What the CSA's actually represent

[Ironwood]

I just thought I'd start a debate as to what cultural qualities the CSAs actually represent. I've commented on these in various threads, and decided to condense it all in one place.

Militaristic: A society can be considered "militaristic" when it considers military prowess to be a virture, usually a "manly" virtue. A culture that values the ability of raiders to defeat their tribal enemies would be considered militarist. A culture that believes every able bodied male should maintain some sort of military training, and his own weapons, would be considered militarist. The Greeks had a code like this (brought to it's full measure in the Spartans), as did the Germanic tribes (and the Germans up until after WWII). The Romans were like this (only warriors could vote in Rome). Once could say that while the Anglish were like this (continued in the attempts to force a militia system on the populace in their early days) the English (or rather, the British) were not.

Commercial: In short, any civilization who's merchant class is regarded highly. The ability to make money is a good skill, and men of wealth have considerable influence in this society, lacking the stigma they possess in non-commercial societies. The Romans were most assuredly this way, as were the Phonecians. The English, most definately. I'm not so sure about the French, considering the French Revolution was the birthplace of socialism, and that influence remains in France to this day. America could also be considered not commercial, for while there are those who value the creation of wealth, for every one of those, there is a unionist or socialist who would tear down the edifice of wealth if they could.

Expansionist: A culture that very deliberately expand their influence, because they can, because they wish to, because it is their right, is expansionist. The Romans might be considered expansionist, because they conquered an empire, but it may also be said it was largely acquired by accident at the provocations of those that were jealous of their power (Carthage, the various Greek areas, etc.) America is the very epitome of expansionism, first in their (or should I say, our) concept of "Manifest Destiny," the idea that the whole continent is theirs for the taking, and now in the relentless expansionism of our industrial enterprises. A culture that believes it's system is so right that it should be extended as far as it can be extended could be considered expansionist, whether it be Militarist-Expansionist, believing they expand simply because they *can*, Scientific-Expansionist, believing they should expand to enlighten the world, or Religeous-Expansionist, for precisely the same reason, or because God said so.

Scientific: A culture that loves truth, that seeks out reality, that doesn't place it's entire stock in it's traditions, in the old ways, would be considered scientific. Greece is the very be all and end all of this concept, particularly in Athens (if you believe your elementary school history classes). The Germans are known for trying to come up with new ideas. The Babylonians were pretty good for this, being ahead in Astronomy, before their city dried up completely. The religeous fears the new, the non-scientific is indifferent to the new, the scientific embraces it.

Religeous: A culture that values fear of God, the Gods, the Great Unknown, etc. as a virtue would be considered religeous. A culture that values social harmony and the old ways over all else could be considered religeous. Though every culture has a religeous component, a "religeous" culture is generally united in one single belief. The Egyptians were most assuredly a religeous culture, as were the Babylonians, the Israelites, and, indeed, much of the Fertile Crecent of those days. A culture that has been around a long time, and sees it's glories as a part of the past, tends to be reliegous (thus most of the religeous cultures in Civ3 are very old ones). Religeous cultures are the first to define as "threat" a new concept that comes from outside.

Industrious: Productive labor is the highest virtue for an Industrious civilization. I commented earlier that Commerce isn't applicable to America: Industry most certainly is. Though not all value making money, nearly all consider working to be a moral requirement, and many can see only physical labor as moral (while others, the work of the mind, but for all, it is work that is valued). The Egyptians thought of toil on the land, for the Pharoah, as their purpose in life. I can't comment on any other civilizations listed as "Industrious" for Civ3, due to a lack of information. But this is one I understand well, having felt the influence of this creed all my life, as an American. Anyone who can not or will not work is useless, not worthy of consideration, to most people. This is the reason that America has never adopted the socialist system most of Western Europe has adopted (and why I question France as an industrial civilization, let alone commercial-industrial).

I'm sure my biases show through clearly, and some serious flamewars will likely result. Still, my intent is to debate the exact nature of what is represented by the CSAs.

[player1]

Excillent review!
Looking this I would say that my country was probably (during history)
Militaristic & Religious.

[Faboba]

..... anglish...... sigh...... I don't know what's with people these days......

