Expansion Pack Civs (Part 4): A never-ending story?

[Leppersson]

OK, so lets do Worldwide Championships for Civilizations
We have 32 places to appoint, 16 core...
We should award each continent in accordance with its merit in developing of a mankind.
I propose:
Europe 14, 8 core.
Asia 9, 4 core.
Americas 5, 2 core.
Africa 4, 2 core.
Excuse me, there is not place for Polynesia.

So for Europe it would be:
Core ones:
Greek
Romans
Viking
English
French
Russian
German
Spanishs
As additional ones:
Celtic
Portugese
Dutch
Polish
Italian
Hungarian

For Asia:
Core:
Chinese
Persian
Mongol
Ottoman Turkish
Additional:
Babylonian
Phoenician/Carthaginian
Japanese
Khmer
Jewish

Americas:
Core:
Aztec
Inca
Additional:
Modern American
Native American

Africa:
Core:
Egyptian
Arab (yes I know i coud be in Asia as well )
Additional:
Ethiopian
Zulu

Core ones would be "arranged" in the play-off...

[Gramphos]

You forgot Australia. And are the ones not listed as core your votes?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Locutus
Oerdin,
You don't know much about the Mali and the Khmer, do you? If so, before you draw conclusions like that, you should keep in mind that your lack of knowledge of certain civs says a lot more about you than it says about those civs.

Do I have extensive, indepth knowledge of the Khmer & Malian kingdoms? No, however, I would say I probably know more then the average reader in this thread and I certainly know more about world history then the average man on the street. Locutus, I made an evaluative judgement about the relative historical importance based upon certain criteria. If you would like to question that judgement it would be better to simply ask which criteria I used and not resort to veiled insults.

One could indeed argue that the Dutch, and the Portuguese (like Wernazuma, I'm not so sure about the Austrians) were historically more important than the Mali or the Khmer, but to state that the latter could not even compare to European civs is a severe underestimation of the greatness of these civilizations. I dare argue that both the Mali and the Khmer were in fact greater civilizations than the Dutch or the Portuguese.

Anyone can argue that any civ should be included, however, if we are going to decide the relative merits of one civ against another civ then we must agree on how we are going to decide. This is what I have been using:

1. The civ should have had a large cultural impact that lasts to this day. Civs which effected world culture the most should have preference over those who effected it less.
2. The civ must have made several important scientific advancements that had a significant impact upon the history of the world. Also was it scientifically ahead or behind other contemporary civs.
3. When the out come is close global powers should be chosen over region or local powers.
4. How large was the geographic area it controlled? How big was the population? What was the civs longevity? Does the civ still survive today or did it collapse?
5. Finally, I look at relative economic power. Which was better developed & had a larger impact upon the world?

Other people can come up with their own criteria but unless we all use the same criteria then we will end up arguing endlessly and never arrive at a consensus. I included Autria based primarially on 2, 4, & 5. It was only an example though if you would like I will drop it and we can concentraite on just the Dutch, Portugese, Malians, & Khmers.

The Malian kindom was an isolated, medium sized, iron aged kingdom which arose in western Africa during the late middle ages. It's capital was Timbuktu (most of the time), it survived mainly by trading gold (which it got from Ghana) and salt (locally mined) to Arabs who then traded it to the rest of the world. Mali quickly fell under the Arab sphere of influence and went into steep decline due to civil war and the fact that both Arabs and Europeans found alternative ways of obtaining Mali's primary trade goods. Off hand I can't think of scientific advance that was developed in Mali and subsuquently spread to the entire world but if any one else can I would love to hear about it.

Khmers were a civilization in southeast asia that propered between 1100AD-1500AD. The kingdom was centered in Cambodia but many of it's religious centers were in modern day souther Thailand. During the high period (between 1150-1300) Angkor Wat was built (as well as several other temple complexes) and the khmers conquered pieces of Loas, Vietnam, & Thailand. Khmers did become an influencial regional power in Southeast asia but they were heavily influenced by both the Indian and Chinese cultures. By 1500 the kingdom collapsed into an number of sussesor states and the Thais and Vietnamese ended up reconquering their old territories.
The Khmers have a much better case for inclusion then the Malians but in the end they just didn't out proform the Dutch, Spanish, or Portugese. Scientifically I can't think of anything they contributed though religiously Khmers made big contributions to Buddism (I must admite the Wats where beautiful to see when I visited Thailand and Cambodia in 1998). I remember hearing that rice cultivasion begin in southeast Asia but we can't contribute that advance to the Khmer kingdom.

The only reason why the Europeans are always seen as so important is because they preferred waging war and suppressing other nations over developing a sophisticated society, building magnificent cities and structures and collecting knowledge (and with 'collecting' I don't mean 'borrowing' it from others).

Europeans weren't the be all and end all of world history but they have been more dominant then any other group. You are right Locutus they were more successful at waging war, but, they we more successful because they built sophisticated societies, built magnificent cities, and where scientifically innovative. To say that they "borrowed" it from everyone else is incorrect. Sure every civ borrows good ideas from other civs, but European civilization was hugely dominant in just about any field of scientific study worth talking about.
Does this mean that others didn't contribute anything? No. It simply means that their contributions way outpaced the competition and so they deserve to be "over represented".

[Leppersson]

Originally posted by Gramphos
You forgot Australia. And are the ones not listed as core your votes?

Not forgotten
Australia and Canada (and some others) for me are a part of English civ.
I did not mentioned Sweden and other Scandinavians as succesors of Vikings...
I know you,ll say so English and French origin from Celts and all Europeans from Greeks and Romans. It is a problem in such understood civilization definition to include in the game...
My votes, hm I must find it out: the rules, you know , which core are already included.
For sure I want:
Arab (I can't understand how anyone was not able to perceive the Arab civ!) 20
Mongols 20
Turkish 20
Viking 20
Spanish 20
Dutch 20
Polish 20
Inca 20

[ogotai]

"Leppersson" - hmm... that reminds me something... but what?!

[St Leo]

Who the hells is voting for the Hebrews? Their only claim to fame is Christianity/Islam and I usually don't blame them for that.

[orange]

Hebrew should not be in the game.

Judaism is followed by many. But how historically signifigant was the Hebrew civilization itself? It just got passed around from one empire to the next. It never really experienced a golden age, wouldn't really have a unique unit, and just how many Hebrew cities can you name? Sure, a few in Israel...but that's it.

Plus, there'll be to many ME civs. The Hebrew are getting a large vote from the Israeli population of Civ III, IMO...if they make it and the Askumite or Mali don't, I'll be mildly disappointed

[orange]

just wondering, Loc

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Leppersson
Not forgotten
Australia and Canada (and some others) for me are a part of English civ.

I think he meant the continent, i.e. Oceania and not the country. Australia might include the Polynesians, Maoris, Australian Aborigines, Rotokas, etc.

[JayKay]

This is my first post at Apolyton forums...and i'll vote on the following civs: (hope this is all ok with the rules)

Portuguese: 20 points
Spanish: 5 points
Vikings: 5 points
Irish: 5 points
Incas: 5 points
Mayans: 5 points
Dutch: 5 points
Turkish: 5 points
Polish: 5 points
Austrians: 5 points
Hungarians: 5 points
Palestine: 5 points
Mongols: 5 points

_________________________________________________

[img]C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\asimoes\Os meus documentos\Toni\Bandeira de Portugal.gif[/img]

Portugal - Nation of Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition)

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by JayKay
[img]C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\asimoes\Os meus documentos\Toni\Bandeira de Portugal.gif[/img]

Welcome, JayKay. I would just like to remind you that whatever image you attempted to post must be saved on your computer and therefore nobody else can see it!

[LoD]

JellyDonut: It's named "Bandeira de Portugal.gif", so I don't think we have to see it to know what it is .

[Amerlain]

Ok all, here are my votes:

Poles: 20 pts
Huns: 20 pts
Slavs: 20 pts
Siamese/Thai: 20 pts
Swedes: 20 pts
Arabs: 5 pts
Israelis: 5 pts

[JayKay]

ok here it is...sorry about that...my mistake!!!

what about now? can u see it?
_________________________________________________



Portugal - Nation of Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition)

[Rosacrux]

Hi I am new on this board and I want to say that Locutus is doing a great job here.

