Tribes v. 0.1

[DarkCloud]

This is a collection of all that I have found on the boards
on tribes so it is called Tribes 0.1 This will hopefully be
improved upon and since it is all collected in a handy forum
file, be easier 'moved' to the List's ideas.

[Here's Tribes {0.9} 12:00 8-24-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.8} 19:00 8-24-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.7} 15:00 8-23-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.6} 19:00 8-22-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.5} 13:00 8-20-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.4} 12:00 8-19-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.3} 14:00 8-12-00]
[Here's Tribes {0.2} 16:00 8-10-00]

Post # 1618

Feel free to add ideas or comment by responding to this message.

The Creator of the idea is in brackets above the ideas

Index:

1. New Colors
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud, Dark Cloud (Again), Eggman, Sir Shiva

2. New Tribes
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud, Shadowstrike, Imran Siddiqui and Dark Cloud and Fredzz and Eggman,
Dr. Oogloot and Dark Cloud, Crusher, The Mad Monk, S. Kroeze, Dalgetti and wernazuma, wernazuma,
The List, Tiberius, Technophile, Dark Cloud (Again), Dark Cloud (Yet Again)

3. Tribes with Different Colors
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud

4. Replace these tribes with...
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud

5. Important People
-contributer(s): Allard HS and Dr. Oogkloot, Dark Cloud, wernazuma, Technophile

6. Titles
-contributer(s): Allard HS and Dr. Oogkloot, wernazuma

7. Number of Civs Playable
-contributer(s): Thue and Lordstone 1, Eggman, Lordstone 1 (Again), Trachmyr, Snowfire,
Atahulpa

8. Number of Civs Included
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud, Travatian, Eggman

9. Special Units
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud, Shining 1

10. Civ Personalities
-contributer(s): Travatian, Dark Cloud, Mo, Cartagia the Great

11. Government
-contributer(s): Cartagia the Great, Dark Cloud

12. Minor Tribes
-contributer(s): Dark Cloud, wernazuma, The List, beyowulf, Vitmore the Great, Snowfire,
Yakopepper, M@NI@C, Technophile, Technophile (Again), Youngsun

13. Civ-Specific Advances and Wonders
-contributer(s): Evil Capitalist, Imran Siddiqui, Rashid, chatgr

14. Diplomacy
-contributer(s): Evil Capitalist

15. Tribe Info
-contributer(s): S. Kroeze, XarXo

16. Leader Bonuses
-contributer(s): Technophile

17. Schisms
-contributer(s): Technophile, Tefu

--------------


1.New Colors

[Dark Cloud]
PINK
BLACK
GRAY
BLUE GREEN
ORANGE
LIGHT RED
FUSCHIA

[Dark Cloud]
The tribe colors should be the original 7, unless the game allows you to play with up to
14 tribes, whereas the colors from Alpha Centauri will be used, and each civ's color is
randomly drawn from the 14 except for your own, which you choose.

[Eggman]
1.Use Flags instead of colors
2.Implement different shield designs, like with multiple color designs like stripes,
polka dots.

[Sir Shiva]
Coats of Arms. Customisable, Specific to each civ...

2. New Tribes

Listed here are all the Tribes that are 'absolutely necessary' if a tribe is not
'absolutely necessary' to the game then it will be in 'Minor Tribes'

[Dark Cloud]
Phonecians
Atruscians
Mayans
Olmecs
Swedes
Nubians (South of Egypt BC eras.)
Seljuks (800 AD Middle East)
Ottomans (World War I Middle East)
or you could just have the Turks to represent both Ottomans and Seljuks
Kushan (India in 400 AD)
Parthians (From the time of the Romans AD 0 Middle East)
Hungarians (Huns) or Austro-Hungarians
Hittites
Akkadians
Assyrians
Polonesians

[Shadowstrike]
Scythians

[Imran Siddiqui, Dark Cloud, Fredzz, Eggman]
Arabs

[Dr. Oogkloot and Dark Cloud]
Incas
Dutch

[Technophile]
Mali

[Crusher]
Why not have an alien race that crashes onto Earth in the future?

[Dark Cloud]
Be able to model your own civ and create your own civ with special bonuses, colors, etc.

[The Mad Monk]
Turks

[S. Kroeze]
Sumerians
Indus

[Dalgetti and wernazuma]
Hebrews (Israelites)

[Dark Cloud]
If you don't want a civ in the game ever you should have the ability to censor it out.

[wernazuma]
Poland
Tarascs

[The List]
Byzantine
Danes
Ethiopian
Ghana
Mexicans

[Tiberius]
If the "rise and fall of empires" idea will be added to civ3, we could have
great empires splitting in small nations (for ex. brittons in english, americans
and canadians; romans in italians, french and spanish or austro-hungarians in austrians,
hungarians, checzs and slovaks; no offence, it's just an example). Of course, make the
changes historically accurate, or make them random, depends on the player's choice.

3. Tribes with different colors
[Dark Cloud]
*I believe these colors would be better for the tribes.
Black- Corinthians
Blue Green- Sioux, Mongols, Indians

4. Replace these tribes with...
[Dark Cloud]
Sioux-----Native Americans

5. Important People

[Allard HS and Dr. Oogkloot]
Dutch- William III or William of Orange and Wilhelmina

[Technophile]
Mali- Sundjata and Sogolon
Turks- Mehmed II and Kemal Ataturk
Swahili- Tippoo Tib and ????

[Dark Cloud]
Scottish- William Wallace and ????

[wernazuma]
Sweedish- Gustav Wasa and ????

6. Titles

[Allard HS and Dr. Oogkloot]
**Dutch
-Despotism- "Hertog" (Duke).
-Fundamentalism-"Bisschop" (Bishop) or "dominee"
-Republic-"Stadtholder" (Stadhouder)
-Democracy-"Minister-President"
[wernazuma]
**Austro-Hungarians
-Despotism- Archduke
-Monarchy- Emperor
-Republic- Bundeskanzler
-Democracy- Bundeskanzler

7. Number of Civs Playable
[Thue and Lordstone 1]
There should be at least 14 playable at one time and up to 32 possible.
[Eggman]
Give the player the choice: see how their computers can handle it.
At least 32 civilizations should be playable at one time. Otherwise,
it is a step backward from C:CtP.
[Lordstone 1]
Have a drop-down menu ranging from 3 civilizations up to - and possibly over
- 32. Include a warning message if one exceeds the number of
civilizations recommended for enjoyable play according to his/her computer specs.
[Snowfire]
-Up to 32 players at once, as CTP was supposed to have
-A major/minor civ system with up to 8 major civs and any number of minor civs, 0-24.
[Trachmyr]
Civilization III should be able to read your computer and figure out just how many
civilizations your computer can handle. For example, there would be a message:
"You have a Pentium II-266 with 128 MB memory. You have chosen 20 civilizations.
Your game will be moderately slow." Or "You have a P-III.
You have chosen seven civilizations. Your game will be very fast."
[Atahulpa]
16 civs is a must!

8. Number of Civs Included
[Dark Cloud]
As many as possible. At least 70
[Travathian]
Seven civilizations from each of the ages included in the game.
[Eggman]
Hundreds!

9. Special Units
[Dark Cloud]
Each tribe should receive only one special unit (A la Age of Empires)
[Shining 1]
Allow historical names to be used for specific units.
The Japanese could have the Samurai, while the Greeks have the Hoplites,
and the English their Knights. But all three would be the same unit, just
different names.

10. Civ Personalities

[Dark Cloud]
There should be 5 basic personality types-
-Warlike
-Expansionist
-Neutral
-Perfectionist
-Pacifist
And there should be 2 sub-personalities for each-
-Warlike has
1. Fight to the Death (Never gives up after being attacked, almost never gives
up when losing a war.)
2. Backstabber (Attacks when least expecting- attacks allies, etc)
-Expansionist has
1. Settler Type (Builds many cities)
2. War Type (Attacks others cities)
-Neutral has
1. Warlike (If insulted will attack - will only pay tribute sometimes)
2. Passifist (If attacked will attack- will pay tribute always)
-Perfectionist has
1. City Developer (Builds up cities)
2. Unit Developer (Builds up armies)
-Pacifist has
1. Researcher (Only builds the newest units and buildings)
2. Developer (Only builds the cheapest units and buildings)

[Travathian]
Each civilization should have a distinct personality. When playing on the Earth map,
the personalities should mirror the real world ones. However, on a random map, the
personalities should also be randomized.

[Mo]
Allow personalities to change over the course of the game.
A semi-warlike civilization can become a pacifist if they lose a big war.
The Babylonians can become warlike if their borders are threatened.

[Cartagia the Great]
It would be interesting to have different personalities for one country based on
whether the leader was male or female. Stalin would be more warlike, while Catherine
would be more enlightened

11. Government
[Cartagia the Great and Dark Cloud]
You should have a choice at the very beginning-
Tyranny (Highest- 60& Production Rate Impeded)
Tribal (Highest- 50% Luxury Rate Impeded)
Despotism (Highest- 60& Science Rate Impeded)
12. Minor Tribes

- Explanation:
These Tribes pop up as goody huts but are much like Colonization's native tribes,
the tribes follow and after them are ideas for implementation.

[Dark Cloud]
Canadians
Irish
Portugese
Mauryans (India in 250 BC)
Ugandans
Afghanistani
Pakistani
Marathans (India 1775 AD)
Timur (1400 AD)
Lydians (600 BC)
Medians (600 BC)
Parthians
Bohemians (1648 AD)
Siamese (Siam 1900 AD in Asia (Now Cambodia etc.))
Guptas (India in 400 A.D.)
Aboriginies
Lithuania (Once a mighty kingdom in the Ukraine 1360 AD)

[wernazuma]
Korea
Abbisinians

[Technophile]
Swahili
Visigoths
Ostrogoths
Magyars

[The List]
Argentines
Anatolians
Berbers
Brazilians
Scottish

[beyowulf]
Magyars

[Vitmore the Great]
Moroccans
Tibetans

[Yakopepper]
Minoan

[Snowfire]
Minor civs would have a different AI that would call for some initial growth at first, and
then very slow growth afterward. It would develop science mostly by trade and luck. It would
have its own special AI. And there would be lots of things to do to it (let's say Belgium)-
maybe sign a treaty guarenteeing its safety, like England did, saying that "A declaration of
war on Belgium is a declaration of war on me." And then trade with it and get lots of good
technology from it.

Of course, if a major civ is weakened enough (like Poland from 1600 onward), then it may become
a minor civ and an especially strong minor civ may become a major civ (like the Germans or the
Russians, who profitted at Poland and others expense).

[Technophile]
These are, well, minor civs. Like small civs. Why aren’t they large civs, you ask?
Because they’re small, ya moron. These would come about from things like a revolution
(like, the French Empire splits into the French Empire and the Flench Empire, with the
Flench Empire acting as a splinter civilization), from barbarians conquering a city
(or founding their own), or from exploring and discovering fifty unique civilizations per
square mile. Clearly the latter can become tedious if overdone.

[M@NI@C]
Minor civs shouldn’t be able to build wonders, except perhaps those with a one-city-only
or one-time-only effect like the Colossus or Darwin’s Voyage.

[Youngsun]
*The Goody/Goodie hut upgrade proposal*

This has been suggested by me a while ago in Korn469's ICS problem thread but I'd like to
bring it back again.

Assuming there are 8~9 slots available for major civs with additional 5~6 minor civs, just
adding more minor civs would be too much burden for our hardworking CPUs.

I'm pretty sure the designer's intention to create those huts were;

1.representation of Barbarian horde(military threat to civs)
2.representation of primitive natives(source of easy tribute/imperial military protection)
3.sort of bonus for an early explorer(money,knowledge,mercenaries,civilised nomad?)


Current problems
1.No diplomacy allowed to those huts(quite contradictory to history which is full of intense
interactions between civilisations and natives/the less-civilised)
2.There is no chance of those barbarians establish a civilisation either by force or
accumulation knowledge/culture.
3.The hut which may be the representation of groups of villages can be eliminated too easily
(Just one move...)
4.Getting a technology/discovery from the hut(totally unrealistic and can create a situation
that most advanced civ get a tech from primitive natives)
5.Those mercenaries are actually your army and have no hometown to return(against true
definition of mercenary)

Suggestions to solve the problems
1.Make the hut as a base for those natives and not so vulnerable from foreign invasion
(as resilient as the one of Colonisation)
2.If a civilised cities are conquered by barbarians, they should get a chance to begin new civ
(minor or major depends on how powerful they are also that should be up to availabilty of civ
slot)
3.Allows diplomacy with natives
*Demand tribute in exchange for military protection(Roman clients system)
*Recruit/pay/discharge mercenaries
*etc.
4.Each native tribe should have its own unique traits & chracteristics and for some cases
military speciality(light cavalry,javelineer,etc)
5.Random or periodic appearance of charismatic barbarian leader which brings unity to many
huts around his/her one and eventual assembling of the horde then invasion to neibouring civs.

