 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Dimorier Maximus
|
 |
of Apolyton
May 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jasev
What about Mecca? It was the first arab Capital, and it was located on Arabia. And Damascus? The second arab Capital is today the Capital city of Siria. Arabs have no direct relation with Babylonians; they conquered the old babylonian cities and stablished their capital there a few centuries later. Arabs took a lot of Babylonian culture, even more than greek culture (through the conquest of a big part of the Byzantine empire) but the roots of the civilization are in Arabian peninsula.
And I think we've discussed about this topic a long time ago. 
The arabs are one of the most important civilizations in the history of the world. Even more than (I think I'll regret this) spanish, mongols or french. Their conquests, their scientific advances, their cultural legacy, etc. makes them much more important than a lot of those civilizations nobody are argueing about now.
Babyloneans were an ancient civ that appeared between Tigris and Euphrates rivers and spread through the middle-east, reaching the eastern mediterranen coast.
The arabs were a middle-ages civ that appeared in the arabian peninsula (where the Babylonians never reached) and spread through the middle-east, conquering the ancient babylonean and Byzantine cities, and the sourthern mediterranean coasts, conquering northern Africa and almost all the Iberian Peninsula.
I think there are enough differences between them. |
You are absolutely right about most of this. There is only one problem. There are no "Arabs" as we call them. There never has been an "Arab" nation or empire. The closest thing to this is Saudi Arabia. Even still, there is more tribal loyalty involved. Now the Turks did unite the largest part of the region with their Ottoman Empire, which is why I support their appearance in the game. I don't like the "Arabs" group because it is highly inaccurate. For instance, if in this Arab group you include cities from Damascus to Mecca to Baghdad, that would be like making the French cities Paris, Berlin, and Amsterdam.
Now I won't go complaining if the Arabs are in the expansion pack, but I just think that the Turks would be a better choice. Also, I find it highly unlikely that Firaxis would put both the Arabs and the Turks in the game. That is why I support the Turks over the Arabs. But if both civs are in it, that's fine by me. I can change a civ if I don't like it. It's just that darn leader art that I can't change. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nato
|
 |
West Unite
Aug 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
My prediction:
1. Arabians: biggest current omission IMHO
2. Mongols: I wish they wouldn't, but they will, covers Asia
3. Celts: Celtic stuff is popular, at least in the US
4. Vikings: they are popular and "kewl"
5. Incans: need an American, and they are only ones in south
6. Mali: need an African, could be Ethiopia
7. Hebrews: small by very loyal following
8. Spanish: big part in history
My wishlist:
1. Arabians: still the biggest current omission IMHO
2. Incans: unique
3. Argentina: odd I know, but I'd like a Latin American pick
4. Spain: big part in history
5. Vikings: even though I hate kewl, darn it, they are neat
6. Vietnamese: SE Asia, a little different from China and Japan
7. Phoenicians: someone from classical antiquity
8. "Mongols": see below
I would rather have the Mongols represented as unusually strong barbarians than a true civ. Like a dense cluster of barbarian encampmants, and a prolonged series of massive uprisings. Lots of Horsemen attacking, but no real civ. I think this is a closer representation of the Mongols than a normal civ. I know, this would require programming and would never happen.
Anyway, thanks for reading.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Denday
|
|
New Zealand
Apr 2002
time: 17:13
|
|
Come on just dont say the countries which deserve it add the UUs
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nato
|
|
West Unite
Aug 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
quote:
1. Spain- religious, militaristic
2. Vikings- Commercial, Militaristic
3. Mongols militaristic, expansionist
4. Inca Industrious, scientific?
5. Carthage commercial, expansionist
6. Celts expansionist, commercial?
7. Korea scientific, industrious?
8. Arabs religious, militaristic
|
Civ Specific traits, now thats fun! Good picks, I agree with most. My take...
1. Spain - Religious for sure. Militaristic is good, expansionistic might work though.
2. Vikings - Commercial all the way! That is most important. Militarstic is also good, better than for Spain IMHO.
3. Mongols - Could there be any question?
4. Inca - Industrious is a great choice because they had such a good road system, even over all those mountains. The only other thing I know about them is they had an interesting almost communist economy ... commercial maybe to reflect economy? Hard not to go religious with sun worshippers for some reason...
5. Carthage - Commercial for sure, expansionist ok I guess
6. Celts - Religious instead of commercial maybe?
7. Korea - Right on
8. Arabians - Religious all the way. I would definitely go with expansionist, and not militaristic. They expanded like crazy, but were not actually very great warriors. Commercial would be a great 3rd choice, and even scientific not far off.
About the Arab issue, I have been careful to say "Arabians" instead of Arabs just for the race reason, as someone pointed it out to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jasev
|
 |
of the SCS Forum
Feb 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
The who? Yeah...that's kinda my point. Who the heck has ever heard of the Ummayyads? |
Everyone who studied a little of History.
quote:
And in that case, why not call them the Ummayyads instead of the Arabs? |
The Ummayads were a Dinasty. Just like the Habsburgs of Austria.
Let's call Austria "Habsburgland", then. No, even better, let´s call France "Carolingesland", becuse Charlemagne belonged to Carolingean dinasty.
quote:
The Arabs aren't a nation or empire. |
They WERE an empire. And I must say that it WAS a great empire.
They conquered Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, Siria, Palestine, Israel, Armenia, Aegypt, Libia, Algerie, Morocco and almost all the Iberian Peninsula. They had a centralized government in Damascus and a big army. The Caliph, in Damascus, had the political and religious authority (just like roman emperors), and the provinces were under the authority of Caids (just like roman governors).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
caveman
|
|
The Portugese should be in. After all they controlled a large portion of the world at one point. They were only rivalled by the Spanish, Dutch and English on the size of their empires.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
 |
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
My fifteen cents...
Definites:
1. Turks (Religious, Militaristic)
2. Arabs (Religious, Commercial)
3. Mongols (Militaristic, Expansionist)
4. Spanish (Religious, Expansionist)
5. Byzantines (Religious, Industrious)
6. Venetians/Florentines (Commerical, Industrious)
7. Cartaginians/Phoenicians (Commercial, Expansionist)
Contenders:
Incas (Religious, Expansionist)
Mayans (Religious, Scientific)
Vikings (Expansionist, ???)
Celts (Religious, Expansionist)
Abyssinian (Religious, ???)
All of the definites listed had viable civilizations that had a significant influence on modern history. Off all my listed contenders, I can only say the Vikings had any significant impact on modern history, and they never really had civilization to speak of, their antecedents did. If the Vikings are not going to be chosen though, I think the Mayans should be over anyone else. They did appear to have a significant influence over their antecedents in Mesoamerica.
Last edited by DhulKhidr on 09-05-2002 at 03:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheBigTurkey
|
|
What I want:
1. Turks: Fatih Sultan Mehmet (II) or Danishment; religious, miltaristic; UU janissary (+1 attack rifleman); Middle Eastern
2. Arabs: Salahuddin (Saladin) or Harun al-Rashid; religious, scientific; UU mamluk (don't know what it does); Middle Eastern
3. Mongols: Genghiz Khan or Kublai Khan; expansionist, militaistic; UU [I don't know the name] (+1 speed cavalry); Asian
4. Byzantine: Constantine or Justinian; commercial, scientific; UU dromon (+1 attack caravel); Meditteranean
5. Incans: [some ruler]; industrious, scientific; UU [a mystery to me]; American
6. Spanish: Ferdinand or some other guy; religious, scientific; UU [enhanced privateer] (+1 attack privateer); European
7. Koreans: [?????]; commercial, scientific; UU turtle ship? (+1 defense frigate); Asian
8. Songhai: Mansa Musa (sorry if this is the wrong civ); commercial, expansionist; UU [don't know]; Meditteranean
These are my take on the best to include. I'm sorry if there's historical inaccuracies here, but i hope on the most part they're right (and these civs are in). And my Turkey's better be in there.....or else.
