1) There is a new Eastern European civ in BtS: not the Holy Roman Empire: the Byzantines! Whats wrong with that?

2) There are already the Ottomans (capital was in Eastern Europe...), Greeks and Russians if you dont believe there is a Southern Europe. If you do believe there is a Southern Europe, then Eastern Europe is so small that Russia is enough.

Holy Roman Empire was in Eastern Europe and Charlemagne was it's leader. Are you from America?

1) There is a new Eastern European civ in BtS: not the Holy Roman Empire: the Byzantines! Whats wrong with that?

2) There are already the Ottomans (capital was in Eastern Europe...),

Neither of these are Eastern European. Eastern Europe is Russia and all the countries that was part of, or attached to, the Soviet Union.

the UN has definitions, and Willows definition is correct according to them (Although I think Estionia might be counted as northern Europe)

Byzantines did heavily culturally influence eastern europe, but they were in no way part of it. even geographically, the Byzantines had not that much there. they were more "southern european" aka Mediteranean.

and...

Eastern Europe is Russia and all the countries that was part of, or attached to, the Soviet Union.

as well as most of its European satellite nations.

The thing is, the definition of Eastern Europe that you guys are using is so vaguely defined that it is a useless. So if you agree there is a Southern Europe... then the Romans arent Western European? Neither are the Spanish and Portugese? Then Western Europe is a small definition as well.

Just saying east or west or whatever dosent make sense, in that case Iceland cant be western Europe as its so much further north than anywhere else considered west europe, or so much forther west than anywhere considered northern Europe. I always consider Ireland to be western Europe, but you could easily make the case for it being Northern.

Up til 89 there was a clear east west divide, which was more political than geographical (Greece) but its gone now and the lines are blurred

First of all: I've never said Eastern Europe is unrepresented, or advocated for any civs there to be in.

But your post is... strange to say the least! Byzantium is Southern Europe and the near Asia, the Ottoman capital was HALF in EE and half in Asia, and they weren't European, the Holy Roman Empire was in Central Europe.

By the way, I don't agree with what definition of Eastern Europe people are using here. Geographically, if you just divide Europe in three, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Germany are all in Central Europe. Russia, Ukraine and the nearby small countries are in Eastern Europe.

I'm sorry to say so, but this is just as worse as another Polish thread. :(

However, I agree with you in some points, even though I want Poland to be in in a next X-pack, which is propably not going to be there.

The thing is, the definition of Eastern Europe that you guys are using is so vaguely defined that it is a useless.

It's not vague. I already told you. Eastern Europe comprises the countries that were on "the other side" of the Iron Curtain.

The term "Easert Europe", as it's used, has as much to do with geography as the term "the West". Australia is part of "the West" -- it's a Western country. That doesn't mean that Australia is in the Western hempsphere. It isn't.

^ And since the Iron Curtain fell, we don't need that definition any more, so we should use the geographical one. Just my opinion!

Oh, you opine away! :)

But this is how it's still used.

One thing I've never understood is why Europe and Asia are considered separate continents. It's ridiculous.

^ Well, geographically, Europe is a big peninsula of Asia.

It's because of the cultural differences, and resemblances between European countries, forming a common European fund different to the Chinese or Japanese or Indian one, though with more things in common with India than with others.

As ridiculous as considering North America and South America separate continents?

Mirc, you are a master crossposter!

I know!! :smug:

As ridiculous as considering North America and South America separate continents?

Slightly more ridiculous, especially now with the panama canal separating the two. But, even before that, how many miles wide is the strip of land that separates Asia and Europe? Where, exactly is that line, anyway? At least with South America, you go from like 100 miles across to thousands of miles across at the southern tip of Central America.

I mean, I'm pretty sure it's based on tectonic plates, so there's a geographical basis, but...there are myriad tectonic plates in North America. Maybe California should be considered a continent ;).

So if there is South/East/West/North Europe, then I think in this case Russia is enough.

RE the "Related to Soviet Union" thing... then what about Yugoslavia? As well, in that case, doesnt Russia represent that (since Stalin is a leader)?

WELL, WELL. You had your little party before i came.

Your being as ignorant as Fireaxis. HRE and Byzantines are not in East Europe. HRE is in Central/West Europe (same as germany). Byzantines are in Southern/Mediterranean Europe. Ottomans are in Asia. There Capital was a Cross-Continent Capital.

Romans are in Western Europe as well as Southern Europe. Greeks are in Southern Europe.

And look at the population numbers. Russia is just a percantige of the population. Out of 710 000 000 people who live in Europe, 308 858 300 people live in East Europe. Take away 106 million from that number, you'll see that russia is just a fraction of the total population. (this is excluding Siberia and Asian Russia)

http://i10.tinypic.com/4vf0om0.png

This is Eastern Europe if you wanted to know.

http://i15.tinypic.com/4zmlz0j.png

This is the europe who is unrepresented. Notice the huge bulk in slavic and eastern europe? (And places like iceland count as Vikings)

Then there's the argument that Non-Russian slavs would hate to be represented by russia and only russia. Adding Poland, Serbia or Bulgaria or Ukraine would fix this problem.

RE the "Related to Soviet Union" thing... then what about Yugoslavia? As well, in that case, doesnt Russia represent that (since Stalin is a leader)?

Not at all. That just makes thigns worse for all of slavic europe. (and hungary and Romania).

Plus when it comes to market. In America, A huge population is polish, around 7% of it's 300 000 000 population. which is huge. That's not even counting the huge amount of people who have Polish blood but aren't new immigrants. Similer deal with Canada. Poland is a marvelous choice when it comes to market.

Where, exactly is that line, anyway?

The Ural mountains in Russia.


I mean, I'm pretty sure it's based on tectonic plates, so there's a geographical basis, but...there are myriad tectonic plates in North America. Maybe California should be considered a continent ;).

These things are based as much on tradition as they are on your kind of steely logic.

There is Europe, there is Asia. You can argue, but you cannot win.

There is Europe, there is Asia. You can argue, but you cannot win.

Except when it comes to the ME and India. ;)

Holy Roman Empire was in Eastern Europe and Charlemagne was it's leader. Are you from America?

Well I'm from Sweden and in no way has the Holy Roman Empire in any way had any territorial control over Eastern Europe. People tend to be too fixated with the current geographical and ethnical borders to realise this.

True that the Holy Roman Empire controlled Schlesien and Pommern (in modern day Poland, then inhabited by Germans that Poland kicked out after WW2) but these areas are still in Central Europe and so was Bohemia (modern day Czech Rep). Slovenia was also part of the Holy Roman Empire but this is definately Central Europe as well.

If you consider the territories under the nominal rule of Charlemagne (not really Holy Roman Emperor at all, but it's fictional founder) you could also include the Pannonian plain (part of modern day Hungary) but this was just a tributal territory and is still part of Central Europe, not Eastern.

I know that you Poles have had a terrible time in history with malicious neighbours attacking you from all directions all the time but now we live in the 21th Century so stop being so stupidly nationalistic! Why is it every time you hear about Poland anywhere it's about the Poles being difficult and going against everyone else and refusing to co-operate?

"Why is there no Polish civ and why won't the EU give us twice as many seats as the population deserves?"

So welcome into modern day Europe and please try to move away from the 20th Century!

Hrm...nope, the separation is based on medieval concepts of continents and cites rivers and mountains as the dividing line in the north. Otherwise, they share a continental shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia).

Apparently North and South America only became connected about 3M years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_South_America).

Just kinda interesting.

http://i10.tinypic.com/4vf0om0.png
The Cold War is finished. Germany is one state. This map is null and void today.

This is Eastern Europe if you wanted to know.

http://i15.tinypic.com/4zmlz0j.png
Ah, so Russia is not in Europe, the biggest geographical part of EE is not in Europe, good that I know. ;)

As a note, two major countires in the area arnt slavs at all, The Romanians (and by extension, the Moldavians), and the Hungarians. And of course a great deal of the strife arising in the former Yugoslavia is the fact that Albanians arnt slavs either.

That said, Byzantium is only a good inclusion when it comes to Eastern Europe, since it has been an incredible influence on the region, even in areas traditionally catholic.

There is Europe, there is Asia. You can argue, but you cannot win.

Heh...it's not like all geologists agree that the line is anything but arbitrary.

And, it's not just the Urals. It's also rivers, inland seas, etc.

I'm also not gonna argue with anyone. I mean, I effectively think of them as separate continents, even though I think it's kinda silly.

The Cold War is finished. Germany is one state. This map is null and void today.

This is Eastern Europe if you wanted to know.

Ah, so Russia is not in Europe, the biggest geographical part of EE is not in Europe, good that I know. ;)

It shows the civs that are already represented to show how eastern europe is pretty much, well unrepresented. East gernaby on the other map is just a "blooper" of the map. It still shows east europe clearly.

One thing I've never understood is why Europe and Asia are considered separate continents. It's ridiculous.


apart from culture, we do have the Urals and Caucasus dividing us form Asia... but yeah I know what you mean. the Europeans are caucasian and the Asians are mongoloid, but geographically there isnt a proper dividing line as to my mind, a mountain range dosent count

Heh...it's not like all geologists agree that the line is anything but arbitrary.

And, it's not just the Urals. It's also rivers, inland seas, etc.