[Dark Cloud]
Yes following colonizations model for minor civs should be a must.
1. Colonization with the indians/natives worked well you could
a. Trade
b. Fight
or
c. Convert them and gain more population

you should be able to do all those things and more in Civ III.

Such as-

a.Play them off against other leaders (Alliances)
and
b.Get them to vote you World Leader.

13. Special Abilities
[The Octopus]
-Have differentiated civilizations: Say, Mesopotamia has a start with a greater
emphasis on agriculture, but have them decide where they want to lead their civilization.
[Eggman]
-Special abilities should be optional - you can turn them on or off.
It also should play-balance. How about having civilizations "earning" advantages?
Over a period of time, you could acquire points which you could spend on whatever
particular advantage you want.
[Imran Siddiqui]
-Give them a technology in what they specialize at the beginning of the game.
[Snowfire]
-Give them 'focuses.'
[Dark Cloud]
-Focuses:
In addition to personalities there would be focuses for each civilization
that would determine which aspect of their civilization that they would develop.
-Two focuses per civilization

AGRICULTURE- They build excessive Irrigation/Farmland
TRANSPORT- They build excessive Roads/Railroads
EXPLORE- They send out explorers and try explore Earth
DISCOVER- They build excessive Science Improvements
TRADE- They trade everything they can with other civilizations (coupled with explore)
EXPANSION- They found many cities
DEVELOPING- They develope their cities
WAR- They will fight at the drop of a pin
ESPIONAGE- They like to send out many spies and diplomats

-There would be no disadvantages

[Diodorus Sicilus - CormacMacArt]
Have special abilities be assigned based on geographical starting positions.
For example, if your first city is near a desert, that civilization can get
Irrigation as their first free advance, or get +1 in farming. Build on that idea.

[Dark Cloud and Evil Capitalist]
Civ traits are abolished and this system is administered
All civs are given four choices at the beginning of the game
1.Choose a technology
-choose a tech
2.Receive an extra settler
-recieve an extra settler
3.Irrigation
-Start with all irrigated squares around your first city
4.Diplomacy
-Start already in diplomatic talks with another civ
(More trading/trade)

Militaristic culture- free warrior unit.

Fertile land: the first city produces +1 food.

Precious metal mines: +1 trade for 1st city

Naval culture: free outriger or similar unit.


13. Civ-Specific Advances and Wonders

[Evil Capitalist]
(There should be) Civ- specific wonders (and advances), which the computer won't
build if it doesn't need.

[Imran Siddiqui]
"Traits".

Now what are traits? Well, first of all, we must divide the tech tree into 4 (or 5) eras,
like the Wonders of the World were in Civ2. Then insert these "traits" into the tree. "Traits"
are a dead end on the Civ tree, but they are specializations. For example, a trait during
modern times might be -Advanced Armor-, which would increase movement and power of armored
units. Now, the main part of this arguement, is that Civs can ONLY CHOOSE ONE TRAIT PER ERA!
So they must make a choice between that -Advanced Seamanship- or -Advanced Infantry- depending
on what the player sees as the better choice for his civ, based on where he is and where he
wants to go.

This idea of "traits", dead end specializations that a civ can only chose one of per era,
would add this differentiation between civs. You could have your great naval powers and great
army powers by specialized picks. While an island nations choses -Advanced Seamanship-, a
landlocked nation can pick -Advanced Infantry-.

However, it isn't just relegated to military. Traits can also be under political or cultural.
You could have -Improved Fascism- or -True Socialism-, which could improve the benefits of a
particular government. Or You could pick -Greater Playwrights- to improve happiness inside
your empire. But remember only ONE Trait per era. You'd have to pick between military or
political or cultural traits, and of course you could only get traits when you get the
neccessary techs that the prereqs for the traits. This adds another element.
A civ could pick a trait early in the era to get a boost through the era, or
wait until the end of the era to get a more powerful trait, but be rendered weaker
in the era as the result.

This addition of "Traits" adds more strategy and creates interesting differentiations.
You could have civs that spend all 4 traits (one per each era) on naval upgrades, while
others spread their traits in different area (like creating the Perfect Fascism, while
having the best Infantry).

[Rashid]
it would be interesting if the differences between civilizations were somehow
the cumulative consequences of a lot of earlier decisions. For example, if the proportion
of trade arrows that you devote to taxes is higher than average (the average of all the
other civs perhaps), then eventually you will have more efficient tax collection. Or if you
spend more than the average number of shields on ships, or on cavalry, or on libraries,
then these start to get cheaper or more effective for you. There could be cross-effects too,
like if you keep building ships then eventually it gets easier to research naval technology.

By the same token, if you are spending much less than the average on land units, then your
land units will become less effective, or if you are devoting much less trade than average
to science, then your people will be less efficient researchers. If you happen to be near
the average in that particular category, nothing happens.

After all, the reason the English had great navies was ultimately because they had a long
tradition of seafaring. Allowing civilizations to pick a trait every once in a while would
still allow sudden changes (the Prussians suddenly decide to become a naval power and so
pick advanced seafaring), which seems odd.

Also, there should be some possibility for civilizations to be weaker in some areas, not
just stronger, and finally, it might be easier on the AI if it doesn't have to make an
explicit choice about what to be good (or bad) at.

To satisfy those (including me!) who want to see specialized units, how about adding some
dead-end technologies to the tree that would be mutually exclusive? Once you have knights,
for example, you could research crusaders, and once you have archers you could research
longbows, but if you have crusaders you couldn’t get longbows, and vice versa. Have each
of them make the other one obsolete, for example, or better yet, prevent a civilization
that has one from ever getting the other (through research or trade or conquest).

[Chatgr]
A wonder can be built by one civ.
Only one superwonder could be built by any oneciv.Superwonder would change available future
tech.For example sentiest computer and mars colony or living gaia.If mars colony superwonder
built first then people money and tech would go to space .

That would mean more space units less computer advances and final victory people going to stars.

If sentiest computer built first these space tech unavailable and people build more computer
tech wonders and units and final ending people uploadind personalities on computers and
achieving a kind of immortality.Or a living Gaia superwonder where final endind people one with
planet and in the meantime units and base facilities built that work against pollution.

Once you buit a superwonder no othersuperwonder can be built.
It adds variety to game and from civ perspective is a turning point in history.

14. Diplomacy

[Evil Capitalist]
There is more than one level of war- from the little colonial wars to world wars.
Similarly there are diffrent levels of peace.

