Oppositions to Arabs

[roalan]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
really? even though he supports the settlers?
i thought you said a few pages back that you dislike them (or was that in another thread? hmm...)

Are you kidding you have the wrong person. I never said I do not support the settlers. I f you look on another thread I clearly stated my position on Israel several times. I do not want to get into another argument on the same subject. So let us pass on this one. I do remember you on that other thread,actually it was this thread a couple of days ago. We went through this before.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


I think the thread topic was which tribes should belong in CIV3 and not, with the cultural links between Arabs-Babylonians and Americans-English as initial examples. Now that the game is out there, the discussion is of less value for the vanilla game, but it might inspire people to some interesting mods.

I do not understand how the 9/11 or other very recent events should have any connection to which tribes should be in a computer game stretching over 6000 years of human history, neither why US foreign aid, Noam Chomsky or the political compass should belong to this discussion.

The term "civilisations" is very vaguely defined as you point out. I prefer to call them "tribes" instead, as that is a term that in my opinion better fits the actual game feature. The definition of a tribe is a group of people who share the same or at least the similar language, religion and race. Over history, there has been a great mix and regional movement of the original tribes, which in some cases have merged into completely new tribes. The English is a good example, made up of mostly Celts, Vikings, Anglons, Saxons and Normands, which over 1000 years has unified and become a quite uniform and unique tribe of its own.

The Americans are an exception to the "tribe" definition, as they have no common language, religion or race. It obviously takes longer than 200 years to unify all etnic groups, especially those who resist assimilation. I still think they belong in game though, for numerous reasons.

People following a certain religion is normally not a tribe, except in a few cases. Islam or Christianity are not tribes but Arabs and Germans are. One exception might be the Jews, who are more or less the Hebrew tribe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

See -- my point precisely!

The "civs" in all three civ games tend to be an irregular admixture of "nations" and "cultures". The problem of defining a Civ, within game terms, is that we are actually wrestling with an undefined (and possibly undefinable) concept which, depending upon context, might encompass any combination of the following:

Ethnicity

Culture (both as "commonly" used by anthropologists, e.g., defining a particular bronze age "culture" based upon similar methods and artifacts -- and as a critical set of shared assumptions)

Religion

Nationality

Fervent and historically irrational desire ("Americans" in 4000 BCE!)

You are, of course, quite right that "tribes" come together -- and thereby change ANY OF THE ABOVE in the merging -- as well as diverge, and likewise change in the divergence.

Classic example: the "Russian Civ" begins as Varangians (Vikings who headed east) eastablishing towns and intermarrying with indigenous Slavs; merged, the two pagan groups adopt Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantines and have a very religious/monarch setup; expand into an empire (i.e., forcibly ruling peoples who don't want their rule) adapt Leninism and pretend that the Soviet Union is quite different from the Russian Empire -- which it was and wasn't -- and now devolve, erratically, into different nations and adapt an authoritarian capitalism.

This is why my ubiquitous question "What is a Civ?" is usually asked in the context of "What are we talking about in a certain timeframe and/or geopolitical context?" -- for example, I set my planned mod ca. 1000 CE because all the familiar players are roughly in place (well, yeah, America -- not much you can do about that.)

-- Now (Drum roll, Maestro!) tying into the on-topic bits:
Arabic Islam, although fractured into many different nation-states, overall share a common ethnicity, culture, language, legal structure, history, and geography -- and have for ~1300 years. If that's not a CIVILIZATION, what is?

Any thoughts I have about this re: 9/11 can really be summed up as follows -- that the actions of an extra-national group, Al Qaeda -- having left the US without a reasonable NATIONAL enemy to focus on (again, re: 9/11!) leaves the US suddenly focusing on the "Arab World", noticing the paucity of democratic Arab states; issues regarding equality of women; etc. -- In short, "we" need to perceive an enemy (it seems to be part of our national character ) and, for the first time in our nation's history, we perceive (however dimly) an Islamic-Arab Civilization, as opposed to a lot of "artificial" -- i.e., post-European colonial -- nations, lock-stepped into the miserable confluence of the Arab-Israeli mess with the Cold War.

