Which civs could be replaced by a worthier civ?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH


That may be how its classified but I dont see it personally. English does not have the 3 "genders" (I cant remember the actual terms) or the differences between spoken and written language. To me those are huge differences.

Of course, no one could argue that English and German are the same language. There's a reason English and German speakers can't understand each other! But its classification as a Germanic language isn't my decision, that's how it is put by the "experts," the language scholars. But despite the differences you mention, there are more German influences on English than any other single language. And yes, this has a great deal to do with the root of England being the Germanic Anglo-Saxon tribes.

Just look at the basic articles. "Und" and "and," "The" and "Die," "Ein" and "An," etc. The number of cognates alone shows the German roots.

I remember seeing the name of a department store (maybe in Frankfurt) that was the length of the building.

Yeah, I remember reading about some old German ocean liners with names almost as long as their hulls.

[SpencerH]

I can tell you that I've been shot down in flames in Sweden for making the same comparison between German and Swedish (that I do speak to some degree).

[danimal]

Originally posted by Rust
The Americans have been a virtual British colony, or is that lap dog, for quite some time now. They may have run themselves for awhile but their back in the fold today.

Man...you need to leave Fantasy Island. The UK is a sewer ...the people smell bad and the women are ugly. The USA should have given England to Hitler during WW2 on exchange for a few future Porsches.

English cars are lousy, your food is terrible, your Prince Charles wants to be a Tampon to an old ugly broad....no wonder the suicide rate is so high in England.

Hey limey...I got your lap dog....swingin'.

[siredgar]

What is this sudden obsession with the "Indonesians"? Aside from the modern nation (which leaves room to impress anyhow), I don't see much of anything but a "culture", not a true "civilization". Sure, the Mongols and the Vikings may not have been civilizations as strictly defined, but they shaped history and had a big impact. What the heck did the Indonesians or whatever you want to call them do besides spread out into a bunch of islands?

I say to "space fillers", some spots of the world are just meant to be left open to be colonized. Don't try to fill in every spot on the world just for the sake of it. Anyhow, I'm sick of people saying there isn't enough room for Korea because China and Japan is already "crowding" that area. Look at Europe (ex-Russia), there are already five civs in there in an area about half the size of China. So, it's not crowded? If you're playing on random maps, it's entirely irrelevant anyhow so why not go for actual civilizations over space fillers. We have enough already.

Anyhow, Korea is about the same size as Britain and at one point they controlled territory as large as all of Western Europe. They invented the world's first moveable metal type (pre-dating Gutenberg) and ironclad battleship (pre-dating the American version). Literature, poetry, and theology were all very powerful elements of Korean society, which in my opinion, was far more advanced than anything in Europe up until the 16th century.

What have the Indonesians or even Thai achieved over them? Please go visit these countries and see how they live. They still use spoons or even their bare hands to eat, not chopsticks (like the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese) or forks and knives (like the Europeans and their descendants). Sure, they're nice people, but that doesn't make them a great civilization.

I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone, but please just look at the facts.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Of course they would have flipped back with the advent of MacDonalds.

MacDonalds started in 1948. Kinda before the '60s.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ethelred


MacDonalds started in 1948. Kinda before the '60s.

Ethylred, are you trying to ruin a perfectly good argument with facts? Law school is out for you.

Its the principle that counts in this case. I never saw a MacD's before 1968-69.

[Ethelred]

I am a little old and underfunded for law school.

I live in California which were MacDonalds got started so I saw it when it was changing from a small chain into the franchised monster it became.

[SpencerH]

I was thinking about the topic of this thread from the other direction. What civs definitely deserve to be in, based on a unequivocal contribution to world-wide culture and/or having formed an empire that was "world-wide" in scope.

Here's my list:

The English
The Chinese
The Romans
The Spanish
The Mongols
The French

For my money, the rest are regional powers.

[nato]

The Americans have been a virtual British colony, or is that lap dog, for quite some time now. They may have run themselves for awhile but their back in the fold today.

What?! I thought the British were OUR lap dog!

Just kidding, I love Britain, I think UK + US makes a real cool team. But if you absolutely HAD to pick one as the junior partner...

But you don't really, its a team effort. West unite!

Anyway, what I really wanted to post was I noticed something. You could look at this poll backwards to see what the most accepted civs are.

Thus it looks like Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, and Russians (!) are the most agreed upon.

So it looks like the classical ancients and the giant of the east China. Russia surprises me a little.

Sorry if this was obvious, but I thought this was interesting.

edit: looks like SpencerH had a similar idea during the cross post at almost the exact same time Must learn to type faster...