Alright, now I am going on to vote. 160 points - 20 max for each civ, right?

Arabs - 20
Mongols - 20
Byzantines - 20
Carthagenians - 20
Spanish - 20
Ethiopian - 20
Nubians - 20
Inca - 20

If somethig is wrong with the above voting, please informe me. Thank you

[Mankind]

Originally posted by ogotai
"Leppersson" - hmm... that reminds me something... but what?!

Yes, you're right... Maybe it was the 'Andrew' thingy...

Maybe not!

[Locutus]

Warning: long reply coming up...

Oerdin,
Well, I apologize if I offended you, I admit my reply could have been less 'straightforward'. I admit that I underestimated your knowledge of these civs but the ease with which you dismissed them did create the impression that you knew little about them (I don't want to place the blame for this on you but you could have explained the reasoning behind your decision in your original post). Even now I still have the impression that this is the case regarding the Mali, or at least that you underestimate their importance.

Personally, I have a number of objections to the criteria you used but I won't go into that too much. There's only one (big) issue I'd like to object to: in all those criteria, 'large impact on the world' is a very important factor. However, using that as a criterium, very few civilizations actually qualify, civilizations that had a truly global (or at least multi-continental) impact are very rare. The only pre-colonial age civs that were really global are the Arabs, the Mongols and (part of the time) India. Maybe I'm overlooking one or two but not many more. Next to colonial and post-colonial age civs (such as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, the US, France), no other civs had a truly global impact. Even the Romans, Chinese, (Ottoman) Turks, Vikings, Phoenicians, etc can only were important on a continental scale. Some of the greatest civs in history had even less influence, regional would be the only appropriate turn, like Babylon (and Sumer and Akkad and...), Egypt, Aztec, Germany and Japan (pre-WWII Japan, that is). Whether or not a civ has a big impact on the world around it depends just as much on that world as on the civ itself. The Egyptians, by many seen as (one of) the greatest civilizations of human history, never had more than a regional influence because the areas west and south of them were extremely inhospitable (and expansion was limited by the Kushites) while their ability to gain an influence in Asia and Europe was severely hampered by the Fertile Crescent civs and the Minoan empire. Their influence on the world today is extremely small (if not non-existant), but this does not mean it's not a great civ. Another example, in terms of science: the Greeks invented the steam engine around 70 AD, a very important invention that, as the British showed, should have a large impact on a global scale. Yet, in case of the Greeks, this was not the case at all. This is because steam power had to compete with slavery in those days. Any invention or discovery, no matter how advanced or important, will only have a world-wide impact if it's invented at the right time, in the right place. A similar thing can be said for the cultural, economic, demographic or any other type of impact. When comparing civs with each other one should IMHO pay just as much attention to the merits of a civ itself as to the way in which it impacted the world around them.

However, even if I'd accept your criteria as valid set for comparing civs, at least the Mali and probably the Khmer too still can't be ruled out as important civs.

The Mali was one of the wealthiest civilizations in human history, they had an extremely strong economy and were at the time one of the world's major trading nations. Their wealth was known to the entire Muslim world and even in Europe, where its reputation was of mythical proportions (that's where Timbuktu got its reputation as a far away place from). Their 'national' economy was based on the rich and fertile lands near the river that formed the center of their empire, the Niger. These lands provided them with a solid basis for agriculture (they grew cotton, peanuts, grains, and variety of other crops), herding, fishing, trade and all sorts of other economic activities that kept their civilization alive. What made them such a powerful 'international' economic force was the extensive trade network throughout Northern and Western Africa which they largely controlled. They traded not only in salt and gold but in many other commodities: ivory, nuts, slaves, jewelry, weapons and even books and manuscripts. A famous episode of Mali history is the pilgrimage of a Mali king to Mecca: this king brought so many gifts with him on this journey that influx of such wealth completely devastated the economy of Cairo and it needed several decades to recover, while this loss of capital didn't hurt the Mali economy one bit. The Mali wealth was easily at the same level as - if not superior to - that of other rich civilizations like the Spanish, the Dutch or Indians, so they easily qualify for criterium #5 (economy).

