Civ of the Week: Greeks

[kolpo]

the poor? care to explain that?

It's maybe a bad translation from Dutch but I mean with the poor: people who's income is so low that they can't buy the essentials of live. Like a house, food, wood to heat themself,...

There has been some Greece politians who wanted to give the poor voting power but there was never a period in ancient Greece where every inhabitan(also the poor) could vote. In most modern democracies can even homeless people vote(at least in Belgium where I live) but in ancient Greece democracy was there always a group of poor people who wasn't able to vote.

A democracy is a govenment where ALL people(who live in that nation for a certain time) rule there nation or can choose people who rule it in there name.

[Bereta_Eder]

I've never read that Koplo.

In Athens for example every man was allowed to cast his vote. The ones excluded were the slaves and the women and even then there were movements for their inclusion of women and their rights to vote.

and since democracy is a greek word:

demos= the people
cracia= authority

authority (power, control) of the people.

[kolpo]

from http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/ATHEMP.HTM

In terms of numbers, this still was not a democratic state: women weren't included, nor were foreigners, slaves, or freed slaves. Pericles also changed the rules of citizenship: before the ascendancy of Pericles, anyone born of a single Athenian parent was an Athenian citizen; Pericles instituted laws which demanded that both parents be Athenian citizens. So, in reality, the great democracy of Periclean Athens was in reality only a very small minority of the people living in Athens. It was, however, the closest human culture has come to an unadulterated democracy.

It are just the foreigners and the freed slaves who where mainly the poor and it where the Athens who had in general the highest income.

So in fact did it mean: Only the people who are member of an elite group with an average high income(called Athenians) or the child of 2 of those people get voting power.

[Bereta_Eder]

To vote, you had to be of pure greek blood and or a citizen of Athens. There was nothing about income

[MarkG]

Originally posted by kolpo
an elite group with an average high income(called Athenians)

those with high income were called "rich"

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Leonidas
Great pictures MarkG

Comrade Tribune: You agree that Cleo was BLACK? Hmmm, she had a Greek lineage (Ptolemy). Olive-skinned maybe, but black? Nothing more than revisionist history. . .

Now onto Alexander:

...
Does the present image in the game represent THIS Alexander?

Leonidas, You didn´t quite get me on both counts:

Cleo: I was saying I agree with You.

Alexander: My opinion is they were sloppy; You repeat Firaxis´ Alexander doesn´t come close to look historical; no argument from me about that. What I was doubting is there is a purpose to that nonsense. Firaxis Alexander is not PC (What should be PC about that picture?), the image is just plain silly.

[kolpo]

oke I was wrong about those poor who where excluded but slaves and the non Greece people who lived there where excluded so I still think Ancient greece wasn't a democracy.

[Leonidas]

Steve Clark: Point taken. I agree with you that there are exceptions to every rule. But as markG mentioned, the ancient texts do give us a description of Alexander as well as his exploits. That description does not resemble Firaxis' Alexander.

Comrade Tribune: Sorry about the mix-up

My comment about Alex being politically correct is this: in the picture, he looks skinny, effeminate and gay. Some writers have dragged up some hints that Alexander was gay. Even though this has never been substantiated, there are organizations that have jumped on the thinnest of clues to claim that Alex was in fact gay and have claimed him as one of their own. By being politically correct, it may be that Firaxis has sided with the "gay" Alexander so as to appeal to this large customer base.

I could be very wrong about this. . .

But then, why did they portray Cleopatra as black, if not to appeal to the latest revisionist history?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arent
Veto!
The game Civilisation has a long tradition and loyal fans which do *not* deserve
sloppy work. It is one advantage of civ that one learns something about history
while playing -

All you guys - even Markos - are just too much
You're actually all very funny


You are compleletely hung up about what image Firaxis uses for Alexander Whats a matter, you're afraid some youngsters will take this as real history, and so will not learn what Alex actually looked like? Er, why is that important? Yet you are not concerned that this game will imply that the distincitve charecteristics of societies have remained the same for 6000 years, and are inherent in certain peoples, without regard to geography or history. That seems to me a more important inaccuracy then whether Alex had a ruddy face or not. There are millions of ordinary people around the world who believe the inaccurate view that national charecteristics are determined by heredity, and that fact is a something that creates real problems in many of our societies. If you are at all concerned that young people will learn from Civ3, that is what you should worry about. And if you dont think thats an issue, than why are you concerned if Alex has a ruddy face?

And why, pray tell, when one is concerned about the inaccuracy of Civ Specific Abilities thats "PC" but when you're concerned about ALexs ruddy face, thats not "PC" but is called "anti-PC" Insisting on historical accuracy is good, except when it such insistnce attacks racism, when it becomes "PC".