Now I vill say zis only WANZE

The English, being people from England are called English.
The Scottish, being people from Scotland, are called Scottish.
The Welsh, being people from Wales, are called Welsh.
The Northern Irish, being people from Nothern Ireland ( that is to say Nothern Ireland rather than northern ireland as it is a name not a description ) are called Northern Irish.
The church of England is the Anglican church.
The forfathers of those currently living in the land we call England, they themselves being called English, were called the Angles and the Saxons.
The Forefathers to the Scots, those being the people living in the lands we call Scotland, were the Scots....... from Ireland.

The British, being people from the united body reffered to as Great Britain are called the British, NOT the English.
The English, being people from England are called the English, NOT the Anglish.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, that being the generally recognised greatest authority on the English Language, that being the English mode of English, spoken by those in England as opposed to the American mode of English, spoken by those in America, has NO, I repeat NO, record of the word Anglish EVER having existed.

British can be used to describe someone from Great Britian. English can only be used to describe someone from ENGLAND. People from Great Britain CAN be English, but not all people from Great Britain are English.

Great Britain is the term now used for what was the British Empire. The majority of it's lands, that is not to say those oweing allegiance to the Crown on Great Britian, it's sovreign being Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, that is just to say those land currently conisder to be Great Britian, the majority of those lands are in the British Isles.

The largest single governing body within the British Isles is the United Kingdom of Great Britain ( or Great Britain, The United Kingdom, Britain or the UK if you prefer )

When the British Empire was the largest single governing entity in the world the parts of it were NOT part of the United Kingdom. They were part of the British Empire.

A citizen of the British Empire is British.
A citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, that being the large governing body in the British Isles can also be refered to as British.
Members of the British Empire, that being the empire not inclusive to that which is refered to as The United Kingdom of Great Britain, when the Empire was still in existence were all either conquered by soldiers acting on behalf of the Sovreign and Government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain as it existed at the time or had been colonised by order of Sovreign and Government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain as it existed at the time comprising mainly of citizens of The British Empire.

Which is why they were British.

Anyone in the British Empire was British.

They were subjects.

Scotland, was never conquered.

The United Kingdom is called the United Kingdom because it is a Monarchic Political Entity comprised of Unified States.

Those Unified States of the United Kingdom are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Those from England are English and British.
Those from Scotland are Scottish and British.
Those from Wales are Welsh and British.
Those from Northen Ireland are Irish and British.

Those from Wales are British but not English.
Those from Northern Ireland are British but not English

And of most personal importance to myself, given I am from Scotland is;

Those from Scotland are British BUT NOT ENGLISH.

The English are British and speak English.
The Scots are British and speak English.
The British are British and speak English.

But the British are NOT all English

AND OF MORE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE -

The Scottish are NOT ENGLISH.

And with that in mind I would prefer if you did not make comments as :

Once could say that while the Anglish were like this (continued in the attempts to force a militia system on the populace in their early days) the English (or rather, the British) were not.

When it should be;

Once could say that while the English were like this (continued in the attempts to force a militia system on the populace in their early days) the British were not.

THERE IS NO RATHER ABOUT IT.

Also I am pissed enough as it is at Firaxis for making the civilization 'The British' and not 'The English' right now so......

No, it doesn't make sense to you but thats cause you aren't Scottish. That being someone from Scotland ( meaning I don't care if all four of your Great Grandmothers were, it doesn't mean you are. )

Sorry to go on but really....... ANGLISH!!!!!!! To Describe the English. Because you were saving up English to describe those from Great Britain.

[Faboba]

And for the record, especially in reference to your mention of training being your criteria it was English law in medieval times that boys over a certian age ( I think it was somewhere from 11-15 ) had to practice archery on a ( Can't remember. Think it was Saturday ) by Royal decree ( and not work on the farms or anything like that.

This is one of the main reasons that the English had such excellent longbowmen, they'd been forced to train since they were young.

BTW - The Scots did not have this rule enforced on them whatwith them not oweing any allegiance to the King of England at the time. Another excellent reason for the English being a civilization and the Celts being in the expansion pack.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Faboba
Also I am pissed enough as it is at Firaxis for making the civilization 'The British' and not 'The English' right now so......

I believe that's wrong. The civilization's name is "the English", but for some reason a screenshot showed that the country name was "Britain". I'm sure that was a mistake and that it has been changed to "England" by now.

AND OF MORE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE -

The Scottish are NOT ENGLISH. )

Are you sure about that?

[Faboba]

Ok......... now you've put me in a bad mood. Let;'s tackle these one by one shall we.

Militaristic: A society can be considered "militaristic" when it considers military prowess to be a virture, usually a "manly" virtue. A culture that values the ability of raiders to defeat their tribal enemies would be considered militarist. A culture that believes every able bodied male should maintain some sort of military training, and his own weapons, would be considered militarist. The Greeks had a code like this (brought to it's full measure in the Spartans), as did the Germanic tribes (and the Germans up until after WWII). The Romans were like this (only warriors could vote in Rome). Once could say that while the Anglish were like this (continued in the attempts to force a militia system on the populace in their early days) the English (or rather, the British) were not.

Well I more or less covered this in my last point so to quickly sum up you're last point is nonsense as throughout history the British have put a heavy emphasis on warfare and maintaining a large army. In Scotland if you were a leader in the dark ages you would have to fight to prove it, everyman was a fighter first and whatever else they might be; crofter, craftsman, monarch. second. In England as I mentioned earlier, young men and boys were forced to practice with the bow in order that everyman had skill with it and the majority trained beyond that considering that to be of noble birth meant you would most likely end up with a knighthood. Similarly in the times of the British Empire there was a heavy influence put on maintaining a vast and grand colonial militia which one conquests from America to China, from the East Indies to Africa

Commercial: In short, any civilization who's merchant class is regarded highly. The ability to make money is a good skill, and men of wealth have considerable influence in this society, lacking the stigma they possess in non-commercial societies. The Romans were most assuredly this way, as were the Phonecians. The English, most definately. I'm not so sure about the French, considering the French Revolution was the birthplace of socialism, and that influence remains in France to this day. America could also be considered not commercial, for while there are those who value the creation of wealth, for every one of those, there is a unionist or socialist who would tear down the edifice of wealth if they could.

What are you gibbering about regarding the French? A revolt by the workers over the luxury the aristocracy live in and you are surprised it has left wing leanings. Revolts have been happening against rulers for millenia. All of them had socialist attitudes as..... surprise, surprise; it's the frigging workers doing the revolt in the first place! The English have had plenty of worker rebellions ( unsucessful ) throughout their history yet I don't see you suggesting they be discarded as commerical. ( I say England as Scotland never really had a very unified governmental system. How can you revolt in the middle of anarchy? When the English took over however there Scotland had more than it's fair share of revolts.

Expansionist: A culture that very deliberately expand their influence, because they can, because they wish to, because it is their right, is expansionist. The Romans might be considered expansionist, because they conquered an empire, but it may also be said it was largely acquired by accident at the provocations of those that were jealous of their power (Carthage, the various Greek areas, etc.) America is the very epitome of expansionism, first in their (or should I say, our) concept of "Manifest Destiny," the idea that the whole continent is theirs for the taking, and now in the relentless expansionism of our industrial enterprises. A culture that believes it's system is so right that it should be extended as far as it can be extended could be considered expansionist, whether it be Militarist-Expansionist, believing they expand simply because they *can*, Scientific-Expansionist, believing they should expand to enlighten the world, or Religeous-Expansionist, for precisely the same reason, or because God said so.

"Provokations of those that were jealous of their power" No, not really. It's mainly because they were snippy little Italians who didn't know when to stop winning. The were attacked by the carthaginians so, instead of fighting off the carthaginians they completely wiped them out. It's how you do it in Risk and Civ but it's not the way most people do it in reality. They have enough conquest and go home. Not so the Romans. They took out Spain then kept on to Africa. Then they had a little tiff with the Hellenistic Kingdoms and they take over the whole of Macedon, Greece and Asia Minor By 117 BC they had an empire stretching from Iran to Gibraltar. And why? Cause they were Italians getting enthusiastic. Never stand in the way of an excited Italian, particularly not one on a mo-ped. Don't know if I agree with your last bits but I'll accept them as you say but note : All civilizations in this game are expansionist. If they were not then thy wouldn't be in the game, they would have sat in their little mud-huts going "no I don't want to go conquer the world today, I've got a sore head."

Scientific: A culture that loves truth, that seeks out reality, that doesn't place it's entire stock in it's traditions, in the old ways, would be considered scientific. Greece is the very be all and end all of this concept, particularly in Athens (if you believe your elementary school history classes). The Germans are known for trying to come up with new ideas. The Babylonians were pretty good for this, being ahead in Astronomy, before their city dried up completely. The religeous fears the new, the non-scientific is indifferent to the new, the scientific embraces it.

