6000 year civs

[lord of the mark]

now that we know unique civs are in, and are discussing which civs will be in, and which should be in, this raises some interesting questions.

what do we mean by a civ in a 6000 yr game?

I will not start with an easy example, like the Americans. We'll get to them later.

Take the French - who are they and where are they in 4000 BC?
We all know who they are from 1000 AD forward - but who are they before that - the Franks, no? which means that before around 500 AD they are Germans. Just a breakaway group of Germans.
Or are they the Roman inhabitants of Gaul? Thus a breakaway group of Romans. Or more precisely a group of Romans who are conquered by Germans, but culturally subvert their conquerors.
Or are they the ancient, pre-Roman Gauls, and therefore Celts? Breakaway Celts?

Are the Englsih a distinct civ, or just brekaway Germans? In 200 AD the ancestors of most English (assuming all british celts fled to wales or brittany - a simplification) were living in a tiny area of Northwest Germany. Indeed Americans are just a breakaway of that tiny area in northwest Germany. So americans are really just a breakway from German civ.

Which raises the even more difficult questions when we go back before 1000 BC. All these civs Romans, celts, germans and greeks in 4000 BC are just tiny, obscure group of Indo-Europeans, living possibly in Ukraine or Balkans.

Related issues are raised by Babylonians/Akkadians/Sumerians, Indians/sanskrit speakers/Indus valley civ, and in different forms by the new world civs.

Really there is only one 6000 year civ that deserves to be in this game, with unique charecteristics that last more or less for 6000 years.

CHINA.

LOTM

[Maxxes]

Well we're all just a breakaway of the Australopithecus africanus. CivIII should start with only one civ and then a lot of splits I imagine.

[ancient]

good for china!

but then you must also consider in the manchus who conquered china and absorbes into their culture and vice versa so do we know wether they are manchus or chinese? no one knows for sure but the term chinese also fit people who are manchus

[Urban Ranger]

Hmm...

If you stretch it a bit you could possibly include the Egyptians, the Babaylonians, the Cretians, and possibly the Greeks.

[Bkeela]

For this reason I have never once played the Americans in Civ. I would always play the English, and then colonise America and Australia myself. Although in my imagination, they always remained a part of the Empire.

Bkeela.

[Ralf]

Civilization III is aimed to be a lighthearted turnbased strategy-game with some humor in it.
Something fun and exciting for all the desktop Caesars and earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice historic flavour attached to it.

Even if most civs didnt excist back in 4000 BC - who cares? The main game isnt aimed to be an "100% accurate historical simulator" - you have to create historical tailor-cut scenarios for that. And even then you have to accept many compromises and shortcomings.

If only the AI is strong enough, the game is customizable enough, they are bound to have a smash-hit on their hands - thats what I think.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Zanzin]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-20-2001 05:53 AM Something fun and exciting for all the desktop Caesars and earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice historic flavour attached to it. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 20, 2001).]

Couldn't agree more Ralf!! I understand what the other posters in this thread have said, but if you want to start of with just one civ and have civs breakaway from it...well, it's not really "Civilization" (the game) as we've come to know it, is it?

Civ is the way it is, and it works that way. It'd be a pretty boring game if you had to wait around for certain civs to spring up at different points in history. And, if we were to play from 4000BC, then everyone would have to start as China...it's just not the "civ" experience.

[ancient]

no civ has never tried to be historically acurate.. couldnt be if it tried

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How about the Japanses? They weren't breakaway.

------------------
Goooooooooooood Morning Vietnam!

[Kc7mxo]

The chineese have been completly conquered several times, I don't think that they can qualify for the 6000 year award either. Neither can the Japanese, their culture isn't even 3000 years old.

Of course us american's havn't even been around 300 years. heh heh.

Bah. Who cares. It is the Aquiloians who shall reign supreme! With King Conan! :-)

[Old Beardy]

Long live the Cretins...er I mean the Creatines, I mean the... d'oh!

