No Spanish Civ????

[kittenOFchaos]

Praise to the victims...woohoo! victims are great!


No people are exempt from committing atrocity...some just were more capable...

Mourn the loser Aztecs...who sacrafically killed thousands of prisoners (including 3/4s of Cortes troopers that had been invited in by Montezuma)...

The english and spanish are not exceptions, merely they had the opportunity and motivation to stay out of the victim camp.

The saying is beware Greeks bearing gifts...as red dwarf puts it "beware Trojans, they are complete and utter smegheads"

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Neither do I, Grim Legacy, there would hardly be any tribe left!

It is, however, relevant to point out the differences between the Spanish and other empires. Just making a claim to the Pope and raiding a territory apparently made the Spanish empire look larger and more important to some, compared to the colonial governments as established by the English and the trading posts of the Dutch. It helps explain why Spain was not included.

Hehehe true!

I can't help but notice though that you mention the Dutch quite often. Certainly, the british achievements are at another level than those of the Dutch. Could it be that there is a *slight* bias involved there as well?

[Xuenay]

People, people, people. You're forgetting something important.

This isn't History Simulator 3000 With Politically Correct Countries. This is Civilization III. A computer GAME. A game that has been made for the sake of fun, not historical accuracy. Sure, the Civ Team is doing some research on some of the civs they're gonna include to add some more flavor to the game, but that's it. Myself, I couldn't care less about how the civs going into the game were chosen. Quite probably the Civ Team picked the ones they were most biased for, added a few others for marketing reasons, and chose the rest at random. Not fair? Of course it's not fair. Civ 2 wasn't very politically correct, either - monotheism was considered a more "advanced" religion than polytheism, and fundamentalist governments got away easier from terrorism because everybody expected them to act dirty. Were the riots on the streets because of that? Did people boycott MicroProse, did people say that all the fun in the game had been lost due to this? Of course not.

Same thing with Civ III. It's quite likely to be historically inaccurate (at least in some fields), and politically incorrect. Get over it. It's just a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you want historically correct, ask Sid Meier to make his own version of Encarta.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Xuenay
People, people, people. You're forgetting something important.

This isn't History Simulator 3000 With Politically Correct Countries. This is Civilization III. A computer GAME. A game that has been made for the sake of fun, not historical accuracy. Sure, the Civ Team is doing some research on some of the civs they're gonna include to add some more flavor to the game, but that's it. Myself, I couldn't care less about how the civs going into the game were chosen. Quite probably the Civ Team picked the ones they were most biased for, added a few others for marketing reasons, and chose the rest at random. Not fair? Of course it's not fair. Civ 2 wasn't very politically correct, either - monotheism was considered a more "advanced" religion than polytheism, and fundamentalist governments got away easier from terrorism because everybody expected them to act dirty. Were the riots on the streets because of that? Did people boycott MicroProse, did people say that all the fun in the game had been lost due to this? Of course not.

Same thing with Civ III. It's quite likely to be historically inaccurate (at least in some fields), and politically incorrect. Get over it. It's just a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If you want historically correct, ask Sid Meier to make his own version of Encarta.

I do not fully agree with you. Though the fun factor is certainly important, I think you can't deny that part of Civ's attraction lies in its 'real-world, real-history' setting. I would definitely appreciate the game less if it was completely fantasy. Like the childish "televangelist" unit in CtP, which was in bad taste IMO.

So, in a way, the historical/realist value of Civ *is* important.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Certainly, the british achievements are at another level than those of the Dutch.

Absolutely not. The British had (and have) far more citizens than the Dutch, hence they were - eventually! - able to control more overseas territories. And yet, the Dutch ruled during the entire 17th century. Not unchallenged, but the British lost when they waged war on the Dutch, even when they called in the help of the French and several German allies.

As for achievements other than conquest, the Dutch made major contributions to every single technological advance, as well as to all kinds of art, and work by Dutch engineers can be admired all over the world. Today the Dutch still rank among the top 10 economic powers in the world. They are second to none in many fields besides trade, such as; agriculture, engineering, communication, education, astronomy, economics, chemistry, democracy, social security, logistics, ecology, sanitation, and have the world's largest harbour.