-- And "we" seem shocked -- Shocked! -- that our EUROPEAN (subtext: Christian) allies are balking at a crusade! ... Which is particularly ironic after having heard an intellectual Arab friend -- and by no means a fire-brand -- describe Israel as "the last Crusader state" -- by which he meant a corner of forcibly acquired land for a "European" Civ.

So, thanks to this thread, I am viewing the question of "why / why not Arabs" as "why / why not Anybody" -- and DISCOVERING, as I think along with this post, that it might be one of the best choices of all --

-- Of course, depending upon what aspect of history you wish to elucidate, you MIGHT, in response, reasonably model European "Christendom" as a Civ.

Similarly, in a Cold War context, "The West" could have been modelled as a Civ; etc.



As Always,

Oz

[Ozymandias]

On- or Off-Topic, we must be doing SOMETHING right -- at current count, this thread has

571 POSTS

&

5,463 READS!


Delighted,

Oz.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


See -- my point precisely!

The "civs" in all three civ games tend to be an irregular admixture of "nations" and "cultures"...

...

-- Of course, depending upon what aspect of history you wish to elucidate, you MIGHT, in response, reasonably model European "Christendom" as a Civ.

Similarly, in a Cold War context, "The West" could have been modelled as a Civ; etc.
As Always,

Oz

I bow my head in respect for a well-educated reply.

However, I still think Arabs should be a tribe in the game for historical merits, regardless of what some Americans think of them after 9/11.

A game with civilisations based on religion only would not contain enough tribes to be fully enjoyable - Christian, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Confusians, Jews, Vodunists, Ateists etc. To get enough choises , you would have to add peculiar sects that most people never heard of. The same goes for civs based on vaguely culturally linked groups - Westeners, East-Asians, Middle- Easterns, Africans, Hispanics or Sovjets etc. I like the tribe definition as it is now - it makes more sense.

And as I pointed out earlier - Arabs are not the Islamic civilisation - there are many more Islamic tribes: Persians, Pashtuns, Malays etc. There are also religious minorities within the Arabic tribe - mostly Jews and Christians.

This discussion could go on forever. However, my time is limited due to real life events. I might reply again but don't hope for too much. Have a wonderful life!

Edited typos...

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


I bow my head in respect for a well-educated reply.

...

I might reply again but don't hope for too much. Have a wonderful life!

Edited typos...

You, Sir, are a Gentleman and a Scholar

I, myself, prefer a surreal life I know how fortunate I am to be able to indulge my love of history and theory so much.

I look forward to when/however you next participate!

All The Best,

Oz

[gsmoove23]

Perhaps the biggest drawback of civ the game(not many I can think of) is the idea that your civ arrives in a vaccuum. In the beginning you spread your cities over empty land with a couple of huts and annoying gnats in white loinclothes. Later you conquer other cities and annoyingly their citizens stay behind yet they are eventually bred out of existence as if they were never there or their cities are razed.

Perhaps a better representation would be that populations always exist from the beginning. Your civ and the other players are anomalous tribes that gain some ascendancy within greater populations and your sphere of influence extends over other populations, whether through military power, religion, culture... Eventually a common will or culture emerges as your civ spreads among your subjects, changing your civ as it happens.

Well this is how I view a civ, more in the realm of ideas then in bloodlines or even tribal affinity. Certainly european christiandom would be a civ, and modern europe as well still holds that cohesiveness of thought, perhaps separate from north american or the US civ(sorry canadiens, I know you don't like to be lumped with us )

PS all I want to do is christen the thirtieth page. Perhaps we should start talking about Sharon or Netanyahu.