Wars

Territorial conflict- Wars over little areas of territory, such as the Falklands.
No trade penalties (trade goes via a different route). So long as the war doesn't spread
the computer will only fight in the area attacked. Caused by an attack on a city of less
than size 5 or an isolated fort. No unhappiness effects in republics or democracies.

Border war- war for aquisition of a certain bit of territory, like the war of 1812. Enemy
will attack anywhere and all trade via land is stopped. Caused by an attack on a city equal
or above size 5, 2 or more below 5, or a fortress near a city or a major war on an ally.
Normal unhappiness effects.

Major war- war fought to damage a nation as well as take territory or to take large areas
of territory, such as the Franco-Prussian war. Caused by an attack on a city of size 10 or
above, or 3 or more cities of below that. It allows small air raids- no effects on
industry or population, just reduces happiness. No trade.

Total war- war aimed at the total destrution of the enemy, as WW2. Obviously no trade,
caused by an attack on a size 20 or higher city, or half your cities (if greater than 5).
Allows nuclear attacks, and obliteration bombing- hits industry and population, but
strengthens moral (blitz spirit). No unhappiness effect for troops away (propaganda).

Peacekeeping- intervention by 'good' nations. Only available to the owner of the UN and
their allies. Half unhappiness effects, and must be coupled with sanctions. If units are
lost there is an empire wide unhappiness effect.

You or the computer can raise war levels, to make the war more intense. You can only raise
war to one level above that the rules would allow (so the Falklands can't turn into Britain
nuking Argentina). Although you can escalate the conflict, you may not decrease the level.
This system allows the computer to prioritise the wars it is fighting, and sort out its
prodution accordingly. At the start of the game only border wars are possible, the rest
being developed by technology.

Peace

Cold war- Trade almost stopped, nations will not cooperate, may try serious espionage.

Detente- Trade reduced, nations will cooperate, and serious espionage is limited.
Exploration after 20 turns.

Ceasefire- As no contact. Exploration after 10 turns.

Recognition- Borders recognised, opens up other treaties. Exploration shared after 5 turns.

Cooperation- Trade bonus, can participate in joint research. Exploration shared after 2 turn
lag.

Alliance- Can't attack one another, can travel through opponant's cities, help repair units.
Ally respects borders when you arn't at war. If ally is declared war apon you must declare
war on attacker. If ally is attacker, there is no obligation. Trade bonus. All exploration
shared.

Coalition- As alliance, fellow members can station troops in your territory. If one is at
war at border level or above, all are at war. All negotiations are carried out together.
Research is carried out together and shared. Trade bonus. No diplomatic actions against
one another. You can see inside all cities in the coalition.

You need to research to get Cold War, detente, or coalition.


15. Tribe Info

[S. Kroeze with some editing by Dark Cloud]
List of how Civilization Civilizations Prospered

I Early Civilizations, 3000-1400BC
Sumer (Kish)
Egypt (Memphis)
Crete (Knossos)
Babylonia (Babylon)
Chinese
Hittites (Chattushash)

II Antiquity, 1400-450BC
Assyria (Ninive)
Phoenicia (Byblos)
Greek cities (Athenai)
Chinese
Carthago (Carthago)
Persian empire (Persepolis)

III Classical Antiquity, 450BC-300AD
Celts
Macedonia (Pella)
Magadha (Pataliputra)
Chinese (Han Dynasty)
Roman empire (Roma)
Maya (Tikal)

IV Early Middle Ages, 300-750AD
Guptas (Pataliputra)
Huns
Byzantine empire (Constantinople)
Chinese (T'ang Dynasty)

V High Middle Ages, 750-1300AD
Frankish empire (Reims)
Vikings
Japanese (Fujiwara Dynasty)
Holy Roman empire (Aachen)
Chinese (Song Dynasty)
Seljuks
Mongols

VI Renaissance, 1300-1550AD
Chinese (Ming Dynasty)
Inca empire (Cuzco)
Aztec empire (Tenochtitlán)
Ottoman empire (Istanbul)
Portugal (Lisboa)
Spanish empire (Madrid)

VII Modern, 1550-
Chinese (Manchus Dynasty)
Russian empire (Moskwa)
United Provinces (Amsterdam)
France (Paris)
British empire (London)
United States (Washington)
Japan (Tokyo)
German empire (Berlin)

[XarXo]
My idea is that th actual "civilization" system (we can see it in Ctp1 and Civ1/Civ2) is
totally obsolete. Better than a "civilization" or "tribe" selection we must select a
cultural-ethnic zone. For example, in the Spanish civilization we can build cities like
Barcelona or Madrid, but these two cities have an historial background totally diferent.
It's like germans can build Paris because a time this city was under their power during
the 2nd WW.

I preffer that when a player has to select the starting name it appears a map of the cultural
division based in the actually survivors (the ones that support the Test of Time ).
In each map that we do can perform this like a normal thing. So, in a Middle-Earth map we
can divide in Elves, Humans, Dwarves, Valar, etc... In the Earth will be:

Amerindian
Occidental
Desertians (Arabians, Israel, Egypt, Persia...)
Oriental (Altaïr, Siberia, China, Mongolia, Japan...)
Hindosiamese (India and Pacific Southeast)
African (under the Sahara zone)
Australian-Polynesian

Inside these groups (if we don't select the random cultural) we can found a second level of
divison according with the cultural base, in Occidental we can found:

Celts
Nordics
Gauls
Slavics
Mediterranean
Uralians

And inside it (if we don't try a random option) we found the ethnic group with (if is possible)
a list of names of nations that formed. Some of these etnics appears in other
cultural-base zones (like english) because they have conserved the base but they are too mixed.

Celts:
-Welsh (Wales)
-Scottish (Scotland)
-Irish (Eire,Man)
-Galic (Gallic,Portuguese,Brasilian)
-English
(England, United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, South Africa, Canada)

Nordics:
-Teutons (Germany, Austria, Holland,Flemish,Belgium)
-Vikings (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England)
-Alpinians (Tirol, Retic, Friuli, Austria)

Gauls:
-Oïl (France, Belgium, Valonians, Luxemburguesians, Quebec)
-Oc (Occitane, Catars, Provence)

Slavics:
-Baltics (Bielorussians, Russians, Lituans, Estonians, Letonians, Poland)
-Carpatians (Ukranians, Bulgarians, Paennonians, Rumans, Slovaquians)
-Meridionals (Albanians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Croatians, Serbians)

Mediterranean:
-Hellenic (Greeks, Macedonians, Cyprus, Minoics)
-Italics (Italians, Romans, Etruscs)
-Iberians (Castillians, Catalans, Spanish, Argentinians, Chilenians, Colombians, Cubans,
Caribbeans)
-Isolated (Corsic, Sardinians)

Uralians:
-Caucasians (Georgians,Armenians)
-Scandinavians (Finnish, Carelians)
-Westerns (Magyar-Hungary, Chequian, Basquian-Euskaldun)

Wow, and these are "only" the occidentals!

