 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Vlad Antlerkov
|
 |
Do you have Matt Stairs in your house?
Mar 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
Phoenician. Lessee, there's the alphabet... 
Plus, they're some of the earliest great explorers. IIRC, they circumnavigated Africa and possibly made it to Mexico... That, and they had colonies not just in North Africa, but all over the Mediterranean, as far west as Spain (which Carthage eventually took over).
In fact, the settlements they had in Italy effectively halted the Greeks' westward colonization during the Archaic period, redirecting their efforts toward the Black Sea and Ionia. As I recall, one of the colonies the Greeks founded after stopping their westward expansion was this place called Byzantium. You may have heard of it.  
Two problems, though-- who'd be the leader, and what'd the unique unit be? I'll be the first to admit that Hamilcar Barca might be a good choice...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
In a way, asking "Phonecian or Carthagenian" is like asking "English or American." Still, I voted for "Phonecian" because it is comparable to the question: Greek or Macedonian?
The Greeks, even before Alexander, had influence in a lot of places through their colonies, but each Greek community was considered, at least in theory, independent of other greek communities (poleis). And their influence was expanded considerably under Alexander, but Alexander wasn't a Greek, but rather a Macedonian.
Still, the name "Greek" is used in Civilization, because, first off, it's more recognizable than "Macedonian," secondly, it was truly Greek culture that was extended, and that any culture Macedonia had was attained by their claim of fundamental "Greekness" (they were wannabe Greeks). Finally, simply calling them "Greek" includes other Greek areas that Alexander never touched, i.e. the colonies west of Greece proper (particularly Sicily and southern Italy, which feel the influence of their Greek ancestors to this day).
Carthage, by this logic, is just the last remaining independent Phonecian city (after Alexander conquered the entirity of the East) which managed to retain it's prosperity despite that.
For the record:
Civilization: Phonecian
Culture: Commercial, Scientific
Capital: Tyre
Leader: Hannibal
Unit: Big Question Mark. Any ideas? Maybe some improved ship.
Why Hannibal? Because everybody knows his name. It's not historically accurate, I know. But who else could it be? (Please tell me. I am very interested in such things.)
 Actually, none of the popular myths regarding this figure are historically accurate. Does anyone know his race? I once saw a poster at the university calling him a "black historical leader." (This was right next to one calling Cleopatra the "Black Queen." Why either of these pieces of propaganda were placed in a place of learning is beyond me.)
Last edited by Ironwood on 16-10-2001 at 01:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rosacrux
|
 |
In a Galaxy far, far away...
Oct 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ironwood
Alexander wasn't a Greek, but rather a Macedonian.
Still, the name "Greek" is used in Civilization, because, first off, it's more recognizable than "Macedonian," secondly, it was truly Greek culture that was extended, and that any culture Macedonia had was attained by their claim of fundamental "Greekness" (they were wannabe Greeks |
I should say that most Greeks on this board (and probably the coowner of this site too...) would be more than willing to point out how wrong you are here.
Historical facts and data suggest that the Macedonian (if not all of the subjects of that kingdom, then definitely the "genuine" Macedonian) were of Greek (Doric, actually, like the Pelloponesian) ancestry.
The rest should be considered bad propaganda.
As for your question about Hanibal's race, well, since his ancestry was semitic, we can assume he was white. In the middle eastern way, of course, but still white.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
Regarding Hannibals race, that is the assumption I have made, as well. I wondered, however, if anyone had any verifiable facts in this regard.
Regarding the Macedon/Greece question: Yes, they shared a Doric herritage, but regardless of that, there were those among the Greeks that considered themselves to be little more than barbarian interlopers. (And yes, there were others that considered them the saviors of Greek cultures.) Nonetheless, the center of it was Greece and Greek culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rasbelin
|
 |
Tampere (Tammerfors), Finland
Nov 1999
time: 07:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ironwood
Still, the name "Greek" is used in Civilization, because, first off, it's more recognizable than "Macedonian," secondly, it was truly Greek culture that was extended, and that any culture Macedonia had was attained by their claim of fundamental "Greekness" (they were wannabe Greeks). Finally, simply calling them "Greek" includes other Greek areas that Alexander never touched, i.e. the colonies west of Greece proper (particularly Sicily and southern Italy, which feel the influence of their Greek ancestors to this day).
|
You have a clue in that (IMO), but it's still easier
to have simply Greek. I know it's historically correct,
but it's widely accepted and used. History books use
the "Aegean cultures" and "Classic Greece", but
I think they use Greek for Alexander's empire.
Markos (MarkG) could answer this question.
quote:
Why Hannibal? Because everybody knows his name. It's not historically accurate, I know. But who else could it be? (Please tell me. I am very interested in such things.)
|
Hannibal was the most prosperous Carthaginian leader,
at least as far as we know.
If you remember Civ II (some people have already forgot it),
the female Carthaginian leader is Dido (not Dildo, even if
many players would prefer that one ).
She was actually a real leader, but not significant.
The reason why we don't know so much about Carthage and
it's rulers and history is that the city was burnt down
to ashes in the II. Punic war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rasbelin
I know that the Indians have WE as UU,
but the Carthaginians were the real
masters of War Elephants, and they
were the first civ to use them.
The Roman army (especially Scipio) feared
them like hell. |
What *are* you talking about? The Carthaginians were the first civ to use War Elephants? Where do you think they got the idea from in the first place? Alexander the Great was the first 'Mediterranean' to encounter them (in India, where they were used as early as 1100 BC). After this initial encounter, the Greeks themselves used Indian War Elephants in a number of battles, most notably the Battle of Pyrrhus. This gave Egyptians and Carthaginians the idea to use their own African Plain Elephants. Hannibal's elephants were smaller than the Indian ones and the Carthaginians weren't all that successful with them. I quote:
quote:
Although his crossing of the Alps with the elephants is widely remembered, Hannibal made surprisingly little use of them. War elephants proved useful against Iberian tribal forces, though they were somewhat less effective when facing disciplined regulars (see The Trouble with Elephants). In fact, most of the 34 elephants he started with died during the mountain passage or during the severe winter that followed. The last few died after the battle of Trebbia, leaving only one (Serus?) to carry Hannibal through the Etrurian marshes. |
Originally the Romans didn't know how to deal with the elephants they encountered and they (the elephants) scared the crap out of them, but they (the Romans) soon adapted. The War Elephant certainly had it's use on the Carthaginian battlefield but they were by no means superior to the Indians.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Locutus
One of the most important sources on the Celts we have FE is 'De Bello Gallico' by C. Julius Ceasar himself. But this book was at the time nothing more than a piece of propaganda to justify his military campaigns in Gaul. It creates a very biased and inaccurate picture of 'savage barbarians' but it also contains tons of invaluable historic info on them that *is* (most likely) accurate.
|
Locutus-
Agreed, but it IS a great book. Good to hear that there are other people out there reading it. I think that it was one of my favorite books in Latin. I still remember the opening lines... Gallia est omnis divisa en partes tres... Actually seemed relevant and realistic. Yes, it's definitely propaganda, but it provides a great insight into Ceasar's psyche and the Gallic War. Just a shout out to Latin scholars out there...
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-10-2001 06:50
|
|