Civilization: cultures or nations?

[Fresno]

What do you think: what should the definition of a civilization be?
Personally, I think a civilization is more as a nation; the Greek city-states were one culture, and so are probably Germany and Austria today.

[Prince]

Hmmm... I think civilization goes beyond these choices, but... I voted nation, only if it was meant in the way of 'A Civ...'

[Wernazuma III]

Nations come and fall, cultures do (partially) persist, at least longer. I mean, even the most continuous civ, the chinese were not always ONE nation, often several at a time. Another good example is exactly the greeks you mentioned. Lots of city states but ONE civilization that was very important. The only large greek empire didn't last too long, its culture spread from Spain to the Indus valley...

[Fresno]

And that's exactly what I meant!

[ranskaldan]

mmm.... this is exactly why there is so much dispute over whether the Byzantines are a civ. No one can agree on what a civ is in the first place.

[Fresno]

Well, the Byzantines had a nation AND a culture of their own.
So I don't see the problem.

[GeneralTacticus]

You run into a problem here because the Romans, for example, were never really a nation. Rome was a city that ruled an empire, so you'd have to define them really as a culture. Wernazuma was dead on about the Chinese. Even America was divided in the Civil War. The Iroquois were known as the 'Five Nation'. Egypt was divided many times during it's ancient history. and many nations aren't really what they used to be, e.g. the people of France now aren't the same as the Gauls in Roman times.

I think the trouble with having all these ancient civs is that they weren't set up the way the modern ones are. They generally seemed to be empires set up by a specific leader who built a foundation for their one, and then followed by others who built on it. And they all fell apart in the end.

[Ecthy]

Cultures. Without any doubt

[Fresno]

The poll results show that most people agree with me that civs should be seen as cultures.

Unfortunately, no-one of those who voted 'nation' has explained this view. SO FOR ALL NATION-VOTERS: PLEASE TELL US WHY YOU VOTED THE WAY YOU DID! Otherwise a discussion might be difficult.

[muppet]

Fresno:

You come up with some very interesting threads. Maybe it is the fact the English is my second written language, and third spoken language that I have such a hard time understanding what is being said or asked here.

Definitions:
(from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)

CULTURE (WAY OF LIFE)
noun
the way of life, esp. the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time youth/working-class/Russian/Roman/mass culture

NATION
noun [C]
a country, esp. when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc.

CIVILIZATION, British and Australian usually -isation noun
human society with its highly developed social organizations, or the culture and way of life of a society or country at a particular period in time

Nationality, CIVILIZATION III, P. 132:
One Concept that has been touched on but not really explained is the nationality of citizens and units. It's pretty much what it sounds like; your citizens and units (and those of other nations) know and remember what civilization they were born into. Let's explain this by example:...


Sounds to me like culture describes the "way of life", the beliefs and values of a group of people at a particular time. Looks like nation refers to a political entity.

Civilization looks like it describes the culture (way of life and/or social organization) of a nation (political entity).

So, I would hazard a guess that a civilization, by definition, must be a nation -- it must be a political entity. Culture alone can not define a civilization. It only labels the behaviors and values of a group of people; whereas, civilization defines the culture of a political entity.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by muppet
You come up with some very interesting threads. Maybe it is the fact the English is my second written language, and third spoken language that I have such a hard time understanding what is being said or asked here.

I'm very interested in what your first and second languages are then... You are from Canada, right? I thought they only spoke English and French there.

Sounds to me like culture describes the "way of life", the beliefs and values of a group of people at a particular time. Looks like nation refers to a political entity.

Civilization looks like it describes the culture (way of life and/or social organization) of a nation (political entity).

So, I would hazard a guess that a civilization, by definition, must be a nation -- it must be a political entity. Culture alone can not define a civilization. It only labels the behaviors and values of a group of people; whereas, civilization defines the culture of a political entity.

Yes, but what about the Greek example then?

[Arrian]

In the world, a civilization is cultural more than it is national - "Western Civilization" for example. Usually a group that is connected by race, language, common history or a combination thereof.

In Civ III (or any of the Civ games) a civilization is a nation, at least in terms of gameplay.

-Arrian

[muppet]

Originally posted by Fresno
I'm very interested in what your first and second languages are then... You are from Canada, right? I thought they only spoke English and French there.

Yes, but what about the Greek example then?

I'm not from Canada. I'm actually American. Visibly Chinese, but born American and immigrant to Canada.

My first two languages are both chinese (cantonese and fukien). I know most refer to the distinction as 'dialects' of chinese, but that assumes too much. EX., Hong Kong cantonese speakers can not verbally communicate with Shanghai Mandaring speakers. The spoken language is completely different, though the written language very similar. But even written language is undergoing some serious change though. EX., I can not read modern mainland Chinese, but I can read any Hong Kong Chinese and mainland chinese if it is written by someone over the age of say 40.

The difference between chinese dialects is closer to the difference between French and German than it is to the difference between the so-called British English and American English or the Quebec-French to Parisian-French (at least that's what my french-speaking friends tell me).

I can't explain the Greeks, I know nothing about Greek history. I don't even know how you can compare America and Japan. One is rather, i think, Uniform or Consistent; the other a complete mix and match of everyone else. So I don't know in game terms how this works, only that those greater than I sought to include both America and Japan.

I guess that Greeks can be like Americans or vice versa. In Canada, Parliament dictates criminal law and most other laws and provinces get the residual legal authorities. In America states dictate criminal law and other main bodies of law, and congress get the residual legal authorities, so the 'states' are like mini-nations within a larger culture/nation (more autonomy than in Canadian system). I am assuming that by the phrase "Greek City-State" that each Greek city also acted as an entire state that fit within Greek civilization. Kind of like how American states fit within America.

[Fresno]

Thanks for telling me about your languages. Maybe the similarity between Chinese dialects could be compared with the similarity between German and another Teutonic languages, like Dutch or Norse.

About the Greeks: your answer shows what I meant in the first post of this thread. I mean, although the Greek city states were different nations, they definately belonged to the same culture, and therefore, to the same civ.

By the way, the Greek city states were much more autonomous as the American states are. For example, there were countless Greek wars in which city states fought against eachother.

[Dauphin]

In antiquity "culture" is the defining aspect of a civilization. I say this as the concept of nation didn't even exist.

In the modern era, even with the concept of nationality, nations are more united on their cultural basis. Look at any country with a civil war based on ethnicity. Even in the UK, Scots are Scottish first then British, ditto English and Welsh.

I think the problems for Americans, as a civilization, is that they proove the exception to the rule. The nation is the unifying force, not the culture. A different rule has to be applied, as they don't fit into what I wrote above.

[molly bloom]

Consider also if you will, the Celts- a distinct culture, or cultures, La Tene, Hallstatt, and the fusion of Norse/Celt cultures in Ireland and Scotland, different languages, different ways of worship and differing gods, even, and yet spoken of as one civilization, one people, but hardly ever forming distinct 'nations' in ancient times.

The idea of the 'nation', distinct in ethnic and cultural terms, really kicks off in Europe post the Thirty Years' War, with rulers and ruled forming more distinctive ethnic and religious blocs.
Obviously, there were exceptions, such as the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but the seeds of nationalism were sprouting.

I plump for civs being cultures and nations- it simply depends on the grouping you want to play.

[siredgar]

Well, if you went by "cultures" then you'd have to rename nearly all of them. For example, Germany/Germans would probably have to change to "the Germanic culture" and encompass cities in Austria, parts of Switzerland, and elsewhere. It's also very possible that many cities in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and even the U.S. would fall under "the Anglo-Saxon culture". If you go simply by "civilizations", nearly all of Europe and some parts of the Middle East could be grouped into a single "Western civilization".

[Fresno]

Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

Regarding the Western civilization, I would say there are a Slavic, a Latin and a Germanic civ.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Fresno
Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

We have lots of other names for Germans. Normally used in a derogatory sense though.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Fresno
Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

Regarding the Western civilization, I would say there are a Slavic, a Latin and a Germanic civ.

http://www.folkfestival.net/

Fresno- see above: in the United States, you will find the Pennsylvania Dutch are in fact.... the Pennsylvania Deutsch... the 'e' migrated.

Although English is partly a Germanic language, 'English' or 'Anglo-Saxon' (pity about the Jutes) hardly adequately describes a culture made up of Viking, Roman, Norman French and Celtic and North German influences. Besides 'German' and 'Germanic' are not strictly interchangeable in English, and in any case, are infinitely preferable to 'hun' 'boche' and 'kraut'.

It's only the same kind of loose terminology that serves to describe Spain, Portugal and their former colonies in the Americas as Latin, or Hispanic, however distinctive say, Brazil's culture is from Cuba's or Costa Rica's.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Fresno
Siredgar: one of the things I hate about the English language, is that it has only one word for German. I mean, English and Dutch and Norse are Germanic peoples too, not only the Germans. We all have Germanic languages, but we don't speak German.

Why don't English call Germans Deutschers or something like that?

Regarding the Western civilization, I would say there are a Slavic, a Latin and a Germanic civ.

Yes, yes, I was speaking conservatively on the term "Germanic". Regardless, when you are talking about a civilization in the strictest terms, I don't believe there would be a separate Germanic "civilization" or even Latin or Slavic for that matter.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Fresno- see above: in the United States, you will find the Pennsylvania Dutch are in fact.... the Pennsylvania Deutsch... the 'e' migrated.

That brings me to another strange thing in English. Dutch call themselves 'Nederlands.' Germans call themselves 'Deutsch'. Do you see what I mean?

Although English is partly a Germanic language, 'English' or 'Anglo-Saxon' (pity about the Jutes) hardly adequately describes a culture made up of Viking, Roman, Norman French and Celtic and North German influences.

I read there are three groups of Germanic languages:
North Germanic (Danish, Norse, Swedish)
West Germanic (German, Dutch, English, Frisian)

Others say Frisian and English are actually a seperate group: North-West Germanic.

But indeed English is a bit different from the other Germanic languages: it is much more influenced by the French language.

Originally posted by siredgar
Yes, yes, I was speaking conservatively on the term "Germanic". Regardless, when you are talking about a civilization in the strictest terms, I don't believe there would be a separate Germanic "civilization" or even Latin or Slavic for that matter.

In the strictest terms, Americans, Germans, French, English, Spanish and all the other European peoples should be merged. But would such a thing improve the game?

[Sandman]

Well...

Nations: They are distinct entities, but lets face it, they are a relatively recent creation, and have a short shelf life compared to the time scale displayed in the game.

Cultures: These are totally fluid compared to nations, which at least try to have a pretence of solidity. No-one really has a clue where one culture begins and another ends, or even how to divide them up.

Plus both the above are social constructs which are IMO either random, or generated by the environment. So I suggest that it is the environment which determines a civ.

So we can have a different civ for each of the worlds biomes.

[Fresno]

The idea of a nation isn't that new. There were already kingdoms a very long time ago, and although they are obviously different from the current countries, you can't say they weren't nations.

[Sandman]

you can't say they weren't nations.

I can and will. Ancient and medieval kingdoms of which you speak were not nations. The people who lived in them, mostly peasants, were motivated not by patriotism, but by the fact that they were essentially owned by the aristocracy.

Furthermore, in many cases the aristocrats had a totally different language and culture from their subjects, in the case of England, for a long time the aristocrats spoke the language of the Norman invaders.

There were organisations and arrangements which confounded national sovereignty, such as the Pope, the holy roman empire, and the constant interbreeding of the various royal families.

[Oligarf]

I voted 'I don't know', mainly because I don't think that the other two choices are correct. A sort of middle-way, might be better.
Other important aspect is whether we talk about civilizations in real life or about civilizations as they should be seen in the Civilization series.

[Quasar1011]

I voted for nation. I went to Washington DC in the summer of 2000, and saw many buildings that could have passed for ancient Greek or Roman! So there is no doubt that a nation may be a conglomerate of many cultures. The British nation has Welsh, Irish, Scottish, and English to start; German kings from Hannover sat upon the British throne at times; French words abound in the English language; the Danes and Vikings left their mark in eastern England; and the Indians and Chinese now own many restaurants in Britain. My point is this: culture does not respect boundaries nearly as well as does nationhood. Just because the new Afghan government, or the old Liberian government, uses Yankee dollars as their official legal tender, does not make them culturally American. The people are influenced by foreign culture, without becoming nationals of the other country unless they choose to emigrate. A nation's culture can extend far beyond its borders, so I think nation is a better model for what comprises a civ.

[Oligarf]

This works for the US, as it is a federation, in this view Europe would qualify for one civilization. I doubt that.

[Fresno]

Oligarf: I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain it, please?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
I'm very interested in what your first and second languages are then... You are from Canada, right? I thought they only spoke English and French there.

Yes, but what about the Greek example then?

Languages from all around the world are spoken here. We're a "melting pot" society with a long tradition of welcoming immigrants.