LOTM

Politically Correct is to Racist as McCarthyist was to Communist.
Yes McCarthyism was despicable, and yes McCarthyists falsely accused people of Communism, but Communism was nonetheless real and widespread, and it was a tactic of Communists, or sympathizers with Communism, to accuse all anti-communists of being McCarthyists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by paiktis22
To vote, you had to be of pure greek blood and or a citizen of Athens. There was nothing about income

I thought you had to be a citizen of Athens, period. A Spartan or Corinthian was a foreigner, even if a pure Hellene.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Or is it just that nasty stereotypes about the sexual proclivities of Greeks bother us more than nasty stereotypes about the intelligence or industriousness of Blacks, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Celts, etc

Hmm???

LOTM

[MarkG]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Whats a matter, you're afraid some youngsters will take this as real history, and so will not learn what Alex actually looked like?

no, we just like the image of a historical person to be close to what he looked liked....

Yet you are not concerned that this game will imply that the distincitve charecteristics of societies have remained the same for 6000 years, and are inherent in certain peoples, without regard to geography or history.

no, because that is a game feature that is accepted in order for the game to be more fun

meanwhile, a totally wrong image of Alexander is not fun

And why, pray tell, when one is concerned about the inaccuracy of Civ Specific Abilities thats "PC" but when you're concerned about ALexs ruddy face, thats not "PC" but is called "anti-PC" Insisting on historical accuracy is good, except when it such insistnce attacks racism, when it becomes "PC".

did anyone mention PC before in this thread?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I thought you had to be a citizen of Athens, period. A Spartan or Corinthian was a foreigner, even if a pure Hellene.
LOTM

A spartan could vote in Athens if he was given citizenship. A barbarian couldn't I think

Or is it just that nasty stereotypes about the sexual proclivities of Greeks bother us more than nasty stereotypes about the intelligence or industriousness of Blacks, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Celts, etc

Hmm???

LOTM

You lost me there

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Whats a matter, you're afraid some youngsters will take this as real history, and so will not learn what Alex actually looked like? Er, why is that important? Yet you are not concerned that this game will imply that the distinctive characteristics of societies have remained the same for 6000 years, and are inherent in certain peoples, without regard to geography or history.

A brilliant example of what I call "thinking too deeply". (It´s usually Germans who do this; do You happen to have German roots?)

The reason for those distinctive characteristics is obviously gameplay: It makes for more diverse strategies. Also, there seems to be no notion of 'racial superiority' implied; it would make for a bad game balance, anyway.

On the other hand, it is really not quite clear why Alexander doesn´t look like Alexander. Especially since, in Civ I, Alexander did look like Alexander. What did Alexander do to them in the 90´s so that he fell into disgrace and they decided to deface him?

There is really a mystery here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


A brilliant example of what I call "thinking too deeply". (It´s usually Germans who do this; do You happen to have German roots?)

The reason for those distinctive characteristics is obviously gameplay: It makes for more diverse strategies. Also, there seems to be no notion of 'racial superiority' implied; it would make for a bad game balance, anyway.

On the other hand, it is really not quite clear why Alexander doesn´t look like Alexander. Especially since, in Civ I, Alexander did look like Alexander. What did Alexander do to them in the 90´s so that he fell into disgrace and they decided to deface him?

There is really a mystery here.

German roots? 100% eastern european jewish

But we Americans are quite capable of excessively deep thoughts, despite what some here may think

You think the distinct charecteristics are an inaccuarcy for the sake of gameplay? Fine. Firaxis thought an inaccurate but funny picture of Alexander was good? just a trade-off, and as theyve said countless times, they wont sacrifice fun for historical accuracy


Of course we all have different ideas of how that tradeoff should be made. The distinct charecteristics is a big loss of accuracy, but potentially a big gain in gameplay(though some may not find it an improvement in gameplay) . Alex is at most a minor gain in "fun", (which some of course will not see at all as a gain) but only a trivial loss in historical accuracy.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MarkG


did anyone mention PC before in this thread?

Yes, as a matter of fact. Leonidas introduced it, and Comrade tribune mentioned it in his reply.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MarkG
no, we just like the image of a historical person to be close to what he looked liked....

no, because that is a game feature that is accepted in order for the game to be more fun

meanwhile, a totally wrong image of Alexander is not fun

We dont know for sure what Alexander actually looked like. We do know for sure that civilizational charecteristics have evolved through history.

Some think distinct civ charecteristics will make the game more fun. Some dont. Some think the new alex portrait is fun (presumably Firaxis does) Some dont. Fun is subjective.

LOTM

[Leonidas]

lord of the mark:

Please don't over-analyze this PC thing.

I just happened to notice that Alexander looked gay and Cleopatra was depicted as being black. Current revisionist history also claims this viewpoint about both characters. I was merely asking whether Firaxis was leaning towards this revisionist view of history with regard to these two characters.

As far as gameplay goes - it's a game - with its own conventions. Even so, the game is about known history, with known real people, and will have known historical units, advances and buildings.