More importantly, the Dutch civilization differs from others, as they based their expansion mainly on trade (and settlement by farmers in empty lands), instead of military conquest. They were, for instance, the main trading partner of the Iroquois. While the French stumbled from one war into another, the Dutch and Iroquois were always at peace.

The Dutch had freedom of religion right from day one.

[Waku]

Originally posted by several posters
It's only a GAME.

Teletubbies, snorkles and the seven dwarves should be in (4 the sake of fun )

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah

As for achievements other than conquest, the Dutch made major contributions to every single technological advance, as well as to all kinds of art, and work by Dutch engineers can be admired all over the world. Today the Dutch still rank among the top 10 economic powers in the world. They are second to none in many fields besides trade, such as; agriculture, engineering, communication, education, astronomy, economics, chemistry, democracy, social security, logistics, ecology, sanitation, and have the world's largest harbour.

SECOND TO NONE? Really, I have seen many examples of illusioned nationalist statements, but this is simply ridicuolous. Although, that Dutch base on the moon, that makes Dutch "second to none" is astronomy, is impressive, to say the least.

More importantly, the Dutch civilization differs from others, as they based their expansion mainly on trade (and settlement by farmers in empty lands), instead of military conquest. They were, for instance, the main trading partner of the Iroquois. While the French stumbled from one war into another, the Dutch and Iroquois were always at peace.

Yes, the Dutch were very good at trade. For example in slaves. How humane...

The Dutch had freedom of religion right from day one.

So WTF there is a big weighting house in Amsterday, where they used to weight the witches before burning them. You call THIS freedom of religion?

Sorry, but however much I like the Dutch, your claims are simply ridiculous. It seems from them the Dutch were the first driving force in the world-wide, not to mention European culture.

[Jay Bee]

Grim: BINGO!!! The mask finally fell off...


PS. Louis XIV, king of France, why were you called Roy Soleil?

[Ribannah]

Guys, do some reading before you comment. You are awfully ignorant.

Martinus, witches were only burnt (in the Dark ages) when they weighed less than 20 pounds, otherwise they were thrown in the river to see if they floated, which was apparently more fun. What this has to do with religion escapes me, however.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Guys, do some reading before you comment. You are awfully ignorant.

Martinus, witches were only burnt (in the Dark ages) when they weighed less than 20 pounds, otherwise they were thrown in the river to see if they floated, which was apparently more fun. What this has to do with religion escapes me, however.

Contrary to the urban myth, most witches were not burnt in the Dark ages, but in the 16th and 17th century. This is the time the "Malleus Maleficiarum" was written, BTW.

And if you can not draw a line between religion and witch burning - well, I am sorry.
Without even divulging into a discussion about witches being actually a religion, where do you think "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live" come from?

[Ribannah]

Before I forget, here is a link to Astronomy in Leiden which I think could give you some insights. Remember, this is just one university.

Originally posted by Martinus
Contrary to the urban myth, most witches were not burnt in the Dark ages, but in the 16th and 17th century. This is the time the "Malleus Maleficiarum" was written, BTW.

Please read with me: "Some places had fewer trials than others. In the Dutch republic, no witches were executed after 1600, and none were tried after 1610. ... In England the death penalty for witchcraft was abolished in 1736."

So basically witch hunts by the Dutch, while already few, disappeared with the Spanish influence.

And if you can not draw a line between religion and witch burning - well, I am sorry. Without even divulging into a discussion about witches being actually a religion, where do you think "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live" come from?

That's English, not Dutch. But you're confusing "witches" as picked out by the superstitious with the real thing.

Edit: and the "Malleus maleficarum" was written in the 15th century, in Germany.

[St Leo]

That's English, not Dutch. But you're confusing "witches" as picked out by the superstitious with the real thing.

By the real thing, are you referring to fictional characters made up by superstitios writers or Wiccans? Neither qualifies as a "real witch" IMHO.

[Dr. Nick]

*cough*

Pointless discussion here, ribannah and kitten as hard as walls.

