Firaxian Idiocy

Iron Chancellor · July 23, 2002, 18:42

Firaxis has added a new PTW section to their Civ3 site.

But alas! They call Hannibal king of the Carthiginians!
GAH!

Apocalypse · July 23, 2002, 20:00

Well Joan is leader of the French.

Darkworld Ark · July 23, 2002, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
They call Hannibal king of the Carthiginians!
GAH!

Wasn't he?

Dom Pedro II · July 23, 2002, 21:26

Hannibal was a general for Carthage...

and personally, I find the bickering over who should be leader ridiculous. People say, NO! JOAN CAN'T BE LEADER OF FRANCE BECAUSE SHE NEVER WAS.......

It's a game, and furthermore, each time you play its on a completely fictional world with wars that never happened with civilizations that never encountered each other due to differences in time, space, or both. Therefore, the leaders and civs could be completely fictional, and it will still be exactly the same...

BUT if the Firaxians said somewhere that Hannibal was "king" of Carthage, then that is wrong. It should be altered, but only if they were using it in an historical capacity and not in a Civilization 3 capacity.

The_Aussie_Lurker · July 23, 2002, 21:27

Actually Carthage, like Rome, was a republic which had a senate largely made up of merchants! Hannibal was their most respected and successful general, in much the same way that Joan of Arc is one of France's most respected military commanders! So I don't really see the problem with making him the "Leader" of the Carthaganians! I mean, they could hardly have a "Senate" leaderhead, could they?
Oh and, just for the record, if the Carthaginian senate had not been such a bunch of procrastinating wimps, Phonecian might have been the base of every European language today!! Basically, almost all of Rome's army was destroyed during Hannibal's campaign, but he needed reinforcements in order to move onto Rome itself, reinforcements he never got!! Then Rome, having learnt from it's previous mistakes, went on the counterattack, crushed Carthage underfoot, and went on to conquer most of the known world!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Dom Pedro II · July 23, 2002, 21:31

Cool tidbit of info, Aussie

kring · July 24, 2002, 02:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Hannibal was a general for Carthage...

and personally, I find the bickering over who should be leader ridiculous. People say, NO! JOAN CAN'T BE LEADER OF FRANCE BECAUSE SHE NEVER WAS.......

It's a game, and furthermore, each time you play its on a completely fictional world with wars that never happened with civilizations that never encountered each other due to differences in time, space, or both. Therefore, the leaders and civs could be completely fictional, and it will still be exactly the same...

BUT if the Firaxians said somewhere that Hannibal was "king" of Carthage, then that is wrong. It should be altered, but only if they were using it in an historical capacity and not in a Civilization 3 capacity.

I agree 100%; it is rare to find someone that makes this point.

Hoznog · July 24, 2002, 06:32

Well, the Hannibal was royalty. His family owned a vast section on current Spain (Cartagena is the modern Carthago Novo aka New Carthage) over which they ruled with as much power and sovereignty as other monarchs. Besides who else could you choose to lead the Cathaginians, Pliny the Obscure? The next two most recognized names attached to Carthage are Scipio Africanus and Cato, but both are Romans known for destroying it...

"Carthago dilende est!"

Sava · July 24, 2002, 07:43

It doesn't surprise me one bit. The historical inaccuracies date back to Civ I. Thebes, the Egyptian capital, is a Greek City. Sumer, part of the Babylonian Civ, was around almost a thousand years before Babylon. And don't even get me started on Roman and Greek cities. Syracuse, for instance, was originally founded by the Greeks, yet in all of the Civ games, is a Roman city. And speaking of Greeks, Alexander the Great looks more like Julius Caesar in Civ III. Civ I got it right with that blonde hair.

It's a game, people. I say, enjoy it for what it is. I am glad Civ isn't completely accurate like Europa Universalis 2.

Iron Chancellor · July 24, 2002, 17:38

I know, I know. Its only a game, and all...
But you think they would have named him "General" or something of that sort.
I like to play as great leaders who led their countries to greatness (my main problem with Joan). I also like for their titles to be correct. Who would call Mao Tse-Tung the "King" of the Chinese. Or Lincoln "Emperor" of the Americans. Oh well. I like the game enough to let it slide.

narmox · July 24, 2002, 18:42

Who would call Lincoln the emperor of the Americans?

The same who'd have Lincoln as their leader in 4000 B.C. and visit the Great Pyramids of Tokyo in 1000 B.C...

(I hope you see my point

)

zulu9812 · July 24, 2002, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
It doesn't surprise me one bit. The historical inaccuracies date back to Civ I. Thebes, the Egyptian capital, is a Greek Cit

Damn straight! Oedipus came from Thebes!

MarkG · July 24, 2002, 19:58

i believe there was an egyptian thebes as well...

MarkG · July 24, 2002, 20:01

and i'm right

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egyptthebes/

Carver · July 24, 2002, 20:19

Agree or disagree but does the choice of Hannibal really deserve to be called idiocy?

hzm · July 25, 2002, 06:13

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Actually Carthage, like Rome, was a republic which had a senate largely made up of merchants! Hannibal was their most respected and successful general, in much the same way that Joan of Arc is one of France's most respected military commanders! So I don't really see the problem with making him the "Leader" of the Carthaganians! I mean, they could hardly have a "Senate" leaderhead, could they?
Oh and, just for the record, if the Carthaginian senate had not been such a bunch of procrastinating wimps, Phonecian might have been the base of every European language today!! Basically, almost all of Rome's army was destroyed during Hannibal's campaign, but he needed reinforcements in order to move onto Rome itself, reinforcements he never got!! Then Rome, having learnt from it's previous mistakes, went on the counterattack, crushed Carthage underfoot, and went on to conquer most of the known world!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

Roman came from Greek and Greek came from Phoenician. (Simplified? Yes. But there it is.)

Hasdrubal · July 25, 2002, 06:25

My favourite for ruler of the Carthaginian civ would have been Dido, the great founderess.

But I can live with Hannibal and his wrong title. How could I be insulted when they mistakenly call my -Hasdrubal's- great general a 'king'.

He surely must be the most famous of Carthaginians - everybody is familiar with the story of his crossing the Alps with an army of war elephants. The one warlord of antiquity to match the quality of Alexander, the one name that made Rome shiver with fear for over half a milennium to come - who would deny that man a royal title?

I'm just so happy to see that Carthage is in, that I would've settled for 'pope Hannibal'.

MattHiggs · July 25, 2002, 08:35

Dido is a singer, and not a very good one.

Cookie Monster · July 25, 2002, 11:02

Just another voice saying that Firaxis' choice in leaders doesn't concern me. What I care about is good smooth gameplay. I'm looking forward to what PTW has to offer period!

BTW Sava nice girlie girl. Yum yum...............

dunk · July 25, 2002, 11:18

Rant begins...

Uh oh, another horrible mistake. Oh my goodness. How can we play this game? My goodness. (Frets about). I think the world may come to an end because a GAME has Hannibal as leader of the Carthaginians. Wait, aren't you going to complain that the Carthaginians were actually Phoenicain? Well? Oh my goodness. You mean to say that Sumer was around before Babylon? Oh my!!! IIRC, all of the "Babylonian" cities were pretty independant city-states. So were the Greek cities. Athens fought Sparta in a war!!!!! Oh my goodness, is this Civ II or what? Whatever shall we do? (Hyperventilates). That means that Civ is (gasps) wrong. Oh my, send it back, burn it!!!!! Burn it!!

Ok, my ranting is over.

Mao is called "King" of the Chinese because if you are in a monarchy, well, you have a KING, don't you?

Threads like this one are why I no longer look at the "Civilizations" forum. I get all flustered and grouchy.

Sava · July 25, 2002, 12:52

Markos, that was my point. The Egyptian Thebes was Greek influenced. Had the Greeks not gone to Egypt, that city would not have been named "Thebes".

BigRed515 · July 25, 2002, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Markos, that was my point. The Egyptian Thebes was Greek influenced. Had the Greeks not gone to Egypt, that city would not have been named "Thebes".

Umm...the Egyptian Thebes became the capital of Egypt about 2134 BC, while the Greek Thebes was founded approx 1000 BC. I don't think the Greeks had any inflence over the naming of the Egyptian Thebes.

In any case, change the leaderheads and city name files if you don't like them. There's an editor for the latter and a community for the former.

JtheJackal · July 25, 2002, 15:28

I thought Thebes was founded in 4000 BC with a road to some furs built shortly after???? Now I'm confused. I guess ever since the Aztecs leveled the city in 1554 records before that became sparse.

BigRed515 · July 25, 2002, 15:30

You forgot about the eternal cattle herd a year's walk from the city limits...

Iron Chancellor · July 25, 2002, 16:46

Sorry. Stupid Complaint. Sometimes I get annoyed by little errors. Either I'm absurdly obsessed with historical accuracy, or a little anal retentive. And no, you don't need to give me your opinion.

Luis G. · July 25, 2002, 17:51

Well, if we go for historical accuracy, most of the cities from the Aztec city list were actually enemies of the Aztecs (Tlaxcala, Azcapotzalco) or cities that were destroyed long before the founding of the Aztec empire (Teotihuacan, Tula), and the title wasn't king, it was "Tlatoani", and it's not Montezuma, is Moctezuma or Moctecuzhoma, and actually, there were TWO Moctezumas.

Iron Chancellor · July 25, 2002, 20:50

Well, benefit of the doubt for the Montezumas. "Montezuma" is the Anglization of the Spanish version of "Moctezuma." But, Firaxis assumes that the public for the most part knows squat about ancient Mesoamerican cultures (which it does), so its easy to see why they would do such. Also, it allows them to cover more civilizations without actually making them all great powers (playable civs).

sabrewolf · July 26, 2002, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by hzm
Roman came from Greek and Greek came from Phoenician. (Simplified? Yes. But there it is.)

accordning to legends, rome was founded by two guys (romulus, remus) razed by wolves

... maybe greek wolves?

sabrewolf · July 26, 2002, 04:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Luis G.
Well, if we go for historical accuracy, most of the cities from the Aztec city list were actually enemies of the Aztecs (Tlaxcala, Azcapotzalco) or cities that were destroyed long before the founding of the Aztec empire (Teotihuacan, Tula), and the title wasn't king, it was "Tlatoani", and it's not Montezuma, is Moctezuma or Moctecuzhoma, and actually, there were TWO Moctezumas.

most is anglifized in civ3, which is a real shame.

other wrong written leader names, here correct(er):

jeanne d'arc
mao zedong (wrong too, but nearer)
iulius caesar
katarina (the great)

not to speak about all the cities. is too much expected to have "köln" instead of "cologne" or "münchen" instead of "munich"?

Hurricane · July 26, 2002, 05:40

Hey, I´ve even been to Thebes! But only figured it out now!