What is a "civilization" anyway?

ranskaldan · October 14, 2001, 20:49

After a weekend of lurking, I've seen a lot of debate on what civs should be or should not be in civ. Debates on whether the Mongols are a civ or not, whether the Byzantines are just a type of Greeks, whether the Iroquois should be in at all, whether the Malians are more/less important than the Dutch, etc.

Anyway... I've realized that there are dozens of definitions of a 'civilization' out there, and everyone seems to go by a different definition of 'civilization'. That's what caused these arguments IMO.

So, my question is, what is a civilization, in the context of civ3?

P.S. Please do not to use dictionary definitions, most of those don't apply to the context of civ3 the game.

DarkCloud · October 14, 2001, 21:59

According to Civ, The Civ msut have been a civilization which is:

-Interesting to Play
-Has exerted power over a large amount of the landmass of the earth for a significant (IE 100 years) amount of time
-Has some special allure that makes it noticeably different from any other civilization.
-Was a nation at one time

----
This definition disqualifies many barbarian tribes and lesser nations...

XarXo · October 14, 2001, 23:35

The true reason to be included in Civ III is to have a bloody past. If the germany history didn't had a "Hitler" surely that now they are considered as a "minor nationality" like Ukrania, Turkey or Korea.

Probably in Civilization IV we'll see Afghanistan or the Arabians by default in the fisrt 16 "more important civilizations".

The people wants BLOOD, WARS, DEADS, VIOLENCE. A pacifical game with bloody leaders only is a kind of the "morbus" tath the people want.

Is the same reson to play a game like Quake III Arena or another stupid 3D action. The same to see the News at TV, or read a historical text. Welcome to the "anglo-balized" culture!!

Only a people that cross a water pass and invades the celts, dividing them with wars, stealing spanish money with pirates, had a bastard queen can make a great emapire, beacuse they are the biggest S.O.B. amount of people in the world.

Of course, a lot of cultures have similar status, english aren't the "bad ones"! Of course, the second in "bad" (Spain) isn't included, they don't want to be compared.

ranskaldan · October 14, 2001, 23:47

Quote:

Interesting to Play

Ok, that includes basically any culture that existed.

Quote:

Has exerted power over a large amount of the landmass of the earth for a significant (IE 100 years) amount of time

Would it then be right to include, say, Ethiopians? Or Aztecs?How 'large' is large?

Quote:

Has some special allure that makes it noticeably different from any other civilization.

Do the Byzantines have a special allure that makes it noticeably different from the Romans or Greeks?

Quote:

Was a nation at one time

Were the Mongols a nation? Were the Iroquois a nation? Does a nation have a government? Can it just be tribes? Or clans? Or kingdoms? Or a confederation?

You see... by varying the meaning of such fuzzy words like 'significant', 'interesting', 'noticeably different', and 'nation', we can include every civilization in the world, or just a few.

So how should we define:
significant
interesting
noticeably different
and nation?

DarkCloud · October 15, 2001, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo
The true reason to be included in Civ III is to have a bloody past. If the germany history didn't had a "Hitler" surely that now they are considered as a "minor nationality" like Ukrania, Turkey or Korea.

Ukraine had COSSACKS, and many wars between Poland and Rus... Turkey had the turks, very bloody...
Korea had many wars... Thus that idea is out-

---
Yes, Aztec. It was a large empire; it bordered the Maya.
In Civ the Inca are out because they didn't exist as a large civ for but 25-50 years.

The largeempireconsideration arbitrarily keeps other empiresout of consideration...

ran- i did not say ANYTHING about the byzantines.

Was a nation- all "civs" inthegame are nations.

XarXo · October 15, 2001, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Ukraine had COSSACKS, and many wars between Poland and Rus... Turkey had the turks, very bloody...
Korea had many wars... Thus that idea is out-

Yes, but they killed 10 million of people in 3 years?

France is exterminating Occitania, England extermintaed Cornwall, Spain tow amerindian empires, well... Blood, blood, blood...

August Borms · October 15, 2001, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo
The true reason to be included in Civ III is to have a bloody past. If the germany history didn't had a "Hitler" surely that now they are considered as a "minor nationality" like Ukrania, Turkey or Korea.

Well, that and the fact that Germany is the second biggest market for PC games in the world

mactbone · October 15, 2001, 14:29

This is an absolutely stupid assumption. First you ignore the fact that EVERY nation/civilization has killed, be it in an actual war or otherwise. Then you accuse Firaxis of only picking Civs whaich are "Bloody, bloody, bloody". Have you seen the list of sixteen civs? Did you know every single one? If you did then it looks like they got it half right already. Name recognition is a big factor when looking for civs. Were you able to rationalize why they were in the game, i.e. "world influence"? I've been able to. The only civ that doesn't jive with this is the Zulus, but that civ is in more for geographical and cultural purposes than any other reason IMHO.