Contrary to most other civilizations that grew wealthy through trade, the Mali did not use this wealth to wage war and only a fairly small part of it was used for building great palaces and mosques. The vast majority of this wealth was invested in science. I was amazed to read that you were not aware of the Malian scientific achievements because they are famous for them. Mali kings built great mosques, vast libraries, and Islamic universities throughout their kingdom. Timbuktu became one of the major cultural and scientific centers not just of Africa but of the world, it became a meeting place of poets, scholars and artists of Africa and the Middle East. Even after Mali declined, Timbuktu remained the major Islamic center of sub-Saharan Africa. One interesting quote I don't wan't to leave out comes from the book "Timbuctoo the Mysterious" by Felix Dubois, which describes the intellectual accomplishments of the famous Sankore university at Timbuktu:

The scholars of Timbuctoo yielded in nothing, to the saints in the sojourns in the foreign universities of Fez, Tunis, and Cairo. They astounded the most learned men of Islam by their erudition. That these Negroes were on a level with the Arabian savants is proved by the fact that they were installed as professors in Morocco and Egypt. In contrast to this, we find that Arabs were not always equal to the requirements of Sankore.

The Mali excelled in fields such as architecture, the arts, literature, theology, geography, astronomy, mathematics, philosophy and medicine. The Mali more than pass criterium #2 (science) and were important in terms of #1 (culture) as well.

As far as geographic area, population size and longevity goes, they were certainly not amongst the largest civs in history in this respect but certainly not amongst the smallest either. Their golden age lasted 3 to 4 centuries, (much) longer FE than that of the Dutch, Portuguese, Aztec, Inca or Byzantines. Personally I think that if Mali is included in Civ3 they should represent all Sahel civilizations, in other words include the Songhai and Ghanaians as well (in the same fashion that Babylon in Civ3 represents the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, etc as well as Babylon itself). In that case, the Mali empire lasted from roughly 300 AD to 1600 AD, so it would be a very long-lived empire too. As far as geographic area goes, they were roughly comparable with the Holy Roman Empire. I don't know what your definition of 'medium-sized' is but personally I'd say they were too big to be medium-sized but too small to be large. So, as far as criterium #4 goes, they didn't really excel in this area but they certainly weren't inferior to many of the civs from the top 32 (Civ3 civs plus top 16 from this poll) either.

All things considered, even using your criteria the Mali most certainly qualify as a great civilization. Without an indept analysis of all three civs I wouldn't dare to say whether they are superior or inferior to the Portuguese and/or Dutch but to dissmiss them off-hand as inferior is IMHO very premature. Since this post is long enough as it is, I won't elaborately describe my opinion on the Khmer. I will say though that they excelled in their religious and construction projects: they built many hundreds of large temple complexes, they built an extensive road network and their advanced system of waterworks and agriculture are important signs of greatness. Combine this with a social structure that was so complicated it still isn't fully understood by scholars today and I'd say there too were an important civilization. I agree that they weren't as great as the Mali, Dutch or Portuguese but I personally think that Austria *was* in their league (again, to figure out which of the two was superior would require an indept analysis of both civs).

My point is that I even though I might agree with you when you argue that European civs generally were more important than many of the non-European civs but you shouldn't underestimate the importance of these non-Europeans either, some of these are most certainly worthy of a place in Civ.

[Locutus]

I updated the ranking. 30113 points, 196 valid votes, 96.0%. (Last update: Rosacrux)

Solmyr,
You can't vote for the Hungarians. You have enough points left but already voted for 16 civs, you'll have to retract your votes for one other civ.

ogotai,
You voted 165 points. To make your vote count anyway, I gave the Spanish only 5 points extra (they got 15 points now). Let me know if you want it changed.

Droximus,
The Iroquois are already in Civ3. I can understand you may want to revise them but IMHO it's not a good idea to vote for them because of that. So I didn't count your points for the Iroquois but I counted the rest of your vote.

[Gramphos]

You forgot to chenge the name of last updated to. It still says Mars.

[Gramphos]

The Excel file ends with Droximus, so I can't update the bars for the top 16

[Melloj]

Locutus,

Just wanted to make sure, you got my votes back on page 2.

Thanks

Melloj

[Locutus]

Gramphos,
Thanks for pointing those things out. I accidentally uploaded the files to the wrong server Should be fixed now...

Melloj,
Yes, I counted those.

[Melloj]

Thank you Sir.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Locutus
Gramphos,
Thanks for pointing those things out. I accidentally uploaded the files to the wrong server Should be fixed now...

Yes, works fine now. The bars have been updated.

Happy Birthday Locutus!

[Solmyr]

Locutus: I don't remember at all which civs I originally voted for and with how many points, so I might as well submit a totally updated vote:

Byzantines 20
Arabs 20
Turks 20
Spanish 20
Mongols 20
Vikings/Normans 20
Khmers 20
Koreans 20

[Faboba]

In no particular order ( the way they came to me in another thread )

1 : The Celts 20
2 : The Spanish 20
3 : The Polynesians 20
4 : The Arabs 20
5 : The Mongols 20
6 : The Incans 20
7 : The Vikings 20
8 : The Turks 20

[Shaka Naldur]

Spanish 20
Crown of Aragon 20
Al-Alandalus 20
Arabs 20
Mayas 20
Incas 20
Portuguess 20
Hitites 20

[ogotai]

You voted 165 points. To make your vote count anyway, I gave the Spanish only 5 points extra (they got 15 points now). Let me know if you want it changed.

You have right, it was my mistake, sorry...

I'm ok with your change.
5 points less for Spanish won't hurt dem

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by JayKay


Portugal - Nation of Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition)

Jay Kay (that handle bears a vaguely familiar ring to me ):

That's not the flag under which Magellan sailed, man . Not only that, Magellan was trying to find an alternate route to compete with the Portuguese for the Asian trade. Shouldn't that make him more of a traitor than a hero for you guys? You should have Vasco da Gama up there. Or even better (muuch better): LUIS FIGO!

Jokes apart, why don't you come over the Spansih Civ Site forum? It was originally meant as a generic Iberian Civ Site forum, but since you luso guys don't visit.....

[JayKay]

Originally posted by Jay Bee



Jay Kay (that handle bears a vaguely familiar ring to me ):

That's not the flag under which Magellan sailed, man . Not only that, Magellan was trying to find an alternate route to compete with the Portuguese for the Asian trade. Shouldn't that make him more of a traitor than a hero for you guys? You should have Vasco da Gama up there. Or even better (muuch better): LUIS FIGO!

Jokes apart, why don't you come over the Spansih Civ Site forum? It was originally meant as a generic Iberian Civ Site forum, but since you luso guys don't visit.....

Well Jay Bee, i know already all that u r saying, but Magellan's was Portuguese - and that's only what my phrase is saying: "Nation of Magellan's" it isn't saying Nation of Magellan's Expedition does it? Besides what matters is that he's Portuguese, and without him the Spanish would never do it!!
That remindes me of Colombus, who was italian and discovered America, aldo thinking it was India (That's why they natives of America are indians), was at the service of Spain (aldo with Portuguese maps)! It's believed that Portugal didn't accept the Colombus services (so he turned is attention to Spain) because Portugal already knew that America was there...that's why Brazil was discovered not to long after America!!

Of course i think Vasco da Gama (discoverer of the Maritime path to India) and Pedro Álvares Cabral (discoverer of Brazil in 1500) r more important to Portugal history than Magellan's (actually Fernão de Magalhães is he's name in portuguese - don't know were they get this stupid name translations; if he's name is Magalhães why call him Magellan); but the only reference to Portuguese in Civ is Magellan's!!

So...it seems that he is more known than any other Portuguese personality (really don't understand how they can leave Portugal out of Civ 2 - our country was, when we had our colonies, bigger than Europe. Our empire was spread all over the world - in America (Brazil); in Africa (Angola; Moçambique; Guiné Bissau; São tomé e Príncipe); in Asia (Macau; Goa)!!!

Personally (and i think i speak for all portuguese all over the world), i don't know why we were left off the Colonization too!!!

So that's the reason why i put Magellan's and not other portuguese (is the only portuguese in Civ 2)!!

And we don't think he's a traitor... You Spaniards from Barcelona were the ones who called traitor to Luis Figo when he left for Real Madrid!! I don't think that's fair - he would stay in Barcelona if they gave him what he wanted!!

_________________________________________________



Portugal - Nation of Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition)