[freeciv-data] Re: Cities in rulesets

scripsit Mark Metson:
 
> I would think that the nation that *built* the city ought to be the one it 
> is listed with, and the name it was *built* with should be the name given 
> it when it is built.

I would _generally_ agree, except for certain cities of great antiquity.
For example, if we are to avoid duplication, we really ought to give
e.g. Sicilian cities to the Romans, not the Greeks.  Similarly, I would
have some trouble assigning Marseille to the Greeks, even though it was
originally a Greek colony, or London to the Romans.

OTOH, in Egypt I would give Alexandria to the Greeks and Cairo
(al-Qahirah) to the Arabs, reserving for the Egyptians the truly
Egyptian cities of antiquity.

Really, the most difficult one is Turkey, as all the historically
important cities of Turkey aren't of Turkish origin.  The great Turkish
cities aren't in modern Turkey at all:  Samarkhand, Tashkent, Merv, etc.
And they aren't currently represented in the game, AFAICT.

> Also, civilisations that arose "late" in history possibly ought not to be 
> original civilisation names but rather be names held in reserve against 
> civil war, so that some civlisations might have predetermined names ready 
> for use for their separate parts should they happen to break up.

Hmm.  There's some possibility there; I like the idea.  Reserve the
American names as rebel English, the Afrikaner/Boer names as rebel
Dutch, Latin American for rebel Spanish, etc.  I think, however, that
there is some sensitivity among North American players that might make
``demoting'' the Americans politically impossible.

-- 
Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul