 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
Aren't those countries a bit different? I mean, Spain was united late 15th century and Italy in the 1800's. France, however, really is founded by the Franks. |
Well, I think in facts you are right. I was just teasing a little bit, because I had the feeling you also were teasing. 
The franks (Clovis) founded the kingdom of france.
But it was also not as big as France today. I am not sure of what was french kingdom at the beginning, but unification of what is france today took time. They add regions as Artois, Picardie,...Burgubdy,..., Navarre, Alsace,... and Corsica later on.
For Spain and Visigoths, there was a visigothic empire untill 700 (conquered by the maures).
I don't know the spannish history from then on, but I know that spannish people talk about the 'REconquer' of cities (and not just 'conquer' of cities), so I supposed they see themselves as heir of the visigohtic empire.
For the ostrogoths in Italy, it was Theodoric who took Rome (western Roman empire) and received recognition from eastern roman empire (Byzance), because he was an admirer of Roman culture and he said he would be defender of roman culture.
But indeed, between this time and 1800, you must add a little pinch of Vikings, some arabs and others, keep the former romans and their slaves from everywhere and shake the whole think a little.
All those tribes (Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths) were indeed germans - or more exactly goths, but they admired Roman culture and they latinize their languages.
I have have been told that original 'frank' language was much more close to dutch than today french.
[teasing]
 French, Spannish, Italians are civilised Goths, Dutch and North German are non-civilized Goths.
[/teasing]
It's teasing, because to say that, you must consider that roman culture=civilisation, all other cultures=barbarians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
|
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fresno
[just teasing]
So the Belgians, who once were, according to Caesar, "the strongest of the Celts," are now instead of speaking Celtic, speaking three different languages (Dutch, French and German) they all adopted from the Goths! 
[/just teasing] |
Yeah, right.
Now, seriously, in fact Caesar said that from the eburons, after he completly genocide them.
The eburons were living in a region that was around the city of Tongeren (their capital).
Their story is more or less the one in 'Asterix by the Belgians'.
In the winter 53-52 (not sure), they destroyed 16 roman cohortes that were in winter camps in Belgium.
Caesar himself was called back from Rome. He came with 2 more legions and the only strategy he found to quell the rebellion was to destroy all villages, women and children, house and cattle. A little bit like the Indians in America: if you can't catch them, starve them. One more genocide on earth.
The leader of the eburons was called Ambiorix, and the Eburons' revolt inspired the one of Vercingetorix 1 or 2 years later. Vercingetorix, just tried to unite the tribes instead of fighting alone against Rome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
civman2000
|
 |
of the Martian Empire
Jun 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
My thoughts on the Civ leaders:
I agree about Joan - she should one of France's "great leaders." The overall leader should be either Louis or Napoleon.
China - well, tons of choices here, but I'd go with Chin Chir Yuan Di (I've seen that spelled many different ways, so I apologize if my version is wrong).
Russia - Peter the Great
Egypt - Ramses II
United States - I find it amusing that no one really considers Washington, our first president (myself included). Lincoln is fine, but you could argue for FDR.
Persian - I agree - Cyrus.
Greece - Well, think about it... Alex was a Macedonian, not a Greek. I might go with Solon. The problem is that the actual Greeks were fond of city-states, not empires, so finding one leader for them is hard. Hence, Alexander.
-Arrian |
Greece is definitely Pericles...
Peter is an excellent choice for russia, but i dont understand all the catherine-bashing. She was one of their greatest leaders, even if she was german!
China-Liu Pang...1st han emperor...officially the golden age historically ...while the current communist gov't touts the chin dynasty as being great for burning scholars alive!!!!
Also, freddy the great might be good for germany, but so is bismarck...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeris
|
|
I think the notion of having founding fathers also as the rulers of a nation, civ-wise, are ludicrous. 19 times out of 20, they were okay leaders, but nothing spectacular. George Washington was elected because nobody ran against him. Etc, etc...Abe Lincoln was I think a very good choice, though yes, a case could be made for FDR.
As for Egypt, Cleo was the best they could do...she's quite easily the most recognizable, save for Tutekhammen, but one must remember that Tut's famous because he had a tomb full of unpilfered gold. He never did anything remarkable for Egypt. And, Ramses II did basically construct stuff, but he was also the Pharaoh when the Hebrews escaped from slavery.
I also think Catherine is a good choice. Yes, she was German, but who cares. When she came into power, Russia was easily the most backwards country in Europe, but she read up on Western philosophers and really brought Western thought and culture into Russia, bringing them closer to speed with the rest of the world. These changes also invariably made the peasants much happier.
France...I'm not touching with a 50-foot pole.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nationalist
I started a thread similar to this one back in October. I suggested that the leader of France should have been Louis XIV or Napoleon, Russia: Peter the Great, Egypt: Ramsees II. All others should stay the same. However, all of these leaders would replace female leaders, and would upset the politically correctness that Firaxis sought by these selections. After all, as any student of history must know, political corectness trumps historical accuracy. |
Political correctness has little to do with it. Given that, for instance, Cleopatra's reputation and character have been besmirched not only by contemporary Romans, but also by writers as diverse as Victorian British historians and Dante Alighieri, it's difficult to see how an unbiased assessment of her abilities could be formed, when most people's information will be from historians referring back to Classical Roman sources, or later sources who themselves rely on those selfsame Roman authors (such as Shakespeare with Plutarch).
For instance, instead of Joan of Arc, a more rational female ruler for France (despite the Salic Law) would have been Catherine de Medici, except of course, people would have said, she's not French, in much the same way that they say of Cleopatra, she's Greek. Which does make one wonder exactly how Greek they think she was- after all, she identified herself with Isis and the Egyptian religion, her dynasty had been ruling Egypt for 254 years, she spoke the native language (first of the Ptolemies to do so) and at least eight others, and ruled Egypt capably. Reading some descriptions of Cleopatra, it seems that all she had to do to rule Egypt was get her breasts out- when in fact the construction of the beautiful/seductress Cleopatra myth is a convenient get-out for biased historians- after all, how could a woman rule Egypt using intelligence and wits? She must have been possessed of fabulous beauty and sexual tricks, to have captivated Caesar and Mark Antony... this despite having seen off her rival rulers and sisters, Berenike and Arsinoe.
I believe the choices of ruler for the various countries are frequently on the basis of assumed 'popularity' or 'notoriety'; Catherine's ancestry really has very little to do with whether or not she makes a realistic ruler for Russia. Was she a ruler in her own right? Did she expand Russia's borders, and complete Peter the Great's opening to the West? Did she identify herself with Russia's interests? Anyone who has studied the Enlightened Despots would have to say yes. Of course with Catherine one also gets the usual myths bandied about- the supposed death whilst being mounted by a horse, the extravagant list of lovers- as if somehow, again, a woman ruler can only rule through exploitation of her sex, and must also have a monstrous sexual appetite.
If we start being pernickety about the 'nationality' of country's rulers, then an awful lot of European monarchs are going to be ineligible- as indeed might latter day rulers such as Fujimori in Peru, Cheddi Jagan in Guyana, and Chaudhry in Fiji.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Mar 2002
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by godinex
Egypt: King Scorpion
America: Superman
Canada: Wolverine
Costa Rica: Me
Rome: Caligula
England: Prince Charles /Elthon Jhon
Russia: Omega Red
China: Yar Yar Bins
Zulu: Michael Jordan
France: Micel Platini
Aztecs: Los tigres del Norte
Iroquois: Matter?
Persia: ???? Bin Laden? |
I love the Caligula suggestion! But we should really just make it his horse, imagine bargaining with the Romans and you see a horse smiling back at you.
But seriously here is what they should be:
France: Mr. "I am the state" himself: Louis XIV
There can be no other choice for France! France was by far and large the dominate power during his reign. Napoleon is perhaps the next best choice but is too controversial. Charlemagne was the leader of the Holy Roman Empire, the first reich, "France" happened to be a part of it. Charlemagne was of course a Frank: a German.
Germany: Frederick the Great. Even though I know Germany was not a unified state until Bismark came around, Otto still wasn't the leader of Germany the Kaiser was. Therefore I think Frederick the Great of Prussia should be the leader. His reforms set Prussia out towards its destiny to unify Germany.
Russia: Peter the Great. No debating!
Egypt: Ramses
Overall the civ team is biased in that they want to have female representation and also representation from all cultures. That is all swell but it sort of annoys history buffs like me when Aztecs are attacking my Panzers with Modern Armor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
atfxkmk
|
|
Aw man, i had a hugeeee post ready. But, i had a "illegal operation" thingy. But, what i said, in a more compact version...this is from my notes. And btw, i might as well be blunt w/ it hehe...dont like France that much. Part of it is because of Germany and France's feud, and part of it is the fact that i just think...France's culture was kinda stupid. No offense to any French or any French loving people here, i respect France as a Civilization, just as i respect Feminem for surviving in the music world as long as he has(i'm a juggalo, aka Insane Clown Posse fan)...but i hate Slim Anus as much as a hate the French =) Never been them, never will, will always slaughter em(as rome, america, germany, japan...or any other civ i might play as...really havent played as any other besides those 4.) >=)
Cleopatra was not Roman, or Greek, or whatever(i think, didnt go into that too much.) She was the daughter of the current pharoah/king of Egypt. Also, how she came to power is the ruler of Egypt killed Mark Antony(i think...or was it spelled Anthony?), and gave Antony's head on a 'silver platter' to the second Agustus(i think? well, if i got his name wrong, the second Ceaser! first ceaser's cousin?). After that, the second Ceaser empowered Cleo. Anyways, Cleo and Tut are basicaly the two most famous Egyptians i know...Cleo was the best choice IMO. Tut, how they gonna make him? Only image i know of him is as a mummy LOL! Is a mummy gonna be the ruler of Egypt? How would they make the mummy advance through time? Get decayed, and look worse, or look better, more advanced..?
Here's my pick for the leaders
Germany - Fine as it is..
Greece - Alexander is fine...although(not a ruler) Socratese would be funny...at least be an adviser LOL!
Russia - Lenin(hate Stalin), or Trotsky...i rather be Trotsky(again, not a real ruler) than Stalin
England - Dont care
France - Charlemagne
Rome - Romulus, Reemus, Ceaser, Mark Antony, That Augustus dude, hehe, or if Gladiator was actualy based on a real story(like i know it aint), Marcus Aeurilius.
Persia - Cyrus or Xerxes is fine...i actualy like Xerxes name better, but i kinda forgot which one did which for Persia...BUT i'd say Cyrus did a better job hehe..
The other civ's i dont know too much about, so i might as well not try and say anything for their Leaders. These are just my opinions, not sayin any are right or wrong =)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sargon2
|
 |
Kreuzberg/Berlin/Germany/Europe/Earth
Jan 2002
time: 05:16
|
|
Cleo is OK but I got some problems to identify myself with her. But as a leader of a KI-Civ she is OK. I prefer Ramses II., who made the first peace-treaty with the Hethitian Empire. But my favorite is Akhenaten, with his courage and staunch belief.
Alex for the Greeks is absolutely OK, he was Macedonian and Pericle was Athenien, but both were Greek. Pericle by the way was a demagoge he achived little for the Athenians but the Defeat of the Peleponesian War. There are many other Greek leader all over ancient Hellas, but no one influenced their history as mutch as he did, except maybe Phillip II. his father.
Joan D'Arc is completly a misselection. She was a mad symbol for that war against english dependence, nothing else, could be compared to Gagarin the first Kosmonaute and a people's hero (no leader). So better Napoleon, best Louis XIV. bouth extremly militaristic and aggressive against their neighbours (Dutchs, Germans). My Idea is Mitterand - but that might be to actual.
So Joan gets my prize of worst casting.
Mao represents last 50 years China, but got nothing to do with older and ancient China. I don't know any ancient leader, except that the name of one was Chin, who gave the Europeans the name for the country, but i guess he was a mongolian occupator (?). So a Chinese should select one.
Xerxes is bad. Darius and Cambyses the Creator of the Empire better.
Ghandi doesen't fit as a statesman who declares a war. But there is the same probleme like aboute the Chinese, the elder leader-stars are hardly known abroad India. So maybe we know in 1 generation.
Cathy is OK. Peter better.
Bismarck is any how not bad, Frederick is good, Barbarossa too, but my secrete favorite is William the Dutch he was for several months Emperor of The Holly Roman Empire of the German Nation. But he was killed by the Friesians (sp?). So the Habsburgians got the power and they did only bad. All conflicts of modern Germany except with Poland were set by their arrogant and egoist policy, massacered protestant Chechs and Swiss, lead brutal wars against the Netherlands, didn't defent Alsac against the French though it was their duty as the Emperors. And, this is important for tne Dutch-Speaking readers they whipped out the ruling dominance of Low-German in Germany and changed it into a Upper-Greman. In the 14. Cent. The people of North-Germany, Netherlands, England, and around the Baltic Sea spoke the same language=Low-German (Niederdeutsch ~ Niederländisch ~Netherlandian)
Sorry I must keep on playing
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Overall the civ team is biased in that they want to have female representation and also representation from all cultures. That is all swell but it sort of annoys history buffs like me when Aztecs are attacking my Panzers with Modern Armor. |
I fail to see how wanting some representation for 51% of the world's population is bias: especially given that there have been heroic and able female leaders of nations.
Boudicca or Cartimandua for the Celts, a civilization where women were equals with men (could bring lawsuits, own property, enter battle); Hatshepsut for Egypt, Indira Gandhi or the Rani of Jhansi for India (and not Mahatma Gandhi- rather like having Martin Luther King or Emma Goldman for the U.S.A.), Isabella for Spain, Zenobia/Zeinab for Arab civilization and so on, and so on.
If you wanted further examples, you could do a quick search on warrior queens, or female soldiers. Interestingly enough, the Greek myth of the Amazons may actually be true, insofar as it relates to women horse warriors of the steppes- the Sarmatians.
I have no problem with Zulu armour or Aztec fighter jets attacking my population centres (other than the obvious 'my civ is in deep trouble' problem), because the aim of the game is to bring a given civilization to fruition- it is after all called 'Civilization' and not 'Ancient Civilizations' or 'Mediaeval Civilizations' or 'Modern Civilizations'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Mar 2002
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I fail to see how wanting some representation for 51% of the world's population is bias: especially given that there have been heroic and able female leaders of nations.
Boudicca or Cartimandua for the Celts, a civilization where women were equals with men (could bring lawsuits, own property, enter battle); Hatshepsut for Egypt, Indira Gandhi or the Rani of Jhansi for India (and not Mahatma Gandhi- rather like having Martin Luther King or Emma Goldman for the U.S.A.), Isabella for Spain, Zenobia/Zeinab for Arab civilization and so on, and so on.
If you wanted further examples, you could do a quick search on warrior queens, or female soldiers. Interestingly enough, the Greek myth of the Amazons may actually be true, insofar as it relates to women horse warriors of the steppes- the Sarmatians.
I have no problem with Zulu armour or Aztec fighter jets attacking my population centres (other than the obvious 'my civ is in deep trouble' problem), because the aim of the game is to bring a given civilization to fruition- it is after all called 'Civilization' and not 'Ancient Civilizations' or 'Mediaeval Civilizations' or 'Modern Civilizations'. |
Yes i know the logic of why, and it is perfectly acceptable to me. BUt if you are going to base the leader selections on the best leader a country has had, then many of the selections are bogus. Joan of Arc? Come on... What does a military leader have to do with running the country? The Sun King (Louis XIV) is the obvious selection.
I don't have a problem with Elizabeth of England, Cleopatra of Egypt, or Catherine of Russia. Catherine is the weakest selection of the 3, Peter the Great got shafted. But Catherine was still an excellent ruler and is more than worthy of selection. If she didn't have her moron husband bumped off Russia certainlly would have been for the worse. Cleopatra still doesn't represent traditional Egypt, but she was a highly skilled ruler.
As for the myth of the Amazons, there is alot of debate about it. More and more evidence is emerging of female gladiators in Rome. In fact they appear to have been bigger draws than the male gladiators. A few different Barbarian tribes in central and eastern Europe of the day are the likely source of these big women. They stood aproximetly 5'6 on average, compared to the regular height of women being 4'11.
I do however have issues with the selection of the Zulus and Aztecs.
The Zulus built their empire because of a power vaccuum created by European Imperialism. The "big men" were able to expand their power based on the growing ivory trade in the early 1800s. This period was known as the "Mfecane" meaing the crushing. I'm sure the civ team could have selected a more appropriate bantu-speaking people to represent this cultural group. There were alot of important regimes in Africa that dwarfe the Zulus, just look at Timbuktu's importance as a trade center since ancient times.
The Aztecs also hadn't been in play that long, and their empire was already dangerously close to collapse when the Spaniards arrived. Any empire based on wars to acquire more prisoners to use in sacrifical ceremonies won't last very long... The Aztecs (and Incas in Peru) built their empire very quickly starting in 1429 and 1433 when the Tripple Alliance of neighboring city states conquered the Valley of Mexico. By 1502 Moctezuma II took the reigns of the empire only to see it disintegrate when the Spaniards arrived. The conquistadores would never have brought down the Aztecs and Incas in such short order if they weren't already teetering on the edge of collapse.
I don't know why people seem to think the Aztecs are deserving to represent South American culture... The much older civilizations of the Olmecs, Chavin and Mayans were around much, much longer and produced many magnificent achievements. How exactly these civilizations disapeared and why is a mystery.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-01-2002 19:25
|