They say necessity is the mother of invention and in most cases this is indeed true. Scientific is a bit of a misnomer because there are many types. Pure science is curiosity. You see stars in the sky and wonder 'what the **** are those things and why are they so damn happy when I'm a miserable Milanese visionary stuck in the Kingdom of Florence', you burn your food but instead of going "Yo! Ug. Go get me another elk you lazy bastard" you try and figure out why it's gone all black. German science is caused by a different drive, one shared by many. You see a guy pulling water from a river using a bucket and think there must be some way of doing it better. Don't get me wrong, it sure as hell isn't laziness, the Germans try and figure out clever ways of doing things fast and well so they have more times of making other things more efficent. You end up with a contraption automatically pulling buckets of water using a pulley to lessen the energy it needs and pulling the water from a canal you shunted the river to so it goes exactly where you want it. It's the inverse of the Native Americans - they weren't wasteful, they carefully used everything from the buffalo they killed, but they were willing to accept things the way they were and not come up with ways of doing things quicker. Why bother? There was no need.
The LAST type of scientific drive I can think of is - "Hey Brian, that geezers got gold over the river, lets work out a way to get across so we can nick it. It's the dark side of science. Desire for invention driven by greed and anger wanting new ways to kill people and steal what they have, which you want ( often other inventions to improve killing which is how we get an arms race ). It is found in some parts of all cultures but doesn't become noticable till some guy become incharge of his village and says "Hey John, make me a bow so I can shoot everyone in the next village without risking my own neck, then steal their land."

Religeous: A culture that values fear of God, the Gods, the Great Unknown, etc. as a virtue would be considered religeous. A culture that values social harmony and the old ways over all else could be considered religeous. Though every culture has a religeous component, a "religeous" culture is generally united in one single belief. The Egyptians were most assuredly a religeous culture, as were the Babylonians, the Israelites, and, indeed, much of the Fertile Crecent of those days. A culture that has been around a long time, and sees it's glories as a part of the past, tends to be reliegous (thus most of the religeous cultures in Civ3 are very old ones). Religeous cultures are the first to define as "threat" a new concept that comes from outside.

You're right in many ways there. Relgion is about two things - fear and control.
It's about fear because that's how it starts. People see a lightning storm and say "Whats this?" Those with science in their blood will try and find out as curiosity weighs out over fear, but those who are afraid will decide they've done something wrong and are being punished. Lightning storm - God is angry. Bad harvest - God is angry. Plague - God is angry.
But it doesn't work without control. Without the power-hungry guy that says "Yes! God is angry. He wants you to kill one of those weirdos in the next village to show how much you love him. He only talks directly to me by the way. Thats why you can't hear him. This means I'm better than you."

Religious societies are those who have actually turned relgion into a viable way to live. Organised religions all make sacrifices, you can't prevent fornication, you'll be overthrown. You can't make everyone spend all time worshipping god, they'll get cranky if they can't sleep and hungry if they can't farm and cranky hungry people tend to turn cannibal on the priest. Religious societies are those with an organised religion that still manage to function as a society breeding effect based on that religion.

Bhuddism says be peaceful so societies adopting that will be peaceful. This was a relgion invented before the society adopted it.

Roman religion was Polytheistic and was used by the Romans to try to keep the masses in line and justify whatever they did. This is a relgion invented by a society for it's own use.

Judaism and Islam requires young children to read the Torah and the Koran. This means that children will begin to expand their minds from an early age. With passages needing memorisedthis also promotes learning early in the development. In the UK it's a steryo-type that most doctors are Asian. But the fact is - It's TRUE. They have a higher emphasis put on education by their parents and so enter into the academicly hardest, highest paying job. Which is...... medcine.

Christianity was originally based on Judaism but was changed in order to make it spread easier. I mean Paul of Tarsus wanted it adopted by people in the mediterranian as fast as humanly possible.

"Got this cool thing for you - Christianity. It's like Judaism, we'll be favoured by the Lord and be rich and smart, but anyone can do it ( Judaism was never an expansionist thing, more an elite club ) You get a day off on Sundays! You're asked to wander into the place of worship in order to praise the lord that day though. You must read the bi.... what do you mean you can't read? OK the priest will read the bible and you listen to him, how does that sound. Oh and we want to have this cool place where you can do bingo and stuff but..... we don't have any money to make it with, so if everyone can just bung any spare cash they have on this plate we'd be ever so grateful...... so would good by the way. And wait...... I haven't told you the best bit! Death!........."

