 |
| |
|
|
Anodyne
|
 |
Being perverse is bad.
Jan 2001
time: 07:12
|
|
Hmm. Well, the biggest fault, I think, is not having the Phoenicians(Well, there are the Carthaginians... but I'd still rather have the 'original' Phoenicians). I think they might be the most important civ that has ever lived in the world. They were the ones who invented the alphabet and writing, greeks learned them from the Phoenicians. They also colonized the whole northern Africa (Carthago was one of their colonies) and the area of Mediterranean sea, and sailed around the whole continent of Africa somewhere around 600B.C. Some say that they sailed as far in north as Scandinavia. Surely, the Greek civilization (and Roman, for that matter), for example, wouldn't have been possible without the Phoenicians.
oh, btw, I think the oldest nation without breaks in the history might be Iran(Persia) or Iraq, at least Persia has been as it is for over 2000 years (No breaks after Alexander the Great, if I remember correctly)
Hmm. Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, Turks(Anatolians?), Assyrians... what else should be needed? Nubians, perhaps. They once conquered the Egypt, did you know? At least they'd be much better than the Zulus. Dacians would be ok, though they were very barbaric... Still, the historicians say that Dacia(Romania nowadays) was perhaps one of the most hard-to-conquer areas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anodyne
|
|
Being perverse is bad.
Jan 2001
time: 07:12
|
|
And, oh, yes! I forgot the Incas and Mayans!
And what would you think about an option in the game that you could set your campaigns to include "ancient" or more modern civs?? So, if you have the 'ancient' mode on, you wouldn't have the English, French, Germans or Spanish but instead Normans, Gauls, Goths, and Iberians, etc...?? Hmm. Perhaps this would make a good thread in CivIII-section...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anodyne
|
|
Being perverse is bad.
Jan 2001
time: 07:12
|
|
Well, phoenicians were the first to colonize the mediterranean world. After them came the greeks, so the greeks "won" (if you can speak of 'winning' in this case), though Phoenicians did it first.
And what I meant by forming the basis of Roman civilization was, that the Greeks actually formed the base for Romans, but Phoenicians formed the basis for greeks, so it roots back to the Phoenicians.
And about the question of whether Greeks or Phoenicians were civilized first, there are two opinions among the history-scientists, one says that Greeks civilized Phoenicia, one vice versa.
Now, they're two different people, that's for sure. Phoenician language is very close to hebrew, so completely different from Greek, so it's practically impossible that Phoenicians were, in fact, Greeks.
But the oldest documents about alphabet existing go to Phoenicia, about 3000BC, and some scientists believe that Phoenicians introduced the idea of alphabet to Greeks.
Anyway, I think it's useless to contest about who's "better", phoenicians or greeks, it's all just speculation  My vote goes for the Phoenicians, though the Greeks don't stay far behind.
and about Persia; yes, you were right... I just remember something about the oldest empire without breaks existing somewhere around that area...
btw, what about Japan? I've never heard about anyone conquering Japan...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Anodyne
|
|
Being perverse is bad.
Jan 2001
time: 07:12
|
|
Hmm. From what I've read, it was the Phoenicians who invented writing, but the line is quite thin, and the oldest documents have surely been destroyed, so it is really impossible to know if it was the Sumerians or Phoenicians who invented it. My dictionary says it's the Phoenicians. But their writing system is very different from each other, so it is possible that they discovered it independantly (so, one didn't influence the other).
My dictionary also says that Phoenicians probably introduced the alphabet to the Greeks, but again, these things are extremely hard to be proven.
And about the colonization, Greeks colonized italy, areas around the black sea, southern france, northern egypt and turkey, while Phoenicians colonized northern africa, southern spain, sardinia and corsica...
And yes, I admit that many of my facts in Greek history might be wrong, I rely on my memory... just straighten anything false I've said.
Hmm. What was the original point, again?
------------------
Eating people is fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Smokey tha nuke man
|
|
da dawg house
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ade on 01-21-2001 03:37 PM
Hmm. From what I've read, it was the Phoenicians who invented writing, but the line is quite thin, and the oldest documents have surely been destroyed, so it is really impossible to know if it was the Sumerians or Phoenicians who invented it. My dictionary says it's the Phoenicians. But their writing system is very different from each other, so it is possible that they discovered it independantly (so, one didn't influence the other).
My dictionary also says that Phoenicians probably introduced the alphabet to the Greeks, but again, these things are extremely hard to be proven.