[nato]

I was thinking about the topic of this thread from the other direction. What civs definitely deserve to be in, based on a unequivocal contribution to world-wide culture and/or having formed an empire that was "world-wide" in scope.

I think an age old problem is what the criterion is for a civ to definitely be in.

You are using " a unequivocal contribution to world-wide culture and/or having formed an empire that was "world-wide" in scope."

I like your list based on that critierion.

Its a good criterion, but everyone is going to have their own. Mine would be like:

1. They were highly advanced, developed, and cultured
2. They had a large impact on history and other civilizations
3. They were unique, no one else like them
4. Geographical distribution is nice

Geographical distribution is one of the things they aim for when deciding who gets to sit on the UN Security Council, so I think it is a legitimate goal, though I put it in 4th.

My list of must haves would be:

1. Chinese
2. Romans
3. Arabians
4. Indians
5. Russians
6. British
7. Americans

I would also like Zulus and Incans for geographical distribution.

A side topic ... the Mongols: civ or super strong barbarians? I think IN CIV TERMS they would be most accurately portrayed as strong barbarians. (I don't mean this as an insult, after all, barbarians are human beings too)

Hope this post is not straying from the thread topic too far...

[Jamski]

No Egyptians ? They fill your criteria nicely, IMHO.

-Jam

[nato]

I'm a big fan of Egypt, but they would not be on my trying-to-be-short list of must haves.

Mostly, I'm not sure how big an effect they had on everyone else. I don't think any civs inherited "Egyptian" values, and I don't know how much they influenced people around them. Mostly I think other civs conquered them and took their grain. Also, the Arabians cover that geographic area.

They sure are high cultured and unique though, that is true!

(Please don't anyone bother making a post telling me how vast and deep the Egyptian influence on everyone was ... I just don't think it was as big as most major civs.)

Actually I also don't like not including France, but I'm hoping Britain would cover the colonialist European power ... trying to keep it a short list, and all.

Anyway, no list is perfect, and everyone has their own. Egypt and France WOULD make a longer list of mine, for sure.

[Mikhail]

Modern English perhaps isn't that related to German, but Old English was, big time. Even in terms of grammar (Thou is an obvious off-shoot of Du. Thou shalT (notice the added T), Du sollst) Thou shalt being among the little old english that makes sense to me

I think you're all ignoring the biggest criteria:
Who it would be fun to play as.

Which is why the Germans and Scandinavians should both be in.

[Jethro83]

I sort of agree with a lot of nato's criteria. However, I don't really care about geo. distribution. But I also add the criteria of how interesting I find a civ. So in rethinking who I think belong, I'd say all of the civs already in do belong. Plus the following:

1. Spanish
2. Phoenicians/Carthaginians
3. Celts
4. Incas
5. Koreans
6. Vikings
7. Arabs/Saracens
8. Mongols

Then if in the XP, there is a proper editor that allows for the creation of civs, I'd just add extra civs based on my main criteria of how interesting I find that civ to be (that's when I'd add the Australians, Indonesians, Aborigines, Nubians, etc.)

[Andreiguy]

The French are garbage....merde. Throughout history they have been a nation of backbiting cowardly whimps. If not for the USA...all the french would still be speaking German. And don't tell me about Napoleon...the big ***** got beat in the end.

What the French lacked in military prowness they more than make up with their culture. Oh, and BTW, the only time France has ever surrendered without a fight is the German occupation of Paris during WWII, and that was because a few pro-Nazi representatives cheated the French people.

So it looks like the classical ancients and the giant of the east China. Russia surprises me a little.

I'm not getting defensive or critical or anything, just want to clarify a point:
Russia is one of the oldest civilizations, originating in present-day Ukraine (where I happened to be born) in Kiev early in AD, and that city's empire (Kievan Rus) was the most civilized in Europe (Kiev was larger than London) until the Mongols came in, murdered everyone, and burned down the city.

+ Russia has had to most military casualties of any nation (20 million in WWII alone, and many (don't know about most) innocent people dead as well (Stalin murdered another 20 mil)
I think that alone is enough influence...

I think that the civs included should be the most interesting to play, we don't need all this politically correct stuff.

[nato]

Good call, Mikhail and LordAzreal!! How fun and interesting a civ is should be a top criterion. I shouldn't have lost sight of that.

Good list LordAzreal. Actually I think that expanded 16 + 8 list would satisfy most (but not all) players.

