Merits of inclusion of historical civs in civ - Page 2

Anodyne · January 21, 2001, 15:44

Well, phoenicians were the first to colonize the mediterranean world. After them came the greeks, so the greeks "won" (if you can speak of 'winning' in this case), though Phoenicians did it first.
And what I meant by forming the basis of Roman civilization was, that the Greeks actually formed the base for Romans, but Phoenicians formed the basis for greeks, so it roots back to the Phoenicians.
And about the question of whether Greeks or Phoenicians were civilized first, there are two opinions among the history-scientists, one says that Greeks civilized Phoenicia, one vice versa.
Now, they're two different people, that's for sure. Phoenician language is very close to hebrew, so completely different from Greek, so it's practically impossible that Phoenicians were, in fact, Greeks.
But the oldest documents about alphabet existing go to Phoenicia, about 3000BC, and some scientists believe that Phoenicians introduced the idea of alphabet to Greeks.
Anyway, I think it's useless to contest about who's "better", phoenicians or greeks, it's all just speculation

My vote goes for the Phoenicians, though the Greeks don't stay far behind.

and about Persia; yes, you were right... I just remember something about the oldest empire without breaks existing somewhere around that area...
btw, what about Japan? I've never heard about anyone conquering Japan...

Chris 62 · January 21, 2001, 15:48

Oh ade, I forgot one other thing. The Phoneceans DID NOT invent writing. The Sumerians did in approx 4000 BC. They called it Cuneiform. The Phonceans were considered the greatest sea farers of the anciet world. They circumnavigated Africa from the Red Sea around to the mediterean sea, but no at the time believed them!
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited January 21, 2001).]

Chris 62 · January 21, 2001, 16:00

ade it not about who's better. Your facts about greek history are wrong. I could go on infinitum about this subject, but I'm telling you the Phoneceans did not influence greek culture. As for colonies, as I siad before, they were rivals. The greeks actually were far more sucessful at it. As for Japan, what I intended for the question was a basically stable(very loosely) government. Japan was not unified under one ruler until the warring states period(1550-1620). The japanese were one people, but not one political unit.
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited January 21, 2001).]

Anodyne · January 21, 2001, 16:37

Hmm. From what I've read, it was the Phoenicians who invented writing, but the line is quite thin, and the oldest documents have surely been destroyed, so it is really impossible to know if it was the Sumerians or Phoenicians who invented it. My dictionary says it's the Phoenicians. But their writing system is very different from each other, so it is possible that they discovered it independantly (so, one didn't influence the other).
My dictionary also says that Phoenicians probably introduced the alphabet to the Greeks, but again, these things are extremely hard to be proven.
And about the colonization, Greeks colonized italy, areas around the black sea, southern france, northern egypt and turkey, while Phoenicians colonized northern africa, southern spain, sardinia and corsica...
And yes, I admit that many of my facts in Greek history might be wrong, I rely on my memory... just straighten anything false I've said.
Hmm. What was the original point, again?

------------------
Eating people is fun.

Smokey tha nuke man · January 21, 2001, 17:09

quote:

Originally posted by Ade on 01-21-2001 03:37 PM
Hmm. From what I've read, it was the Phoenicians who invented writing, but the line is quite thin, and the oldest documents have surely been destroyed, so it is really impossible to know if it was the Sumerians or Phoenicians who invented it. My dictionary says it's the Phoenicians. But their writing system is very different from each other, so it is possible that they discovered it independantly (so, one didn't influence the other).
My dictionary also says that Phoenicians probably introduced the alphabet to the Greeks, but again, these things are extremely hard to be proven.
And about the colonization, Greeks colonized italy, areas around the black sea, southern france, northern egypt and turkey, while Phoenicians colonized northern africa, southern spain, sardinia and corsica...
And yes, I admit that many of my facts in Greek history might be wrong, I rely on my memory... just straighten anything false I've said.
Hmm. What was the original point, again?

the sumarians developed their writing system (cuneiform) before the phoenicians. we just haven't been able to translate cuneiform.

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 17:16

quote:

Originally posted by cpoulos on 01-21-2001 02:30 PM
Greek civilization's roots go back to it's three antecendent groups: The Thracians, the Illyrians, and the Mycenaens,all three of witch predate Phonicean culture.

Well this conversation is drifting more and more away from civ (the game

) but one more observation: don't forget gramiki beta and gramiki alpha of the Mycenaens which are the OLDEST recorded writings in history. Before Phoenicians (a great trading empire although a bit of a «phantom» due to lack of historical evidence) came around.

I can't remember in which museum the circular writing of gramiki beta and alpha are though...

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 17:22

BTW mycenaens were one of the few matriarch - organised communities: Fertility statues, talking about fat UGLY women

But Athens was not even a village at the time so I guess I can excuse them...!

Anodyne · January 21, 2001, 17:42

nope, fat BEAUTIFUL women by their standards

since food was hard to get etc..., fatness was beautiness.
And about cuneiform - We haven't been able to translate it? I'm not sure what cuneiform language do you mean, but at least the cuneiform of Akkad-language(the language that was spoken in Babylonia&Assyria), we've been able to transcribe it, and from the libraries of Assurbanipal in Nineveh some great books written in Akkad cuneiform have been translated into several languages. Books like 'Gilgamesh', 'Atrahasis', some religional books etc...
Though the cuneiform Sumerians used was probably a whole different system from the Akkad language, but as far as I know we can read it (well, not us, but the scientists

).

------------------
Eating people is fun.

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 17:50

quote:

Originally posted by Ade on 01-21-2001 04:42 PM
fatness was beautiness.

Sure and they were promessing mothers too, very much wanted by the men!

Well at least I am glad I was born 5000 years later
Come here you thin, anemic babe

Prometeus · January 21, 2001, 19:01

quote:

Originally posted by cpoulos on 01-20-2001 06:26 AM
I'd be happy to check out your site, but were is it?

On the top of the link, my fellow civplayer...

Chris 62 · January 21, 2001, 19:35

For ade one more time: Phoenicia existed from 1600BC to just before 1 AD, so could not have influenced greece. There were also greek colonies in spain.(Ask jay bee about it in the spanish forum). For an excellent book on the sumerians, try CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION by Profesor Samuel Noah Kramer. this work has been translated into many languages and you may be able to find it in your homeland For Paiktis: Cuneiform is understood and translatable. Remember it is no digression to discuss matters. That is how we all learn to broaden our views, and I will contiue to invite all to express them. One other thing: don't except facts from only one source. Read several books on the same subject to get a better understanding of truth
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited January 21, 2001).]

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 19:58

I had to search in the dictionary for «digression»! It's - Apomakrynsi in greek. I'm not trying to get away from anything!! It's not painful! It's just fun to redicule things. Even our own civilization cpoulos

«Nothing is absolut. The measure of all things is each man on its own», Sophists

Please don't start quoting Plato now

Chris 62 · January 21, 2001, 20:30

quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22 on 01-21-2001 06:58 PM
I had to search in the dictionary for «digression»! It's - Apomakrynsi in greek. I'm not trying to get away from anything!! It's not painful! It's just fun to redicule things. Even our own civilization cpoulos

«Nothing is absolut. The measure of all things is each man on its own», Sophists

Please don't start quoting Plato now

I won't if you won't!

Bereta_Eder · January 21, 2001, 20:39

Deal!

Anodyne · January 21, 2001, 21:41

Hmm. Now I came to think about the change of my sources being wrong, since they said that Phoenicia existed from 3000BC to about year 0... ok, I'll shut up for this matter, until I find more accurate information. For now, I guess I can admit cpoulos being right.

------------------
Eating people is fun.

Anodyne · January 22, 2001, 01:17

Hmm. Well, the biggest fault, I think, is not having the Phoenicians(Well, there are the Carthaginians... but I'd still rather have the 'original' Phoenicians). I think they might be the most important civ that has ever lived in the world. They were the ones who invented the alphabet and writing, greeks learned them from the Phoenicians. They also colonized the whole northern Africa (Carthago was one of their colonies) and the area of Mediterranean sea, and sailed around the whole continent of Africa somewhere around 600B.C. Some say that they sailed as far in north as Scandinavia. Surely, the Greek civilization (and Roman, for that matter), for example, wouldn't have been possible without the Phoenicians.
oh, btw, I think the oldest nation without breaks in the history might be Iran(Persia) or Iraq, at least Persia has been as it is for over 2000 years (No breaks after Alexander the Great, if I remember correctly)
Hmm. Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, Turks(Anatolians?), Assyrians... what else should be needed? Nubians, perhaps. They once conquered the Egypt, did you know? At least they'd be much better than the Zulus. Dacians would be ok, though they were very barbaric... Still, the historicians say that Dacia(Romania nowadays) was perhaps one of the most hard-to-conquer areas.

Anodyne · January 22, 2001, 01:19

And, oh, yes! I forgot the Incas and Mayans!

And what would you think about an option in the game that you could set your campaigns to include "ancient" or more modern civs?? So, if you have the 'ancient' mode on, you wouldn't have the English, French, Germans or Spanish but instead Normans, Gauls, Goths, and Iberians, etc...?? Hmm. Perhaps this would make a good thread in CivIII-section...

Chris 62 · January 22, 2001, 04:48

quote:

Originally posted by Ade on 01-21-2001 08:41 PM
Hmm. Now I came to think about the change of my sources being wrong, since they said that Phoenicia existed from 3000BC to about year 0... ok, I'll shut up for this matter, until I find more accurate information. For now, I guess I can admit cpoulos being right.

It's not often that I'm right, so i'll take it! But just the same, you keep right on sending your opinions on things. If nothing else, it makes for fun discussion.

Rufus T. Firefly · January 22, 2001, 06:08

And now, 2 cents from the guy who "inspired" this thread by claiming (foolishly, stupidly, with an eye only on empire size) that the Germans didn't belong on the list. What the heck was I thinking?

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and agree with those of you who would dump the Sioux, but I would replace them with the Iroquois. Has anyone suggested this yet? Unlike the Sioux, the Iroquois had fairly permanent settlements, a tight internal organization and even made a major contribution to world civ -- there seems to be evidence that the American Founders lifted at least some of the U.S. Constitution from governing documents of the Iroquois confederacy. Plus, they were in the process agressively expanding their empire by "assimilating" other tribes (check out their war against the Huron, for example) when the Europeans showed up and provided an ultimately-too-formidible enemy.

And, to take us back to teh original topic of this thread, I'd especially like to see the Ottomans included; this seems a major oversight, and there's not even a convincing "substitute" civ, a la Carthage/Phonecia, Rome/Byzantium, etc. My pet desire is Anatolian as well: the inclusion of the Hittites.

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

Chris 62 · January 22, 2001, 06:35

quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly on 01-22-2001 05:08 AM
And
Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and agree with those of you who would dump the Sioux, but I would replace them with the Iroquois. Has anyone suggested this yet?

And, to take us back to teh original topic of this thread, I'd especially like to see the Ottomans included; this seems a major oversight, and there's not even a convincing "substitute" civ, a la Carthage/Phonecia, Rome/Byzantium, etc. My pet desire is Anatolian as well: the inclusion of the Hittites.

Why not the whole six nations? It seems people forget that the eastern tribes were more advanced then the western ones. I agree with the ottomans also, but I think the persians are as close as you get in this game. I should run a thread like this for civ3. And yes Mr. president, you were the inspiration for this!

Everyman · January 22, 2001, 14:38

This is a bit off the subject but does anyone happen to know if Civ II is big in Korea?

PC games in general are a huge phenomenon in Korea -- I understand they even have PC game "Olympics."

Anyway, the Age of Kings expansion pack released several months ago included a Korea civilization, historical significance notwithstanding, mainly to endear the game to Korean gamers and capitalize on the lucrative Korean PC game market.

In other words, if Civ III includes a Korean civilization, then we'll know that the publishers have succumbed to marketing pressures.

Jay Bee · January 22, 2001, 15:05

quote:

Originally posted by cpoulos on 01-21-2001 06:35 PM
For ade one more time: Phoenicia existed from 1600BC to just before 1 AD, so could not have influenced greece. There were also greek colonies in spain.(Ask jay bee about it in the spanish forum)

Better than that, play my "Of Celts and Iberians" scenario

Chris 62 · January 22, 2001, 15:22

quote:

Originally posted by Jay Bee on 01-22-2001 02:05 PM

Better than that, play my "Of Celts and Iberians" scenario

I have, and I love It!

lord of the mark · January 22, 2001, 16:48

instead of the sioux, i'd prefer the "mound-builders" the most advanced native culture in US area, unfortunately died out (of Spanish diseases) in 16thc, prior to direct European contact. Unlike the Sioux they did build cities. And, AFAIK, they had much larger area than southwestern Pueblos. They would start at a different position then the Sioux on world maps, in missippi valley instead of Great Plains.
Intersting to look at mound-builder vs. Aztec possibilities.

Celts - were becoming heavily influenced by contact with Greek colony at Marseilles prior to Carthie and Roman expansions. Alt history possibility of a hellenized Gaul.

Israelites, like Phoenicians (to whom they were very close linguistically and culturally if not religiously) can use Carthies as sub. Real concern of course is starting position, slightly different for Phoienies and Hebrews, very different for Carthies.
In particular would be interesting to play out historical impact of their key location, at junction of land and sea routes.

Bereta_Eder · January 22, 2001, 19:15

quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly on 01-22-2001 05:08 AM
I'd especially like to see the Ottomans included;

This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you are turkish now would it?

Just joking. As I said before, Ottomans should be in.
Hey we re-write history: Constantinople would never have fallen, the greek revolution would never have happened! Everyone's happy

Rufus T. Firefly · January 23, 2001, 10:54

quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22 on 01-22-2001 06:15 PM
This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you are turkish now would it?

Actually, I'm an American teaching in Ankara. But when in Rome...(or something like that)

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

popcornvendor · January 23, 2001, 22:11

hey, yall are forgetting a big influence on history: the BARBARIANS!!!! i know there not a civ, but i replaced the zulu with the barbarians. i plan to replace alot of other civs too

------------------
Enjoy the war while you can, the peace will be terrible

Chris 62 · January 24, 2001, 06:36

quote:

Originally posted by popcornvendor on 01-23-2001 09:11 PM
hey, yall are forgetting a big influence on history: the BARBARIANS!!!! i know there not a civ, but i replaced the zulu with the barbarians. i plan to replace alot of other civs too

All of modern europe ARE the barbarians!!!

Bereta_Eder · January 24, 2001, 11:48

«var, var, var»

popcornvendor · January 24, 2001, 22:21

hehehehehe *acts suspicious* its the french's fault! i know its them!!

------------------
Enjoy the war while you can, the peace will be terrible