[sabrewolf]

gsmoove,
you're right. no civ expanded just through internal growth (to use the economical term). mostly they were a group of tribes, clans, settlements, villages or whatever that grouped together or got grouped together.

e.g. the roman empire hardly consisted of real romans. the majority of inhabitants of the empire had foreign blood but over time got integrated.

usually the bigger swallows the smaller and grows with it, gradually integrating the smaller one into it's own culture/identity. (note: bigger doesn't have to be size of army or population). and often after just a few generations the integration has taken place. especially in places where the minority is very small.

you could try and simulate this in a scenario: neutral civs with no science, no strong defence, no offence, no money (e.g. through not giving the workers) and a governement which converts easily to any other civ. so early conquest is a simplified REX and cultural integration.... ?!?

[gsmoove23]

In many civs however this doesn't work or works significantly slower. How many long lasting empires have broken up ending up in a complete fragmentation of the populace? The Roman empire had a very clear idea of who was Roman and who was not. Most of Rome's subjects were not Roman. Same goes for many civs who had a selective view of who was and wasn't a citizen. So in effect you might have very cohesive empires that are not efficient in spreading a common will among its people while they do spread a culture so the "tribe" doesn't expand but the "civilization" does.

In this way I think America is a significant anomaly being one of the first all inclusive civs(with a few obvious kinks), its tribe expanding quickly absorbing a number of disparate populations(mainly white and christian,given). The Arab civ is similar though, its only requirement for "tribal" membership being Islam, regardles of race, culture or whatever.

Just shooting the breeze really, any criticisms welcome and hoped for even.

[gsmoove23]

Oh sorry sabrewolf, didn't see your post, think I repeated some stuff of yours.

[twilight]

Hi,

I hope I can post another thing. I won't disturb any of you in some political/philosophical/historical discussion. ;-)

Here are my two cents. Different nations MUST be in the game. But what nations? Perhaps I surprise someone, when I say that this is not very important. WHy? BEcause ALL have to be in there.

Take a map of the world. Begin at any point and go from the east to the west again. Think about every nation or culture you know. There are almost every nation in the world that had a golden age. Polen was a great Power, the Zulus too, what about the Hungary? Bulgaria? Every f***ing people in the world had it chance to make trouble to the biggest empires but their problem is: nobody knows it.

I say: lets make them all. What is the problem for Firaxis to paint leaderheads for nearly all nations? Okay, would be pretty much. And the special units, hard work in the mass. But it's okay, we have the editor and can make our own. Can we really?

Take a look on our friends in the game. There is Gandhi. Can you imagine this is Basileos Heirakleios of Byzanz and not Gandhi the Indian? Or think about the dutch King Abe Lincoln.

There are several kings that are fixed to their nations and I think this is CRAP! Of course it's cool a see a famous face and play with or against them, but it's a horror to make new civs with such stuff of that. Okay, I am not the geek collecting hundreds of leaderheads in the fori and I like the style of CivIII and I want Firaxis to do that.

More neutral heads! Everyone of us have his own mind and opinion on that. I read for Germans is Bismarck okay or Hitler could it be, what about the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans?? What about Otto I.? That is only one example, I want to change them into my own Civs. But is this possible? Looks Bismark really like Otto I? No. Not really, Caesar would be more like him, when you know the famous pic of him sitting on his throne.

I always have trouble with such things. How often I used Aleander, because he is one of the rare leaders, that could be really everone of the ancient graco-roman empires.

That would be a nice chrismas present. A couple of new graphics in a new patch, or a new game.

But there is another problem: I had ever the problem to feel disturbed to meet Lincoln or Washington, when I am playing the Romans. Then I want perhaps an ancient world. And playing the Russians it would be cool to meet only modern leaders. What about the choice of leaders? Every nation could offer two or three of them. Would it be so much work to draw them? Hey, we spend much money on that!

And be honest. We are able to play with 31 other nations in on game, but only 26 (?) are offered. I think this is the wrong way! There must be MORE nations than possible to play with not LESS. We should have the possibility to avoid nations we don't like or can't use. Nothing against China or Korea, but plaing in the Europe-Map with both for example means a very insteresting version of earths history.