But when religions that are expansive catch on like Islam and Christianity you start to want more people putting money in the collection plate, particularly if you're a pope ( Rome or Avignon...... or Henry VIII it doesn't matter ). So you say "Go forth and convert the heathens! Or just kill em, but bring us something back"

Originators of religion tend to be afraid of new things like you say because their leaders are the manipulators who have used the fear to their advantage and are worried that the new thing will sap away some of their power. Religion is based on fear and control. Everything else is just bad science.

Industrious: Productive labor is the highest virtue for an Industrious civilization. I commented earlier that Commerce isn't applicable to America: Industry most certainly is. Though not all value making money, nearly all consider working to be a moral requirement, and many can see only physical labor as moral (while others, the work of the mind, but for all, it is work that is valued). The Egyptians thought of toil on the land, for the Pharoah, as their purpose in life. I can't comment on any other civilizations listed as "Industrious" for Civ3, due to a lack of information. But this is one I understand well, having felt the influence of this creed all my life, as an American. Anyone who can not or will not work is useless, not worthy of consideration, to most people. This is the reason that America has never adopted the socialist system most of Western Europe has adopted (and why I question France as an industrial civilization, let alone commercial-industrial).

Well as far as I remember Germany is put in as industrious and thats the one I most agree on. Industriousness is about two things - Efficiency and Hard Work.

Efficency I've already dealt with and I don't think I have to explain about Hard Work. It all falls down to what do you do when you've got spare time by adding in the pulley? Do you go do something else productive or do you use this as an excuse to have a long line-in the next day?

You're last bit is wrong on two counts.

You're saying america believes those who do not work do not count. This is not true, thats just how it works out. America believes ( quite rightly in practice ) that those who work get paid. And America belives those with money count. This is a capitalist system.

When you break it down there are only going to be two ways to go about society -

Communism - Everyone is equal
Meritocracy - Some people are "more equal than others" ( to quote Orwell )

Socialism is about trying to obtain a communist system by being a realist.

Communism doesn't work. You can't say everyone is equal and then put yourself in charge. But if you say everyone is equal and allow all people to vote on everything then they may not vote the way you want. It's like forming a suicide cult and then YOU drinking the poison first. When you're dead you've no garuntee everyone else won't just **** off home and leave your rotting corpse.

Meritocracy ( rule by merit. I know this is not the right term as this a specific type of more-equal-that-others system but it was that or put 'Ocracy' which ain't quite right because DEMOcracy is a left wing type of electoral system is more about having an upper class who rule or think or get more privelages and having a lower class who do the mundane stuff the upper class don't want to do. America doesn't have a class system, it has many different classes based primarily on what income bracket you fall under. >$200,000 per year? Welcome to the ruling elite!

Therefore saying those who work count and those that don't don't count is actually giving a socialist ( or left wing at least ) view because it's an example of everyone working for society with no motivation. True communism says everyone is given a job to perform based on what they can do and everyone is equal in all things because they are all contributing to the best of their abilities to the society they live in. Unfortunatley this is unobtainable becase is end up working like -

"You will work where we tell you or we will kill you. Everyone is equal except me, I'm in charge. And my friends, they're not equal either but they're much more equal to the rest of you than I am. There is no religion. Everyone is equal in the eyes of god because there is no god. Because I said so. I am God. My enemies are like the rest of you equal but they're a much worse kind of equal so it's OK to throw dung at them. Oh heck just kill them! These are my private guard. They do the killing. They are not equal either. Anyone who wants to be a better kind of equal can decide to join my party. I know - to make it fair, let's have an election. I will be the only name on the paper as to put anyone else would be unfair because you're all equal, except me. Oh look I won! Whats that? You think we should trade with other societies? OK - Let's have money but everyone who is equal will get the same ammount - One pittance. If we're gonna have taxes though me and my friends will need our better-than-equal-people wages. Taxes will be exactly one pittance. This system is great isn' it!"

Which is why communist Russia didn't really work.......

As for France, France is actually a very Capitalist country. They believe in money strongly. They like to consider themselves left wing but really it's a case of the workers being greedy cause they're as capitalist as the rest of them. This is why they are commercial. As for industrialist...... well they DO have a work ethic, even if it isn't as strong as Germanys it's stronger than Britains ( "What do you mean the empires' collapsed? I'm busy trying to sleep here. What do you mean am I going to work tommorow? Thats what the colonies are for!" ) and the France of the past always kept well ahead with technology ( ou la technologie si vous preferez ) and....... come one.......... knights look pretty industrial to me, they have plowing feet and shiny metal bodies! And they have lots of knights. ( As for inventing socialism they also invented aristocracy, noveau riche and the burgoise middle class )

Well that was fun! We must do it again some time!

[Faboba]

Oh and I'll put money on it La Tour Eiffel ( if it's in it. May well be, Americans are fond of it and can recognise it, and what with a higher emphasis on diplomacy and not multiplayer....... ) will be an Industrial/Commerical wonder.

Makes you money via tourism and it's a industrial feat to build.

And by the way the French also coined the term tourisme ( thats why it looks so odd. )

( And civilization according to the dictionary. Possibly dictionary too.... dictionaire seems right somehow........ )

[Ironwood]

I am an idiot. I played fast and loose with English, or British, or whateverish terminology, and despite all those ENGLISH SCOTTISH WELSH BRITTISH ACK! threads, I honestly wasn't expecting that to be the prickling point.

Give us stupid Americans a break. Whatever one might say about "Flag Waving Nationalists" the concept of nationalism is somewhat foreign to our (or most of our) culture. So if we don't get why a Scot might be insulted for being confused with a Brit, or whatever, give us a break.

Now, confuse a Republican with a Democrat... now you've got problems.

I was expecting some fundy to come on and flame me for insulting his God.

I was expecting someone to pull the words, "Those who don't work don't count," out of context and declare me a social darwinist.

Or something along those lines. I forgot the sheer virulance of English nationalism.

Still, it seems that despite my poor examples, I at least got the point across.

I see your point regarding German and American and Industrialist. I would argue that the German attribution as "Scientific", and the American attribution as "Industrial."

The reason for this is that, in my experience, German manufacturing seems to be most concerned with quality, not with simply getting the job done, but getting it done *best*, and maybe figuring out something new in the process. It certainly isn't about producing quantity. I used to work parts inventory at a plant that used German machinery almost exclusively, and getting the mechanics their ****ing parts was a ****ing headache. Look at the cars that come out of that country, and quality is definatly stressed over quantity.

America is different. We just want to make as much as possible, so that we can sell to as many as possible. This style can also be applied to military production, which is why our military-industrial complex is as influential as it is; we sell to just about anyone. Before we achieved our "Golden Age" (and my tendency would be to make the American UU the "G.I.") most of what we used was invented elsewhere, but applied most effectively here.

Expansionism: I would disagree that all the included Civs were expansionist. At the very least, Egypt was not an expansionist civilization. Though they certainly may have controled more than just the Nile river valley at some point in their history, after that, they pretty much stayed in the Nile, and their culture never expanded beyond it much; there wasn't much reason for it to. I don't think they ever established colonies elsewhere. And, of corse, some cultures are more expansionist than others.

[Rosacrux]

Yes, indeed. Shallow. Your approach - even if it shows you have done a great effort to put together things that wouldn't fit otherwise (explanation later on) and primarily shows that you (and Faboba) have a hellota time at hand (and I very much envy you for that ) still, it proves to be rather shallow and oversimplifying.


OK, let's start from militaristic

Fact is not even one of nowadays civilizations could be called "militaristic". The last one died off 56 years ago with the fall of Berlin. Todays nations are not militaristic. And calling the Soviet Union (RIP) "militaristic", is plain silly.

As a matter of fact the Germans and formerly the Prussian were the only "militaristic" civ of some significance. Oh, I forgot about the Japanese. Yes, WW2 rid them too from the "militaristic" supplement - and they have been a militaristic society for more than 1500 years! Isn't that impressive?

If we go back in the past... like 2000 years back... well, surprise! ALL nations and/or civilizations would be considered "militaristic".

You got the Roman voting fact wrong, but Rome was militaristic - not at the early Republic stages, but later on - especially in the Imperial era - they would be very much the standard used to justify a civ as "militaristic".

All other civs that wish they had a chance in a million to survive - those were rugh times, my friend, everybody was fighting against everybody - had to develop a rughly militaristic philosophy. Not as early as Egypt of course - but even in the middle east some pretty militaristic civs have risen (Philisteans come in mind).

Why am I saying "even in the middle east"? Well, it's obvious. It was a rather fertile land, the peasants were kept in tact via religion, the ruling class could get whatever they needed through trade... that's it! But the fact that most of the civilizations in the area (mesopotamia) have risen and fall in a matter of a couple of centuries, shows that even the well fed ones had to fight a lot at those dark times.

But consider the Greeks, for instance. Even in the "peace loving, philosophically advanced, founder of science and democracy" Athens, ALL citizen (the full righ citizens, that is) were also warriors and in time of war they would take up arms and fight for their country... or, usually, to exterminate other Greeks

I think I am seing another equation in your writings Ironwood - barbaric=militaristic? Nah, I wouldn't think so. Think of the Celts - as I noted on another thread, they went to battle wearing only their jewels, with no armor (not even cloths) and they had to chop off the oponents head and present it to their leader to receive their share from the looting. They also drunk the blood of the defeated enemy.

Does that qualify them as militaristic? No. It does qualify them as "barbaric", according to what we are used to (well, to speak the truth even people at their time considered the Celts fearsome barbarians ).

I don't really know for sure, this whole attribute issue is kinda pesky...


Commercial

Well, well, well... if we are talking about nations/civilizations who based their growth and prosperity in commerce, we shall find many. Today? Hmm... hard one... The Dutch would be one (they are not in the game though...) the Japanese another one (perhaps... industrius and commercial... but that would deny them their militaristic heritage) and I would add todays Greeks and some others.

If we go back in the past, English/Brits/whatever were great at this field... Spaniards... oops. they are not in. Portuguese? No, the same... Venice? The rest of the Italian states? Nah, out...
For ancient times, Phoenicians is the first name that pops out. But most Arabic civs were also commercial and ... what? They are not in Civ3? Blast... ok, let's settle for the Persians (great traders) the Greeks (they were a nation of traders and philosophers and warriors...) and stop there.

No, the French are not "commercial" by any definition... USA perhaps, despite your anti-Unions rant... you have done a great job in this field - I mean, Coca Cola and Levi's are genuine american trade marks, no? And McDonalds too... as for your cars... uh... pathetic gas eaters


Industrial

This is USA definitely for sure and without any doubt. Germany could be also - no, not could be IS today industrial. Japan too. But the latte two have other virtues (?) in their historical path that should considered above their ability to build en masse factories and produce many copies of the same things

Including the Egyptians as "industrius" is silly, for sure. The Egyptian peasants didn't had "the time of their lives" killing themselves working for their Pharaoh - it was called forced labour, ok? And they got paid for it too...

And stop that European socialist nonsense, there is nothing socialist about Europeans, trust me, I know them better than you do

Religious

This should be applicable for most of the early civs included in the game. The Egyptian ruling class used the church to opress the masses, so did Babylon and all the other nations that have risen in that part of the world.

Who else? Lemme see... hhmm..... the spaniards are not in, that's bad... and the Arabs neither... no, no other qualifiers... maybe the Aztecs.


Scientific

Yes, let the Greeks rule. They were the ones that introduced the scientific thinking to humanity, so they are the definition of it. The next should be China - de-fi-ni-te-ly. Even though they have lost it nowadays, they have invented half of the concepts the west adopted later.

Who else? Dunno... the Germans in the past two centuries are scientific more or less... and even though the american culture is not science-oriented (no way) you produce a whole lot of scientists... you have a pretty high "scientific output", so to say... Russians in the past two centuries are pretty scientific too... very innovative, they always lacked the slack ...err... I mean, they invented things but others implemented those inventions better.

What the Japanese are doing today

More on it tommorow/later, I got to go...

[Myrddin]

Quote:

The British are British and speak English

Except if they are from Cymru (Wales) and speak Cymraeg(Welsh)

[Faboba]

Well some Welsh speak Welsh and some Scots speak Gaelic but I think it's safe to say that all the Welsh speak English as do all the Scots.

As I said on another thread when I quoted my above rant everyone loves the Welsh though anyway, for some reason they aren't as nationally prideful as the rest of us in the Isles. Or if they are they do it a lot more subtley and diplomatically.

They gave us 'Fireman Sam'