BTW, the Iroquis was a confederacy, effectively making it a nation (borders + culture + government = nation).

ranskaldan · October 15, 2001, 16:10

dark: the byzantines question wasn't directed at you, it's just a general question to everyone.

xarxo: every, and any culture, in the world, has killed off other cultures. There is not a single race, culture, civilization, or nation, that hasn't massively killed other groups.
Also, France is not 'exterminating' Occitania. Assimilating its culture, yes. 'Exterminating', no. Exterminating means 'killing off anything that moves'.
And Turkey is a 'minor' nation?

What about the Ottomans Turks, who ruled the Middle East for 4 centuries??

Leppersson · October 15, 2001, 17:51

Indeed!!!
Arabs, Mongols and Turks should be among core 16 civs.
And Spain - they've conquested half of the world!!!

Sarxis · October 15, 2001, 19:05

Main Entry: civ·i·li·za·tion
Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1772
1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
2 : the process of becoming civilized
3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort

Rosacrux · October 15, 2001, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan

Do the Byzantines have a special allure that makes it noticeably different from the Romans or Greeks?

YES, very much so. You can read the (quite accurate, but with some things left out I am afraid) description posted in the thread about Mongols and Spanish. If this is not enough, let me know, and I shall provide you with a dozen links on byzantine history and what distinguishes them from Romans and Greeks.

Rosacrux · October 15, 2001, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Assur

Well, that and the fact that Germany is the second biggest market for PC games in the world

Hmm... I thought that was Japan...

Kc7mxo · October 15, 2001, 20:54

Its probably quite the tossup, their populations are very close. however, japan is currently in a bit of an economic reccession.

Sarxis · October 15, 2001, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux

Hmm... I thought that was Japan...

Do the Japanese play a lot of PC games? Or do they play more console type games? I would think the Japanese are more into the consoles.

XarXo · October 16, 2001, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
This is an absolutely stupid assumption. First you ignore the fact that EVERY nation/civilization has killed, be it in an actual war or otherwise. Then you accuse Firaxis of only picking Civs whaich are "Bloody, bloody, bloody". Have you seen the list of sixteen civs? Did you know every single one? If you did then it looks like they got it half right already. Name recognition is a big factor when looking for civs. Were you able to rationalize why they were in the game, i.e. "world influence"? I've been able to. The only civ that doesn't jive with this is the Zulus, but that civ is in more for geographical and cultural purposes than any other reason IMHO.

No, sorry, is BLOOD! A lot of countries make "great" bloody actions, but these 16 are the best ones. Look the following reasons:

- English : What to say? They contracted pirates to steal money to Spain.

- Americans : "I will make a peace tretay, but first I will test my new kind of bomb with'em"

- Iroquois : "They represents all the native northamerican tribes..." OoooOOOoooOOh... How much beautiful?? FALSE! They represent all THE COLONIZATION WARS. Only a combat dude.

- Zulus : The same, but now for the english market.

- Russians : Oohohohooo. With communism and Stalin all is said!

- Germany : Hitler! Oh! The King of Blood. A midget bastard with ridiculous facial hair. What to say?

- Aztec : In Civ3.COM they make a special refference to the human
sacrifices. Now I know why they didn't choose the Incas.

- French : Their centralism and chobisnism is enough reason to declare war to him an destroy them. Ah, also the Sahara Arabic destruction in the XVIII-XX (and the atomic test in Muruora!).

- Indians : Millions of persons with computers. But the Cashmir war is truly a morbous point.

- Egyptians : Pyramids, and the slaves that build them? And the wars with Israel and Nubia?

- Japanese : Koreans "LOVE" 'em . They make a great humanitary acts in the 2nd WW.

- Chinese : Look a Tibet. Look at elsewhere.

- Persians : They are the actual Iran. that's all.

- Babylonians : Wohohoo, they are IRAQ now!!

- Greeks : Well... Ehm... Pf... Okey, Greeks are the exception.

- Romans : Ugh, too many bloody wars. Let's make a choice!

- Barbarians: Extra blood.

Well, this seems more a JOKE.

Ok, I accept that my theory is FALSE. Sorry if someone is insulted with my words, but is history guys!

Locutus · October 16, 2001, 07:34

Actually, I don't think we'll ever agree on what a civilization is. Some people say a civilization is a cultural group that had written history, some argue that they must have lived in cities, others argue they should first and foremost be fun to play with and yet others say the should be historically 'important'.

IMHO the only way to figure out which civs are worthy of a place in Civ3 is to organize a poll, let everybody vote for their favourite civs and sort things out afterwards. Now, why does that sound familiar?

mactbone · October 16, 2001, 10:02

Xarxo, I gotta ask, do you really believe what you've written here, or is this a troll?

The Greeks did make war, so I guess they're bloody too.
The Americans launched two atomic bombs because the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered until most of their population had died fighting. It's generally accepted that Truman saved lives on both sides by forcing the surrender quckly. Not to say that's a good reason, but that's how it is rationalized. You'd be better off making a point of the Amerindian massacres.

The Aztecs DID have human sacrifices and it's a very interesting and salient fact about them. That's not the reason they're in though. I don't know exactly why they chose Aztecs over Incas, but I'm sure someone with more knowledge about the civs could tell you.

XarXo · October 16, 2001, 10:04

If we use a poll, Neanderthals are a civ ?

XarXo · October 16, 2001, 10:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MacTBone
Xarxo, I gotta ask, do you really believe what you've written here, or is this a troll?

Is a TROLL.

Rasbelin · October 16, 2001, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Actually, I don't think we'll ever agree on what a civilization is.

You're right. Scientists and historics argue
on this, so why would we be different.

P.S. I'll give a more deep going reply tomorrow
(due to the autumn vacation).

ranskaldan · October 16, 2001, 16:07

Yeah... it's really very very hard to arrive at a common definition for civ. But I was looking at the poll a couple of days ago and everyone had a problem with at least one or two civs in the top 16... And most of those debates involve completely different definitions for civilization.

EDIT:
Xarxo: i was just about to post some really nasty things about what you said... but then I realized that it was a joke... oh well, what can i say! lol!

August Borms · October 16, 2001, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux

Hmm... I thought that was Japan...

I'm pretty sure it's Germany... I've seen it mentioned a couple of times on non-German sites but I can't find anything on google though, except that Germany is 3rd biggest market for software and that PC games aren't that popular in Japan...

DarkCloud · October 16, 2001, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo

- Americans : "I will make a peace tretay, but first I will test my new kind of bomb with'em"

I think you misread American history, If you must criticize Americans: Note the following wars:

Mexican-American War (Why was this fought? No good reason)
Spanish-American War (No good reason, newspaper, govt faked the reasons)

America has a long tradition of hating hispanics

--
In WWII Japanese did NOT want PEACE! That is why they were atomized twice.

Boris Godunov · October 17, 2001, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

I think you misread American history, If you must criticize Americans: Note the following wars:

Mexican-American War (Why was this fought? No good reason)
Spanish-American War (No good reason, newspaper, govt faked the reasons)

America has a long tradition of hating hispanics

--
In WWII Japanese did NOT want PEACE! That is why they were atomized twice.

First, there is a great deal of evidence that Japan was making moves to capitulate prior to the bombing. Regardless, Truman's decision was more a first shot of the Cold War than a last shot of WWII. He was showing Stalin how big the American d!ck was.

Americans have no long tradition of hating Hispanics. What we have is the Eurocentric notion that only European civilization should be taken seriously. The wars cited above were merely a couple of conflicts in a long line of European American aggression in the name of "civilized" expansion. The Hispanics have no special place here--they joined the Amerinds, the blacks and every other non-WASP group in being a punching bag of history.

Edit: Of course, given the Spanish butchering of Native Americans, nobody's hands are clean here.

Cheers.

Rasbelin · October 17, 2001, 02:57

Here's the reply I promised yesterday.

I checked what Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary mentioned about "civilization",
and here it is:

A relatively high level of cultural
and technological development;
specifically: the stage of cultural
development at which writing and
the keeping of written records is attained
b : the culture characteristic of a particular
time or place

I also checked what the Collins Westminster
Dictonary (good as new, anno 1960

) had to say.
And guess what! It didn't know the word "civilization"!

Looks like the old good book has some weak spots.

My definition for "civilization" is a joint population or
settlement that has some sort of government,
written language, laws and social hierarchy.
The cultural heritage is also often shared by everyone.
It doesn't necessarily have a far developed science.

The deifinition given by the M-B's dictonary isn't
good (IMHO), because that's more like the definition
for "high culture".

Rasbelin · October 17, 2001, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

In WWII Japanese did NOT want PEACE! That is why they were atomized twice.

You're more than right, or are you...

I must add that Rose wanted to drop Little Boy and
it's brother ( how cruel

) on Japan, because
he thought that it would speed things up.
And it really did that; Japan surrendered.

Faboba · October 17, 2001, 07:04

Ras - The reason Collin's westminster didn't have civilization is because you're not spelling it correctly.

In the english language ( no not AMERICAN english, english english ) it's often spelt civilisation ( Oxford Dic says either is correct so I'm not judging, we had this argument many times before on Ap ) so try looking under s.

Oxford dic says it was coined in 1704 so your dictionary if it's even half decent bloody well ought to have it.

Civilization - also isation 1704 [ f. Civilize+-ation ] 1. The assimilation of the common law to the civil law -1812. 2. The action or process of civilizing or being civilized. -1775 3. ( more usually ) Civilized condition or state - 1772. Also transf.
3.The more advanced the c. the less powerful is the individual HELPS. Hense civilizational a.

So thats.......... not use at all to anyone.

( nb to make someone civil you must - bring them out a state of barbarism, instruct them in the arts of life or englighten and refine them. )

Rasbelin · October 17, 2001, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
The reason Collin's westminster didn't have civilization is because you're not spelling it correctly.

Well, I found it already, but thanks anyway!

There's a very short description on "civilisation".

The act of civilising, or state of being civilised.

Faboba · October 17, 2001, 10:42

And I'll bet that helped a whole lot