No, Firais have to give much much much more of that to choose.

Oh, yes, my personal wishes:

Assur, Aborigines (or if we use the USA please the Australians and the Canadians), modern Mexico, some eastern Europe nations, Byzanz, Hungary!, Italy, some arabic nations as the Seldschuks, Maures (sorry, don't know the english terms), some more tribes or cultures in Africa, N- and S-America and Asia. Give us the choices! Even if they all use the same units!

[gsmoove23]

I just don't understand the whole need for 3d leaderheads. Cut them out of the game and I'm sure you could put any number of civs in.

[gsmoove23]

YES!!! I was the one to christen the thirtieth page!!






Sorry for that.

[Traelin]

I still say the Incas, Dutch, and Israelis should be included before any other Civs in the next XP. One of the reasons I was on the fence about the Arabs is because the 3 Civs mentioned above weren't included before them. At least ONE of the above Civs should have been put in before the Arabs.

I still say the main reason Firaxis included the Arabs is at least in part due to the U.S. market for the game and its general sentiment toward Mideastern culture ATM. To me that's not a good enough reason to include them over the Dutch.

[gsmoove23]

Ugh, in a game like civ the Arabs should have been in it from the first. Incas I can understand, although I don't see how you could say they deserve to be in BEFORE the Arabs, Dutch should be in the game but way down the list and Israel, you've argued and I kinda agree but you never said they deserve to be in BEFORE the Arabs. This I just can't fathom. The Arab civ has been shaping and influencing the world in a major way from 600 to the present day. It has been in direct opposition to many of the european, christian civs for a good portion of that time. How could you possibly argue this. If you argued they deserve to be put in together, I could see it although I certainly wouldn't agree but this, man... Dutch before Arab?!?!!?!?

[gsmoove23]

For cryin' out loud, a guy who argues Israel should be in cause of their contribution to the Bible won't even credit the Arabs for the creation of the Koran. Nah that didn't influence much. Plus Arabs weren't only known for their military exploits, during their golden ages they contributed much to the scences, the arguement that they served as a gigantic library simply preserving ancient texts is ridiculous. Those texts were preserved because there was a great amount of thought going on and a reason to make copies of them.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Ugh, in a game like civ the Arabs should have been in it from the first. Incas I can understand, although I don't see how you could say they deserve to be in BEFORE the Arabs, Dutch should be in the game but way down the list and Israel, you've argued and I kinda agree but you never said they deserve to be in BEFORE the Arabs. This I just can't fathom. The Arab civ has been shaping and influencing the world in a major way from 600 to the present day. It has been in direct opposition to many of the european, christian civs for a good portion of that time. How could you possibly argue this. If you argued they deserve to be put in together, I could see it although I certainly wouldn't agree but this, man... Dutch before Arab?!?!!?!?

IMHO there is no question the Dutch should have been in before the Arabs. Arguing about whether the Israelis or Arabs should have been in first is endless, but I at least think they should have been put in at the same time. Although I don't feel they are mutually exclusive.

But the Arabs -- at least in their current CivIII state -- should not be in over the Dutch. No no no. I'd be a bit happier about the Arabs being in if Abu Bakr wasn't the leader. That reeks of religious bias (whether it be negative or positive bias), especially if the Hebrews/Israelis weren't included due to theocratic reasoning.

I will still argue 'til I'm blue in the face that the Dutch should have been one of the original 16.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
For cryin' out loud, a guy who argues Israel should be in cause of their contribution to the Bible won't even credit the Arabs for the creation of the Koran. Nah that didn't influence much. Plus Arabs weren't only known for their military exploits, during their golden ages they contributed much to the scences, the arguement that they served as a gigantic library simply preserving ancient texts is ridiculous. Those texts were preserved because there was a great amount of thought going on and a reason to make copies of them.