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by Kc7mxo on 05-20-2001 02:33 PM The chineese have been completly conquered several times, I don't think that they can qualify for the 6000 year award either.

That's twice, the Mongols and the Manchus. Both times they left the culture untouched. The Manchus themselves went a step further and literally became part of Chinese.

It doesn't matter though, Civ doesn't pretend to begin being historically accurate

[Theben]

Didn't we already agree that Civ wasn't meant to re-create history?

The names are just placeholders.

[marcuspeddle]

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 05-20-2001 02:04 PM How about the Japanses? They weren't breakaway.

The Mongolian race is very old and they spread over a lot of the world. North American Indians, for example. A breakaway group came to the Korean peninsula a long time ago. Korea has about a 5,000 year old history and artifacts have been found that date back about 13,000 years. I've heard there were natives on the peninsula before the Koreans came but they were assimilated. The Japanese (both aboriginals and the majority Japanese) must have stayed with the islands when they split from the peninsula about 100,000 years ago or went over later. I guess they are a double breakaway group.

[SerapisIV]

Okay, CivilizationIII is a game, not SimAnthropology. It's fun, not an evolutionary humanity simulation. So what if none of the civs in the game existed for longer then 3,000 years of prominence, not even half of the game's length. The fact that Civ allows me to watch Ghandi declare war on me and start heaving nukes at my cities, for me, this is worth most of the game price alone.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-21-2001 09:27 AM Okay, CivilizationIII is a game, not SimAnthropology. It's fun, not an evolutionary humanity simulation. So what if none of the civs in the game existed for longer then 3,000 years of prominence, not even half of the game's length. The fact that Civ allows me to watch Ghandi declare war on me and start heaving nukes at my cities, for me, this is worth most of the game price alone.

You guys are missing my point. This is not to indicate that civ3 wont be a good game. On the civ vs history simulator issue i have other thread i intend to start.

I was intending to give another perspective ont he unque civs question. And yet again to strengthen the case for generic civs, not just on gameplay grounds but on historic grounds. And yet at the same time to acknowledge the one case, in which i beleive the unique civ ground has a strong case to make - China. While you may dispute China, I think it is clear that China is by far the strongest case that can be made HISTORICALLY for unique civs. As opposed to Americans, Germans, etc.

LOTM

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-21-2001 10:02 AMAnd yet at the same time to acknowledge the one case, in which i beleive the unique civ ground has a strong case to make - China. While you may dispute China, I think it is clear that China is by far the strongest case that can be made HISTORICALLY for unique civs. As opposed to Americans, Germans, etc. LOTM

S.Kroeze, a Netherlander poster here at Apolyton, is an history fan who pointed out some interesting posts months ago, about the very same arguments. I bet you'll appreciate them, if you run a forum search with its name as search parameter.

------------------
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. The mind was the first and final battleground, the stuff in between was just noise.
- Admiral Naismith

[axemann]

Obviously, the Civ games are not meant to be historical recreations, but I should also point out that "China" was not a nation 6,000 years ago. What is now China was a series of smaller states with quite varying cultures--probably as much variety as existed in Europe at the same time. It took a long time for China to come together as a single state and nationality. Of course, even today there are strong ethnic differences between different parts of "Han" China, especially between north and south. The various Chinese dialects are really quite different from each other, as I understand it, and could conceivably be considered different languages.

Perhaps someday when we all have mega-computers we can play a mega-Civ that will take all this into account--maybe on a holographic game map where we can walk around ourselves. In the meantime, I just want a decent CivIII...

[Your.Master]

Really there is only one 6000 year civ that deserves to be in this game, with unique charecteristics that last more or less for 6000 years.

CHINA.

I'm going to be picky here...

Actually, the only civ that existed 6000 years ago was that of Mesopotamia...generally represented in civ as the babylonians. Chine is more like 4500 years old, the last of the original 4 founding civilizations.