Also, depending from the time when you start, the starting city will one or another.
For example, in Castillians (Occidental-> Meditarreans -> Iberians) the first city surely wull
be Logroño, Burgos or Valladolid. Not Madrid (these turned in to the capital during the XV).
The same for Teotihuacan->Tenochtitlán, Cusco->Quito, Trondheim-> Oslo, etc...

Also there is another important thing. Some countries (Mexico, India, Peru...) have an
important inavison from another countries, but they MUST don't be included in the invaders
group.


16. Leader Bonuses

[Technophile]
Each civilization is given a choice of five or so leaders which are selected at the
beginning of the game, and may or may not change. These leader choices might affect
such things as

Unit offense, defense, hit points, firepower, and movement rating;

Effectiveness of administration (some leaders are more prone to corruption, some leaders
are predisposed towards a certain government style);

Effectiveness of leadership (if the leader is a famous general);

Predisposition towards certain types of research, taxation;

17. Schisms

[Technophile]
So let’s say that a Civ had a civil war. Would the French split into the French and the
Flench necessarily? Preferably they would split into the French and the Spanish, something
more historically accurate and feasible. Here’s a big list of civilizations that are related
to each other-if one has a civil war and the other didn’t exist at the start of the game,
then the other gets created.

Aztecs-Teotihuacans-Olmec
Inca-Tiahuacanos-Moche
English-Americans-Canadians
Russians-Polish-Mongols
Greeks-Romans-Minoans
Egyptians-Assyrians-Babylonians
French-German-Spanish
Sioux-Iroqoius-Navaho
Chinese-Japanese-Korean
Indians-Siamese-Khmer

[Tefu]
Americans: Confederates - Texans - Californians
Germans: Prussians - Austrians - Swiss
English: Canadians - Australians - South Africans
Celts: Irish - Scots - Welsh
Russians: Ukrainians - Poles - Finns
Vikings: Swedes - Norwegians - Danes
Romans: Palmyrans - Byzantine - Bosporans?

NOTE: THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE IN THIS POST

Edited August 11,19,22
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 23, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 26, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 26, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 27, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

*Bump*
To correspond with the update.

Please feel free to voice any tribe ideas here.

[DarkCloud]

*Bump*
someone was mentioning Tribes again so I decided to bump this up.
I Hope you enjoy it.

-D.C.

[Shadowstrike]

LOL! A hoplite is a foot soldier wielding a long pike and often a sword porting bronze armor, a knight wears iron armour (chain or plate) and rides on horseback wielding a lance or a sword and a samurai can either be on horseback or not... But the three are all different units.

Y'know, if you try hard enough, you might find different units for each and every culture, but it will be hard.... esepcially with this many civs.... Oh and you forgot the Samnites, the Sabine, the Scythians and who knows how many more.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

A few corrections and additions:

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 08-10-2000 04:20 PM Lithuania (Once a mighty kingdom in the Ukraine 1360 AD)

Why not the Ukrainians themselves? I can give you leaders and cities if you want.

quote: 5. Important People [Allard HS] Dutch- William III and Wilhemia

Wilhemia should be Wilhelmina, and I personally prefer William of Orange/Willem van Oranje to William III (W of O is better known and is called "Father of the Fatherland" etc)

quote: 6. Titles [Allard HS] **Dutch -Republic-"Stadtholder" (Stadhouder) -Democracy-"Minister-President" -Fundamentalism"Bisschop" (Bischop) -Despotism "Duke" (Graaf).

(Dutch) Bisschop=(English) Bishop
But I think "dominee" (protestant priest) would be better as a title because protestantism has always been dominant in the Netherlands.
Duke=Hertog, Count=Graaf by the way.

Dr.Oogkloot


[This message has been edited by Dr.Oogkloot (edited August 18, 2000).]

A word on the Lithuanians: Their time in history was when they were in personal-union with Polonia, and as Poland has been certainly more important than Lithuania, I'd include the Polish instead of Lithuvians.

Other civs to be included should be maybe the Austrians or Austro-Hungarians (titles: archduke in despotism, emperor inmonarchy and Bundeskanzler in Dem/Rep), the Swedish (with their leader Gustav Wasa)and the Israelites. A more unknown civilization that could be implemented are the Tarascs, the eternal enemies of the Aztecs.
If we want to see minor civs like the bohemians as someone stated, I've made plenty city lists for civilizations from Iceland to Corea.

------------------
The only good thing about Haider is, that we Americans don't confuse Austria with Australia anymore.

[DarkCloud]

Okay wernazuma how about we only leave the major civs on this list and start up a second (already completed) for minor civs?

Thanks for the Tarascs civ.

I don't have time to make the other changes yet but thank you for them, they will be in version 0.5
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 19, 2000).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I kind of added some changes to my idea of special abilities in my new thread... and I added some insight in the new thread about which civs..

[S. Kroeze]

Dear DarkCloud,

I don't believe your search of the boards was very thorough. According to my guess there are about hundred threads at least on this subject already. And the archives contain still more of the same. Unfortunately the quality of those posts is very diverse. Feel free to use my contributions and lists of ancient cities, which are scattered over several different threads. I hope my information will prove to be more reliable than on average.

In the current List of Civilizations thread I made a link to one of the more intelligent threads. And please begin with the most ancient civilization of all: the Sumerians, whom it seems you don't acknowledge. For shame!

When you really want to make a positive contribution I would advise to produce more order in the information and be a bit reluctant before a tribe is admitted. Do we really need Nordicums (the inhabitants of a small and insignificant Roman province)??

Good luck!
[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited August 20, 2000).]

I also wondered what the "Nordicums" are doing in this list. But surely they are NOT the "Norici", people from the roman province of Noricum, actual central Austria for those who don't know it yet.

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 08-10-2000 04:20 PM Hungarians (Huns) [This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 11, 2000).] [This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited August 19, 2000).]

Huns are completely different. Magyars became the Hungarians. Weird, no?

[DarkCloud]

Sorry, I forgot my update, however I will post it now though It seems I need to update it soon thanks to the comments.

Imran-

I'll check it out.

