Turks

[Spiffor]

I'm very glad the Turks are scientific. Druing their golden age, not only did they rely on superior weaponry, they also made important discoveries, notably in sanitation (they made the first real toilets).
I'm also glad Firaxis choosed the Spahi as their UU : at last we have some serious cavalry, able to fight against riflemen. Plus, it changes from the janissaries, which are the Turkish UU in every game since Age of Kings.

[XOR]

Originally posted by Hagbart
The Romans could just as well have been Militaristic/Expansionist as Commercial. But we have already lots of Militaristic/Expansionist civs. It seems like being that was quite popular!

The Romans could be expansionist because they expanded their empire, civilization and cultural influence as far and wide as they could. They could be industrious because they were the first nation to ever build so many roads and bridges as to properly connect an empire so large. They also build the first aqueduct systems and many things. Their techniques in bridge building was truely revolutionary and it really takes a lot of credit. They could be scientific, even if science wasnt their major priority they were decently advanced in scientific research and would still keep moving forward (mostly in construction and warfare techniques) rather than stagnating like some others. Additionaly, they were truely apreciative about foreign knowledge so they would assimilate other cultures instead of completely destroying them.

Without a doubt, Romans were militaristic. They were one of the first empires to truely have a long and complex military tradition. The entire Roman society revolved about it's conquest and it's military tactics and tradition.

And, also without a doubt, they were commercial. They had a large merchant network along the entirity of the empire, and since their beguining they were just a merchant republic with a strong military tradition and during their conquest over the world they didnt just have low level trade, they had the same roman coins all over the expansion of the empire. Commerce was like the bloodstream of their power. The main reason of their rivalry with the Carthaginians and the impulse for conquest was trade.

Romans were everything except religious because they were ahead of all their contemporaries in almost every aspect (Except Carthaginians and Minoans, but they destroyed Carthage and Minoans vanished prior to the rise of Rome as an empire, just because of a volcano, pheck volcanoes!). But they were doubtlessly mainly militaristic and commercial.

I would like to see Minoans come into the game, I think I'm going to add them: Comercial, Industrious. UU: Minoan Merchant ship replacing galley but moving faster. Leader: Minotaur :P

[Hagbart]

Trading is part of being a civilization. Without trade with the surrounding world (or within the empire) a civ would not be a civilization imo. So all civs could have the 'commercial' trait.
Give me an example of a civ in the game that was not 'commercial'!

[XOR]

Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Zulu, Mongols, Aztecs, that's 5, not 1, so, good enough.

On the other hand, with the Romans commerce wasnt just "present", it was a big part of the Imperial priority, good enough to be one of the few empires of its age to have a huge internal merchant network and a standarized coin.

The English, they didnt just "have" commerce, the whole point of colonizing far east places was mostly for commercial purposes, that's why they were so much more attached to some colonies while they simply "gave independence" to some others.

The Greek was mostly composed of a federation of city states, most of them were mostly commercial colonies, some of those were communities that didn have any internal product but just traded things from one place to the other. Most of ancient mediterranean Civs, like Rome, Carthage, Minoan, Greek (Minoans were part of the Greek empire, but were so much more advanced and unique) were prioritarily Commercial.

[Palaiologos]

Blue Moose i don't think that Kemal wanted the Greeks and Armenians to suffer: just dead.

The tortures and atrocities were performed by the common Turks, not their officers. Their leaders ordered the Turkish citizens and soldiers to fight the enemy and drive them out. The horrible things were done by the commoners.

Also in your example of the teacher with the electric machine, if its true, the teacher although doing what he is instructed to do he doesn't seem to enjoy it. Even if he does enjoy it it still doesn't make him evil, because a person easily does bad things when he has an excuse for it(he didn't answer properly) and he is unfamiliar with the victum. It seems i know a bit about psychology myself.

You Americans never had an ancestral enemy, an enemy that fears you and therefore hates you with all his heart. In the war of 1922 the Turks cared little about the french and Italians. These were imperialist powers, and sooner or later would be gone from Turkey.

But the Greeks...

The Greeks were there to stay. The rivalry betwwen the two peoples was mileniums old. The common Turks hated the Greeks, and this was not a result of manipulation by their leaders.

[Palaiologos]

XOR how can you say the Romans were commercial?

The Romans had no merchant fleet. They only built their first ships during the first Punic War.

Yes Imperial Rome had a very expanded trade network, but thats something all empires have.

The Mongol conquests brought the east in contact with the west, and trade between China and Western Europe begun (Marco Polo). Trade was encouraged by the Mongols and their Empire profited.

Now would that make the Mongols commercial?

I think not.

[Palaiologos]

And by the way Oerdin did you check the books?

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
Also in your example of the teacher with the electric machine, if its true, the teacher although doing what he is instructed to do he doesn't seem to enjoy it. Even if he does enjoy it it still doesn't make him evil, because a person easily does bad things when he has an excuse for it(he didn't answer properly) and he is unfamiliar with the victum. It seems i know a bit about psychology myself.

You Americans never had an ancestral enemy, an enemy that fears you and therefore hates you with all his heart. In the war of 1922 the Turks cared little about the french and Italians. These were imperialist powers, and sooner or later would be gone from Turkey.

But the Greeks...

The Greeks were there to stay. The rivalry betwwen the two peoples was mileniums old. The common Turks hated the Greeks, and this was not a result of manipulation by their leaders.

Aye, you know a wee, wee bit of psychology, but not nearly enough, it seems. Ancestral enemies exist only because people keep holding on to the hatred of preceeding generations. That's what you are doing, and you allow that hatred to make acceptable the judgement of an entire people. The turks of the current generation have done nothing to you or the people you know, and yet you hate them for the sins of their ancesters. That's irrational. It's a common enough tendency though, so I am not surprised you haven't risen above it. You should try to do so however, unless you are keen on always haven't an ancestral enemy, unless you want that kind of hate to constantly be tearing at your society.

The turks who committed those atrocities did have the government ok'ing them, as well as the fact they didn't know those people personally either. The ancestral hatred just made it easier (but that doesn't mean there weren't ones that had big problems with what they did). Most of them are long dead though, and you should remember that. It's better to have friends than enemies, and the first step towards that as far as the turks are concerned is to stop blaming them for what their ancestors did.

[XOR]

XOR how can you say the Romans were commercial?

Self quoting.

They had a large merchant network along the entirity of the empire, and since their beguining they were just a merchant republic with a strong military tradition and during their conquest over the world they didnt just have low level trade, they had the same roman coins all over the expansion of the empire. Commerce was like the bloodstream of their power. The main reason of their rivalry with the Carthaginians and the impulse for conquest was trade.

The imperial trade network was larger and better bridge and road connected than the Greek empire in every region where the greeks preceded the romans. Commerce on the roman empire flourished far more than the prior ancient empires as well as more than the later medieval states. I dont know if the Greeks had a standard imperial coin, the romans did, most contemporary nations would not even reach to develop something as crucial to commerce as coinage is. Trade articles in the roman empire would end up traveling unthinkable distances more often than in any other contemporary empire. I dont know exactly if they were from hand to hand or exacltly how but the people of important families in Rome would end up owning objects originary from very distant places from all over the empire.

When comparing Romans with, maybe, the Carthaginians or the Minoans you may doubt that they were as commercial as those other 2, but if you compare them with, say, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mongols and several many others you note that the roman empire's efforts for trade were much more visible, almost every large civ in the mediterranean we know of today was a commercial impulsed Civ. The Tebans, for example, werent very commercial, nor were many of the northern or western barbarians that the romans conquered, nor were the hebrew (until later to middle ages) but the more powerfull ones (Rome, Carthage, Grece) were all commercial.

Now, perhaps what you meant to say was that romans were very poor navigators, I'd have to agree on that part.

[XOR]

And the Mongols didnt really profit from trade, they actually built no trading infrastructure whatsoever, nor was the figure of the merchant a very common one on their society as it was in other societies. The Mongols "profited" from raiding and plundering, but they were just barbarians in the end, they didnt even know how to siege a walled city, they probably never even bothered with walled cities and I have yet to know about a single successfull mongol siege on a walled city. On the other hand, I know about some walled cities that werent even touched by mongols because they were walled. And, those said walled cities didnt "trade" with the Mongols, the Mongols in fact made very difficult their every possibility to trade, if at all.

[Palaiologos]

Samarkand was walled, and it fell after a few days.

True, Mongols were just barbarians at first.They avoided walled cities,had no concept of advanced trade etc.

