PDA

View Full Version : An opinion,a discussion...



psychoJr
21st Mar 2003, 13:32
I cant understand why the romans are so "popular" in these type of games
There were much bigger wars in the history and I think there were much "holier" empires in the world like ottoman empire,the russians etc.
I think the world is prentending to not see the other ancient empires except romans,egytpians,the british etc on purpose
For example the much praised egypt was conquered by the ottomans and was their land for centuries before the world war I.
I guess that none or few of the ppl here already knew that
I am not saying that due to the fact that i am a guy from Turkey.
(And no offence to anybody)

My thought is that the world media and with them the game industry is working in harmony together to praise well known empires and to call the other empires they dont want to hear as "barbaric tribes"...
What do you think ?

Telemach
21st Mar 2003, 14:47
Interesting, and, I think, true in part with the last bit, but I do believe that the Roman empire had the correct recipe for true civilization. With errors of course, but all the right fundamental ingredients... senate, order, pride (more important than it sounds) and a well organized and efficient army etc.

loki
21st Mar 2003, 15:56
Originally posted by psychoJr

There were much bigger wars in the history and I think there were much "holier" empires in the world like ottoman empire,the russians etc.
My thought is that the world media and with them the game industry is working in harmony together to praise well known empires and to call the other empires they dont want to hear as "barbaric tribes"...
What do you think ?
Well, a little bit of history would help you. The term "barbaric tribes" has an historical meaning when you consider the roman empire (and the greeks before them). For the greek, barbarians are "all who are not greek", and for the romans, barbarians are "all who are neither roman nor greek".

loki

loki
21st Mar 2003, 15:58
Moreover, I consider the roman empire had a far greater influence on history than the ottoman empire, or the russian empire.

loki

Salmonicus Delicius
21st Mar 2003, 18:00
The simple fact is that Rome took things from otehr cultures, homogenized them, and spread the ideas farther than any other empire.

As to why they are focused on, well, it is because in the West, there is more of a tie in with Roman culture, with Greek Culture. We have taken a great many things from them, muddled around with them, added our own special ingredients, and made the our own. And then there is simply the fascination of all things Rome. Heck, who would think a film about Rome(Gladiator) would do so bloody well? Not because of Russel Crowe, that's for darn sure. It was because there is this subconscious pull towards it, towards the (possibly imagined) regal majesty of it. Of the intrigues of the Senate, of Constantine bringing Christianity to an entire Empire, of Jesus, etc; etc; etc;.

The Ottomans cannot claim to have done such things, nor can the Russians. If you have to blame anyone, go and dig up ole Shakes and get him to rewrite Julius Caesar. Damn, that was one heckuva play! :)

Shamaani
21st Mar 2003, 19:22
Rome is the foundator of our modern civilization.

Almost 80% of the things your can see all around you, arts, litterature, languages, politic, organizations (social, military ...), come directly or undirectly from Rome.

I'm not saying that I don't agree with the fact that there were "other" great cultures. Of course !
Simply think about Japan or Asia in general...

simply the characters you used to write your thread are used because of the Latin language expansion, because of Rome...

Athos
22nd Mar 2003, 01:10
Shamaani is right, the Romance languages came from, *gasp* Rome....French, Spanish, Italian.....
Rome had such a big impact on the western world, and somewhat the East (Turkey was once under Roman control, and then later the Byzantine empire, which was essentially Rome (just split).

Rome, at its peak, controlled most of the known world (to them at least). They were a world power, and one of the greatest civilizations of all time.

Like in the great Monty Python movie, The Life of Brian, when the Resistors are having a meeting on revolting against the Romans, and the leader stands up and asks the crowd, "What have the Romans done for us?"
"Built us Roads."
"Besides that"
"Built us Baths"
"Besides that"
"Given us an alphabet and numbers"
"Well besides all that, what has Rome really done for us?"

Rome just had a huge impact. They deserve all these games.

psychoJr
22nd Mar 2003, 12:26
Loki by saying "barbaric tribes" i didnt intend to call non-romans
Hmn how can i say
For example in the big laurosse (sorry if i typed wrong) in the chine history all the mongols are called barbarians.Only in the beggining i read the word "mongols" and then it started to call them "barbarians" while telling about their attacks on china.
I tried to point out that the world is pretending not to see the other civilizations on purpose and only explain their role in history by calling them "undeveloped barbarians"
Even in the sweden the people call the foreigners they dont like by "damn turk!"(And if even swedish people use the word "turk" in their bad language it explains that the europe was indeed effected by turks) .Shamaani,were you from finland ?I guess you have heard of it...

I already know that most of the things we can see all around us, arts, litterature, languages, politic, organizations (social, military ...), come directly or undirectly from Rome but you cant say that all of them were done by romans alone.The other civilizations played roles in the history.The rome empire didnt make all of that by itself.
For example why the geographic discoveries were made ?
The british,spanish etc. didnt start the discoveries just because they were bored of seeing the same places.The main reasons was the big gap between the west and the east.Because all of the trade routes were in control of the ottoman empire (I dont say it myself.Even the big laurosse says that :) ) ,the east empires like india are very rich and europe contient was in dark times.
Poverty,epidemics ...
So the people in europe seeked to find new trade routes,new rich lands.You cant say that the ottoman empire -nor any other civilization except rome played just tiny roles.
(Maybe there wouldnt have been any discoveries if the turks,arabs havent annhilated the byzantium and controlled all of the trade routes in the known world.Maybe the world may have not still seen the enlighthening age who knows ? )

I dont oppopse to the fact that the roman empire have brought many things with it but you just cant say that they alone managed to do all of them.Like any other civilizations they were effected by the things happened around them
This topic is going good
Just keep it clean
I am open for more discussion

psychoJr
28th Mar 2003, 15:35
Why did you stop posting ?

Athos
28th Mar 2003, 22:12
I'm not sur if theres anything left to say, besides just reiterations of the same thing.
Basically back and forth kind of discussion

csmers
29th Mar 2003, 00:10
"Rome is the foundator [sic] of our modern civilization. Almost 80% of the things your can see all around you, arts, litterature [sic], languages, politic [sic], organizations (social, military ...), come directly or undirectly [sic] from Rome."

Shame on you for spouting eurocentric twaddle. Here's my two cents on this topic:

The Romans were fine engineers, planners, administrators, and soldiers. This hardly qualifies them as deserving of credit for all of modern civilization.

The arts and literature of which you speak were derived from other cultures; although some of it may certainly have been spread via Roman influence, they don't deserve credit except as messengers (do we thank the Gideons for writing the Bible?).

Mentioning language seems pointless. Latin's influence on other languages had to do with the extent of Rome's political influence, not with some inherent superiority over other languages. Could we point out, by the way, that Rome's is now a dead language? And Latin-derived languages are not spoken by a majority of the world's population.

Math, science, philosophy, medicine... If we start listing the subjects where the Romans contributed little, we begin to wonder just how much influence over modern civilization they could have had...

capnjackv
29th Mar 2003, 05:28
First of all Spanish and Italian were not just influenced by Latin, they are based upon it. I dont know what the majority of the world speaks but there are still quite a few people speaking those lanquages. Of course civilization is the sum of its entire hisory, and while Rome was not the only contributer I dont know who else contributed more. I am obviously speaking about western culture. There is also the Roman mystique. Beauty, brutality, republican government, military dictatorship, nobility, treachery, all in the same city along the Tiber.

Athos
29th Mar 2003, 06:36
Also remember that French is based upon Latin.
That's 3 major languages from Rome. Theres also some minor Latin influences in English.

Also Roman architects were advanced beyond their years...
Arches, Domes, these things were incredible advanced considering what they did with them with their technology.
(I'm thinking of the Pantheon in Rome, and all the aqueducts and coliseums and such)

Shamaani
30th Mar 2003, 19:43
Originally posted by csmers
"Rome is the foundator [sic] of our modern civilization. Almost 80% of the things your can see all around you, arts, litterature [sic], languages, politic [sic], organizations (social, military ...), come directly or undirectly [sic] from Rome."

Shame on you for spouting eurocentric twaddle. Here's my two cents on this topic:
(...)


Eurocentric ?`wtf ?

Are u american ?
lol

It is fun to see that many americans seem to have a complex when we speak of our history, our European history.
I am not "eurocentric"... or let say, less "eurocentric" than americans are "americacentric" ....

Shamaani
30th Mar 2003, 19:53
Originally posted by csmers
"Rome is the foundator [sic] of our modern civilization. Almost 80% of the things your can see all around you, arts, litterature [sic], languages, politic [sic], organizations (social, military ...), come directly or undirectly [sic] from Rome."

Shame on you for spouting eurocentric twaddle. Here's my two cents on this topic:

The Romans were fine engineers, planners, administrators, and soldiers. This hardly qualifies them as deserving of credit for all of modern civilization.

The arts and literature of which you speak were derived from other cultures; although some of it may certainly have been spread via Roman influence, they don't deserve credit except as messengers (do we thank the Gideons for writing the Bible?).

Mentioning language seems pointless. Latin's influence on other languages had to do with the extent of Rome's political influence, not with some inherent superiority over other languages. Could we point out, by the way, that Rome's is now a dead language? And Latin-derived languages are not spoken by a majority of the world's population.


ARTS/LITERATURE : our civilization is not build by the bible. It is build on institutions inspired greatly by the Roman Empire.

LANGUAGE : Latin is a dead language but live through French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Italian ...
and english ... 70% of its vocabulary is french ... lol ... french => latin
Not important ?
French is the official language of diplomacy, second language in the UN also. Spanish ? the second language spoken in the ... USA !!!! so let me laugh ....
Portuguese ? not important ? spoken in a very little country called ... Brazil ... lol

Shamaani
30th Mar 2003, 19:56
mmm, and if u don't like Praetorians because of the subject (Rome) .... play :

Emperor : China
Shogun Total War : Japan
...

:)

Ave !

Athos
30th Mar 2003, 20:52
Shamaani, I'm American and have no problem with you Europeans talking about your history, I am greatly interested in it.

And also, you brought up some great points on the subject that I definatly agree with.

Shamaani
31st Mar 2003, 07:39
:)

and as Americans come from Europe, this is also YOUR history. We have this in common.

Rome is not OUR history, sorry, if I have written it this way. We share it, we Europeans and you Americans.

psychoJr
31st Mar 2003, 21:10
Everyone just ignored the thing i was trying to point out

And shaamani i have already played shogun:total war(and medivial) and they were both great games

csmers
1st Apr 2003, 04:39
The Gideons are a society of folks who place free Bibles in hotels. I don't know if they are active outside the US. I guess you didn't recognize them, though, because you seemed to think I was saying modern civilization is based on the Bible. This was certainly not my point.

I used "Eurocentric" to identify a viewpoint which views history through a narrow lens of European history. This is not an American vs. European argument. It is a Western vs. Non-Western viewpoint. This viewpoint, which has been traditionally taught in schools in the US until only recently, traces most things of value to European sources, and ignores contributions or parallel advances in other cultures such as Meso-American, African, Middle Eastern, and Asian cultures.

Regarding languages, I suggest seeking out some information on linguistics and the evolution of language. You would probably find it very interesting. To get started, visit these sites:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/languages2.html
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

You can see that, as a percentage of world language speakers, the number of speakers of romance languages is small. The point really is that language is no basis for arguing that countries or cultures deserve credit for "founding" the cultures that follow theirs, much less credit for founding modern civilization (unless you care to qualify which parts of modern civilization you are giving them credit for). Your view otherwise sounds like some sort of uncritical Roman culture "hero worship."

Athos
1st Apr 2003, 06:58
Originally posted by csmers
This viewpoint, which has been traditionally taught in schools in the US until only recently, traces most things of value to European sources, and ignores contributions or parallel advances in other cultures such as Meso-American, African, Middle Eastern, and Asian cultures.



Actually I remember in middle school us spending a lengtghy time on chinese and middle eastern and african history...
And also in High School we took a class called World History which showed many different viewpoints. And I also took these classes in 2 different states on opposite sides of the country, so I'd imagine that they taught this way in a few areas.

Sorry to get off topic just pointing out that not all Americans are taught the "Eurocentric" viewpoint.

chronoshift
1st Apr 2003, 18:47
Back to the original topic/question of the first post. The main reason I like this game is because of the way they've created the combat/strategies. It's brilliant (vs. other RTS's). I do, personally, favour Romans. Infact I've never even played as Egyptians or Barbarians yet. Yes, this is influenced by the fact that I loved the movie Gladiator, but mainly because of how the actual units are.

I prefer more organised "elite" troops, vs. mass troops, or barbaric like troops. Similarly in starcraft I'd only play as Protoss, instead of Zerg (shudder) or hardly ever as Terrain. And in Starcraft there's definitely no media inflicted bias between the three. :P

As for there being more Roman/Greek games? I think Greek Mythology plays a big factor in that, because it is based upon Myth, it's more interesting for younger generations, and most games are made for younger generations.

Shamaani
1st Apr 2003, 19:12
Originally posted by csmers
The Gideons are a society of folks who place free Bibles in hotels. I don't know if they are active outside the US. I guess you didn't recognize them, though, because you seemed to think I was saying modern civilization is based on the Bible. This was certainly not my point.
(...)
Regarding languages, I suggest seeking out some information on linguistics and the evolution of language. You would probably find it very interesting. To get started, visit these sites:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/languages2.html
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.html

You can see that, as a percentage of world language speakers, the number of speakers of romance languages is small. The point really is that language is no basis for arguing that countries or cultures deserve credit for "founding" the cultures that follow theirs, much less credit for founding modern civilization (unless you care to qualify which parts of modern civilization you are giving them credit for). Your view otherwise sounds like some sort of uncritical Roman culture "hero worship."

2 observations :
1-Spanish comes in #2, before english, and IS from latin origins ...
so, once more, I don't understand your point, sorry.
2-French is spoken by 265 millions persons in the world : the numbers are given are : old or wrong.
(I know it, I am for particulat reasons interested (hehehe) in french language...)

Personal note : I am faaaar from being "Eurocentric", I like the roman culture and history.
But as a japanese language teacher, I can also say that I am very interested in Asia's history and languages.

Liking Rome does not mean rejecting the other cultures.