Kroze-

Sorry about the omission of the Sumerians, I'll check out those threads and
I have no idea why I included the Nordicums, I guess I was on a "Civilization" rampage at the time searching through history books.
I believe I deleted them in the update however or made them a 'Minor Civ.'

wernazuma

oh yes they are.
About 120 A.D. the Romans had absorbed Noricum which is South of nowaday Germany and the Germanic trives of the area, but west of Pannonia and North of Italy and east of the Upper Germany province, Alpine Province and Narbonensis Provinces.

beyowulf-

I believe that the Magyars split from the Huns and the Magyars invaded Russia while the Huns harassed the Romans.
(Info gleaned from "The Trumpeter of Krakow")

[Blade Runner]

I think the Hungarians are play quite important role in the European history, so they must be alone in a slot. (In the middle ages they get the second strongest army in Europe, after France! )I can suggest leaders too:
Leader (man): Árpád (the king who lead the Hungarians to the Carpathian basin [so to Hungary ])
Leader (woman): Beatrix (the wife of Mátyás, who was the strongest king in the history of Hungary)
-Beyowulf: Yeah that is funny, but u are in the US and we call you Americans. The Germans called themselves Deutsch. The English, the Frank (France) and the Germans (Deutsch) are the part of the Germanic tribes. And now the Franks speaks a latinic language.
-DarkCloud In that time there wasnt any Russia. The Russ and the Kiev kingdom was ruled by Normans (or vikings if you like it better). The Hungarian saga "The Magic Dear" tell to us the Magyars and the Huns are "brothers" but not the same nation or tribe or whatever. This "brotherhood" was quite famous in the old time in Europe, so they start to called the Magyars Hungarians. The Hun and Magyar relationship is quite interesting story. The official history and the sagas tell the story quite differently.

Blade
[This message has been edited by Blade Runner (edited August 23, 2000).]

I know where Noricum was, my hometown Graz lies in "Noricum", but although I'm patriotic: The "Norici" were a minor celtic tribe.

[Youngsun]

The Hunnic tribe is one of the Hsiung-nu branches which entered Europe. The Hsiung-nu(Han Chinese's mortal enemy)had enjoyed thier military supremacy in central Asia for many years until Han dynasty in China began ruthless crack down on them and finally lost their homeland to other minor tribal power house such as the Tartars.

There are few different theories which describe the motive of their mass migration. Some say it was voluntary migration for better pasture and others say it was the military pressure from China(Han dynasty).

Hungary derives it's name from the Huns(They settled down fertile Hungarian plain and later wiped out by the Avars)but today's Hungarians(descendants of Magyars) have nothing to do the Huns who are strictly Mongoloids in blood.

[DarkCloud]

*BUMP* (To correspond with an update)

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Dark Cloud,

Of course you can modify or edit my contributions. I can live with that. You put effort in your project, so it should be applauded. But please:

Don't confuse the United Provinces (=the Dutch Republic) with the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands, who in the end became Belgium!!

Until 1568 all seventeen provinces of the Low Countries were ruled by the King of Spain. Then we had our national revolt resulting in civil war and de facto partition of the country. Urban Ranger will doubtless argue that Dutch independence dates from 1648, because in that year the Spanish recognized Dutch independence and sovereignty. Most serious historians use the date of 1581, the year our government, the Staten-Generaal, declared independence, abjuring the legitimate king.

Anyway, after about eighty years of civil war the front stabilized and the country was de facto and de iure partitioned. The northern part, the Republic of the United Provinces, was economically the leading nation of the world, a great maritime power and one of the great European powers, sailing all the seven seas and acquiring many profitable colonies, producing a magnificent school of painters (Rembrandt, Vermeer, Hals, etc).

The south became gradually poorer and relatively backward, since its economy was effectively strangled by the north. Ruled by foreign dynasts, the Habsburg, it became a battle field during the wars of Louis XIV. Because of the suffocating Catholic climate, where the Spanish Inquisition ruled, most artists and intellectuals migrated to the north.

Please do not confuse my country with Belgium!
(this is our only chauvinistic trait)
By the way: Belgians don't exist, there are only Flemings and Walloons!

I am also disappointed and surprised that you rubbed out the magnificent Indus civilization, the third oldest civilization after Sumer and Egypt. For the present moment I do not want to argue their importance. In this thread I considered their importance extensively, quoting a specialist in the field.

Did you see my post as follows in the same thread?

quote: I cant resist the temptation of including a historically correct list of the Great Civilizations of History. Most people identify a civilization with a nationality; I'm not against a national element in the game, but everyone should understand the enormous difference separating these concepts. 1. Sumerian/Babylonian 2. Egyptian 3. Indus/Dravidian 4. Chinese 5. Greek 6. Roman 7. Mayan/Meso-American 8. Inca/Andes 9. Byzantine/Orthodox 10. Latin/Catholic 11. Islamic/Near Eastern 12. Germanic/Protestant 13. Russian/Slav 14. Indian/Hindu 15. Japanese 16. Tibetan 17. South East Asian 18. sub-Saharan civilization?? Of course every list is open to debate. As one should acknowledge its religion that identifies all civilizations! One could still argue the existence of a Celtic, Persian or Turkish civilization. But that would be the limit. McNeill, the authority who more or less introduced the concept of civilization in historiography, recognizes even less: Mesopotamian, Egyptian, merging into Near Eastern, (3)Indian, Chinese, Japanese and (6)Western, which he only divides into Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic. Those asking for Hunnish or Mongol civilazations absolutely miss the point: those were the barbarians!

Sincere regards,

S. Kroeze

PS: Those ridiculous Nordicums are still there! And there are many 'essential' tribes, which in my view are not essential at all, e.g. A/Etruscans, Nubians, Afghans, Pakistani. I had never heard before of Tarascs! Mexicans are essentially Spaniards; I could go on for hours.....
Please do not become angry, I intend to be positively critical!

[DarkCloud]

I'll fix the list up in my next post.
My gosh! The Nordiums are still there, I thought I deleted them...

There be strange forces at work here...

The Nubians and Etruscians will stay where they remain.

The Afghans and Pakistani could be moved to 'minor tribes' and will be.

Mexico will stay in the Major tribes, for Mexico has had a rich culture and have a great history of betrayal, loss, and gain. i.e. Santa Anna kept coming back, and coming back, and coming back, etc.

The Indus may or may not belong. I cannot say having not researched them as extensivley as I have the others.

According to my 'Map of History' they did not exist as of 612 B.C. but that stands to reason since they were an old civilization, however I will look into it more.

For now I will add the Indus to the list of major civs.