[nato]

Russia has a lot of great things like you listed Andreiguy. I just did not think Russia would be one of the civs that most people would agree on so strongly for Civ.

I do not think of Russia the same way I think of Rome or China. It is not as ancient, its culture has not spread so far, and it has only been highly influential since WWII.

It seems a surprising one to me, but I'm sure it is a natural choice to someone from Russia!

[Andreiguy]

Yeah, I agree abt that ...
but wouldn't you agree that Russia is one of the more worthy civilizations, one that there is no doubt about? I mean, it is more important than most of the other civs...

Just say yes...
Actually, why are we even talking about taking out civs at all? For me, its the more the merrier...

[siredgar]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I sort of agree with a lot of nato's criteria. However, I don't really care about geo. distribution. But I also add the criteria of how interesting I find a civ. So in rethinking who I think belong, I'd say all of the civs already in do belong. Plus the following:

1. Spanish
2. Phoenicians/Carthaginians
3. Celts
4. Incas
5. Koreans
6. Vikings
7. Arabs/Saracens
8. Mongols

Then if in the XP, there is a proper editor that allows for the creation of civs, I'd just add extra civs based on my main criteria of how interesting I find that civ to be (that's when I'd add the Australians, Indonesians, Aborigines, Nubians, etc.)

Yes, I agree, that's a nice list.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I was thinking about the topic of this thread from the other direction. What civs definitely deserve to be in, based on a unequivocal contribution to world-wide culture and/or having formed an empire that was "world-wide" in scope.

Here's my list:

The English
The Chinese
The Romans
The Spanish
The Mongols
The French

For my money, the rest are regional powers.

I don't see China as qualifying as either contributing to world-wide culture or being world-wide in scope. While they get points for sheer longevity, China was always a fairly isolationist civilization and Chinese culture didn't spread far beyond China, certainly not beyond Asia.

As for the Mongols...How can you not consider the Germans but include the Mongols? The single greatest impact the mongols had on history was threatening Eastern Europe, and in the scope of things it was a short-lived heydey for the Mongols. They spread no culture, and their "empire" fell very quickly. They may be cool, but as a "civilization" that impacted the world, they hardly compare with the Germans.

I have to say, If I had to list the 3 countries that had the greatest impact on the 20th century, it would be the USA, Russia and Germany.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Andreiguy
Yeah, I agree abt that ...
but wouldn't you agree that Russia is one of the more worthy civilizations, one that there is no doubt about? I mean, it is more important than most of the other civs...

Soviet Russia is Russia's most important, influential time. For that she has to be near the top. Without that, she'd be down the ladder a few rungs.

My 10 essential civs in the game now (no particular order) are:

Rome
Greece
Babylon
China
Germans
English
India
Russia
Egypt (not the most important in history by a longshot, but cool)
Persia

Despite being American, I feel no particular need for them in the game like I do the others.

And France would be right up there if it weren't for the fact it was inhabited by the French.

[Boris Godunov]

(Stalin murdered another 20 mil)
I think that alone is enough influence...

There is a book that came out last year, not sure the name, about Stalin, and the author puts the death toll for his reign, including starvation and famine, at about 96 million total

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And France would be right up there if it weren't for the fact it was inhabited by the French.

"You don't frighten us, English pigdogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I fart, in your general direction so-called Arthur King. You and all your silly English Knnnnnnnnnigits!!!"


Seriously though, what do you have against the French?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by LordAzreal




"You don't frighten us, English pigdogs! Go and boil your bottoms, sons of a silly person. I fart, in your general direction so-called Arthur King. You and all your silly English Knnnnnnnnnigits!!!"


Seriously though, what do you have against the French?

Seriously, nothing. I have nothing against entire cultures, as I don't like to stereotype.

Just don't ask my grandfather the same question...he'll tell you his WWII experiences dealing with the French as an American GI.

[Mikhail]

Technically, the Mongols are less of a civilization than Iroquis (or any other civ in the game you don't think belongs)

They were a group of semi-connected tribes and barbarians before Genghis Khan, united for a while, then went right back to tribes and barbarians.

Saying that they impacted the world would be true, but in the same way that the Huns did: by destroying and conquering. Not by building cities, researching technology, spreading culture or any of the other things we associate with "civilization". They built nothing in the lands that they conquered. Just killed most of the people in them, and burnt what was left over.

Is that civilization?

None the less though, I'll bet you money that Firaxis will include them in the XP.

It would still be fun to play as them though. *anticipates a Genghis Khan leaderhead*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Mikhail
They built nothing in the lands that they conquered. Just killed most of the people in them, and burnt what was left over.

