Analysis of Civ3 Civilizations

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I retract my statement about Hopi=Moundbuilders... misread a map

It happens . The Hopi came from Mexico, same as many other tribes.

The Iroquois Constitution MAY have been used as ONE model for the constitution... but it was not written down by 1776!

Can't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. The English text mentions only 5 nations, while the Tuscaroras joined in 1715. Anyway, the example was in plain sight.

Ever read "The Last of the Mohicans"? The Iroquois league was split asunder and destroyed... In fact there was never an "iroquois" tribe... it was merely a confederation of 4-6 tribes.

I saw the movie. The USA isn't a single tribe either
What counts is: can we call it one civilization.

They never foolishly allied with the British.. The britis had 100,000 people in North America whereas the frenceh had 10,000... even with help, the French would likely not have won.

They did later, against Washington & friends.

Anyone can learn to shoot a gun if they have long enough to try

Well, that's the essence. The Iroquois realized the importance of guns right away, whereas other tribes were far more hesitant.

Freedom of Religion: where does this say so...

In the Iroquois constitution!

All civs in this game had trade

Yet some had more than others .. the Mayans, for instance, also excelled at Trade, while other tribes never got past "beads for blankets".

Democracy as much as Parliament in England, yes, Real Democracy NO.

Hear, hear!
I don't know what you mean by real democracy, of course it's obvious that the concept saw some development in more modern applications. There is still much room for improvement today

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Can't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. The English text mentions only 5 nations, while the Tuscaroras joined in 1715. Anyway, the example was in plain sight.

The writings of the peopel I mentioned were in more circulation than the unwritten Iroquois league charter

I saw the movie.

What movie?

Anyways, the Mohicans sometimes were IN the league and were sometimes OUT of it... They fought the league sometimes.

ME:hey never foolishly allied with the British.. The britis had 100,000 people in North America whereas the frenceh had 10,000... even with help, the French would likely not have won.

RIBANNAH:

They did later, against Washington & friends.

??? I do not understand your response. The french never declared war on the Americans during the Revolutionary War.

In the Iroquois constitution!

Not written down until many years after the American Constitution.

Yet some had more than others .. the Mayans, for instance, also excelled at Trade, while other tribes never got past "beads for blankets".

In Civ III all tribes had trade.. The Incas had trade, Mound Builders had trade, Anasazi had trade... Having trade is a requirement for worthy civilization for the game, but it doesn't necesarilly mean a civilization is great.


-As much as parliament meaning that 5 great WAR CHIEFS WHO CONTROL THE TRIVES could pass laws that affect anyone without the peoples' consent. They treated their 'lessers' as serfs... fully respectable for the time... but not the idea behind the Constitution... In the Constitution there WAS an Electoral College, but the members took the votes of the regular people into consideration and for the most part, have voted along with the will of the people. The Iroquois had no such representation for their people.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
.... ??? I do not understand your response. The french never declared war on the Americans during the Revolutionary War.

What are the French doing in this response? I suggest you do some reading. information and links can be found in the Iroquois thread.

In Civ III all tribes had trade.. The Incas had trade, Mound Builders had trade, Anasazi had trade... Having trade is a requirement for worthy civilization for the game, but it doesn't necesarilly mean a civilization is great.

And your point is ...?

As much as parliament meaning that 5 great WAR CHIEFS WHO CONTROL THE TRIVES could pass laws that affect anyone without the peoples' consent.

And your point is ...? Referenda aren't mandatory in any democracy today.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ribannah
1) By that standard the achievement of the imperial powers was not so big either
2) The time of Iroquois territorial gain lasted quite a bit longer than the entire existence of the USA. But this was not their main achievement.
3) The Iroquois were never savagely beaten, and their little sisters were much bigger than themselves, in fact one of them was called Britney - err, Britania
4) The Iroquois were never decimated. Of course the "on par" ended at some point - when they foolishly allied with the British - but that happened to many tribes included in Civ3. That doesn't imply that they never were (taking into account their small numbers, of course)! Read the links I provided in the Iroquois thread.

I was away for a week, so excuse me for the late response.

Re: 1 - The 'scale of civilization influence' we are discussing here does not diminish the achievements of the imperial powers. I don't want to discuss the merits of some of the smaller me-too countries like the Dutch whose 'achievements' in this respect were laughable, but let's take the British as a representative example.
Timescale: the british empire lasted several hundred years. Territory: the british lands covered a huge portion of the earth, a feat unsurpassed to this day. Influence: spread of western culture, use of English language. etc.
Place this next to the Iroquois tribe and I think it is clear who of the two is dwarfed.

Re: 2 - The territorial lasted longer than the existence of the USA? I assume you are referring to 1776. Indeed, the Americans are a 'new' civilization, in existence for less than 250 years. However. These years are of greater influence than those before the advent of modern science. I think Civilization (the game) reflects this well -the early years fly by, without much happening, while the last decades are filled to the brim each month.
Surely, camping in tents made out of dear skin and huddling around campfires for an eternity is not very significant in terms of impact. And this should be taken into account.

Re: 3 - The Iroquois *were* beaten eventually, and swiftly too. Or perhaps you think they liked the idea to sit behind a steel fence on a barren plane with just a few remaining tribesman was a somehow appealing idea to them?

Re: 4 - Here you show your cards. "Taking into account their small numbers, of course." That is a ridiculous assumption. If a civilization is small, it is a sign of weakness, of being unable to conquer others, being unable to lead a prosperous life, being unable to have the land to support themselves. It can never be an excuse.