I'm also not gonna argue with anyone. I mean, I effectively think of them as separate continents, even though I think it's kinda silly.

I didn't want to go into details. Or do a lot of reasearch. ;)

My point is, logic does not dictate how continents are defined. And I think that's fine.

As a note, two major countires in the area arnt slavs at all, The Romanians (and by extension, the Moldavians), and the Hungarians. And of course a great deal of the strife arising in the former Yugoslavia is the fact that Albanians arnt slavs either.
.

Nor are the baltic states

As a note, two major countires in the area arnt slavs at all, The Romanians (and by extension, the Moldavians), and the Hungarians. And of course a great deal of the strife arising in the former Yugoslavia is the fact that Albanians arnt slavs either.

That said, Byzantium is only a good inclusion when it comes to Eastern Europe, since it has been an incredible influence on the region, even in areas traditionally catholic.

Yes but the byzantines aren't in Eastern Europe entirely. most of the land was in Southern europe and asia. And it doesn't fix the problem about slavs either.
Romanians and Hungarians are part of eastern europe. It doesn't matter if there slavic or not. There still part of eastern europe.

I mean, in the field of geography, I would certainly hope they don't simply rely on cultural and historical conceptions of land mass. That would be tres unscientific.

In my day-to-day life, though, logic plays no role in how I think about it. I'm not about to start saying Thailand's in Eurasia, for instance.

Nor are the baltic states

The Baltic states are small... I think there represented by vikings in some way. (don't quote me i'm obviously wrong ;) )

The Baltic states are small... I think there represented by vikings in some way. (don't quote me i'm obviously wrong ;) )

:lol:

Clearly.

Damn. You quoted me....

But the balts are to "small" to be represented "succesfully" in Civ. Closest there going to get is Finland.

Damn. You quoted me....

But the balts are to "small" to be represented "succesfully" in Civ. Closest there going to get is Finland.


Only Estonia is Finnic out of the three

yah i know that. I meant the closest a baltic state is going to be represented is by Finland. (which only counts for Estonia). Lithuania can someway be represented by Poland.

Yes but the byzantines aren't in Eastern Europe entirely. most of the land was in Southern europe and asia. And it doesn't fix the problem about slavs either.
Romanians and Hungarians are part of eastern europe. It doesn't matter if there slavic or not. There still part of eastern europe.

depends on how far north you extend "Southern Europe". A border on the danube and making tributary states of both the Hungarians and the Kievan Rus speaks only of being one of the most prominent powers of its era, in both southern Europe, and the east.

Though I wouldnt mind sticking in the Poles, Romanians, and Hungarians (or Croats, as opposed to Hungarians)

I'd say heck with Serbia/Croatia. Let's just add Yugoslavia instead to add a modern civ, and represent the area. Perhaps 2 leaders would be good? Tito and a medieval Serbian one.

Nor are the baltic states

:lol: I didnt think the baltic states would even factor in in the conversation, so i didnt look at that section of the map.

I would love for the Lithuanians to get in- or hitting two birds with one stone, the juggernaut of the late middle ages, the Polish-Lithuanian common wealth.

Fireaxis won't put in Lithuania over Poland or Poland-Lithuania because it makes more sense to keep Poland as Poland to add some Modern history as well. Poland-Lithuania is just the golden age of Poland.

or, alternately, the golden age of Lithuania. ;)

This whole debate is silly. As anyone who has ever played the boardgame Risk knows, the Ukraine (being light blue in color) is clearly in Europe and the rest of "Russia" is in Asia (being brown/green in color).

Wodan

K, I guess I was wrong about that.

But I still see Eastern Europe as vaguely defined.

Also, getting upset about only one Slavic civ is like getting upset about only one Turkic civ.

And Im quarter Serb and Serbia would be a horrid choice.

or, alternately, the golden age of Lithuania. ;)

More like the only age of Lithuania :lol:


Serbia isn't a good choice over Austria, Poland or Bulgaria or Ukraine. It comes 5th out of the list.

as far as I'm concerned the fortunes of both have been tied together very thuroughly through history, mainly of course due to the common wealth, tot he point that if Poland was included, I'd desire Jogaila as the Polish leader.

i wouldn't. Sobieski or Casimer would be better choices.

you got your preferences, I got mine.

you got your preferences, I got mine.

Agreed.

Still what were fireaxis thinking saying that the byzantines or HRE covers Eastern europe?

I want to highlight the fact that one country on the orange map, namely Germany, is double-represented now and should be marked in red or whatever.

At the same time there is a huge white hole to the East.

There where the hole is, there was one of the major powers of Europe, a huge electoral monarchy, where over 10% of the people were the nobility that elected the King, and voted on issues most important to that Kingdom. That was one of the earliest "democracies" in Europe, and all of that at the same time when western kingdoms were turning into absolute monarchies with almost unlimited power of the kings.

