Names of Civilisations in 4000BC

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Dida
First, note that the Chinese people never call themself Chinese. Chinese and hence China are English words and have no direct connection to what the Chinese call themselves.
In the dawn of Chinese culture, the Chinese call themselves Hua Xia. This group of people lived around the Yellow River Valley starting from 4000BC as we know of, and started to dominate the region after uniting with another group in east and defeating barbarians in the south. They are the direct ancesters of the race of people call "Han", which today made up 95% of China's population. Today, the word Hua Xia is used interchangably with Middle Kingdom (China). A significant aspect of China is its long cultural and national history. The Chinese people have shared a common culture longer than any other group on Earth. The Chinese writing system dates back almost 4,000 years.

I know, Chinese means the people of Chin, and Chin didn't exist before 890BC.

Even if you consider all Chinese legends about Yellow Emperor(Huang Di), Shen Nong(the one who searched for edible plants) and Yu to be historically accurate, the Chinese(Hua Xia) history only reached 2500BC at most. If you only consider archeological evidences, then Chinese history really began with the Shang Dynasty around 1500BC. Excavations in Hemudu, Erlitou, and several other sites may show signs of civilizations as yearly as 4000BC, but which of these sites constitute the true origin of the later Chinese civilization? Whose language, alphabet, and religious belief would go on to dominate the others? And who first created a governmental organization that went beyond a single tribe?

For me, the Chinese civilization began under the Shang dynasty who was the first to give Chinese a state-level government, an alphabet, a religion, and an organized military. Shang defined the Chinese culture that would continue until this day. Still, even the earliest Shang time was 2000 years younger than 4000BC.

[Dida]

The origin of the english word China is debatable. And how the word China came around has nothing to do with how the Chinese civilization came around. Chin dynasty lasted for very short time, and Chinese civ certainly did not start with them.
Earliest written records dated back to the Shang, which according to historical study, is the 2nd dynasty. Oracle writtings on the 'dragon bones' from Shang era was so sophisticated, that it must have been developed for many centuries before the Shangs. As common belief put it, chinese characters were invented at Yellow Empors time, around 3000 BC. What happened before him was unknown. But there is no doubt that Chinese civilization started from the Yellow River Valley, and people that once lived there made up of much of China's population today.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Dida
The origin of the english word China is debatable. And how the word China came around has nothing to do with how the Chinese civilization came around. Chin dynasty lasted for very short time, and Chinese civ certainly did not start with them.
Earliest written records dated back to the Shang, which according to historical study, is the 2nd dynasty. Oracle writtings on the 'dragon bones' from Shang era was so sophisticated, that it must have been developed for many centuries before the Shangs. As common belief put it, chinese characters were invented at Yellow Empors time, around 3000 BC. What happened before him was unknown. But there is no doubt that Chinese civilization started from the Yellow River Valley, and people that once lived there made up of much of China's population today.

There is a 1000 years difference between 3000 and 4000BC. My point was that most important characteristics of the Chinese civilization had not been developed by 4000BC, and it was difficult to pick among the many late-neolithic civilizations the true ancestor of the late Chinese civilization.

[TacticalGrace]

In Civ terms the Chinese DID start in 4000 BC. The way Civ groups / models different tribes is crude so you can't expect everything to match up too well.

There are certain howlers that really do seem silly:
(1) Having the French, Germans, Celts, vikings AND the English (as we did in civ2 and will have again in PTW)seems strange because the English civ was an agglomeration of these other civs. At least in civ 3 we don't have celts as a civ and so we can pretend that the English are the celtic britons at the beginning of the game and that the game diverges from history if they aren't displaced by the germans (angle+saxon tribes). Hence my original posting on this thread
(2) The Americans. It's been discussed before but for me american knights and american spearmen? WTF? the fact that america and the english should be screaming out to you by the fact that americans SPEAK english*.

So what is the answer to all this? Well (and maybe this a civ4 idea I guess) maybe when you start the game you should pick your tribe but that is only a base name. On top of this you have a nation name which can change. For example you might be anglo-saxons (militaristic/expansionist) starting with no nation name. Later (after some trigger like a discovery/victory/city size/city number) you would pick a nation name (e.g. English. Later, there might be another trigger changing the name to British, or maybe to AMERICAN.

Under this scheme you could have celtic british AND anglo-saxon British. or anglo-saxon American. Or in an another game there would be catilan American.

still doesn't solve the problem of only being able to have anglo-saxon British and anglo-saxon American but that isn't such a problem.

In addition UUs would be linked to each nation (lots of UUs!) so if you are the anglo-saxon British then if you want to get access to the F15 then you have to change into the anglo-saxon Americans (this mirrors real history where the British Empire is no more and in it's place stand America. In civ terms Britain is little more than a appendage to America)





* well okay loosely. And excepting the minions behind the scenes who all seem to speak spanish.

edit: said civ 2 but meant civ 3

[Gangerolf]

At least in civ 2 we don't have celts as a civ

Yes we do. Leader: Cunobelin/Boadicia, capital: Cardiff iirc.

[Gangerolf]

.

(2) The Americans. It's been discussed before but for me american knights and american spearmen? WTF?

it's just a game.

I like it the way it is, even though it's unrealistic, it's fun and that's what matters

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


Yes we do. Leader: Cunobelin/Boadicia, capital: Cardiff iirc.

sorry: typo. meant to say civ3. I've made an edit to the original

[Athitis]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Yeah, that arrogance did no good to the Greek people. First they were dominated by the Mazedons, later conquered by the Romans, and finally oppressed by the Turks. They lost all their oversea possessions and was reduced to a minor power within the EU.

First!: The *Ancient* Greeks called the other civs barbarians for a reason: Greeks developed Historiography, the Oplympics, Democracy, Literature, AND managed to repell the PERSIAN invasion outnumbered ,well, 1 to 500. Later on they Conquered them.

The MACEDONIANS ARE GREEK!!!!!!!!! They were greek! They ARE greek! The Macedonia landnorth of Greece has used this name thinking they are greeks, but actually they have nothing to do with us! greece doesn't officially recognize it as Macedonia.


Third: As with every civilization, the Greek Empire made by Alexandered grew for quite a time, then got conquered by Romans, then became a part of the Byzantine Empire ( Egypt, Asia Minor and Greece only) wich was infact a Greek Empire.Latter on after MORE than 1000 years of existence, it got overrun from the Ottomans. As with every civ it grew and then it started losing power.

After 400 years the Greeks revolted. The revolution war (1821) lasted many years and resuted in a Greek Constitutional Monarchy (with a foreign king; it wasn't constitutional) after many, many bloodbaths. Greece took many parts than were belonging to the Ottoman Empire (where many Greeks were living) through purely Diplomatic means. After many many years Greece attacked Turkney for Asia Minor (after WW1). By this time many Greeks were living in Constantinople and Asia Minor. Ataturk crushed the attack when the Greeks had almost reached Ankira. In the end, Greece lost all parts of Asia Minor, The Greeks living there were slaughtered (much like the Turks during the attack-I am trying to be objective) and Greece traded all the Turkish people in its borders for all the remaining Greeks in Turkey.

Greece LOST NO SEAPOSSESION. WE still have and always will have (I might add), the Aegean. Greece is proud to have the LARGER TRADING FLEET on the world.
Today it is not as large as Italy or France, but it has the LARGEST DEVELOPMENT RATE in the EU. For the despotism forced upon us we (you) can blame the US that have confirmed they wanted the Militants to run Greece (Clinton's statement+CIA files).

So as you can see we aren't a pathetic, arrogant race. In fact, if it wasn't for the Greeks, you would still be throwing rocks to each other!!!
You *really* don't want me to say anything about the US arrogance!
......................

Sorry, i got a little bit obsessed. I always get obsessed when it comes to Greece......anyway what my friend(?) meant was that ancient greeks considered any other race barbarian meaning strangers, from their muttering (bar-bar-var etc).

[Beren]

The oldest civilisation is the Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia. That civilisation existed in 4000 BC and even before. Only possible exception: civilisation in the Indus valley: 'Harrapa' culture.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
There are certain howlers that really do seem silly:
(1) Having the French, Germans, Celts, vikings AND the English (as we did in civ2 and will have again in PTW)seems strange because the English civ was an agglomeration of these other civs. At least in civ 3 we don't have celts as a civ and so we can pretend that the English are the celtic britons at the beginning of the game and that the game diverges from history if they aren't displaced by the germans (angle+saxon tribes). Hence my original posting on this thread

You are right. But the game doesn't have to follow history. It is a game of REWRITING history. Hopefully, in future, Firaxis will add proper scenario-editing, and history buffs will be able to look forward to scenarios and modpacks that will allow them to reenact history instead.

(2) The Americans. It's been discussed before but for me american knights and american spearmen? WTF? the fact that america and the english should be screaming out to you by the fact that americans SPEAK english*.

American knights, American spearmen, American longbows. SO WHAT!!! Again, it isn't a game about playing out history. Its a game where history is REWRITTEN.

So what is the answer to all this? Well (and maybe this a civ4 idea I guess) maybe when you start the game you should pick your tribe but that is only a base name. On top of this you have a nation name which can change. For example you might be anglo-saxons (militaristic/expansionist) starting with no nation name. Later (after some trigger like a discovery/victory/city size/city number) you would pick a nation name (e.g. English. Later, there might be another trigger changing the name to British, or maybe to AMERICAN.

That idea does have credit, however I can't imagine playing that kind of game. I prefer to leave the tribal backgrounds of the civ I'm using to my imagination. Especially since many nations were formed by MULTIPLE tribes, and not just one. For example, Angles, Saxons and Jutes forming England. Franks, Gauls, Visigoths and Burgundians forming France (as it is now). The Onondaga, Seneca, Oneida, Cayuga and Tuscarora forming the Iroquois.

I prefer the system in this GAME where civs are formed by one tribe.

still doesn't solve the problem of only being able to have anglo-saxon British and anglo-saxon American but that isn't such a problem.

Not a problem? But there are many countries of the world who can claim to be Anglo-Saxon. England, America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa just to name a couple. For an empire that was as widespread as the British empire, this is a huge problem.

In addition UUs would be linked to each nation (lots of UUs!) so if you are the anglo-saxon British then if you want to get access to the F15 then you have to change into the anglo-saxon Americans (this mirrors real history where the British Empire is no more and in it's place stand America. In civ terms Britain is little more than a appendage to America)

How does Britain being a mere appendage to America mirror history? After America's declaration of Independence, the British empire still endured (in fact America's independence was part of the reason the British sent their convicts to their Australian colony in New South Wales).

The only way you could get the game to mirror history in the way as to what happened to the British Empire, you would need to implement a system where provinces will at certain points (triggered by some event of some sort) declare independence. I'm not just talking about the Civ II system where taking the capital of a politically unstable nation will split it into two. It has to be more widespread than that (you don't see London being captured by someone as the cause of America's declaration of independence do you?)

Such a system would be a mere annoyance (perhaps worse than culture-flipping at times), and the game is fine as it is (NOTE: I don't oppose culture-flipping, I just acknowledge that it can at times be illogical). There would be nothing worse than fighting a long, hard war against a powerful neighbour and then have a province far away from the battle, holding one of the resources you need to fight that war declare independence on you.

On second thought, that could prove to be a unique challenge, balancing political stablility in faraway (and sometimes overseas) provinces, while trying to fight a war closer to home. But I don't want Civ III tinkered to accomodate this system. I say hold it for Civ IV.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Athitis

...

Sorry, i got a little bit obsessed. I always get obsessed when it comes to Greece......anyway what my friend(?) meant was that ancient greeks considered any other race barbarian meaning strangers, from their muttering (bar-bar-var etc).

I agre with this. If I recall right, the world "barbarian" comes from ancient Greek and simply means "person who does not speak Greek". There word had no negative flavour from the beginning.

[Dauphin]

I was once told "barbarian" was meaning "unshaven". I don't hold faith in that, given the justification was to do with barbers.

[Tassadar500]

IMO arrogance can destroy a civilzation as for 1 reason they dont take anyone seriously and they dont think of anyone as a threat.

[Athitis]

The Greeks never underastimated their neighbours and enemies and had a rather strict moral code. But arrogance can indeed destroy a civ. IMO something like that will happen with the USA if they continue like that, ignoring the UN and their allies.

Barbarian doesn't mean unshaven I think..

[gsmoove23]

Olaf is right I think, they used to say bar bar referring to people they don't understand, replicating the way other languages sounded to them.

Civilization obviously has little to do with reality, although it tries pretty well, but I think it makes them a little too rigid. No civilization is made of a single people, there are always people being absorbed or separating from the larger group. The Macedonian thing being a prime example. No one can argue now that they were Greek but when Alexander was conquering Greek cities further to the south I know there were many southern Greeks who considered him a foriegn northern barbarian and he would have been if not for his tutor.
I think there is a danger in trying to create clear boundaries between types of people when there really are not many to be found.

[Athitis]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
[...]
Civilization obviously has little to do with reality, although it tries pretty well, but I think it makes them a little too rigid. No civilization is made of a single people, there are always people being absorbed or separating from the larger group. The Macedonian thing being a prime example. No one can argue now that they were Greek but when Alexander was conquering Greek cities further to the south I know there were many southern Greeks who considered him a foriegn northern barbarian and he would have been if not for his tutor.
I think there is a danger in trying to create clear boundaries between types of people when there really are not many to be found.

Gsmoove23 you are absolutely right
Way to go. Finally, no more 'the Macedonians are not Greek" stuff. The land of Macedonia north of Greece has no right to be called such! Grrrrrrrrrr..........
..........................
Got obsessed again!

Anyway on Topic: Alexander-or better say, his father Phillipus, conquered the south City States not because threy considered him a "barbarian" in Greek terms but rather because they didn't share his views of united Greece. Macedonian had a King, while Athens was democratic and the rest cities wanted to independant. However little could they resist as the civil war between Athens and Sparta had criplled both them and their allies. And the Persians were making sure that they would continue quarelling by supporting both sides.

Note that Alexander's Greek origin is made clear by Herodotous who makes clear that Alexander 1, grandfather of Alexander the Great, was Greek and participated in the Olympics. And we all trust Herodotous-at least scientists do.

If I u think I am wrong or have a different opinion I'd be interested in reading it.

[gsmoove23]

Whoops, I meant nobody can argue now that they were not Greek, after Alexander's exploits have been so connected with Greek military and cultural expansion. The Alexander 1 you're talking about was I believe the first of his line to be so closely associated with the Greeks after he had previously been loyal to the Persians. When he did participate in the Olympic games it was a demand with a claim that he was a descendant of Teminids of Argos, and there was an uproar, most of the participants did consider him a barbarian. Whether his claim was true or not it really doesn't matter to me, Macedonia was obviously on the frontier of Greece and I'm sure whether they were Greek or not depended on the politics of the time or the whims of their rulers.
In other words who cares what the modern state north of Greece calls itself. People are generally what they think they are and this too can change.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Athitis
Anyway on Topic: Alexander-or better say, his father Phillipus, conquered the south City States not because threy considered him a "barbarian" in Greek terms but rather because they didn't share his views of united Greece. Macedonian had a King, while Athens was democratic and the rest cities wanted to independant. However little could they resist as the civil war between Athens and Sparta had criplled both them and their allies. And the Persians were making sure that they would continue quarelling by supporting both sides.

Few historical notes:
The Macedonians were considered to be half-barbarians, they had charactaristics other states saw as Greek, but also charactaristics that people saw as barbarian.

The view of a united Greece was shared quite broadly, one important thinker on this area was Isokrates (436-338 BCE).

Most city-states were no better off under Athenian rule. Any conqueror treated their conquered people like dirt.

The civil war between Athens and Sparta did not cripple them (that was 30 years ago and military was restored within no time, in fact military was improved greatly), the continuant struggle between Thebes and Athens (joined with practically all other states) did. With as highlight the battle at Mantineia (361 BCE), where both sides claimed to be victorious. The rise of Macedonia only begun from 350 BCE, completed in 338 (with respect to Greece).

[Jon Shafer]

I remember when my civ teacher told me about how she got kicked out of a cab in Vegas because the driver was Greek and she told him that Alexander was Macedonian and not Greek. I suppose she was right not to discuss that issue with Greeks.

Civ could really represent the more diverse backgrounds of civs (by many more civs, mostly), but the game engine isn't very well suited at all to represent that. Unfortunately, I don't see any drastic changes for Civ IV in that department, since Civ I few things of the Civ core have been modified.

[Beren]

Well, Alexander Greek or not? It's a matter of what definition you use. The ancient Greek considered the Macedonians to be more or less Greekified (Is that English?)
That discussion is only relevant for nationalists and people who wonder how we should call the Civilization formerly known as greek. The whole concept of the Greek civilization is a strange one (I mean in Civ3). It was not a unity, but on the other hand it was a unity. I have been having plans about creating where all Greek poleis struggle for the absolute power over Greece (Does it exist already?). In Four Ages: Bronze, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic. With: Myceenian(bronze), Minoan(bronze Crete), Athenian(leaded by: Perikles), Spartans, Thebans, Delphians, Ionians, Argosians, Thessaly, Thracians, Rhodos, Macedonians, Troyans and three other poleis (we can work it out.)
But I don't think I will ever put any of these plans to action. If anyone wish to steel my idea he's free. He can reply here, because I already have an idea of what technologies should be in what age.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by LordAzreal And what about America? If such a system were implemented, what would America be called in 4000BC?

"Obscure Barbarian Tribe That Hasn't Been a Civilization for the Greater Part of Its History"?

[Datajack Franit]

BTW I think romans were the first giving a negative meaning to the word "barbaric", meaning those one who drinked wine with no water added in it

[Silpy]

The only people that Rome did not call barbaric was Greece. Was any civ, ever 'barbaric'?