Not exactly true. The Mongols only wreaked such devastation in the lands where they met strong resistance. If the locals were content to just accept the Mongols as conquerers and pay them tribute, the Mongols generally left them alone.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I don't see China as qualifying as either contributing to world-wide culture or being world-wide in scope. While they get points for sheer longevity, China was always a fairly isolationist civilization and Chinese culture didn't spread far beyond China, certainly not beyond Asia.

As for the Mongols...How can you not consider the Germans but include the Mongols? The single greatest impact the mongols had on history was threatening Eastern Europe, and in the scope of things it was a short-lived heydey for the Mongols. They spread no culture, and their "empire" fell very quickly. They may be cool, but as a "civilization" that impacted the world, they hardly compare with the Germans.

I have to say, If I had to list the 3 countries that had the greatest impact on the 20th century, it would be the USA, Russia and Germany.

LOL. Your points are valid, but if you're even hinting that the Chinese did not build a "worthy" civilization compared then I'll have to laugh. Just because they did not try to conquer the world (even though they could have), does not make the Chinese any less of a civilization than the others. In fact, I think it makes them more of a "true" CIVILization.

The Mongols kicked Russian ass. Don't be bitter about it.

In my opinion, the Soviet Union had a net negative impact on 20th century history. Yes, they helped fight the Germans (they were forced to) and made many scienfitic contributions, but they also helped spread an inefficient economic system around the world (communism) that eventually collapsed and kept millions of people from achieving a better way of life. They not only had tens of millions of their own people "purged", but aided in the oppression and killing of countless people in other countries. Also, they built way too many nuclear weapons and caused a major environmental disaster (Chernobyl) of which the consequences will still have to be dealt with.

Anyhow, civilization is about a number of ages, not a single century.

Your viewpoint seems quite Eurocentric, which is interesting because many Europeans don't even consider Russians truly "European".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar


LOL. Your points are valid, but if you're even hinting that the Chinese did not build a "worthy" civilization compared then I'll have to laugh. Just because they did not try to conquer the world (even though they could have), does not make the Chinese any less of a civilization than the others. In fact, I think it makes them more of a "true" CIVILization.

The Mongols kicked Russian ass. Don't be bitter about it.

In my opinion, the Soviet Union had a net negative impact on 20th century history. Yes, they helped fight the Germans (they were forced to) and made many scienfitic contributions, but they also helped spread an inefficient economic system around the world (communism) that eventually collapsed and kept millions of people from achieving a better way of life. They not only had tens of millions of their own people "purged", but aided in the oppression and killing of countless people in other countries. Also, they built way too many nuclear weapons and caused a major environmental disaster (Chernobyl) of which the consequences will still have to be dealt with.

Anyhow, civilization is about a number of ages, not a single century.

Your viewpoint seems quite Eurocentric, which is interesting because many Europeans don't even consider Russians truly "European".

You're misreading my post. I was responding to another poster's criterea for "worthwhile" civs and then pointing out how his choices seemed to violate his own criteria.

I would never dismiss Chinese civilization, and if you read my post about which civs I find essential, you'll find it is hardly Eurocentric. I resent the notion of being referred to as such strongly.

And I don't see why you're talking to me about the Russians...I wasn't going gung-ho for them. I merely pointed out they have had a great impact, for good or bad. Impact is quantitative, not qualitative, when considering influence of a civ.

[nato]

The Chinese kind of have a world wide impact just by controlling themselves. After all, they are about 1/6 of humanity. (by that measure India also counts, and I would say they do)

Also China has had a huge effect on Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia, and other neighbors. The number of people effected by Chinese culture is very large.

You just cannot ignore them at all. They are huge, and not just in population.

I disagreed with that comment when I first saw it, but didn't bother to respond. I have no doubt you're a smart guy (you're here after all!), but that particular comment is way off.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nato
The Chinese kind of have a world wide impact just by controlling themselves. After all, they are about 1/6 of humanity. (by that measure India also counts, and I would say they do)

Also China has had a huge effect on Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Mongolia, and other neighbors. The number of people effected by Chinese culture is very large.

You just cannot ignore them at all. They are huge, and not just in population.

I disagreed with that comment when I first saw it, but didn't bother to respond. I have no doubt you're a smart guy (you're here after all!), but that particular comment is way off.

I totally agree with these sentiments, I am all for the Chinese. But again, I was merely going by the standards that other guy mentioned. By his standards, China wouldn't qualify. By MY standards, they are right up there!