But that is before China. The conquest of China had one huge advantage for the Mongols, technology.

The barbarian mongols stood in awe of the Chinese technological achievements. They quickly adopted many elements of the superior chinese culture and "upgraded" their battle tactics. By the time they invaded Hungary they were extremely sophisticated. They employed powder hurling catapults whose boulders exploded on impact, their troops wore arrow-proofs made of silk( the silk wrapped itself around the swirling arrow thus mading it easier to extract), a campaign medical corps(Indian and Persian doctors), and so on.

Yes Mongol merchants were rare, if any, but the Empire's officials were Chinese, Persian and Indian and thus trade flowed throughout the Empire. And there was a common monetary unit, it was paper money, a chinese invention (don't know it's chinese name)

[Palaiologos]

Now as for the Greeks.

What do you mean by Greek Empire?
The Empire of Alexander maybe? That lasted only 15 years and it was long before the Romans appear on the scene.

I believe(personal oppinion) that the commercial trait implies that the civ's development evolved around trade just like the Minoans you correctly mention.

The Roman's development evolved around conquest and organization. After the Roman legions cleared the way, Roman officials and legislators came. The Roman continiously built. They built everything: roads , aqueducts, schools, academies, courts, forts etc. Even the Roman soldiers to occupy their time built aqueducts and bridges. Around the Roman forts, cities developed.

Their trade network was based on their road network which in turn was based on military needs. The Romans built roads for their troops, not to promote trade. But a road is a road and cities were connected and trade was promoted, but as a byproduct not as a direct intention.

I was surprised that they weren't industrius. Actually the manual lists them as industrius but the readme file mentions that they changed it.

If the Egyptians are industrius because of the pyramids then so should the Romans.

Organized trade does not make a civ commercial. The Persians promoted trade and organized it but were they commercial?

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Hagbart
Trading is part of being a civilization. Without trade with the surrounding world (or within the empire) a civ would not be a civilization imo. So all civs could have the 'commercial' trait.
Give me an example of a civ in the game that was not 'commercial'!

Hagbart here has managed to put in afew lines what took me half a page. I agree completely.

[Palaiologos]

And Blue Moose i can't understand, you are half Turkish, Muslem or something? You people easily accept the Mongols and Huns as barbarians but not the Turks.

Originally posted by Blue Moose


Aye, you know a wee, wee bit of psychology, but not nearly enough, it seems. Ancestral enemies exist only because people keep holding on to the hatred of preceeding generations. That's what you are doing, and you allow that hatred to make acceptable the judgement of an entire people. The turks of the current generation have done nothing to you or the people you know, and yet you hate them for the sins of their ancesters. That's irrational. It's a common enough tendency though, so I am not surprised you haven't risen above it. You should try to do so however, unless you are keen on always haven't an ancestral enemy, unless you want that kind of hate to constantly be tearing at your society.

The turks who committed those atrocities did have the government ok'ing them, as well as the fact they didn't know those people personally either. The ancestral hatred just made it easier (but that doesn't mean there weren't ones that had big problems with what they did). Most of them are long dead though, and you should remember that. It's better to have friends than enemies, and the first step towards that as far as the turks are concerned is to stop blaming them for what their ancestors did.

Let's discard completely ancient history.
Let's just look at the events of the last half century.

In 1953 the Turks violently expelled the Greeks of Constantinople thus putting an end to 2000 years of history. But let's assume that is a long time ago too.

In 1965 and 1974 there was war over Cyprus. But that was before i was even born. So let's count that out too.

In 1982 a full scale war was threatened because the Turks started searching for oil on our side of the Aegean Sea. But i was merely months old then so i was no eye witness of the events.

But in 1996 a group of Turkish special forces occupied an undefended tiny Greek border island. We responded by deploying our fleet. The Turks followed. The two fleets were ready to battle it out at the Aegean when the Americans intervened.

Now could you honestly tell me that the current Turkish generation is innocent of the crimes of the past.

Can't you not understand (no personal hostility here) that national interests depend on the geostrategical goals of the countries and not on the leaders? There is no such thing as "evil expansionist" leader. WWII would happen anyway, Hitler or not.

And when two countries' geostrategical goals colide animosity arises between the two peoples. There is no genetic prearangement. When the geostrategical goals of one country change and thus ceases to be a threat for the other , time will heal the previous hostility.

But that has not happened to either Greece or Turkey.

[Palaiologos]

Moreover i find it imperative to repeat that nations have historical collective memmories.That is what binds them and forges their national identity. Common experiences unite them against their enemies. The past is not so easily forgotten. To forget it is deny your own history, to forget who you are. You Americans maybe find that hard to realize since you are a mixture of many races and religions, but in the rest of the world things are different.

Maybe is good for you that you can view things beyond a national viewpoint and thus be more objective. You are not limited to a narrow nationalistic view and you can maintain your superpower role easier.

I don't know if i made myself clear. I could not find the proper words in English.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
And by the way Oerdin did you check the books?

Sorry I think I missed that part. What books?

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
The Roman's development evolved around conquest and organization. After the Roman legions cleared the way, Roman officials and legislators came. The Roman continiously built. They built everything: roads , aqueducts, schools, academies, courts, forts etc. Even the Roman soldiers to occupy their time built aqueducts and bridges. Around the Roman forts, cities developed.

I think this is the key. "The Roman continuously built".
The civ's special abilities should pinpoint the most significant attributes of that civ in their golden ages. Most of the civs had, during their history, more than 2 abilities.
Take Germany, for example: they were certainly scientific and militaristic for a period, but who can say that the germans weren't industrious as well? Today they are for sure commercial (co-founders of the EU, the 3rd biggest economy, the second biggest export in the world, very close to the US, etc).
So, we must pick only 2 abilities. The most significant ones.

Now, about the turks. I'd go beyond the discussion that they were evil or not. I'd go to their abilities. When I say industrious/scientific, I think that it's a builder civ. (Like the romans. They developed the conquered lands.) What did the turks build in the conquered cities, other than a mosque, a djami and a bath? How did they develope the conquered teritories? Hungary's population halved during the turkish rule. Now, that isn't exactly the picture of a developing country, is it? While we know that the ottomans were militaristic and expansionist during their golden ages, when they conquered almost half of Europe, why are they industrious? This way everybody could be industrious, just like everybody could be commercial. Industrious and scientific weren't the most significant attributes of the ottomans. We are talking about the Ottoman Empire. One of the greatest military power of their time. A militaristic civ that expanded as much as they could, until they were stopped. And what is the legacy of this great, industrious and scientific empire? Some baths and a few djamis, at most. Oh yes, and hate.

[Palaiologos]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Sorry I think I missed that part. What books?

Bottom of page 2.

Does that mean you missed other parts of the conversation as well?

Do you guys just jump to the last page ignoring all previous posts?

Hagbart criticised my books without even knowing what books he was talking about.

That could mean that many of my finest arguments were not read.

Please people read the posts, we are not writting them just for ourselves. Although i disagree with them Kaiser Isaak and Blue moose have made some good arguments. Was i the only one reading their long posts?

[XOR]

I believe(personal oppinion) that the commercial trait implies that the civ's development evolved around trade just like the Minoans you correctly mention.

Well, at least you agree with me about the Minoans, I was almost thinking that you refused to consider any Civilization as being commercial. I think the Minoans were the extreme of trading, that's as commercial as one can get, if nothing less commercial than the Minoans get to be considered as commercial then nothing gets to be considered as commercial because there has never been any civilization any more commercial than Minoans. At some point I take to an insult that the Minoan in Civ3 are barbarians (I'm not Minoan or even close to the region). Bah, how can the Mongols be considered a Civilization and the Minoans only get to be barbarians? Minoan construction technology was far superior to that of the Mongols which came about hundreds of years later. Grrrrr...

When I mention the Greek empire I refer to Alexander's and to the later Greek separate states inherited by his succeeding generals that split the empire into smaller states.

As for the Romans, I see we have different points of view. In the Roman society, the merchant was a very very very extremely proliferating figure, so much that it even ticked Jesus once, back that time when he said something like "To the Ceasar whats for the Ceasar and to God what is for God" (bear with my poor translation of the translation of an interpreted transcription, worse than the copy of the copy but WTH). The Romans were much more commercial than the French, for example, who get to be commercial for some obscure reason.

Hagbart here has managed to put in afew lines what took me half a page. I agree completely.

Yes, and I mentioned several Civs that were nowhere near commercial. I guess you have a point of view that wont accept any Civ being commercial unless it goes to the extreme of the Minoans. Or that there were Civs that realy didnt rely on trade or even give any importance to it.

Now, back to the topic of the Ottomans. I think they should probably be Militaristic and Expansionist, IF they fix the Expansionit trait into being something usefull, else, I'd prefer them going wrong and put Militaristic with anything else because the Expansionist trait kind of sux... completely sux... completely sux real bad.

[XOR]

OT:

The most "evil" of dictators will not dare do something that will outrage the majority of the nation.

Benito Musolini, Fidel Castro, there were (and are) others, and they dont even need to be "dictators".

You see that flag next to my avatar? K, the president here has done many many things that the majority of the people dont agree with. But his facist lackeys keep him in power even if the 11th of every month 1 or 2 million people march in a protest towards the government palace to ask for his deposal.

[Palaiologos]

The only commercial civs should be: Greeks, Carthaginians, Vikings and English. Also Minoans and Phoenicians but they are not in the game.

Yes the Romans were commercial too but that was not their prime characteristic.It was their Constructions and their Army that forged their Empire.

Since only two traits are allowed per civ, then their two most obvious trats must be chosen. The Romans were militaristic and industrious first and then commercial.

There should be three traits per civ. That way Egyptians, Romans, French and Americans could be commercial.

As for the French, i believe they made them commercial because of their Gallic past. The Gauls were experienced weaponsmiths and traded for centuries with the Romans and other italians. The Gallic society was based on trading of weapons and warfare. Thus a gaul civ should be militaristic and commercial.

As for your President, i must admit i know little about Venezuela, but what are the things he has done that outraged the nation?

P.S Castro is not a bad dictator. I think the Cubans like him. And as for Musolini he thought that what he was doing was in the interests of Italy but events proved him wrong. Plus when he opposed the will of his nation by driving them to the war he signed his expiry date.

[XOR]

There should be three traits per civ. That way Egyptians, Romans, French and Americans could be commercial.

Ya, but, can you find 3 traits to give to the Ottomans or the Mongols?

How were the Egyptians commercial? At what time in history were they a commercial power? I just ask.

OT:Re:Long:

Castro is a mean dictator, a very very evil person. There are between 16000 and 17000 emigrants every year, that's the ones that "survive" the escape. Their families are then imprisoned and if they are found by cuban agents in other countries they are treatenened with killing their imprisoned relatives, many have had their relatives killed by his regime this way. Living so close to Cuba I have plenty of escaped cuban friends who went trough that and tell the tale. The "loved by his people" is just propaganda, all enforced by the regime, anyone oposing the government in a significant way gets silenced.

What did the president here do? About everything that is bad is related to him, he starts by simpatizing with every criminal in the planet, included Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Gadaffi, the Jackal (that terrorist imprisoned in france) and Colombian Guerrillas (altough, not openly admited in public). He's political position is that of promoting revenge and confrontation of the "proletariat" against the "abusive bourgoise", he uses different words, he calls the proletariat "the sovereign peoples" and calls the economically productive people "the oligarchy". Then he starts making all sorts of dirty laws to give to those who simpathize with him and take from those who dont. The local coin has devaluated 60% this year, which has not ever happenned in the history of this country. His economical program, regardless of the constant protests, has gone on just because he wanted and has resulted, so far, on the bankrupcy of thousands of local companies and the loss of about 2 million jobs, a lot for a 25 million people third world country. Then he and his lackeys, just because they have majority on congress, enact new taxes anytime they feel like they want more money. Sales tax is currently 17%, then there is a bank-check tax too that I dont know how much it's now because I only use cash. He is also responsible for several criminal activities and using a network of in-governmet influence to insure them impunity, like some guy from his political party who started shooting at a protest from a bridge and got filmed, he called that guy a "patriot that fought for the revolution" (he calls his goverment to be revolutionary) and since the judge was a sympatizer with "the party" the shooter got called off not guilty. He also had an oil selling treaty signed with Castro, under very special conditions, the conditions involve insanely low prices which havent even been paid so far, there have been very large protests asking for the deal to end but he has governmental influence and wont hear the people. Such deal wasnt even to be made until after Cuba paid it's already existing debt and it was ruled so by the previous government who was the one to sell oil to Cuba when Cuba failed to pay in the first place. You have to understand that ALL the oil of the OPEC quota limit always gets sold so there is no need of giving a single drop to a half-payer, even less with the current economic crisis.

He's had the nerve of occupying all-channel TV transmission space (here the govt has power to do that) for several hours almost every day of the week just to transmit self-propaganda speeches. After the monthly protests started this has ended, but the amount of hours of transmission he has already taken in his 3 years of government probably sum up about 2000 hours. He uses the special police to intimidate political adversaries and for several corruption deeds.

There's also the creation of several laws detrimental to economy and people's property, over 40 laws were even enacted trough unipersonal irregular means (they were then "officialized" by the pupet-majority congress). There's also the disappearance of absurd amounts of money from the national treasury that he "retired" and hasnt justified yet, it's been like 6 months since and no justification, but more of these absurd trasury gaps continue to spawn over time.

Recently, he is antagonizing the capital city police force because they dont let his sympatizers cause mischief in the city. Since there are plans and intentions from the political oposition (every sane person duh!) to go on mass-strike and stop all workers and factories until he quits he said that he will enable "the sovereing working peoples" to overtake property over the factories and working places to prevent that from happening. Even presidents of neghbooring countries refer to him as "the Madman" (most accurate translation).

I could also go on and on about his making of several gangs that he uses to intimidate people and cause disturbance in the capital city (which happens to be where I live) and several many other things but that would exceed the message lenght limit, you could just look around in the press and be sure to not fall for communist propaganda like when you thought cubans liked Castro. And Musolini, yes, he signed his expiry date for what he did, but he did act in oposition to the will of the Italian peoples.

The point however is that there were and are some presidents, not just dictators, that will openly do things even if it outrages the majority of their people.

[Palaiologos]

You know that reminds me of PASOK's( the rulling socialists in Greece) early days. They disbanded the Gendarme because they were not sympathizers, founded a terrorist organization (17N) to promote their goals by force, controlled the T.V, put ONLY their own people in the public offices( until 1995 you could not work as a public employee, police included, unless you had the party's I.D card which was requested as a qualification), embezzeled huge amounts of money from the treasury and just as they were about to loose the elections ***ked up he country so that the "evil fascists" find the country in ruins and get the blame. At one point they even banned some right wing books.

At least there were elections every four years.

Now about Venezouela;

I did not know these things. The situation there appears as tyranic. But keep in mind this. This President of yours could never dare act like this unless a lot of people supported him. It doesn't matter if the majority is against him, if his followers are about 45% he will have every incentive to continue his mad actions. You know i am sure many people in your country truly see his actions as revolutionary. Doesn't matter if they are not. PASOK actions for example, if seen by a third party they will be considered ruinus for Greece, but many Greeks did not seem to understand. They were happy just because the right wingers fell from power. In a classic exaple of public manipulation Papandreou promised that if he wins the next elections every person in the country will take 5.000 drs as bonus. All the common people afterwards drunk wine in Papandreou's name.But for the country it was catastrophic. The only effect it had was to raise inflation.

But that only reinforces my argument. That kind of rulling is not about to last. Your President will propably fall from power soon. By the way isn't Venezuela where a recent coup took place?

[XOR]

The coup story can be quite weird, a coup attempt was what the current president tried to do in 1992, then he went to jail, then was released, then won elections by offering "the sovereign people" to have the goods of the "evil oligarchs". If you mean about this Aprils "coup", he was arrested because of some events that are still not fully understood, then he was released 3 days later and nobody really understood how it happenned, during that period, all his party just hid in the shadows and couldnt be located, nobody could find them, so a group of people from representative groups of several institutions were put in power, then they were removed when he was released and everyone who supported them or helped them be in power got called an "overtrower".

45% is not the amount of people that support him, not long ago the statistic services gave him 18%, but he has lost popularity since then so you can take a guess. But he is an ex-Colonel and he has a large network of manipulation within the army. The thing is, if the law enforcement and the army keep folowing his orders there isnt much that can be done, he will keep being protected by the army (he is known to have been hiding from one military base to another each time he thinks some attack will come and overtrow him) and will keep having the autority to enact taxes, decree laws and consume the treassury. If he could just be exposed to the public unprotected he would be lynched.

When he makes a public concentration he has to PAY people to go, he sends buses all over the country to come to his speeches and meetings, there are also things that point out that he may be bringing in people from colombia. No proof, but people at the border claim have seen some of the busses in the concentrations come in from Colombia the day before, its not easy to recognize a bus from another but a group of 20 busses doesnt just come from the border every day. And if you watch TV, a group of 20 busses you saw the day before is not hard to recognize or so to say. Yep, the situation is tyranic. And elections were supposed to be every 5 years, but they renewed the constitution to enlarge the presidential period to 6 years, and because they did it 2 years ago there's supposed to be 4 years left, with possibility of reelection. "That kind of ruling is not going to last" was what many said since December 10 of 2000, as you can see, it's lasting much more than expected.

So, they too called the political opposition fascists? What a coincidence. And how did they get rid of these people in Grece, elections just came and they lost?

[Palaiologos]

Errrr..... we didn't, it's their 20th year of power.
But Papandreou died eventually and his party transformed to a modern Socialist democratic party which is acceptable.

And when i said 45% i didn't literally mean 45%, just a lot. I still believe that without public support he would not have dared act this way.It sounds like your President knows he is going to loose and he is trying to stay in power as long as possible.

But i think we have gotten a bit off-topic with the "revolutionaries".
P.S what is the "madman's " name?

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Palaiologos
There should be three traits per civ. That way Egyptians, Romans, French and Americans could be commercial.

Actually I've been thinking on this for a long time. This, along with a larger variety of special abilities (agricultural, maritime, cultural, nationalistic, etc) would make the civs differentiate better.
We have already too many civs with the same attributes.

[XOR]

Actually I've been thinking on this for a long time. This, along with a larger variety of special abilities (agricultural, maritime, cultural, nationalistic, etc) would make the civs differentiate better.
We have already too many civs with the same attributes

I've thought about it too, but came to the conclusion that Civ3 values are a bit too simplified to add most of the things in that order without making them too powerfull or too insignificant.

OT Part

The thing is/was/stays as: yes, a dictator or even a not-so-dictator would dare to do things against the will of their people. Some of them dont last much for that, some other will support themselves on the fraction of the people that will still support them. Maybe you can say that the Turks havent even felt offended for what their leader did, or that they didnt disaprove it, but saying that a dictator wouldnt dare to, is simply historicaly proven to not be true.

P.S what is the "madman's " name?

From the Goverment's website: click here

If you can get it translated you'll see the information is half irrelevant biography info and half propaganda. And he doesnt have enough support to fill all government working places with his supporters, but people that work for majors and governors of his party are treatened with being fired if they dont present themselves at the party's public demonstrations. Adding that the majority of his relatively few supporters are too ignorant to even spell correctly simple words of frecuent use. Should end soon, should, but it was supposed to "end soon" since December of 2000.

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Hagbart

Well Galvatron.. have you visited Turkey?
Turkey does not have/use the death penalty.
Eventually (nobody know when) the Turks will join the EU, and that requires something.

You can't base your knowledge of a country on some bad documentary.

No never visited Turkey but the documentation I saw was a very good one completely neutral produced by one of the greatest historian of all time: Paul Lendvai. He is very famous for his works and a man with an international reputation (he is also a fellow countryman from me). So I think I can trust from what I see. You're right you can't believe everything you see on TV but this one is believable. I disagree with you that Turkey will join the EU in recent time perhaps they will someday but I'm sure we will all be gone a long time ago.

On a side note: Turkey had the death penalty a very long time. I think they abolished it last year but it was a more than hot and very difficult discussion and also heavy pressure from other countries.

[Blue Moose]

As far as Turkey no longer having the death penalty.....

We're still barbarians in America.

Maybe Georges Clemenceau was right...

"America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization." ~Georges Clemenceau

Though...I had mistakenly thought it was Ambrose Bierce that had said that...(thankfully I looked it up the quotation for the wording, and found the originater).

PS. Has anyone ever heard of Georges Clemenceau?...I don't think I have (as best I remember).

Edit: added the all important question mark.

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by Blue Moose

PS. Has anyone ever heard of Georges Clemenceau?...I don't think I have (as best I remember).

This guy was Prime Minister of France during WWI. He was a hard-liner against Germany and he designed the harsh peace conditions against them and succeeded against the will of Woodrow Wilson therefore the Americans retreated from the peace talks because they wanted a peace treaty born from humanity and not revenge feelings. GC was more or less a nationalist and didn't like anything which was not French as you can see in his quotes.