Explain to me the popularity of inclusion of the Sioux and Korean civs

[Slax]

The civs currently holding down the 15th and 16th positions on the expansion civ vote list are the Sioux/Dakota and Korean civs. Can people explain to me the popularity of these civs?

[Arator]

It makes no sense at all to me. I would gladly delete them and bump up the Austro-Hungarians and the Byzantines (two much more significant Empires/Civs) to replace them.

[Stefu]

Well, Sioux were in Civ2, and Koreans are good as another Asian civ. I'd prefer Javans, frankly.

What I still can't get over are the fricking Polynesians. THE FRICKING POLYNESIANS! Please don't vote for Polynesians.

[Gangerolf]

Stefur, replace 'Polynesians' with 'Eskimos' (#24) and I'm with you.

Eskimos...

[DarkCloud]

Sioux- I don't think they belong (didnt vote for them) but since they were in Civ II... Tradition! I wouldn't mind them much, would rather have Native Americans, however.

Austro-Hungarians should be on the list... perhaps I should change my vote :hmm:

Koreans !!! :bugeyes: well, they play a lot of computer games. Not really a civ, heck Russia, China and Japan owned their land for nearly all their history

[Lenius]

I agree the Sioux shouldn't get in because theres already one native american civ, however the Koreans do have a decent case they've suffered subjacation by Japan, China and basically been treated like crap for centuries yet they've still retained there identity, language and culture and today they are a significant country in the world arena. Certainly things that i emphasise with being Welsh and all

C'MON THE CELTS - (Had to get that in)

[Tiberius]

I thought that only historically significant/important civs should be in the game (except for certain scenarios, maybe). So what are doing in the list nations such as eskimos, polynesians, aborigens, and a lot more? Did they ever count as (important) civs in history?!

And Italians?? Come on! Romans and italians, in the same game?

Ah, where has the "Rise and Fall of Great Empires" idea been lost? Think about it, how great would be if the great roman empire would decline and split into italians, spanish and french!

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Tiberius

Ah, where has the "Rise and Fall of Great Empires" idea been lost? Think about it, how great would be if the great roman empire would decline and split into italians, spanish and french!

It would be cool unless, of course, I was the one playing the romans.

[Grumbold]

On a strictly Earth-map basis I'd be happy for there to be Sioux and other Amerind tribes simply to stop one Civ occupying massive territory. The same goes for South American, African and Asian nations. On a strict land share basis there would need to be at least 100 countries just to balance five in Europe. The contribution they made to history (as recorded by Western historians) really doesn't bother me since I want to play alternative history, not replay the real thing.

[Laszlo]

Maybe Korean Liberation Day (August 15th) somehow affected the polls.


And Arator, if you would like to see an Austro-Hungarian civ in Civ3, then you might be interested in the Hungarian city.txt posted on Top 5 Strange Custom Civs by Tiberius, Snapcase, and me. Though, in posting the spacing gets all messed up, so I should probably get up a link to somewhere else. Anyway, have fun being Hungarian!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I thought that only historically significant/important civs should be in the game (except for certain scenarios, maybe).

Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.

Agree, I just don't get it why people want that one in. ok, I'm not that good in my history, but have the Welsh (sp?) ever done something interesting in the history?

Originally posted by Slax
The civs currently holding down the 15th and 16th positions on the expansion civ vote list are the Sioux/Dakota and Korean civs. Can people explain to me the popularity of these civs?

Well, the Korean isn't something I would call a civ who needs a place as a civ in civ3, but the Sioux is interesting to have in the game.

[Swissy]

Originally posted by Arator
It makes no sense at all to me. I would gladly delete them and bump up the Austro-Hungarians and the Byzantines (two much more significant Empires/Civs) to replace them.

The Byzatines were a by-product of the Romans. The Austro-Hungarians are not a significant empire. The Hapsburgs, who at one time held the thrones of Spain, Austria, Hungary, and the Low Counties(Holland), was the real empire.

I agree there should be a north american native civ, be they called Sioux, Dakota, or Cahokia.

The Koreans are significant in that despite being conquered by numerous neighbors, the culture has survived and flourished thru the ages. From what Firaxis has told us, culture is going to be a significant part of Civ3.

[yin26]

I will step out of my self-imposed exile on this topic because it has implications far beyond a computer game. I do not blame people here for being totally ignorant of Korea's history, but what I DO blame people for is speaking as if they have actually studied the history but clearly haven't.

What follows is a brief essay for you all to consider. I will not try to teach you about Korea's history, but instead hope to ask two simple questions: 1) Who do you think "controls" history? 2) How long would it take to get that "control" back if it fell into the wrong hands?

Just a few notes before the essay, prior to Japan's colonial rule, Korea gave to the world: 1) The first moveable type printing press (200 years before Gutenberg). 2) The first rain gauge. 3) The first iron-clad ship (300 years before America). Etc. etc. I could go on and on, but will merely state that most of what the people here THINK they know is based on a post-colonial view of history that has yet to be cleansed by truth.

So before you profess to dismiss an entire civilization, at least do yourself the favor of actually not making yourself look like an idiot.

The Essay:

History can have a dual role: The one of destroyer or the other of savior. The message a people's history transmits from the past can either kill a people's spirit or empower and magnify. If a people's history has been a past laced with hardship, meekness, subjugation, and servility, no empowerment can be derived from it. This history of hardship has been today the version being transmitted to the Korean people: nation of meek farmers, always stuck in a peninsula, that they have so much han built up in their psyche, invaded a total of 966 times but somehow survived (am I supposed to be proud of that?), never chose to invade others' domain, a people who have survived many a hardship and subjugation to build a viable nation-state that Korea is today.

The most visible cause of this historical view lies in the Japanese colonial era. Every colonial power does its best to instill a sense of inferiority, defeat, and hopelessness into the psyche of the subjugated. The Japanese did everything their power allowed to do to achieve this end; that included a massive sixteen-year compiling of their version of Korean history, The Chosen-sai (History of Chosen). Chosen-sai essentially has never been discarded, owing to the fact that the founder of the modern South Korean historical academic field, Yi Byong-do, was an active participant in the compiling of the Chosen-sai. But Yi not withstanding, the Japanese didn't get their idea just out of the blue, but rather exploited centuries of sadaejui practiced by the Yi Dynasty. Since sadaejui itself was a self-derogatory ideology that whole-heartedly embraced sinocentrism and the "dominant sinic culture", the foundation for the distortion of Korean history had already been laid, the Japanese just simply built on their version of Korean inferiority on top of another that was already there.

But there is another historical view of Korean history that flies into the face of the present paradigm--minjoksagwan, or nationalist history. Not only does it disclaim everything the present paradigm claims, but paints an incredibly GRAND view of history--Korea was a mighty and powerful continental power, with its territory stretching from Lake Baykal in southern Siberia to the Yangzi river, its inhabitants being powerful warriors called Dong-yi, founders of the so-called Sinic Civilization, the dominant military AND cultural power in East Asia. I can use all the fancy metaphors I want, but the past history of Korea can be summed up in a few short words: IT WAS A BIG COUNTRY. A BIG COUNTRY: a nation ruled by sons of heaven and emperors instead of kings and vassals, rulers rather than the ruled, builders of civilization rather than receivers and transmitters, mighty warriors instead of meek farmers. This is the kind of historical tradition that can instill pride in a people.

The view of Korea as a small country and a big country are diametrically opposed and diverging. But wherever its origins may be and whatever formation process it had, the consequences in the case of prevalence of one view over another will be drastically different. If the former view prevails, then the people will be pretty much satisfied with what they have now: a middle-of-the-road, run- of-the-mill, semi-democratic/capitalistic NIC; Its greatest hope being to surpass Japan someday. If the later view wins out, then they will stop at nothing to make Korea what it once was, A BIG COUNTRY.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
I will step out of my self-imposed exile on this topic because it has implications far beyond a computer game.
I do not blame people here for being totally ignorant of Korea's history, but what I DO blame people for is speaking as if they have actually studied the history but clearly haven't.

Nice to read you again Yin! I hope you'll come back more often, at least to help me to evaluate Civ III when it will be released.

You know we can disagree, sometimes, but I like to read your point of view because it always help me to reconsider my opinions, just as today you do with your interesting note about Korea.

What a pity none company seems to be able to match a great "Civ" game design with a correct approach to history with a point of view not so "western culture" approached.
On a second tought, to be fair most of italian history school books don't seem to be any better

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.

It depends in part how narrow or broad your definition of Celtic is. The Romans occupied huge tracts of France and Britain, driving the free Celtic peoples into small pockets like Ireland, Wales, Scotland etc. However the Roman rule was always about integration, not dominance. When they pulled back the countries that formed in their wake were still strongly Celtic in orientation, although changed and developed in different ways from the elements that had never endured occupation. Involving the Celts as a single civ, rather than the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Angles and Gauls separately allows you to play a pre- Roman occupation scenario.

[Wernazuma III]

I'm disappointed that there is only one more african Civ in the top 16. I'd say, replace Celts, Koreans and Sioux with Mali, Hungarians or Polish and one ancient civilization, maybe Hittites, Assyrians or Etruscans.
If one wants a "native american" or nomadic civ, Arawak, Mapuche or Scyths or Sarmats are better choices than another north american Civ. One is MORE than enough

The Byzantine are only a blend of hellenistic and roman Civ

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
The Byzantine are only a blend of hellenistic and roman Civ

The problem lies into the Civ model of "static" civilization that last monholitic for thousand of years. As S. Kroeze and others well documented on many posts, there are few original proper "civilizations", that mix and divide during history until they become known nations.

I was one of the people that hoped for Firaxis introducing a different model, here, without letting you starting the game right with a Nation like America or Italy.

I would like to see the ability to start from one of a bunch of tribes, join them in one of the 6/8 early HISTORICAL realistic civ, then have the ability to develop my NATION (may be to a Federation of Nation, as USA, EU or USSR).
Every time the game events force me (or give me the opportunity) to split my former Civ or merge it with others, I would have the opportunity to chose a new name for my empire/nation, as happened in real world.

So you can have a realistic starting civ and end with whatever nation you like, fully realistic or alternative, but still related to your original choice for original culture/racial trait.

I understand it doesn't succed in Firaxis because:

1. you need a good history tracking to keep all players aware of the name/country composition change - not really difficult to achieve, IMHO
2. you lost the easy appeal of your nation straight on the game box ("you can play as American since 4,000 b.c., cool" ) - a problem you can partially solve if you have the flexibility to become EVERY NATION you like to be.
3. you can lost the sense of ownership you get if you develop and grow the really same monholitic civ from start to the end - that's the most difficult part, and I have no prove of its success or failure until I can try an immersive alpha prototype of the concept: not likely

Culture is the single most promising evolution of the Civ franchise. I'll see if as actually implemented it really save the game. May be someone will build over culture concept, stretching it to better reproduce the world history (real or alternative) in a credible and enjoyable way.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.

I know this ain't any university, but the celts had at least as important role in the history as the romans did. Virtually all that could be called culture was celtic in the Europe before roman times. The celtic peoples spred all around Europe from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles and from modern area of Hungary to Germany. . Celts played a huge role in our past circa 3000 - 500 bc. Their cultural influence has been enormous to the germanic and finno-ugrian tribes.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.Searches:Hallstat, La Tene

[ancient]

id rather have the manchurians in than the koreans...

[Lung]

Originally posted by yin26

What follows is a brief essay for you all to consider. I will not try to teach you about Korea's history, but instead hope to ask two simple questions: 1) Who do you think "controls" history? 2) How long would it take to get that "control" back if it fell into the wrong hands?

Just a few notes before the essay, prior to Japan's colonial rule, Korea gave to the world: 1) The first moveable type printing press (200 years before Gutenberg). 2) The first rain gauge. 3) The first iron-clad ship (300 years before America). Etc. etc.

That's all fine and dandy, Yin, but why didn't they revolutionise the world? I'll let you answer that, becuase you obviously know more about Korean history than i, but all i see is you replacing a euro-centric view of the world with a Koreo-centric one.

I could go on and on, but will merely state that most of what the people here THINK they know is based on a post-colonial view of history that has yet to be cleansed by truth.

Like what, for example?

You see, i have no problem with Korea being in Civ3, but the problem is that only 16 civs are going to be included, and i think that there are many more civs that deserve to be ahead of Korea.

Being a peaceful nation is admirable, but history is largely shaped by the powerful and aggressive. If Firaxis were to select civs on their niceness, how would they pick 16 civs? There'd be no sign of the Yanks, but Tahitians would be all over te place In any case, if niceness was the rule of thumb, then Civ3 would have no armies, no soldiers, no wars, no expansionism, no fun whatsoever

I personally think the "history is written by the victors" theory is way over-emphasised, because if that was purely the case, there would be no question over history. It is misguided to hold too much faith in that theory, because the victors didn't just write history - they made it. They grew, leading to expansion, then to wars. If they won, they dominated long enough to leave an indelible mark on the conquered long after their demise. Even the biggest warmongers had culture.

It is fair to say that the victors wrote their own history far more than that of others.

It is a testament to Koreans durability to retain their culture through their tumultuous history, but to claim some sort of "cultural superiority" over other cultures which were known more for their aggression than their culture is flawed. For example, the Spanish were terribly cruel and were motivated very much by pure greed, but their impact on human history is far greater than Koreas, for better or for worse. Personally, i think it was for the worse, but that is beside the point.

Of course, if Firaxis weren't so pigheaded about limiting Civ3 to 16 civs, we wouldn't be having this problem

[yin26]

Lung:

I agree with most of what you say, and I think we could both agree that something has to give and one priority has to win over another when so few civ slots are opened. By the way, I NEVER said anywhere that Korea is superior, blah blah blah. What I DID do, however, was to counter the idea that Korea never had or doesn't have a culture on par with some of those selected for inclusion in Civ 3.

People who say that are ignorant or have an agenda.

I will be the first to argue that RIGHT NOW the cultural place of Korea in world history is under a cloud of post-colonial history. I also agree that a euro-centric game should cater to a euro-centric audience. And if you want agressive civs in the game, Korea certainly is a tough choice, though many amazing military exploits took place internally while externally it was usually just a fight to stay alive. Hey, try to survive on a peninsula next to China and see what happens. What I do NOT agree with are ignorant posts about a culture that was and still is profound in the world.

To recap: Firaxis' not including the Koreans makes perfect sense. The reasons many less educated people around here are giving do NOT.

[yin26]

See my definitive Korean reply here.

[Saint Marcus]

It's easy. You want to include the Koreans on the grounds you provided? Fine, but that does mean you have to increase the number of civs from 16 to 64. There are dozens of civs that can make similar, or better claims, than the Koreans.

[Lung]

Originally posted by yin26
Lung:

I agree with most of what you say.....

Damn! Here i am thinking that you had taken the bait, only to find that you largely agree with me!

Hey, try to survive on a peninsula next to China and see what happens

I suppose they think Koreans are Chinese, too? Japan and China for neighbours. Oh, joy!

To recap: Firaxis' not including the Koreans makes perfect sense. The reasons many less educated people around here are giving do NOT.

I could easily believe that!

[yin26]

Lung: I'd replied to you in my Korea thread.