And about the colonization, Greeks colonized italy, areas around the black sea, southern france, northern egypt and turkey, while Phoenicians colonized northern africa, southern spain, sardinia and corsica...
And yes, I admit that many of my facts in Greek history might be wrong, I rely on my memory... just straighten anything false I've said.
Hmm. What was the original point, again?
|
the sumarians developed their writing system (cuneiform) before the phoenicians. we just haven't been able to translate cuneiform.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Anodyne
|
|
Being perverse is bad.
Jan 2001
time: 07:12
|
|
nope, fat BEAUTIFUL women by their standards since food was hard to get etc..., fatness was beautiness.
And about cuneiform - We haven't been able to translate it? I'm not sure what cuneiform language do you mean, but at least the cuneiform of Akkad-language(the language that was spoken in Babylonia&Assyria), we've been able to transcribe it, and from the libraries of Assurbanipal in Nineveh some great books written in Akkad cuneiform have been translated into several languages. Books like 'Gilgamesh', 'Atrahasis', some religional books etc...
Though the cuneiform Sumerians used was probably a whole different system from the Akkad language, but as far as I know we can read it (well, not us, but the scientists ).
------------------
Eating people is fun.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
And now, 2 cents from the guy who "inspired" this thread by claiming (foolishly, stupidly, with an eye only on empire size) that the Germans didn't belong on the list. What the heck was I thinking? 
Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and agree with those of you who would dump the Sioux, but I would replace them with the Iroquois. Has anyone suggested this yet? Unlike the Sioux, the Iroquois had fairly permanent settlements, a tight internal organization and even made a major contribution to world civ -- there seems to be evidence that the American Founders lifted at least some of the U.S. Constitution from governing documents of the Iroquois confederacy. Plus, they were in the process agressively expanding their empire by "assimilating" other tribes (check out their war against the Huron, for example) when the Europeans showed up and provided an ultimately-too-formidible enemy.
And, to take us back to teh original topic of this thread, I'd especially like to see the Ottomans included; this seems a major oversight, and there's not even a convincing "substitute" civ, a la Carthage/Phonecia, Rome/Byzantium, etc. My pet desire is Anatolian as well: the inclusion of the Hittites.
------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly on 01-22-2001 05:08 AM
And
Anyway, I just wanted to chime in and agree with those of you who would dump the Sioux, but I would replace them with the Iroquois. Has anyone suggested this yet?
And, to take us back to teh original topic of this thread, I'd especially like to see the Ottomans included; this seems a major oversight, and there's not even a convincing "substitute" civ, a la Carthage/Phonecia, Rome/Byzantium, etc. My pet desire is Anatolian as well: the inclusion of the Hittites.
|
Why not the whole six nations? It seems people forget that the eastern tribes were more advanced then the western ones. I agree with the ottomans also, but I think the persians are as close as you get in this game. I should run a thread like this for civ3. And yes Mr. president, you were the inspiration for this!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Everyman
|
|
Honolulu, HI USA
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
This is a bit off the subject but does anyone happen to know if Civ II is big in Korea?
PC games in general are a huge phenomenon in Korea -- I understand they even have PC game "Olympics."
Anyway, the Age of Kings expansion pack released several months ago included a Korea civilization, historical significance notwithstanding, mainly to endear the game to Korean gamers and capitalize on the lucrative Korean PC game market.
In other words, if Civ III includes a Korean civilization, then we'll know that the publishers have succumbed to marketing pressures.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
instead of the sioux, i'd prefer the "mound-builders" the most advanced native culture in US area, unfortunately died out (of Spanish diseases) in 16thc, prior to direct European contact. Unlike the Sioux they did build cities. And, AFAIK, they had much larger area than southwestern Pueblos. They would start at a different position then the Sioux on world maps, in missippi valley instead of Great Plains.
Intersting to look at mound-builder vs. Aztec possibilities.
Celts - were becoming heavily influenced by contact with Greek colony at Marseilles prior to Carthie and Roman expansions. Alt history possibility of a hellenized Gaul.
Israelites, like Phoenicians (to whom they were very close linguistically and culturally if not religiously) can use Carthies as sub. Real concern of course is starting position, slightly different for Phoienies and Hebrews, very different for Carthies.
In particular would be interesting to play out historical impact of their key location, at junction of land and sea routes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2001 10:17
|