Last edited by TheBigTurkey on 11-05-2002 at 05:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:13
|
|
go play ctp then
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheBigTurkey
|
|
I still think that my list is much better, and I don't really think that the Hebrews are an 'important' civ for Civ3, because they were a minor civ. All the civs in my list were major, and their influence (especially the Arabs) is felt today. All the Hebrews have for them is Judaism, which, however important of a religion, is professed by a VERY small number of people in the world. Of course, to be politically correct, they will probably somehow sneak in, but I hope thats not the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheBigTurkey
|
|
Not really. Many things in Islam, for example, are completely different than In Judaism. Can't be sure about Christianity, but if the Hebrews want representation, their civilization should have been more significant and/or at a different spot. If they were Meso-American, I think that their wishes to be included would be more likely, but at the current rate I don't think that they will go in unless there are mass Jewish protests which threaten to bankrupt Firaxis if they don't include Hebrews. Which could be likely.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
|
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jasev
Maybe, but both Christianism and Islam are based on Judaism, so their influence have been huge. |
I am stepping onto the soapbox. Please forgive the spittle...
I agree with Big Turkey. Judaism is not a precursor to Islam. It is more akin to an older brother, an earlier manifestation of what became known later as Abrahamic monotheism. There are many prophets (monotheistic proponents) such as Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot and many others that were not Hebrew (descendants of Jacob), and therefore were representative of a non-Judaic form of monotheism that later developed into the distinct religions Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Sabianism, Christianity and Islam.
Back to the Hebrews as a civ...
As I mentioned earlier, they were insignificant and in no way compare to any of the civs that I have mentioned in my earlier post. But, they were a civ with a legacy, and their UU could be an ancient slinger a la King David (Peace be upon him) slaying Goliath with a slingshot and a rock. But all of the civs I mentioned in my earlier post should be included first.
Last edited by DhulKhidr on 13-05-2002 at 19:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
|
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheBigTurkey
What I want:
1. Turks: Fatih Sultan Mehmet (II) or Danishment; religious, miltaristic; UU janissary (+1 attack rifleman); Middle Eastern
2. Arabs: Salahuddin (Saladin) or Harun al-Rashid; religious, scientific; UU mamluk (don't know what it does); Middle Eastern
3. Mongols: Genghiz Khan or Kublai Khan; expansionist, militaistic; UU [I don't know the name] (+1 speed cavalry); Asian
4. Byzantine: Constantine or Justinian; commercial, scientific; UU dromon (+1 attack caravel); Meditteranean
5. Incans: [some ruler]; industrious, scientific; UU [a mystery to me]; American
6. Spanish: Ferdinand or some other guy; religious, scientific; UU [enhanced privateer] (+1 attack privateer); European
7. Koreans: [?????]; commercial, scientific; UU turtle ship? (+1 defense frigate); Asian
8. Songhai: Mansa Musa (sorry if this is the wrong civ); commercial, expansionist; UU [don't know]; Meditteranean
|
My breakdown of your list, civ by civ...
Turks:
They should be in there. I would love to hear an explanation as to why they were not included in the first place. Scratch the Janissaries and insert Gazis. BigT, you all ready read my post in the other thread explaining why.
Arabs:
Another unbelievable omission! I wonder if their omission is due to prejudice? I could accept scientific instead of commercial. That could go either way. As for a UU, the Mamluks were Turks, so they shouldn't be the Arabs' UU. I have an interesting suggestion instead. During their first expansion the Arabs primarily used camel and horse mounted warriors. Since there are so many of those types of units in Civ III all ready, what about a modern, Civ II partisan-like UU, similar to the ones who drove the Israelis out of southern Lebanon?
Mongols:
Again, another incredible omission! The largest civilization ever excepting (perhaps) the British and French colonial empires, and the Soviet Union. Also influentiential and lasting a few centuries. Under Genghis Khan they were the greatest military force (taking into account their historical placement) that has ever existed. They have to have the baddest horse unit ever, before the invention of Gunpowder. More movement than any horse unit, including cavalry, and maybe the same attack number as cavalry. The Mongols' UU must be so threateningly powerful during the period when they can be developed that every other civ on the same continent and even overseas (Kublai Khan's foiled invasion of Japan) has to feel immediate pressure to develop Gunpowder and massive amounts of Musketmen.
Yes, I am a geek with nothing better to do with my time...
Spanish:
Firaxis, you guys are the greatest, but leaving out the Spanish??? BigT, you think the Spanish were/are scientific??? I don't even think they invented the Inquisition. No, they must be militaristic or exspanionist. No privateer either, The English used the privateer against them. They could have an enhanced Galleon, or enhanced foot soldier, Swordsman maybe, not Pikemen. They were renowned for their foot soldiers in the 1400s and 1500s.
Byzantines:
Ya. They are a must. They are not just a knock-off of the Romans. They were distinct and powerful. Definitely more worthy than the Vikings, Iroquois, Aztecs, Zulus or Indians.
Songhai:
I know they were powerful. I don't know much else. I wonder if this is one of those "discrimination" omissions. You know, Muslim and all.
Incas:
Ya, I like the industrious quality for sure. Scientific or commercial is also good. I don't know if they are better than the Mayans though. Plus, what about the Renaissance Italians like the Venetians, and the Carthaginians? Those other omitted civs are a better choice.
Koreans:
No offense, but what did they do? No way.
Last edited by DhulKhidr on 13-05-2002 at 20:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DhulKhidr
Koreans:
No offense, but what did they do? No way. |
Perhaps you should not pass judgment about something you are unknowledgeable of.
The Koreans had many world-class achievements including inventing the world's first movable metal type (200 years before Gutenberg's Bible), the world' first meteorological instrument to measure rainfall, and the world's first ironclad battleship. They also invented one of the world's most phonetically accurate alphabets.
http://www.korea.net/learnaboutkore...y_slides_9.html
Highly advanced in other fields such as astronomy, architecture, music, literature, poetry, painting, philosophy, and theology, they helped Japan make its first steps from a "culture" to a "civilization". They introduced farming, bronze working, horseback riding, ceremonial burial, pottery, writing, etc. to the Japanese. You may not know that Korean nobles formed a large part of Japanese aristocracy and the first emperor is believed to be the descendant of a Korean princess who arrived with invading horseriders from the peninsula.
In fact, the Koreans continued to play a key role through even what's considered the most traditional "Japanese" Heian period. It is interesting to note that during this civilizing process, it was a Korean envoy who asked that China not call Japan "the Land of Dwarf Pirates" but rather "the Land of the Rising Sun". He was sent by Prince Shotoku, who himself was a descendant of Korean nobles as were nearly all of Japan's early rulers.
Indeed, the Koreans established one of the longest-standing and greatest civilizations in the world with 5,000 years of continuous history. They conquered most of Manchuria and parts of Siberia, territory roughly the size of all of Western Europe. During one war, the Koreans defeated one million Chinese troops leading to the collapse of the Sui Dynasty. In fact, they themselves have only been defeated twice during all of these years: once by the unstoppable Mongol invasion in 1231 and the other time by Japanese deception and strategic maneuvering (not battle) in 1910.
Most of Korea's greatest artifacts and documents, however, have been destroyed or stolen by the Japanese. Sadly to say, even Korea's history is largely "hidden" because of Japanese efforts to hide the past. So, while Japan acknowledges learning much from China, it does not do so with Korea despite the overwhelming evidence. That is partly why we know so much more about Japan than Korea, even though the latter had a greater civilization than the former for a long time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
|
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
The who? Yeah...that's kinda my point. Who the heck has ever heard of the Ummayyads? And in that case, why not call them the Ummayyads instead of the Arabs? The Arabs aren't a nation or empire. They are a race. Why don't we make a new civ called the Blacks? Or we could have one called the Whites. |
I have heard of the Ummayyads, and the Abbasids, Fatimids, etc. They were all powerful Arab dynasties that ruled over extensive lands and a great civilization, much like the Ottomans, the pre-eminent Turkish empire and dynasty, was just one of many Turkish nations. You are correct the Arabs are a race but they also had an empire that, as I pointed our earlier, was ruled over by succeeding dynasties. I think both the Arabs and Turks should be included on merit, but the Turkish civ (and the Spanish) owes more to the Arab civ than the Arabs owe to the Turks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2002 23:50
What? What about the Ummayyads? They conquered an empire that extended from Persia to Hispania. It was a centralized empire, and the capital was in Damascus.
|