I accept the game play conventions within "the historical game world", but when they purport to show and use a real historical figure, I would expect a reasonable likeness. . .

[Arent]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Some think the new alex portrait is fun (presumably Firaxis does) Some dont. Fun is subjective.

LOTM

Ok - someone start a poll. This would be fair.


LOTM: You don't want to know what I would
change if I were in charge of this game
(someone suggested a 5 page must read pop up
about historical issues...cool)

...

Noone in Athens who was "dependent" on
someone was allowed to vote. This included
slaves and poor citizens but also foreigners.
And it is obvious: slaves/poor citizens could
be forced to vote in favor of someone,
foreigners would try to stir things up
You could call it "timocracy".

Arent

[JMarks]

You could call it "timocracy".

What is that? I would have guess the 'rule of fear', but thats combining Latin and Greek. would you be using tima, honor, and have it the rule of honor? Exactly what are you using here? Just want to make sure.

[Arent]

Greek is sometimes a little chaotic - there
are more exceptions than rules.
"timo" comes from "timios" (worthy).
"timema" means (own) property.
So money = power.
But please forget about it - I already see a
new discussion starting that Athens was no
"pure" timocracy etc...

Arent

[Keygen]

Though the graphics are good I don't like either the photo of Alexander the Great. He does look like a Roman senator indeed! Maybe the humoristic air Firaxis trying to give to the civilization leaders forced them to make Alexander look like a Roman senator. It would be harder to accomplice that if they used his true appearance.

I find Cleopatra's portrait kind strange aslo. How is it possible she had dark skin while her ancestors were Greeks?!?

And it would be more fair for the Egyptians if they had used a more representative leader like Ramses the 3rd.

About Phalanx. I don't know if it was a Summerian "invention", maybe it was but especially its descendant, the Macedonian phalanx was the most powerfull "weapon" until the appearans of gunpowder. Not only its defence was great but when they were attacking nothing could resist them. Its greatest weakness was the ground. They couldn't advance well in aberrant ground and that was what Romans took advantage and won Macedonians at the battle of Pidna. And of cource it was useless for besieging...

Only the Mongol mounted archers might had been as strong as the Machedonian phalanx but they never met...

========

Regarding Athenian Democracy. I can't recall a more fair political system before or after its appearance.

Every man been Athenian citizen had the right to vote and was equal to his fellow citizen, rich or poor, philosopher or stonecutter, aristocrat or ex-slave.

Excactly what is happening todays in Democratic states with the exception of woman. But when did woman aquired the right to vote in the modern era? In the early years of 20th century!

But why is Athenian Democracy more fair that modern Democracy?

For the simple reason that for almost every metter every Athenian citizen could vote something that is simply impossible these days.

We elect a government every 4 years and they do what ever they want. Increasing taxes, making wars, etc forcing poeple demonstrating against government decissions many times.

Back then in ancient Athens people were determining for their future and not a government.

[JMarks]

Originally posted by Arent
Greek is sometimes a little chaotic - there
are more exceptions than rules.
"timo" comes from "timios" (worthy).
"timema" means (own) property.
So money = power.
But please forget about it - I already see a
new discussion starting that Athens was no
"pure" timocracy etc...

Arent

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Although, those two words see like they could easily have come from a similar root. After all, don't you have to be 'worthy' in order to have property? Reminds me of orthos and orthros. Well, we can definatly say that Athens was no orthocracy!

I still like Aristotlocracy-the rule of Aristotle.

Oh, Keygen, I think they chose cleopatra, because more people have heard of her, even though Rameses would a better choice. If one didn't know about him, he could look him up, catch ancient egypt-mania, then go discover some lost tomb of some prehistoric deadguy. Yes, I really think Firaxis should have rethought that one.

The mongol mounted archer would have obliterated the greek phalanx. Why? Because the two would never get anywhere near each other for the Greeks to make contact. Now granted, if the mongols came and attacked a city garisoned with phalanx, then that might be another story. But infantry based armies have always had trouble defeating horse-archers from the plains. Not just the mongols. How about the Sythians, and Parthians? Did they not have great horsearchers? Persia and Rome got blown out of the water by them. Ouch.

Athenian Democracy is more fair than modern Democracy, because modern democracy isn't a democracy. It is usually (as is the case with the USofA) a democratic republic. To define whether a Democracy is a true democracy, one must definet he demos-people. To Athenians that means citizens, which disculded many others. Arent, couldn't one try making a anthropocracy? The rule of man (mankind, including women)? Athens definatly isn't that either.

Too long, too OT for the most part.
Enough.

Ioannes

[Keygen]

Originally posted by JMarks
Too long, too OT for the most part.
Enough.

Well, if everybody had sticked On-Topic this thread wouldn't count more than a couple of pages .

What I like most is when On-Topic threads become Of-Topic due to interesting conversation or debate .