 |
|  |
 |
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
Before you even attempt to backtrack...
quote: Before contact with the Europeans, I think they had the following:
Pottery, Alphabet, Warrior Code, Bronze Working, Masonry, Ceremonial Burial, Map Making, Writing, Code of Laws, Mathematics, Feudalism, Construction, Mysticism, Polytheism, Monarchy, Chivalry, Engineering, Trade, Astronomy, Philosophy, Navigation, The Republic, Chemistry, Leadership, Medicine, Monotheism, Tactics, Democracy, Theology, Communism, Guerilla Warfare, Environmentalism |
You are the weakest link...goodbye! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
Roman: well, now at least you are supplying a reason for your opinion, which lifts you far above many other posters. I knew you would! 
The five (later: six) nations only had 25,000 citizens at the most, and the entire Iroquois civilization - including those that entered another confederacy or remained independent - counted not much more than 100,000 souls. So you see, the question: "If they were a civilization, why didn't they build cities?" is not fair.
On the other hand, they controlled a large region - not just where they lived, but huge additional hunting grounds, and quite a few other tribes such as the Delawares were subdued and payed tribute. So their empire was as large as that of many other civilizations that are included in the game. Like other major civilizations, they were military most powerful in their part of the world during their golden age. And like other major civilizations, they made a lot of technological advances - basically starting from scratch around 1300 AD.
So you see, by stricly applying the criterium "must build cities" you miss out on a lot. Others use other criteria with a similar handicap, such as "must have had a large empire" or "must have defeated other civilizations in war".
That is why I chose a different criterium: contribution to the advance of human civilization.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by orange
So now they're "mere bands of nomads" while you've been saying all along that BEFORE European contact (prior to 1570) they had all that tech! |
No, I said they WERE mere bands of nomads some CENTURIES before the CONFEDERACY. Around 1000 AD they started to plant corn. Viking explorers reported (and thereby dated) this change in their way of living from 500 years earlier.
I have a gift for you, btw:

quote: Due to the weight restrictions, titanium was decided to be the best metal to use in the engines, but this came with problems. The quality of titanium varied from batch to batch; it was difficult to weld; and it was in short supply. To overcome these problems, the development team had to perform extensive research on the unknown metal. ...
After just one year of testing the new engine, named the Iroquois, significance performance achievements were recorded in December 1955. Aerodynamically and mechanically, the engine performed satisfactorily. In the following years, endurance tests were passed, indicating the success of the project.
The American military co-operated with the Iroquois testing and development by loaning a B-47 bomber that was fitted with the Iroquois for actual flight-testing. In addition, some engine testing was carried out in American facilities. |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
Ribannah - not only are you a troll, but you're quite full of ****.
Roman gave his post, gave his opinion, and gave it with reason before you posted your cheaply disguised flame against him. Now you try to cover your tracks with even more poorly disguised praise...
Here you can see Roman's post in its entirety.
quote: I would not even call Iroquis a civilization* - more like a bunch of tribes, so for me there is no question: Iroquis should not have been included.
As for the Arabs though...
*I am not trying to insult anyone or sound condescending. But one cannot have a civilization without cities, writing (more advanced than the drawings on skins...), etc. This does not mean that Iroquis were in any way inferior to other peoples, merely that they should not be in a game that is all about civilization. |
And here is your post directly afterwards...
quote: but then I was called an idiot for my ridiculous claims that the Iroquois had a government, or farming, or art, etcetera, and that instead they were cannibalistic nomads.
Like Roman just did |
No where in Romans post, not once, did he say anything bashing you? NO! In fact, he even went out of his way to assure you that he was not trying to be condescending, and was not trying to tarnish Iroquois culture.
After Roman posted...
quote: Hey,
I was merely stating my opinion of the Iroquis and made no condescending remarks and in fact I did not even refer to anybody on the boards in any way. Now I can see that some people on these boards are giving you a hard time, but that does not mean you should blame me for that. |
You posted...
quote: Roman: well, now at least you are supplying a reason for your opinion, which lifts you far above many other posters. I knew you would! |
He said NOTHING different from his original post. You are a liar.
quote: No, I said they WERE mere bands of nomads some CENTURIES before the CONFEDERACY. Around 1000 AD they started to plant corn. Viking explorers reported (and thereby dated) this change in their way of living from 500 years earlier. |
Planting corn -> Engineering/Metallurgy/Navigation in less than 500 years? Amazing! It only took The Eurasian world took 10 times as long to make this technological leap, and they had 100 times more population than Native America. No wonder you are so supportive of the Iroquois. They were all outrageously smart!
Incase you can't tell...
quote: Due to the weight restrictions, titanium was decided to be the best metal to use in the engines, but this came with problems. The quality of titanium varied from batch to batch; it was difficult to weld; and it was in short supply. To overcome these problems, the development team had to perform extensive research on the unknown metal. ...
After just one year of testing the new engine, named the Iroquois, significance performance achievements were recorded in December 1955. Aerodynamically and mechanically, the engine performed satisfactorily. In the following years, endurance tests were passed, indicating the success of the project.
The American military co-operated with the Iroquois testing and development by loaning a B-47 bomber that was fitted with the Iroquois for actual flight-testing. In addition, some engine testing was carried out in American facilities. |
They could name it "Byzantine" "Fijian" or "King Kong" for all I care. This little snippit does not warrant the Iroquois civ being in the game, and is the essence of all your pro-Iroquois PC posts - absolutely nothing of substance!
This is tons of fun Ribannah, keep it coming. At this rate I'll make Deity by November 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
Roman's first post:
quote: Originally posted by Roman
I would not even call Iroquis a civilization* - more like a bunch of tribes, so for me there is no question: Iroquis should not have been included. |
Roman's second post:
quote: Originally posted by Roman
Ribannah, I respect your arguments, but a group of people without cities cannot possibly be considered a civilization IMO. |
In case you still have trouble reading, the key phrases are:
"a group of people without cities cannot possibly be considered a civilization"
and "Ribannah, I respect your arguments"
If only one side uses arguments, there can be no debate.
If only one side shows respect, there will be no debate.
It's as simple as that. With these simple phrases, Roman, as always, proves worthy of MY respect and deserves MY effort to state my case. So do most posters.
You, and a few others with a big mouth, deserve my pity at best. You started out reasonably promising, but you completely lost it since. When I correct some of your most blatant nonsense, I don't do that for you, but for others who are reading or participating in the thread. Don't mistake that for a debate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: For the rest of your post, orange, I find myself at a loss. I have not the faintest idea what it is you expect me to prove, let alone why I should be obliged to make the effort in face of the affront you give me. |
This all began as a "Why the Iroquois should/should not be included in the game" spin off of a thread, and another thread currently on the topic. You firmly back the side that the Iroquois should be in the game. This is fine. But when you started posting nonsense IE your list of technology the Iroquois had prior to European contact, I had to do more than argue my opinion that the Iroquois shouldn't be in the game.
However, you continued to defend what you posted, and as such, I continued to show why you were and are wrong. You can't be right or wrong on an opinion, that of thinking the Iroquois should or should not be in the game. However, the 'facts' that you provided to back up your opinion are not truthful, and very misleading. If you don't want to debate this anymore, fine! I don't have a personal vendetta against you, Ribannah, or the Iroquois...just the nonsense that you've been posting about them. I'll continue to denounce half-truths and falsities if they should appear in your posts or anyone elses.
Again, I don't care if you support the Iroquois being in Civ III...it's an opinion. I have the opposite opinion, and a debate can exist about why each side feels the way they feel.
On a lighter note: the poll seems to have changed course. A once even poll now shows a clear majority against Iroquois inclusion in Civ III. The PC debate is still a close one, with 24 feeling the Iroquois are in the game for PC reasons, and 30 opposed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ubik
|
|
Greece
Jun 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
Is this of some significance? I mean, besides bashing eachother, is there any point to a thread devoted to wether the Iroquis in Civ3 is a "right" thing or a "PC" thing or whatever?
Both sides seem to have missed some crucial points. Ribanah acts (as I can estimate) out of pure sentimental reasons and is making some gross exagarations in order to prove her point.
Orange and co are trashing Iroquis and the whole (north) amerindian culture, in order to prove that they shouldn't be included in the game.
As I said, there are some obvious flaws in both sides.
What were the Iroquis:
- A civilization that made some significant achievements in the fields of politics and agriculture. The US constitution (I am not saying this, people who are studying this subject hard are) is based largely in a)the ideas of the French enlightment, b)the Charta of Britain and c)the Iroquis confederation.
What were the Iroquis not:
- A large civilization, with a massive effect on human history.
As to wether it should or should not be in Civ3... I believe it should. It serves diversity and that is what counts after all - the fact that we are not all the same and never will.
Of course, as many have pointed out, by that very same manner, the Arabs should be in the game, and also the Spaniards. If I was Firaxis, I would definitely include the Arabs in the place of the Persian, and perhaps the Spaniards (allthough, I would have a great dillema on whom to abolish - the French are far too important to be left out, gosh are you barbaric or something? The French ideas have shaped the world and some of you want them out? ) and I would definitely trash the bleeding Zulus for the Ethiopian or the Nubians (I'd rather include the latter).
Peace, brothers 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ubik
Is this of some significance? I mean, besides bashing eachother, is there any point to a thread devoted to wether the Iroquis in Civ3 is a "right" thing or a "PC" thing or whatever? |
No less signifigant than anything else debated or discussed on this forum.
quote: Orange and co are trashing Iroquis and the whole (north) amerindian culture, in order to prove that they shouldn't be included in the game. |
Untrue. I think there is a lot that the American Indians should be praised for. What she provides are as you said, gross over-exaggerations.
quote: - A civilization that made some significant achievements in the fields of politics and agriculture. The US constitution (I am not saying this, people who are studying this subject hard are) is based largely in a)the ideas of the French enlightment, b)the Charta of Britain and c)the Iroquis confederation. |
Notice how the Articles of Confederation lasted not ten years before being replaced? The American system is not based on Iroquois confederation.
quote: As to wether it should or should not be in Civ3... I believe it should. It serves diversity and that is what counts after all - the fact that we are not all the same and never will. |
You're entitled to this opinion 
quote: Of course, as many have pointed out, by that very same manner, the Arabs should be in the game, and also the Spaniards. |
This is my opinion. These civs were superior to the Iroquois. That is why I feel they deserve to be in the game. No less "cultural diversity" by including them over the Iroquois. If there was 32 civs, I'd support the Iroquois and maybe another tribe like the Sioux.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ubik
What were the Iroquis:
- A civilization that made some significant achievements in the fields of politics and agriculture. |
As well as military and social skills.
quote: The US constitution (I am not saying this, people who are studying this subject hard are) is based largely in a)the ideas of the French enlightment, b)the Charta of Britain and c)the Iroquis confederation.
What were the Iroquis not:
- A large civilization, with a massive effect on human history.
As to wether it should or should not be in Civ3... I believe it should. It serves diversity and that is what counts after all - the fact that we are not all the same and never will. |
But, Ubik, this differs in no way from what I have been saying all along!
However, I have also said that size and effect on history (both of which would speak in favour of the Spanish) are not the criteria I would use. My main criterium is contribution to the advance of human civilization, with diversity
added for reasons of gameplay and fun.
My criterium calls for the Arabs (to place the Persians), but not for the Spanish. However, everybody is entitled to using their own criteria and if that leads them to the conclusion that the Spanish should be in instead of the Iroquois, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people denying me the right to have MY criterium or to use the available info to make my conclusions.
Skennen! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ubik
|
|
Greece
Jun 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
Ribanah My opinion - that the Iroquis should be in the game - is not based on wether the I. are "more important" than the Spaniards - they are not.
The Spanish civ - along with some of the most memorable atrocities ever commited - gave us too much to be ignored. In the fields of art, in opening a whole new world for the Euros (well, that could fall into the category of said atrocities ...) advances in naval technic, in art and literature, dominated half world till lost to the Brits, art again... damned, they were not excactly an insignificant civ, on the contrary they are very significant. Not to mention that half Americas and a number of other countries have Spanish as their first language (USA is next, wait and you'll see them latinos changing the "official" English )
It couldn't though be a call between the Iroquis and the Spaniards - if the I. were to be removed, the Mayan or Incan should be placed there. The Americas need at least a third civ.
And I believe not in diversity in game terms, but cultural diversity in general. Don't mess those two.
To the bottom line, 16 civs is just way too little... to have all the really significant civs and serve diversity (or representation of the whole earth) in the same time, the minimum number is 24 civs and the ideal would be around 30.
The 16 civs are a compromise and as such we have to face it...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ubik
I would have a great dillema on whom to abolish - the French are far too important to be left out, gosh are you barbaric or something? The French ideas have shaped the world and some of you want them out? )
Peace, brothers |
That would be me.
Actually, my point was that there are currently 3 Western European cultures in the game (4 if you count the Americans as such, which essentially it is), and 2 Southern European civs, and the Russians are an Eastern European Civ, giving a total of 6 civs out of 16 from Europe. While that may reflect Europe's dominant role in shaping world history, I think it is a little TOO Europe-heavy. Of the European cultures given, I can only imagine dropping the French.
Yes, I know they were very important, but when compared to the contributions of the other European civs, I think they are the most expendable.
Cheers.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|