And just to be more picky...A recent find in Kenya has found the bones of tentatively named Kenyanthropus platyops, which MAY be the ancestor of humans and Australopithecus africanus a failed breakaway.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Ive never heard of a civ called Mesopotamia. In fact, mesopotamia is a region, so obviously a region has existed for 6000 yrs. In fact all of the regions that we know of today existed 6000 yrs ago.

[Krypter]

Please consult historical reference works before opening mouth and inserting foot. Eg: mesopotamians, indus valley civilizations, eqypt.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Krypter
Please consult historical reference works before opening mouth and inserting foot. Eg: mesopotamians, indus valley civilizations, eqypt.

Thank you, Krypter. Egypt has been a civilized society for closer to 10,000 years, we only know of the political entity that dates to about 6,000 years ago. Heck, the sphynx is over 12,000 years old, and that was built (best guess, anyway) to look at the sunrise on the summer solstice around that time. Doing that would have taken significant intellectual history and organization.

The Sumerians, who migrated in from elsewhere (indus?), were around 6,000+ years ago. The Indus civ, altho later to disappear, was flourishing by then.

The Germans mentioned in the first posts were actually just germanic peoples who later became the host of offshoots. The Indo-Europeans absorbed or pushed aside all in their path, except a few holdouts - do we then consider the Basque great because they still hold their own as the almost sole survivors from before the I-E wave?

Vedic people in India came to prominence not too much later, as far as we know, and there has been continuous civ there, albeit under different rulers from various lands.

What this all means is that very few civs date to 6,000 years ago, all have been ruled by foreigners at some time, and the game simply needs a longer list of peoples to be interesting. Most peoples can trace their history to ancient times, but the question is whether they are good for the game - Did they dominate politically? Are they still extant? Did they leave important vestiges of their glory? Obviously an open ended discussion...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq


Thank you, Krypter. Egypt has been a civilized society for closer to 10,000 years, we only know of the political entity that dates to about 6,000 years ago. Heck, the sphynx is over 12,000 years old, and that was built (best guess, anyway) to look at the sunrise on the summer solstice around that time. Doing that would have taken significant intellectual history and organization.




The Sumerians, who migrated in from elsewhere (indus?), were around 6,000+ years ago. The Indus civ, altho later to disappear, was flourishing by then.

The Germans mentioned in the first posts were actually just germanic peoples who later became the host of offshoots. The Indo-Europeans absorbed or pushed aside all in their path, except a few holdouts - do we then consider the Basque great because they still hold their own as the almost sole survivors from before the I-E wave?

Vedic people in India came to prominence not too much later, as far as we know, and there has been continuous civ there, albeit under different rulers from various lands.

What this all means is that very few civs date to 6,000 years ago, all have been ruled by foreigners at some time, and the game simply needs a longer list of peoples to be interesting. Most peoples can trace their history to ancient times, but the question is whether they are good for the game - Did they dominate politically? Are they still extant? Did they leave important vestiges of their glory? Obviously an open ended discussion...

but the egyptian "civ" was dying by 1 ad, and dead by 700.
is arab egypt the same civ as pharonic egypt. More to the point, should it have the same unique charecteristics?


similarly teh indus civ disappeared before the vedic invasions - is say mauryan india the same "civ" as indus valley civ?

is sumerian civ same civ as later semitic civs - and eventual arab civ? with the same "unique charecteristics"

I realize the recorded history of chinese civ doesnt go as far back as civ in meso, indus or nile. BUT china is only place where there is fundamental continuity of civ, where those invasions which took place were absorbed by the locals, where one can possibly make an argument that the 20th century nation shares charecteristics with the oldest known civ, and by implication with the people living there prehistorically. For the rest its absurd.

LOTM

[Jonny]

Marquis de Sodaq:

The sphinx was not built 12,000 years ago. 12,000 years ago, there was no real government anywhere on the planet. People didn't even know how to farm or make pottery then. The sphinx was built around the year 2550 BC. An organized government didn't exist in Egypt/Nile valley until about 3500 BC.

Jonny

[Bkeela]

The sphinx was not built 12,000 years ago. 12,000 years ago, there was no real government anywhere on the planet. People didn't even know how to farm or make pottery then. The sphinx was built around the year 2550 BC. An organized government didn't exist in Egypt/Nile valley until about 3500 BC.

Hmmm, you certainly haven't read any of Graham Hancocks work Jonny. I think the probability of an organized government 12, 000 years ago as very, very high.

Bkeela.

[Sirotnikov]

ahem, people.... what about a certain civilization which despite everything managed to survive for 6,000 years with many periods of ups and downs and almost being anihilated a dozen of times... the jews!

I say Civ III can't ignore us.

Even LOTM is jewish.

I also think that generic civs are the way to go.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
ahem, people.... what about a certain civilization which despite everything managed to survive for 6,000 years with many periods of ups and downs and almost being anihilated a dozen of times... the jews!

I say Civ III can't ignore us.

Even LOTM is jewish.

I also think that generic civs are the way to go.

Of course the history of jewish civ illustrates my point even better. An ancient Israelite civ, a diaspora jewish civ, and a modern israeli civ would all have radically different "unique charecteristics" For historical reasons that any good labor-zionist ideologue could easily explain

(labor zionist ideology in civ3 terms - unique charecteristics go with terrain - take israelites and make them a refugee factor in european and islamic civs, and they will lose many unique charecteristics - will both take european and islamic charecteristics by diffusion, and will adopt some charecteristics specific to refugee status. Place them back on original terrain and they will regain original charecteristics, and lose refugee charecteristics - but they will come back with higher tech level - choose Demo govt as a deliberate strategy for improving tech, prosperity ((good idea for a three city civ, no?))Watch out for cultural diffusion from the region ((Ben Gurions obsession with levantinazation)) )

Do you still have any labor-zionist ideologues left over there? As opposed to right-wingers , post-zionists, and apolitical yuppies? Oh, what we have lost

LOTM
The last labor-zionist civver

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by Bkeela


Hmmm, you certainly haven't read any of Graham Hancocks work Jonny. I think the probability of an organized government 12, 000 years ago as very, very high.

Bkeela.

Yes, we all know for a fact that Atlantis, Mu and Lemuria all flourished around that time; ) As did the megalith-builders of western Europe, who probably used airplanes constructed from blueprints envisioned in mushroom-infected dreams. With these they went to South America and made huge inscriptions only seen from great heights.

There are lots of new age forums for these kind of speculations... hardly on-topic for any civ game.

Edit:
No offence, off course

[jadlakha]

Actually I firmly contend that India is a Civilization much older then 6000 years.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Jonny
Marquis de Sodaq:

The sphinx was not built 12,000 years ago. 12,000 years ago, there was no real government anywhere on the planet. People didn't even know how to farm or make pottery then. The sphinx was built around the year 2550 BC. An organized government didn't exist in Egypt/Nile valley until about 3500 BC.

Jonny

Umm... a bit of study would change your mind. Agriculture and irrigation have been around for at least as long as the civ2 time period. Pottery has been being made for at least 30,000 years! This at sites in Asia, Europe, and Africa all.

No real government on the planet? Not having written records does not disprove their existence. It only leaves the (very real) possibility unproven. Considering how widespread many technologies and tools were even tens of thousands of years ago, it's a safe bet that there were many organized peoples then. An organized government for which there is a reliable record didn't show up in Egypt until 3500bc. What came before was not anarchy, but an ununified Nile valley. In other words, organization at a smaller scale that didn't leave records of itself.

The sphynx (go visit is sometime after studying some geology) is grooved with rain erosion. It hasn't rained much there since 7,500bc. Pollen deposits (along with semi-historical records) confirm that the climate has changed all over the mediterranean basin.