I will delete the belgians and replace them with the United Provinces.

However the only reason i put [Belgium] in brackets was so people could know exactly where the 'United Provinces' were.

Thank you for your patience and corrections.
The additions will be in version 9.0

[DarkCloud]

I'll fix the list up in my next post.
My gosh! The Nordiums are still there, I thought I deleted them...

There be strange forces at work here...

The Nubians and Etruscians will stay where they remain.

The Afghans and Pakistani could be moved to 'minor tribes' and will be.

Mexico will stay in the Major tribes, for Mexico has had a rich culture and have a great history of betrayal, loss, and gain. i.e. Santa Anna kept coming back, and coming back, and coming back, etc.

The Indus may or may not belong. I cannot say having not researched them as extensivley as I have the others.

According to my 'Map of History' they did not exist as of 612 B.C. but that stands to reason since they were an old civilization, however I will look into it more.

For now I will add the Indus to the list of major civs.

I will delete the belgians and replace them with the United Provinces.

However the only reason i put [Belgium] in brackets was so people could know exactly where the 'United Provinces' were.

Thank you for your patience and corrections.
The additions will be in version 0.9

[Youngsun]

Darkcloud

quote: Siamese (Siam 1900 AD in Asia (Now Cambodia etc.))

Didn't you read my post about Annam(Vietnam) & Siam(Thailand) from the "List of civilisation" thread? and Cambodia inherits more from Khmer empire.

Old names/dynasties for Asian civilisations(generalised)

BC2000~100
Shang/Zhou/Qin/Han(China)
Choson(Korea)
Hung(Vietnam)

AD300~1000
Sui/Tang/Song(China)
Kokuryo/Shilla/Koryo(Korea)
Wa/Yamato/Fujiwara(Japan)
Annam/Ly(Vietnam)

AD1000~1800
Ming/Qing(China)
Choson(Korea)
Hojo/Tokugawa(Japan)
Nguyen(Vietnam)
Siam(Thailand)
Tibet(Tibet?)
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited August 28, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

BUMP!

Any new ideas for additions?

[Christantine The Great]

No, but some reductions.

Byzantine - Extended Roman Empire which was a blend of Roman and Greek customs, therefore not a real civilizaton.

Austro-Hungarians - Austrian (German) + Hungarian (Magyars). The Austro-Hungarian Empire was simply an Austrian Emperor who happened to be the King of the Magyars (Hungary).

Canada - I don't care what the Canadians say, Canada is a blend of French and English culture therefore not a real civilization.

Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh with Canada.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Official Webpage of the Chrisonian Republic

The Viking Archives

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Christantine The Great on 10-07-2000 11:00 PM No, but some reductions. Byzantine - Extended Roman Empire which was a blend of Roman and Greek customs, therefore not a real civilizaton. Austro-Hungarians - Austrian (German) + Hungarian (Magyars). The Austro-Hungarian Empire was simply an Austrian Emperor who happened to be the King of the Magyars (Hungary).

That someone doesn't acknowledge the importance of the Byzantine civilization is beyond my powers of comprehension. It shows he doesn't understand the denotation of the word 'civilization'.

The Byzantine empire lasted more than a thousand years(330-1453; do you know any other empire lasting so long? The empire was unified by
-one dominant religion: the Greek Orthodox Church, being its unique variety of Christianity
-one dominant language and literature, spoken by all members of the ruling elite; the literary language was an imitation of Classical Attic, the spoken language(Byzantine) differed as much from Classical Attic as Latin differs from Italian
-one unique style in architecture, painting and music every layman will immediately recognize; no one will ever confuse the Parthenon with the Hagia Sophia
-an ideology according to which the emperor was the representative of Christ on earth

Of course it is true that this civilization was a continuation of older civilizations, the Greek and Roman. But the old gods were forgotten and denied, while a foreign religion, origination from another world, was embraced as the unifying ideology dominating all aspects of human life. With it came many elements and ideas of Persian or Near Eastern origin.
And when this reasoning would be accepted there would be only about five civilizations in the entire history of mankind. Because the Roman civilization was a combination of Greek, Etruscan and Italic elements; the Classical Greek civilization was a combination of Dorian, Helladic, Egyptian and Mesopotamian elements; the Helladic civilization was triggered by the Minoans, while the Egyptian civilization was triggered by the Sumerians.

The influence of the Byzantine civilization and ideology can be traced to the present day. The Cold War could be described as a struggle between two ideologies: the Byzantine Orthodox, where the emperor rules supreme, and the Latin Catholic (maybe Protestant) where the individual is a lot more important. It also declares why during the Kosovo crisis the Russians and Greeks supported the Serbs.

Of course I agree with the analysis of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, which was unified neither by religion, language or art. It was held together by the Habsburg dynasty and by having a common enemy: the Turks. On the other hand, ruling such a mixed bunch could present an interesting challenge.

[DarkCloud]

The Canadians are not on the list Christantine, as either Major or even Minor civs...

Byzantine perhaps should be taken off... (I'll note that)

Austria-Hungary should stay "I believe because they were a more important civ than the Magyars, WWI, WWII, etc."

[Lonestar]

Glad to see you includede the Texabs in a "if the US split's" deal.

May I make a suggestion? CA was independent for a whopping 6months, and it mostly consisted of John Fremont and the US Army running it. Try replacing it with the Cajuns.

------------------
"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Lazy Jay]

Some may disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure that at a cultural level the Celts and Gauls were the same. To the best of my knowledge the only difference is the name.

[DarkCloud]

Culture-

The Celts were stationed in the England part of the world at the time of the Roman Empire but technically were 'barbarians' (I use the word loosely)

The Gauls are the ancestors of the Franks who are the ancestors of the French. The Gauls resided in the area that is now France at the time of the Roman Empire and were not quite as good at defeating the Romans as the Germanic Tribes, but succeeded to fail. They were technically 'barbarians'.

However the Celts were roughly more advanced and had some 'magical workings' (Rudimentary Root Knowledge and that of Science)

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Lazy Jay on 11-26-2000 07:40 PM Some may disagree with this, but I'm pretty sure that at a cultural level the Celts and Gauls were the same. To the best of my knowledge the only difference is the name.

The Celts were stationed in the England part of the world at the time of the Roman Empire but technically were 'barbarians' (I use the word loosely)

The Gauls are the ancestors of the Franks who are the ancestors of the French. The Gauls resided in the area that is now France at the time of the Roman Empire and were not quite as good at defeating the Romans as the Germanic Tribes, but succeeded to fail. They were technically 'barbarians'.