But see to me the Arabs are a different case. I mean how can you include two Civs that were influenced by the same person?? To discount Abu Bakr's influence on Islam as a whole is ludicrous. And to include two Civs influenced by the same man is ludicrous.

The Dutch contributed much to GLOBAL history.

-- The Anglo-Dutch wars, where they were fighting for control of the seas, hence control of the entire Euro economy...which leads to;

-- The Dutch Navy in the mid to late 1600s;

-- Henry Hudson's explorations, and -- as some historians argue -- the man to introduce slavery to the New World (a dubious honor, I know);

-- The Dutch colonization (Dutch East Indies, Surinam, New Amsterdam/Manhattan, Fort Orange, etc. etc. etc.)... They were responsible for NYC;

-- William of Orange III (I think it was the 3rd who became King of England);

-- Etc.

[gsmoove23]

So you would for instance have the Romans, the French, the British, the Spanish, the Germans, and you would not have the Arabs in the original 16. The civ had major conflicts with all of these civs for long periods of time, how could you possibly overlook putting in the Arabs for a nod to the... Dutch. Sure they were a powerful civ in their day but original 16?!? Why are the Arabs so far down the totem pole. In my eyes it was a major oversight in all civ games to exclude them, I'm speechless you'd put the Dutch in before them.

Does this possibly have anything to do with a christian western american post 9/11 bias(not necessarily all but definately one of those)?

I don't understand the whole Abu Bakr thing. The difference between Shiites and Sunni I thought was that Shiites see Abu Bakr as a member of a line of spiritual leaders leading directly from the prophet who are also viewed as prophets, though not as great as Muhammad, while Sunnis just see him as agreat leader, and only recognize one prophet or at least Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet. It doesn't much reek of anything and even if it did, argue for the changing of the leader but not the removal of the civ.

[gsmoove23]

I'm not arguing the Dutch contributed much to history, I come from Staaten Island if you use the old Dutch spelling, just what would you have for the original 16, a bunch of european countries? Your examples pale in comparison to arab accomplishments.

And what 2 civs??? Abu Bakr was the leader of one single large arab civ at arguably the most vital point in its history. The Shiite, Sunni argument is regarding who should have succeeded him isn't it? These aren't 2 different civs unless you include every religious sect as another civ.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
So you would for instance have the Romans, the French, the British, the Spanish, the Germans, and you would not have the Arabs in the original 16. The civ had major conflicts with all of these civs for long periods of time, how could you possibly overlook putting in the Arabs for a nod to the... Dutch. Sure they were a powerful civ in their day but original 16?!? Why are the Arabs so far down the totem pole. In my eyes it was a major oversight in all civ games to exclude them, I'm speechless you'd put the Dutch in before them.

Does this possibly have anything to do with a christian western american post 9/11 bias(not necessarily all but definately one of those)?

I don't understand the whole Abu Bakr thing. The difference between Shiites and Sunni I thought was that Shiites see Abu Bakr as a member of a line of spiritual leaders leading directly from the prophet who are also viewed as prophets, though not as great as Muhammad, while Sunnis just see him as agreat leader, and only recognize one prophet or at least Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet. It doesn't much reek of anything and even if it did, argue for the changing of the leader but not the removal of the civ.

Here's who I'd have as the original 16 Civs:

-- Romans
-- Greeks
-- French
-- English
-- Chinese
-- Japanese
-- Indians
-- Aztecs
-- Dutch
-- Russians
-- Persians
-- Egyptians
-- Germans
-- Babylonians, if they are also considered a consolidation of the Assyrians
-- Americans
-- Spanish

Then the next 8 I'd include are:

-- Zulus
-- Iroquois, if they are a consolidation of other Native American tribes
-- Israelis
-- Phoenicians (a matter of naming, really)
-- Mongols
-- Celts
-- Incas
-- Ottomans or Arabs, but NOT both

Nope, it has nothing to do with negative bias toward that region of the world. If that were the case, I wouldn't argue for the Babs, Persians, or Arabs/Ottomans to be in at all.

BTW you are right WRT to Abu Bakr and one of the differences between Sunnis and Shiites.

EDIT: Oh yeah, for the next 8 Civs I'd choose the following:

-- Mayans
-- Ethiopians
-- Portuguese
-- Koreans
-- Hrm I dunno about the rest

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I'm not arguing the Dutch contributed much to history, I come from Staaten Island if you use the old Dutch spelling, just what would you have for the original 16, a bunch of european countries? Your examples pale in comparison to arab accomplishments.

And what 2 civs??? Abu Bakr was the leader of one single large arab civ at arguably the most vital point in its history. The Shiite, Sunni argument is regarding who should have succeeded him isn't it? These aren't 2 different civs unless you include every religious sect as another civ.

It depends from what perspective you view it. IMHO Europe shaped the world for the following 700/800/900/whatever years, and their influence is likely not going to be changed in any significant manner. Of course this all depends on if the world population keeps breeding like roaches in a kitchen cabinet.

I understand that the Arabs likely invented the telescope and had great medicinal research. (BTW do NOT give them credit for algebra, an oft-misrepresented Arab discovery that was really Greek). And their achievements were SIGNIFICANT. But to downplay the importance of Europe as a whole, and the Netherlands as a single entity, is crazy.

Many people on this forum want to argue it from a military/colonization sense. So why don't we look at how expansive the Dutch empire was at one time? It was global in nature.

[gsmoove23]

expansiveness of Arab empire, please. Dutch significance was short-lived as well as Portuguese and they did not dominate their times but excelled in a certain area for a period. Pale compared to the Arab accomplishments. Nit-picking over certain accomplishment, Greek or Arab, is pointless. They have many accomplishments, scientific, military, cultural... Dominated a good portion of the world for a loong period of time, spread a language, a culture, a religion over a vast portion of the Earth in less then 2 centuries. What do you need?!?!?! I'm not going to stop until you concede. Original 16, please. You can put the Dutch in their just take out somebody else. You're giving me a brain hemorrage.

[gsmoove23]

didn't see your list. I just don't understand what makes you put in the Persians and the Babs over Arabs. Certainly not the Dutch. Ottomans or Arabs but not both?!?!? but you'll put Dutch, French, Spanish, Germans in the first 16. AAAAARGH! Israelis of course cause the Bible. Koran doesn't count. I don't understand, were you brought up with the same history books as me. Oh well I suppose I should stop. Thankfully its over and done with and we at least don't have an Israeli civ

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
expansiveness of Arab empire, please. Dutch significance was short-lived as well as Portuguese and they did not dominate their times but excelled in a certain area for a period.

One could make the argument that many of the Civs that have been included in CivIII (and that probably will be) did not dominate their times, but, rather, participated extensively in its history.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Pale compared to the Arab accomplishments. Nit-picking over certain accomplishment, Greek or Arab, is pointless. They have many accomplishments, scientific, military, cultural... Dominated a good portion of the world for a loong period of time, spread a language, a culture, a religion over a vast portion of the Earth in less then 2 centuries. What do you need?!?!?! I'm not going to stop until you concede. Original 16, please. You can put the Dutch in their just take out somebody else. You're giving me a brain hemorrage.

Here's how I simplify the argument of Dutch vs. Arabs. The Arabs had greater scientific and religious effects on history. The Dutch had greater economic and naval (both mercantile and military/colonial) influence on history. Sure, the Arabs built a sizable empire around the 7th century, and also had the Moors later on (11th century or so I think?) But which do you think was more difficult -- conquering a bunch of nomads in the Middle East and central Asia, or fighting the expansive Brits, Spanish, French, and Portuguese on the seas and in the New World. Hrm, don't think too hard.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
didn't see your list. I just don't understand what makes you put in the Persians and the Babs over Arabs. Certainly not the Dutch. Ottomans or Arabs but not both?!?!? but you'll put Dutch, French, Spanish, Germans in the first 16. AAAAARGH! Israelis of course cause the Bible. Koran doesn't count. I don't understand, were you brought up with the same history books as me. Oh well I suppose I should stop. Thankfully its over and done with and we at least don't have an Israeli civ

I hope we had the same history books. Cuz if we did, then you know that the Ottoman Turks sprung from the Arabs around the 13th century. Not to mention the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century. Why include both of them?? Better yet, why not include the Seljuks Turks over the Arabs??

[gsmoove23]

They weren't nomads, they were previous parts of the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, Egypt, Babylonian, Persian, nomads in Spain? The French had a desperate fight to keep them from overunning western europe. They didn't participate in history? Their power and the vitality of Islam made them the bogeyman of every european for a millenium. Greater economic influence, they only held the crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa for nearly a millennium.

As for your argument none of the civs you mentioned in the first 16 did not dominate in their regions or in the world at a certain period of time EXCEPT for the Dutch. Take the Dutch out and put the Arabs in you correct that mistake. (I'm sorry I just love this smilie)

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
They weren't nomads, they were previous parts of the Roman empire, the Byzantine empire, Egypt, Babylonian, Persian, nomads in Spain? The French had a desperate fight to keep them from overunning western europe. They didn't participate in history? Their power and the vitality of Islam made them the bogeyman of every european for a millenium. Greater economic influence, they only held the crossroads between Europe, Asia and Africa for nearly a millennium.

No no no. You are thinking mostly of the Ottomans. They sprang up around the 13th century, captured Constantinople around 1453, and the rest is Ottoman history from there. The Seljuks dominated Islamic culture from the 11th century to the 13th. The only argument that you can make for the Arabs dominating their region of the world proper is from the 7th-11th, and that's even questionable, given that many of their scientists, traders, etc. were Christians and Jews, a fact oft-overlooked.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
As for your argument none of the civs you mentioned in the first 16 did not dominate in their regions or in the world at a certain period of time EXCEPT for the Dutch. Take the Dutch out and put the Arabs in you correct that mistake. (I'm sorry I just love this smilie)

Whoa, the original 16 Civs has a couple of Civs who didn't dominate. The Zulus are a perfect example. The Aztecs are another. To argue that either on of these Civs DOMINATED any point of history is a bit of a stretch. At least admit that.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Traelin
No no no. You are thinking mostly of the Ottomans. They sprang up around the 13th century, captured Constantinople around 1453, and the rest is Ottoman history from there. The Seljuks dominated Islamic culture from the 11th century to the 13th. The only argument that you can make for the Arabs dominating their region of the world proper is from the 7th-11th, and that's even questionable, given that many of their scientists, traders, etc. were Christians and Jews, a fact oft-overlooked.

no no no. The Arabs spread into Spain and were turned back sometime in the 8thC in France. As for the Ottomans, make a choice, either they are a seperate civ requiring recognition of their own or they are an extension of an arabic civ. The Arabs however did expand into previously Byzantine territory which is what I was referring to. Perhaps I exaggerated on the time span, but I tend to see later incarnations as extensions of the Arab civ without disregarding their distinct nature.

Their were many Jewish and christian traders most especially working European routes in the Mediterranean where they could more easily deal with Jewish and Christian communities in Europe. Arab traders primarily worked the East African, N. African and Asian coasts.

Many Jewish and Christian scientists, don't make me laugh if your using this as a reason to denigrate the civ. There were Jewish and Christian thinkers because of the openess of the civ and they likely profitted from the open environment offered by it, just like the significant number of Dutch Jewish bankers who undoubtedly profitted from their commercial explosion. Jews and christians in the arab civ were parts of that civ just like Dutch Jews were part of theirs and still most thinkers were Islamic.

Originally posted by Traelin
Whoa, the original 16 Civs has a couple of Civs who didn't dominate. The Zulus are a perfect example. The Aztecs are another. To argue that either on of these Civs DOMINATED any point of history is a bit of a stretch. At least admit that.

I was referring to your 16. The Aztecs certainly did dominate their region and at the time had larger cities then Europe. Remember, I said dominated their region or the world. For instance, Romans dominated their known world and Aztecs dominated theirs. Certainly they would have put up a slightly better fight without the help of disease which was wiping the Aztecs out the time they were conquered. Same for the Incas and many developed cultures in North America which europeans never saw at their height because disease preceded them. Zulu, never really understood their introduction into the game. Certainly other African cultures would have been better.

[gsmoove23]

"Extending from Central Asia to the Byzantine marches in Asia Minor, the Seljuk state under its first three sultans- Tughril Beg, Alp-Arslan, and Malikshah- established a highly cohesive, well-administered Sunni state under the nominal authority of the 'Abbasid caliphs at Baghdad."

This is how I've always seen the Seljuks. Certainly a new ethnic group but significantly absorbed by the Arab civ. Not dominating it.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
no no no. The Arabs spread into Spain and were turned back sometime in the 8thC in France. As for the Ottomans, make a choice, either they are a seperate civ requiring recognition of their own or they are an extension of an arabic civ.

Exactly my point gs, that the Ottomans are to the Arabs as the Byzantines are to the Romans. It's kinda hard to distinguish between the two, in the sense that the Ottomans "evolved" (for lack of a better word) from the Arabs, much like the Byzantines really were the Romans of the East. The Moors (a Muslim group of the Arabs and Berbers [sp?]) spread to Spain in the 11th century, about the time the culture shifted to the Seljuks. So either the Ottomans OR the Arabs should be included, but not both. I personally cast my vote for the Ottomans, because their empire lasted so much longer and had an influence on history in the last 100 years.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The Arabs however did expand into previously Byzantine territory which is what I was referring to. Perhaps I exaggerated on the time span, but I tend to see later incarnations as extensions of the Arab civ without disregarding their distinct nature.

When the Arabs spread into previously-held Roman/Byzantine territory, it was when the Byzantines were primarily known for their culture, not their military strength. That is, they were known for passing on their Greek and Roman culture to the Arabs.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and this is really why the Arabs became known for their mathematics. A ton of Greek influence, although they did fine-tune some of it.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Their were many Jewish and christian traders most especially working European routes in the Mediterranean where they could more easily deal with Jewish and Christian communities in Europe. Arab traders primarily worked the East African, N. African and Asian coasts.

Many Jewish and Christian scientists, don't make me laugh if your using this as a reason to denigrate the civ. There were Jewish and Christian thinkers because of the openess of the civ and they likely profitted from the open environment offered by it, just like the significant number of Dutch Jewish bankers who undoubtedly profitted from their commercial explosion. Jews and christians in the arab civ were parts of that civ just like Dutch Jews were part of theirs and still most thinkers were Islamic.

Ahh but the difference is that the Arabs are best represented as a theocratic culture. So when many of their cultural figures are Christians and Jews, that does dilute some of their claims to fame. The Dutch are not considered a theocracy and thus it doesn't matter what religion Henry Hudson was.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I was referring to your 16. The Aztecs certainly did dominate their region and at the time had larger cities then Europe. Remember, I said dominated their region or the world. For instance, Romans dominated their known world and Aztecs dominated theirs. Certainly they would have put up a slightly better fight without the help of disease which was wiping the Aztecs out the time they were conquered. Same for the Incas and many developed cultures in North America which europeans never saw at their height because disease preceded them. Zulu, never really understood their introduction into the game. Certainly other African cultures would have been better.

We are agreed on the Zulus. Other choices could have been made. IIRC the ORIGINAL pyramids were discovered in W. Ethiopia and S. of Egypt, which means the scientific/religious culture of the peoples residing there far outweighed the influence of the Zulus.

The Aztecs "dominated" northern Mexico, hardly what I would call a "dominating" force. They were boxed in by several groups to their north and south.