Let me repeat myself:

For one, Britain also inherited a war machine and a battle hardened navy with nothing to do. They needed to increase their economy and they took it out by taking over foreign economies and forcing them to sell raw materials to Britain for low prices and forcing them to buy the manufactured commodities at alsmost unpayable prices. They used their navy to project their power and eventually took over the lands to protect British interests. They had a commercial empire made up of areas of British commerce and areas of interest made in order to act as buffer zones in case of war.

Simply what every other empire did.

The Spanish, on another hand, stumbled upon America and decided to put what they had into good use and increase commerce. First they set up trading posts, then they occupied the land and governed it in order to protect their interests.

In other words, the Spanish have as big a claim to fame as the French, British, Germans, Dutch, Romans, Greeks and pretty much anyone who extended their borders beyond what started out as their motherland.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Pointless discussion here, ribannah and kitten as hard as walls.

p

They had a commercial empire made up of areas of British commerce and areas of interest made in order to act as buffer zones in case of war. Simply what every other empire did.

Nope.

The Spanish, on another hand, stumbled upon America and decided to put what they had into good use and increase commerce. First they set up trading posts, then they occupied the land and governed it in order to protect their interests.

Let me inform you about the history of your own country.
The Spanish never established as much as a single trading post in Argentine. Like elsewhere, they sent military expeditions, only in this case every one of these was defeated by the natives. Instead, some people from Spanish origin settled in Argentine from neighbouring lands. They founded a number of towns - again, not a single trading post.
In 1776 the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata was "created" including today's Chile, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay and part of Bolivia - with Buenos Aires as its capital. It failed miserably, since the citizens were already quite independent and had no wish to be loyal to the Spanish crown. After several revolutions independence from Spain was officially proclaimed in 1816.

In other words, the Spanish have as big a claim to fame as the French, British, Germans, Dutch, Romans, Greeks and pretty much anyone who extended their borders beyond what started out as their motherland.

You are still missing the point that civilization is more than military conquest.

[Dr. Nick]

Britain was a commercial empire. The need to imperialise arose from the necessity of the industrial nations to sell their manufactured goods as well as aquiring cheap raw materials to make these goods. Having colonies meant that they had access to both raw materials and a market for their Mfg goods. This was true for Britain, for Germany and for France. Strategic areas of influence, ie, Egypt, Gibraltar, Suez, etc, arose from the necessity to protect their shipping lanes in order to secure their trade with the colonies, ergo, it was a commercial empire for all those European Nations. If not, what was it then?

In the same way, it was for Spain. They came along, found lots of gold and silver which they could use, and the people in Spain found a land that they could settle and seek fame and fortune. In any case, the colonies arose from a need of the home country by which there was a mutual benefit for the peoples in the mother nation.

About the history of my own nation, I am very much aquainted with it. To begin with, Pedro de Mendoza's outpost Nuestra Señora del Buen Ayre failed because, for one, it had no demand to grow. It was simply a town that subsisted on its own. It was destroyed because Spain had no real need for it. Once the Inca Empire had fallen, there was a natural need for a port near the silver mines in Potosi and Bolivia. Nuestra Señora del Buen Ayre was then established as a port city, from which they could transport the gold and silver. But as time passed and the mines were depleted, Spain began to purchase goods from the Viceroyalty in order to manufacture them and resell them. The reason for the trade monopoly with Spain, which lasted till 1810, was because Spain could buy raw materials at low prices and sell their manufactured goods at high prices, which is what made the locals belligerent. In so many ways, Spain had many trade posts, as the ports offered Spanish goods, just as English goods were available in India and German goods in Tanganyka.

On another hand, answering to your point about conquest not being part of a civilisation, the Spanish were much more successfull at expanding their culture around the globe. Spanish settled the Americas, whereas from other "empires" settling was a minor issue. Jesuit missions and conversions were much more massive than those of the other European missionaries in Asia and Africa. Thus, I believe they have earned their place amongst the British, Germans, Greeks, French and Romans.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Since I am not British, I won't accept the blame
But the fact that others behaved badly, too, is never an excuse for your own mischief.