However the Celts were roughly more advanced and had some 'magical workings' (Rudimentary Root Knowledge and that of Science)

I beg your pardon!?

Celt

"also spelled KELT, Latin CELTA, plural Celtae, a member of an early Indo-European people who from the 2nd millennium BC to the 1st century BC spread over much of Europe. Their tribes and groups eventually ranged from the British Isles and northern Spain to as far east as Transylvania, the Black Sea coasts, and Galatia in Anatolia and were in part absorbed into the Roman Empire as Britons, Gauls, Boii, Galatians, and Celtiberians. Linguistically they survive in the modern Celtic speakers of Ireland, Highland Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and Brittany.

The oldest archaeological evidence of the Celts comes from Hallstatt, Austria, near Salzburg. Excavated graves of chieftains there, dating from about 700 BC, exhibit an Iron Age culture (one of the first in Europe) which received in Greek trade such luxury items as bronze and pottery vessels. It would appear that these wealthy Celts, based from Bavaria to Bohemia, controlled trade routes along the river systems of the Rhône, Seine, Rhine, and Danube and were the predominant and unifying element among the Celts. In their westward movement the Hallstatt warriors overran Celtic peoples of their own kind, incidentally introducing the use of iron, one of the reasons for their own overlordship.

For the centuries after the establishment of trade with the Greeks, the archaeology of the Celts can be followed with greater precision. By the mid-5th century BC the La Tène culture, with its distinctive art style of abstract geometric designs and stylized bird and animal forms, had begun to emerge among the Celts centred on the middle Rhine, where trade with the Etruscans of central Italy, rather than with the Greeks, was now becoming predominant. Between the 5th and 1st centuries BC the La Tène culture accompanied the migrations of Celtic tribes into eastern Europe and westward into the British Isles.

Although Celtic bands probably had penetrated into northern Italy from earlier times, the year 400 BC is generally accepted as the approximate date for the beginning of the great invasion of migrating Celtic tribes whose names Insubres, Boii, Senones, and Lingones were recorded by later Latin historians. Rome was sacked by Celts about 390, and raiding bands wandered about the whole peninsula and reached Sicily. The Celtic territory south of the Alps where they settled came to be known as Cisalpine Gaul (Gallia Cisalpina), and its warlike inhabitants remained an ever-constant menace to Rome until their defeat at Telamon in 225.

Dates associated with the Celts in their movement into the Balkans are 335 BC, when Alexander the Great received delegations of Celts living near the Adriatic, and 279, when Celts sacked Delphi in Greece but suffered defeat at the hands of the Aetolians. In the following year, three Celtic tribes crossed the Bosporus into Anatolia and created widespread havoc. By 276 they had settled in parts of Phrygia but continued raiding and pillage until finally quelled by Attalus I of Pergamum about 230. In Italy, meanwhile, Rome had established supremacy over the whole of Cisalpine Gaul by 192 and, in 124, had conquered territory beyond the western Alps--in the provincia (Provence).

The final episodes of Celtic independence were enacted in Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Transalpina), which comprised the whole territory from the Rhine River and the Alps westward to the Atlantic. The threat was twofold: Germanic tribes pressing westward toward and across the Rhine, and the Roman arms in the south poised for further annexations. The Germanic onslaught was first felt in Bohemia, the land of the Boii, and in Noricum, a Celtic kingdom in the eastern Alps. The German assailants were known as the Cimbri, a people generally thought to have originated in Jutland (Denmark). A Roman army sent to the relief of Noricum in 113 BC was defeated, and thereafter the Cimbri, now joined by the Teutoni, ravaged widely in Transalpine Gaul, overcoming all Gaulish and Roman resistance. On attempting to enter Italy, these German marauders were finally routed by Roman armies in 102 and 101. There is no doubt that, during this period, many Celtic tribes, formerly living east of the Rhine, were forced to seek refuge west of the Rhine; and these migrations, as well as further German threats, gave Julius Caesar the opportunity (58 BC) to begin the campaigns that led to the Roman annexation of the whole of Gaul.

The Celtic settlement of Britain and Ireland is deduced mainly from archaeological and linguistic considerations. The only direct historical source for the identification of an insular people with the Celts is Caesar's report of the migration of Belgic tribes to Britain, but the inhabitants of both islands were regarded by the Romans as closely related to the Gauls.

Information on Celtic institutions is available from various classical authors and from the body of ancient Irish literature. The social system of the tribe, or "people," was threefold: king, warrior aristocracy, and freemen farmers. The druids, who were occupied with magico-religious duties, were recruited from families of the warrior class but ranked higher. Thus Caesar's distinction between druides (man of religion and learning), eques (warrior), and plebs (commoner) is fairly apt. As in other Indo-European systems, the family was patriarchal. The basic economy of the Celts was mixed farming, and, except in times of unrest, single farmsteads were usual. Owing to the wide variations in terrain and climate, cattle raising was more important than cereal cultivation in some regions. Hill forts provided places of refuge, but warfare was generally open and consisted of single challenges and combat as much as of general fighting. La Tène art gives witness to the aesthetic qualities of the Celts, and they greatly prized music and many forms of oral literary composition."
(source: www.britannica.com, article 'Celt')

So while most Gauls were linguistically Celts, the Gauls formed only one of many Celtic language groups!
And the Gauls were indeed the ancestors of the French, but not of the Franks. The Franks were one of the many Germanic tribes which from about350AD overran and invaded the Roman empire.

I have never before encountered the idea that the culture of the British Celts was superior to the culture of the Gaulish Celts. It would surprise me highly, because the Gauls had from about 600BC regular contact with the Greeks in southern France (Massilia), with the Etruscans, with Carthaginians in Spain and from about 200BC with the Romans.
And the culture of those Celts, both Britons and Gauls, was certainly more advanced than that of the Germanic tribes.
[This message has been edited by S. Kroeze (edited November 27, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Well, I was mostly right on most subjects;

*England WAS conquered by Romans and the Celts were conquered. (At one time)
*The Gauls resided in France

However I apologize about my statement about the Franks who were a barbarian tribe from the East.

[Ribannah]

Some tribes that haven't been mentioned yet:

[1] Apaches
[2] Cheyennes
[3] Crow
[4] Inuit

These North-American tribes formed nations like the Sioux and Navahos did.

[4] Jemenites
[5] Kurds

[6] Polynesians (major)

[7] Ethiopians (major)
[8] Ghanese (includes Ashanti)
[9] Kongo (Zairese)
[10] Masai
[11] Tanzanians (includes Zanzibar)
[12] Tuareg


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire