, the Zulus.None; I am far too disheartened by the exlusion of another civ (such as the Zulu)
Eh, I have a rule for mysef in forums not to post in a thread until I've read the whole thing. This one really got off-topic and ugly didn't it?
Anyways I had a hard time choosing between the Netherlands (hapiness looks like it'll be real easy to maintain with them), Austria because of the interesting UA and the Huns. I ended up voting the Huns because they are going to be great for those early rushes, probably even better than Greece since their spearman comes with an advantage for taking cities. The city razing UA is kind of weak but I've always said Civs with weak UAs and strong UUs are usually that way because of balancing issues. All other bonuses aside if your Civ is bigger and stronger early on it's usually really easy to keep it that way. They'll be able to take cities easily without iron which if it gets too much harder to capture a city is something other civs won't be able to do as effectively. Even though this makes it look like theyre only suited to Domination victories they really can win in any way they want, cultural victories are even possible with large empires if enough of the cities are puppets. So I'm excited about the Huns, let the world burn
*High Pitched Voice* NOT ME!!!! I voted for Ethiopia.
*Fun Fact: Snails are a really and I mean Really good food source. There's very little work in containing them and they are easy to breed. There's a cave in Greece where they found shells [Or Bones or Whatever] of large snails, suggesting that they where selectively breed for more meat and what not.
These are hilarious. You should create a gallery thread with this.
I'm going to play them all but my first choice will be the Celts. After that, we'll see. Depending on how the new military units play and on the AI's ability to handle warfare, I might give the Huns a go next. I'm a peaceful player for the most part but it's good fun to play the 'destroyer of worlds' from time to time. A Domination victory has been too easy in the past for me to spend much time pursuing that particular path to victory.
And I suspect we'll get the Zulu sat some point, probably as DLC. I like the Zulus but their non-inclusion is not an issue for me.
Yeah I like that, perfect!
I want Poland.
And I want Macedonia, neither of our wishes shall come true. Learn to accept it.
Just out of interest, what has Macedonia actually done? Aside from ancient macedon, which i consider "greek"
Modern day Macedonia done Nothing. However I would love to see it in-game.
And, Ancient Macedonia is not Greek, similar cultures, but different. Greeks didn't settle Macedonia, Macedonians where their own people with their own customs, and traditions. Where the influenced by Greece? Yes, but they where also influenced by Gaul and Thrace.
Sadly, pop-culture history conflates Alexander-Greece-Macedonia too much for them to ever implement Ancient Greece and Ancient Macedonia separately :/
I feel like Macedonia could easily be separate from Greece in a game that focused on Ancient Civilizations. But the way Civ handles Greece, it's very unlikely to happen, for the reasons istry555 mentions above.
Other than Alexander the Great's empire it'd be hard to put in a unified ancient Greece since it was so fractured into city states. The only thing I could think of them doing would be to put Alexander as the Macedonian ruler and maybe King Agememnon as the ruler of Greece since he lead Greece in the Trojan war. Even that might be a stretch though since the Illiad is still considered fiction based on a historical event.
I see this as a non-issue due to Oda Nobunaga representing Japan. Nobunaga had unified perhaps 1/3 of the country by the time he bit the dust. Surely a strong representative from Athens or Sparta can compare.
Or Thebes, never forget Thebes. The Great Theban General Epamiondas whooped Sparta's ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epamino...370.C2.A0BC.29
Last edited by PachaMinnie; 04-29-2012 at 08:54 PM.
I am not very well informed on Greece's political history, so I will trust your word on the matter. Just in general, a ruler in Civ V does not need to have ruled over their unified country to be worthy of inclusion. I base this on Nobunaga's appearance in the game.
Indeed, if we were going with unified leaders, Toyotomi Hideyoshi would probably be a better candidate than Nobunaga. But he isn't.
Not to mention, Isabella didn't even rule Spain (only Aragon). I'm pretty sure there are a few more leaders like this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote