 |
|
Arator
|
|
It makes no sense at all to me. I would gladly delete them and bump up the Austro-Hungarians and the Byzantines (two much more significant Empires/Civs) to replace them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
I thought that only historically significant/important civs should be in the game (except for certain scenarios, maybe). |
Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adagio
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies. |
Agree, I just don't get it why people want that one in. ok, I'm not that good in my history, but have the Welsh (sp?) ever done something interesting in the history?
quote:
Originally posted by Slax
The civs currently holding down the 15th and 16th positions on the expansion civ vote list are the Sioux/Dakota and Korean civs. Can people explain to me the popularity of these civs? |
Well, the Korean isn't something I would call a civ who needs a place as a civ in civ3, but the Sioux is interesting to have in the game.
Last edited by Adagio on 18-08-2001 at 16:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Swissy
|
 |
Chicago,IL,USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arator
It makes no sense at all to me. I would gladly delete them and bump up the Austro-Hungarians and the Byzantines (two much more significant Empires/Civs) to replace them. |
The Byzatines were a by-product of the Romans. The Austro-Hungarians are not a significant empire. The Hapsburgs, who at one time held the thrones of Spain, Austria, Hungary, and the Low Counties(Holland), was the real empire.
I agree there should be a north american native civ, be they called Sioux, Dakota, or Cahokia.
The Koreans are significant in that despite being conquered by numerous neighbors, the culture has survived and flourished thru the ages. From what Firaxis has told us, culture is going to be a significant part of Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:15
|
|
I will step out of my self-imposed exile on this topic because it has implications far beyond a computer game. I do not blame people here for being totally ignorant of Korea's history, but what I DO blame people for is speaking as if they have actually studied the history but clearly haven't.
What follows is a brief essay for you all to consider. I will not try to teach you about Korea's history, but instead hope to ask two simple questions: 1) Who do you think "controls" history? 2) How long would it take to get that "control" back if it fell into the wrong hands?
Just a few notes before the essay, prior to Japan's colonial rule, Korea gave to the world: 1) The first moveable type printing press (200 years before Gutenberg). 2) The first rain gauge. 3) The first iron-clad ship (300 years before America). Etc. etc. I could go on and on, but will merely state that most of what the people here THINK they know is based on a post-colonial view of history that has yet to be cleansed by truth.
So before you profess to dismiss an entire civilization, at least do yourself the favor of actually not making yourself look like an idiot.
The Essay:
History can have a dual role: The one of destroyer or the other of savior. The message a people's history transmits from the past can either kill a people's spirit or empower and magnify. If a people's history has been a past laced with hardship, meekness, subjugation, and servility, no empowerment can be derived from it. This history of hardship has been today the version being transmitted to the Korean people: nation of meek farmers, always stuck in a peninsula, that they have so much han built up in their psyche, invaded a total of 966 times but somehow survived (am I supposed to be proud of that?), never chose to invade others' domain, a people who have survived many a hardship and subjugation to build a viable nation-state that Korea is today.
The most visible cause of this historical view lies in the Japanese colonial era. Every colonial power does its best to instill a sense of inferiority, defeat, and hopelessness into the psyche of the subjugated. The Japanese did everything their power allowed to do to achieve this end; that included a massive sixteen-year compiling of their version of Korean history, The Chosen-sai (History of Chosen). Chosen-sai essentially has never been discarded, owing to the fact that the founder of the modern South Korean historical academic field, Yi Byong-do, was an active participant in the compiling of the Chosen-sai. But Yi not withstanding, the Japanese didn't get their idea just out of the blue, but rather exploited centuries of sadaejui practiced by the Yi Dynasty. Since sadaejui itself was a self-derogatory ideology that whole-heartedly embraced sinocentrism and the "dominant sinic culture", the foundation for the distortion of Korean history had already been laid, the Japanese just simply built on their version of Korean inferiority on top of another that was already there.
But there is another historical view of Korean history that flies into the face of the present paradigm--minjoksagwan, or nationalist history. Not only does it disclaim everything the present paradigm claims, but paints an incredibly GRAND view of history--Korea was a mighty and powerful continental power, with its territory stretching from Lake Baykal in southern Siberia to the Yangzi river, its inhabitants being powerful warriors called Dong-yi, founders of the so-called Sinic Civilization, the dominant military AND cultural power in East Asia. I can use all the fancy metaphors I want, but the past history of Korea can be summed up in a few short words: IT WAS A BIG COUNTRY. A BIG COUNTRY: a nation ruled by sons of heaven and emperors instead of kings and vassals, rulers rather than the ruled, builders of civilization rather than receivers and transmitters, mighty warriors instead of meek farmers. This is the kind of historical tradition that can instill pride in a people.
The view of Korea as a small country and a big country are diametrically opposed and diverging. But wherever its origins may be and whatever formation process it had, the consequences in the case of prevalence of one view over another will be drastically different. If the former view prevails, then the people will be pretty much satisfied with what they have now: a middle-of-the-road, run- of-the-mill, semi-democratic/capitalistic NIC; Its greatest hope being to surpass Japan someday. If the later view wins out, then they will stop at nothing to make Korea what it once was, A BIG COUNTRY.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grumbold
|
 |
London, UK
Mar 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes. That's why I don't understand why the Celts are so popular. Their only role in history was to be the sword fodder for the Roman armies. |
It depends in part how narrow or broad your definition of Celtic is. The Romans occupied huge tracts of France and Britain, driving the free Celtic peoples into small pockets like Ireland, Wales, Scotland etc. However the Roman rule was always about integration, not dominance. When they pulled back the countries that formed in their wake were still strongly Celtic in orientation, although changed and developed in different ways from the elements that had never endured occupation. Involving the Celts as a single civ, rather than the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Angles and Gauls separately allows you to play a pre- Roman occupation scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
The Byzantine are only a blend of hellenistic and roman Civ |
The problem lies into the Civ model of "static" civilization that last monholitic for thousand of years. As S. Kroeze and others well documented on many posts, there are few original proper "civilizations", that mix and divide during history until they become known nations.
I was one of the people that hoped for Firaxis introducing a different model, here, without letting you starting the game right with a Nation like America or Italy.
I would like to see the ability to start from one of a bunch of tribes, join them in one of the 6/8 early HISTORICAL realistic civ, then have the ability to develop my NATION (may be to a Federation of Nation, as USA, EU or USSR).
Every time the game events force me (or give me the opportunity) to split my former Civ or merge it with others, I would have the opportunity to chose a new name for my empire/nation, as happened in real world.
So you can have a realistic starting civ and end with whatever nation you like, fully realistic or alternative, but still related to your original choice for original culture/racial trait.
I understand it doesn't succed in Firaxis because:
1. you need a good history tracking to keep all players aware of the name/country composition change - not really difficult to achieve, IMHO
2. you lost the easy appeal of your nation straight on the game box ("you can play as American since 4,000 b.c., cool"  ) - a problem you can partially solve if you have the flexibility to become EVERY NATION you like to be.
3. you can lost the sense of ownership you get if you develop and grow the really same monholitic civ from start to the end - that's the most difficult part, and I have no prove of its success or failure until I can try an immersive alpha prototype of the concept: not likely 
Culture is the single most promising evolution of the Civ franchise. I'll see if as actually implemented it really save the game. May be someone will build over culture concept, stretching it to better reproduce the world history (real or alternative) in a credible and enjoyable way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
What follows is a brief essay for you all to consider. I will not try to teach you about Korea's history, but instead hope to ask two simple questions: 1) Who do you think "controls" history? 2) How long would it take to get that "control" back if it fell into the wrong hands?
Just a few notes before the essay, prior to Japan's colonial rule, Korea gave to the world: 1) The first moveable type printing press (200 years before Gutenberg). 2) The first rain gauge. 3) The first iron-clad ship (300 years before America). Etc. etc.
|
That's all fine and dandy, Yin, but why didn't they revolutionise the world? I'll let you answer that, becuase you obviously know more about Korean history than i, but all i see is you replacing a euro-centric view of the world with a Koreo-centric one.
quote:
I could go on and on, but will merely state that most of what the people here THINK they know is based on a post-colonial view of history that has yet to be cleansed by truth. |
Like what, for example? 
You see, i have no problem with Korea being in Civ3, but the problem is that only 16 civs are going to be included, and i think that there are many more civs that deserve to be ahead of Korea.
Being a peaceful nation is admirable, but history is largely shaped by the powerful and aggressive. If Firaxis were to select civs on their niceness, how would they pick 16 civs? There'd be no sign of the Yanks, but Tahitians would be all over te place  In any case, if niceness was the rule of thumb, then Civ3 would have no armies, no soldiers, no wars, no expansionism, no fun whatsoever
I personally think the "history is written by the victors" theory is way over-emphasised, because if that was purely the case, there would be no question over history. It is misguided to hold too much faith in that theory, because the victors didn't just write history - they made it. They grew, leading to expansion, then to wars. If they won, they dominated long enough to leave an indelible mark on the conquered long after their demise. Even the biggest warmongers had culture.
It is fair to say that the victors wrote their own history far more than that of others.
It is a testament to Koreans durability to retain their culture through their tumultuous history, but to claim some sort of "cultural superiority" over other cultures which were known more for their aggression than their culture is flawed. For example, the Spanish were terribly cruel and were motivated very much by pure greed, but their impact on human history is far greater than Koreas, for better or for worse. Personally, i think it was for the worse, but that is beside the point.
Of course, if Firaxis weren't so pigheaded about limiting Civ3 to 16 civs, we wouldn't be having this problem
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2001 23:41
Eskimos...
I wouldn't mind them much, would rather have Native Americans, however.
I know this ain't any university, but the celts had at least as important role in the history as the romans did. Virtually all that could be called culture was celtic in the Europe before roman times. The celtic peoples spred all around Europe from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles and from modern area of Hungary to Germany. . Celts played a huge role in our past circa 3000 - 500 bc. Their cultural influence has been enormous to the germanic and finno-ugrian tribes. 
|