 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
maggot
|
|
San Francisco
Nov 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
My feelings on the discussion of including the "Arab" civilization are pretty much that their omission is a major hole in the game. However, I think one thing worth pointing out is that they should be called "Islamic." Their civilization was forged by Arabs, but it was certainly never called an Arab empire, but a religious one.
One of the problems withthe "Arab" civilization in Civ2 was that its capital was Bahgdad, and not Mecca or Damascus, which is ironic because Bahgdad has always been a Persian city. Calling the Islamic civilization "Arab" simply plays on the same vast realm of ignorance most Westerners have about the cultures of the middle-east. It would be like having the French, German, Spanish, civs and instead of English having "Caucasians."
But between the rise of the Islamic conquests (seldom called the Arab conquests) and their fall to the mongols there was no civilization that could match them in terms of scale, scientific achievment, and influence on the medieval world (short of the East Asian civs).
I would argue that that Islamic capital should be in Mecca, or at the very least Damascus. They would be a religious civ, either expansionist or scientific (their militaristic phase was very brief in terms of their entire history compared to their scientific accomplishments and their military conquests bear no difference from those of many other civs that have already been included).
Finally I would like to add that I'd like to see the Anasazi included as a great civ. Their influence over the Southwest, the Mid-west, and Mexico was unrivaled in their time. They are considered one of the great civilizations of history, and there is a great deal of oral hostory preserved through the navajo enough to construct a reasonably meaningful articulation of their civ for the game. It would certainly be more accurate to include them than the Iroqois or (gack!) the Sioux, who never had a meaningful influence beyond being the inheritors of the legacy left behind by the Anasazi.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
 |
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by maggot
However, I think one thing worth pointing out is that they should be called "Islamic." Their civilization was forged by Arabs, but it was certainly never called an Arab empire, but a religious one. |
This is a good point. While it really was an Islamic empire, it was also still essentially Arab. I see no harm in referring to the Caliphates as Arab though since it was primarily the Arabs who forged them.
quote:
Originally posted by maggot
One of the problems withthe "Arab" civilization in Civ2 was that its capital was Bahgdad, and not Mecca or Damascus, which is ironic because Bahgdad has always been a Persian city. |
I may be incorrect but I am pretty sure that the Arabs did found Baghdad, and of course historically it was the capitol of their most powerful caliphate, the Abbasid. Damascus is a reasonable choice because it was the capitol of the Ummayyad Caliphate, but I don't see Mecca as a capitol at all. Mecca has never been, nor is it now, a capitol. Even though the first followers of Muhammad (SAW) lived there, they had to flee from it. The first Islamic state was established in the city of Yathrib, later renamed Madinah, which is where they fled. Damascus later became the second capitol, and then Baghdad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jasev
|
 |
of the SCS Forum
Feb 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
I may be incorrect but I am pretty sure that the Arabs did found Baghdad |
Sorry but you are wrong. Baghdagh was a babylonian city.
quote:
has never been, nor is it now, a capitol. Even though the first followers of Muhammad (SAW) lived there, they had to flee from it. The first Islamic state was established in the city of Yathrib, later renamed Madinah, which is where they fled. Damascus later became the second capitol, and then Baghdad. |
It wa a capital. Mecca was the capital city of Arab empire between 630 and 692, since Muhammad re-conquered it until the Ummayads stablished their capital in Damascus.
The first capital was Madinah (622-630), then Mecca (630-692), then Damascus and finally Baghdagh.
Last edited by jasev on 14-05-2002 at 23:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
 |
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
By the way, here is a link that inadvertently demonstrates the destructive intent of the (unsuccessful) Japanese invasion of Korea in the late 16th century:
http://www.korea.net/learnaboutkore...y_slides_3.html
Also, that damn Hideyoshi Toyotomi (who turned out to be a Korean pottery freak) stole all of their celadon ware and kidnapped all of the greatest Korean potters (about 70,000 of them according to one source):
http://www.jca.ax.apc.org/JWRC/exhibit/Korea43.htm
http://www.umakato.jp/english/kara01.html
That's after burning down hundreds of temples and palaces in Korea.
So, it's really no wonder many people know so much more about Japan than Korea, especially when most of Korea's treasures have been stolen and treated as "Japanese".
Last edited by siredgar on 15-05-2002 at 00:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
|
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jasev
It wa a capital. Mecca was the capital city of Arab empire between 630 and 692, since Muhammad re-conquered it until the Ummayads stablished their capital in Damascus.
The first capital was Madinah (622-630), then Mecca (630-692), then Damascus and finally Baghdagh. |
No, that's inaccurate. On the point of Mecca never being a capitol of the Muslims I am sure. Muhammad (SAW) left Mecca after it was reconquered and returned to Madinah to live out the rest of his days (approximately one year). That is also the location of his tomb. Madinah was, and remained, the capitol from the time that Muhammad (SAW) entered it after first fleeing Mecca, through the caliphates of his first four successors; Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman and finally that of his cousin, Ali. After Ali was assassinated, the clan of Uthman, the Umayyads, took control and made Damascus their capitol.
Last edited by DhulKhidr on 15-05-2002 at 23:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
maggot
|
|
San Francisco
Nov 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
On the point of Mecca never being a capitol of the Muslims I am sure. Muhammad (SAW) left Mecca after it was reconquered and returned to Madinah to live out the rest of his days (approximately one year). |
Regardless, I think the best *historical* aspect of civ is playing the civ as if it were the one that made it. You start where there great empire began and have the choice to move the capitol where you want to. There's no reason to start where the empire wound up due to other mitigating factors. That's why I think Mecca would be a good place for an Arab civ to start. Most of the other civs are planted firmly, not in their most famous, or last capitol, but in their starting point in their history as a great civilization, English, French, Aztecs, Japanese, etc. The only real point of contention on that point (I think) are the Chinese and American civs. I'm sure an argument could be made for any of the civs (esp the Greeks) that they don't have an absolutely accurate starting point, but an Islamic civ should be, at the very least, started in Medina.
But I still feel very strongly that the civ should be called Islamic, rather than Arab. Arabs were certainly Caliphs for most of its history, but the empire was always defined by its religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
|
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by maggot
But I still feel very strongly that the civ should be called Islamic, rather than Arab. Arabs were certainly Caliphs for most of its history, but the empire was always defined by its religion. |
You are right, that particular empire was defined primarily by religion. But in terms of Civilization (the game series) that is not really the issue, the group is. The Russians could be divided into the Czarist Russian empire, the Soviet empire and the Russian democracy. The Romans into the Republic or Imperia and so on with many of the other civs. But in Civilization they are all grouped as Romans, Russians, etc. Yes the Caliphates were Muslim but they weren't the only Muslim empires, there were others. But they were the only Arab empires. So the distinguishing characteristic is that they were Arab. Just as the Sultanates (if there is such a word), though also Muslim, were primarily Turkish. Hopefully I am making some sense .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siredgar
|
|
New York, NY
Nov 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
What do I think will be in the expansion pack? Well, if I'm optimistic, but not expecting exactly what's on my wish list I would say:
1. Spanish
2. Vikings
3. Mongols
4. Inca
5. Turks
6. Koreans
7. Ethiopians
8. Phoenicians
|
Well, I am off by one civ: the Celts. I thought they had a good chance, but I wasn't so sure because of the Euro-factor. So, it looks like I got the Spanish, Vikings, Mongols, Koreans, and Carthaginians right and Celts wrong. I'm pretty sure one of the remaining two will be the Incans and the last one will either be the Turks, Arabs, or an African civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DhulKhidr
|
|
Columbia, MO
Dec 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
That's too bad unless it's the Turks, and the Arabs.
Where did you get this info siredgar?
Last edited by DhulKhidr on 21-05-2002 at 18:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Txurce
|
|
Santa Monica CA USA
Mar 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
And now you know that the mystery duo are the Ottomans (Turks) and Gauls. Yes, the Gauls. Because France wasn't adequately represented.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2002 01:52
|