By the way, I never said that there was no civilization in Iberia before the Spanish. There was civilization in Italy, too, before the Romans. They just weren't Romans.

I dont care what you are Ribannah, (though you did excuse yourself from blame for US atrocities against Indians because it took place after independence - i hope you're not one of that minority of Canadians who take credit for the good things Britain has done, but shift blame for the bad things)


Spain from 600 AD to 1492 not only had a civilization, it had one that was continous with later Spanish civ. Answer me - do you think that medieval Castile was Spanish or not?

LOTM

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I dont care what you are Ribannah, (though you did excuse yourself from blame for US atrocities against Indians because it took place after independence - i hope you're not one of that minority of Canadians who take credit for the good things Britain has done, but shift blame for the bad things)

I excused the British, not myself, I was not around at the time .....
And please LOVE THE CANADIANS!! They are GOOD people!!

Spain from 600 AD to 1492 not only had a civilization, it had one that was continous with later Spanish civ. Answer me - do you think that medieval Castile was Spanish or not?

I guess I have to say no. I wouldn't count Gelre as early representatives of "the Dutch civilization" either, nor München as early representatives of "the German civilization". Of course it is always somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line, but I think it makes sense to view Castile as ancestors of Spain, together with Navarre, Aragon, Seville, Cordoba and Granada. Otherwise I would feel like ignoring the importance of the union. This is just to clarify, naturally you can use your own definition, all the way back to Asturias & Galicia in the case of Spain if you so desire.

El Awrence: trade between colonists (after stealing from the natives) and homeland is not the same as trade between colonists and natives.
Spain did not "settle the Americas". Spanish settlers built some towns, mostly coastal, in some parts of the Americas - as did settlers from many other civilizations. Later, once independent, descendants from the original settlers occupied parts of the vast inland. In "Latin America", even today the native population still holds large areas.

Martinus: more than 90% of the slave trade was done by the British.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Martinus: more than 90% of the slave trade was done by the British.

I have absolutely no idea where you got that statistic from. It must be focussing on something specific like importation to North America. Slavery was extensively practiced by many nations in history.

[Harlan]

Sigh, I don't know why I'm writing this, its indeed like trying to argue with a wall. But I hate to see more inaccuracies perpetuated.

The "second to none" Dutch indeed have many accomplishments, but a good colonial record is not one of them. Look at Indonesia (formerly the Dutch East Indies) - far and away their major colonial effort. They ruled there with a ruthlessness and utter disregard for human life that would have made the the worst Spanish colonial governors proud.

For instance, shortly after the Dutch conquered the Banda Islands, they decided to kill off the entire population. All 15,000 of the Bandanese were murdered in 1621, because of fears that someone would smuggle off some of the spices and weaken their monopoly. The Bandanese race and language was completely wiped out, thanks to this move. Interestingly, the Spanish, Portuguese and English also held spice islands in the East Indies in the 1500s and 1600s, but only the Dutch had genocidal policies there. The population of the Spice Islands (Maluku) slowly but steadily declined until around 1800, when the spice monopoly was finally broken (and the Dutch stopped ruthlessly exploiting the area). The decline was because the local people were literally worked to death or starved to death slaving for the Dutch.

As the Dutch tightened their control over other parts of the archipelago, death also followed in their wake. One dissident Dutchman wrote a book called Max Havelaar in 1860, documenting the incredibly cruel, corrupt and despotic rule of the Dutch over the Javanese. It caused quite a sensation back in the Netherlands, but didn't lead to significant improvements for the colonized. Interestingly, the British were much more liked by the locals for their more benevolent rule under Governor Raffles during the Napoleonic Wars.

As a general rule, the local population was only educated to the bare minimum level for locals to take up some of the skilled jobs lacking Dutchmen to fill. In 1945, the Dutch failed to see how hated they were by the local populace, and fought a five year war trying to keep the East Indies a colony. Their poor colonization record left Indonesia hard pressed to deal with independence. For instance, upon independence it turns out there was only 1 person in the entire country with a degree in Economics.

I'm not even gonna comment on Ribannah's insistence that the Spanish civ would only begin with the Castilians, except to point out that Firaxis considers the Bablyonians to include the Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Hittites, Kassites, Assyrians, Arameans, and Chaldeans as well, and the Egyptian civ to have continued after the Greeks conquered it. By those loose standards, the Spanish civ can easily trace back to the Tartessians, especially since only 50,000 Visigoths and the same number of Arabs/Moors ever moved to Iberia.

There are so many other inaccuracies by and disagreements with Ribannah I could contest, from the Spanish empire covering only 4% of the world's land to the British responsible for 90% of the slave trade, but there are limits to how much I can bang my head against a wall.


P.S.- kittenofchaos, you can't be all bad if you like Red Dwarf!

[Dr. Nick]

Ribannah, the Spanish established many important cities in the mainland. Just to name a few, Potosi, La Paz, Sucre, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba, Posadas, Formosa, Asuncion, San Rafael, Mendoza, San Juan, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca... I can continue listing is I pull out a map of Latin America.

They DID settle, for the simple reason that the laws in Spain prevented any other offspring other than the eldest son from receiving any inheritance, America was colonised by segundones and adelantados, men with no inheritance who could make fame and fortune in America, and there were lots of Spanish settlers.

Also, other nationalities arrived in Latin America only after 1880, and mainly to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by El Awrence
Ribannah, the Spanish established many important cities in the mainland. Just to name a few, Potosi, La Paz, Sucre, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba, Posadas, Formosa, Asuncion, San Rafael, Mendoza, San Juan, San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca... I can continue listing is I pull out a map of Latin America.

Jeez. I said MOSTLY coastal. Those towns you mention are up river from the coast and therefore the obvious exceptions. Sucre was called Chuqisaca at the time btw, I don't think the Spanish settlers had the foresight to call it after the later general of the revolt.

Also, other nationalities arrived in Latin America only after 1880, and mainly to Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.

Don't be stupid. How about North America, which you also claimed to have been "settled by the Spanish", and where did you put the Portuguese, English, French and Dutch who all arrived on the Atlantic side of South America?

"The first Dutch expeditions to the Guiana region took place in 1597–98, and
the first Dutch colony, on Essequibo Island in present-day Guyana, was founded in 1616. The Dutch West India Company was founded in 1621 to exploit the territory. The Dutch hold on the east coast was interrupted by English and French attacks and by a slave insurrection (1762–63). The Treaty of Breda gave all English territory in Guiana to the Dutch, but in 1815 the Congress of Vienna awarded the area that is now Guyana to Britain while reaffirming the Dutch hold on Dutch Guiana (present-day Suriname). The Netherlands granted Dutch Guiana a parliament in 1866. ..."

But even in Latin America, you forgot the import of the Africans. The Caribbean, too, saw many other civilizations arrive other than the Spanish. But why don't you try and find the facts yourself for a change.

Harlan: you are absolutely right about the Dutch in the Indonesia area. They should have stuck to what they knew best (ie trade with the natives) there, too. About the time span of the Spanish (or any other) civ: I already said that you can make your own choice. It is not a matter of right or wrong, if I gave you that impression I apologize. I would like to hear your criteria. About the Atlantic slave trade: why don't you look it up yourself before you accuse someone of "inaccuracies", there are plenty of sources on the WWW.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Before I forget, here is a link to Astronomy in Leiden which I think could give you some insights. Remember, this is just one university.



Please read with me: "Some places had fewer trials than others. In the Dutch republic, no witches were executed after 1600, and none were tried after 1610. ... In England the death penalty for witchcraft was abolished in 1736."

So basically witch hunts by the Dutch, while already few, disappeared with the Spanish influence.



That's English, not Dutch. But you're confusing "witches" as picked out by the superstitious with the real thing.

Edit: and the "Malleus maleficarum" was written in the 15th century, in Germany.

Leiden University rulez!

[Xuenay]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


I do not fully agree with you. Though the fun factor is certainly important, I think you can't deny that part of Civ's attraction lies in its 'real-world, real-history' setting. I would definitely appreciate the game less if it was completely fantasy. Like the childish "televangelist" unit in CtP, which was in bad taste IMO.

So, in a way, the historical/realist value of Civ *is* important.

Sure, it's one thing if they say that the Pyramids were built with the help of the people from Mars and that the Bavarian Illuminati controls the U.S. economy, but I don't think that the selection of nations will ruin the realism half as much...

[Dr. Nick]

From those towns I mentioned, only Asuncion was up a navigable river. And, don't try and change the argument by being a smartass with what name Sucre had before it was renamed.

Also, the Spanish settled LATIN AMERICA, which is what I said. A much bigger area than the Eastern seaboard of North America, the antilles that were not spanish and the guyanas.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Martinus: more than 90% of the slave trade was done by the British.

Much of the early slave trade was done by the portuguese, who soon were challenged by Spanish, British and especially dutch. Among the dutch slave traders there was a good number of jewish traders who fled to the netherlands after being expelled from Spain and later Portugal.

[Ribannah]

Also, the Spanish settled LATIN AMERICA, which is what I said.

No they didn't, and it's not what you said either:

Originally posted by El Awrence
On another hand, answering to your point about conquest not being part of a civilisation, the Spanish were much more successfull at expanding their culture around the globe. Spanish settled the Americas, whereas from other "empires" settling was a minor issue. Jesuit missions and conversions were much more massive than those of the other European missionaries in Asia and Africa. Thus, I believe they have earned their place amongst the British, Germans, Greeks, French and Romans.

From those towns I mentioned, only Asuncion was up a navigable river.

Sure. And your point is?

A much bigger area than the Eastern seaboard of North America, the antilles that were not spanish and the guyanas.

Right. Canada and Brazil are of course real tiny as well.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Much of the early slave trade was done by the portuguese, who soon were challenged by Spanish, British and especially dutch. Among the dutch slave traders there was a good number of jewish traders who fled to the netherlands after being expelled from Spain and later Portugal.

Seems like the distaste for facts is spreading.
I had expected more from you, Wernazuma III!

"The part of the Treaty which gave "unqualified and unanimous satisfaction at home" was the "Assiento" compact, whereby England secured from Philip, in accordance with the practice of the Spanish Sovereigns referred to above, an "absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish Colonies." The monopoly was conferred by the British Government upon the South Sea Company. The "immense amount of guilty wealth acquired through the 'Assiento' Treaty did much to compensate for the great pecuniary sacrifices of the war." The generation which concluded it came to regard the "extension of the slave trade as a capital object of English commercial policy," and it became the "main object" of national policy to "encourage the kidnaping of tens of thousands of negroes and their consignment to the most miserable slavery." In fact the Peace which brought a precarious and short-lived truce to Europe, brought war, war of the most atrocious and desolating character, and on a scale until then unimagined, to Africa, and "made of England the great slave trader of the world."

[Dr. Nick]

Jesus, the only point I'm trying to make is that the Spanish have as much right to be on that list as any other European colonial power. And should therefore be included in the first place.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Spain from 600 AD to 1492 not only had a civilization, it had one that was continous with later Spanish civ. Answer me - do you think that medieval Castile was Spanish or not?

Originally posted by Ribannah
I guess I have to say no. Of course it is always somewhat arbitrary where you draw the line, but I think it makes sense to view Castile as ancestors of Spain, together with Navarre, Aragon, Seville, Cordoba and Granada. Otherwise I would feel like ignoring the importance of the union.

Sorry, Ribannah, but I don't understand that kind of logics. Let's put it the easy way, huh? Look:

All Castilians are (were) Spanish, but not all Spanish are (were) Castilians.

Same goes for medieval Aragón, or medieval Navarre. They were all part of the Spanish culture or Spanish civilization. It's not a matter of where you draw the line, it's just a matter of knowing what you're talking about, or not knowing at all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah


I excused the British, not myself, I was not around at the time .....
And please LOVE THE CANADIANS!! They are GOOD people!!


.

I have met some Canadians I adore. I have met some Canadians who were nasty. And I have met some Spaniards I like very much. I hope you take my point.

LOTM