That country beat the Ottoman Empire at Vienna, preventing it from turning Austria into a muslim territory.

That country managed to capture Moscow, it also installed its own tsar in Russia.

That country was the first one in Europe to have a Constitution.

It was the first country in the world to establish a Ministry of Education.

It was one of the wealthiest states of Europe and it filled most if that huge white Terra Incognita on the map.

I believe that double-adding Germany is a worse idea than filling the White Zone with Poland.

It's a little bit harder to justify included Poland as a Civ than it is a place like Korea though. And let's not even start on Canada. You can't just include every country with a potential for increased sales and pass them off as an important "civilization."

The Native Americans is no civilization, the HRE is the same civilization as Germany. Sumeria and Babylon are also one civ too many. If there's so much space that Firaxis has no idea how to fill in, perhaps it's time to fill the white space with a kingdom much more powerful than England in the Middle Ages, and much larger than Spain, England, Italy or whatever.

and much larger than Spain, England, Italy or whatever.

What? :eek:

Well, England didn't become powerful until about the Renaissance.

The Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania was formed in 1569.

That's why what he said is an ignorant statement. By that time, Spain was already a lot bigger in Europe and with huge colonies all over the world.

Great! Another "P" thread :D that's what I longed for ;)

Generally Ishon is right - adding HRE or as it is called "Native American Civilization" :D :D :D (boy, they didn't know even how to write!) was really stupid. HRE was as someone noticed "neither Holy, neither Roman, neither Empire".

I remember how surprised I was when I was sightseeing Vienna (BTW - nice city, but if you can choose, go for Rome, it's way more interesting) that I saw on some building references to Roman Empire... strange - for me the capital of Roman Empire was Rome, not Vienna.

Well, the capital of the Roman Empire was Rome. :D

The Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania was formed in 1569.

Yes, the Commonwealth was formed in 1569, before that we had the Polish-Lithuanian Union which was not formally one Republic yet, but its politics was as well co-ordinated as the politics of the EU today is.

This is why the authors of Euratlas marked Poland and Lithuania in 1400 with the same color. Formally you are right, but practically that was one political organism.

Even in the early 15th century that Union was powerful enough to wipe the Teutonic Order off the map of Central Europe. Some people here get excited about the Teutonic Order, so they should get even more excited about those who crushed it.

For further reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

First of all: I've never said Eastern Europe is unrepresented, or advocated for any civs there to be in.

But your post is... strange to say the least! Byzantium is Southern Europe and the near Asia, the Ottoman capital was HALF in EE and half in Asia, and they weren't European, the Holy Roman Empire was in Central Europe.

By the way, I don't agree with what definition of Eastern Europe people are using here. Geographically, if you just divide Europe in three, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Germany are all in Central Europe. Russia, Ukraine and the nearby small countries are in Eastern Europe.

I agree with the Eastern European.:)

I always divided it more culturally and somehwat geographically. I call the slavic nations as eastern europe.

To the OP please don't say the Ottomans were any type of europeans. They weren't, they were asiatic turks. Just becuase Germany controlled Austria at some points you do not call Germans Austrians.

I believe that double-adding Germany is a worse idea than filling the White Zone with Poland.

Germany made by Firaxis is Prussian. It would be much better to add a new leader to it (but not Charlemagne- maybe Otto I [just like it's done in RFC:BtS]). Then free civ slot could be used to represent area "already represented by Byzantium, HRE, Khmers and Native Americans" :P

Firaxis has no obligation to represent every single little spot on the globe. All that they do, and rightly so, is pick nations that people would be interested in playing.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2672/africazg7.jpg

This is all that is represented in Africa. Nobody cares. This is just devolving into another Poland thread, specific over other Eastern European nations. The balkan states I do not believe are a particularly good choice for the game, since for long stretches of time they were subject to either the Byzantine empire or Ottomans. Ukraine I wouldn't imagine would be a popular choice either. Kievan Rus might be alright, but Ukraine overall I can't see. Poland really is the only choice left, not because Eastern Europe is unrepresented, but because it's really the only reasonable choice left for all of Europe (save maybe Austria). There really aren't any alternative choices for a European state, it's all that's really left after the 4 civ games and multiple expansions; that's not really flattering.

There need not be so much emphasis on Eastern Europe from Western Europe. During the medieval ages it was another Catholic state (along with the rest of Europe). And while the medieval era was not the most glorious for any medieval European state, mongol invasions in the 13th century and periods of fragmentation during a time when Western Europe was beginning to transform itself into more centralized states, were present in Poland. The golden age of Poland only lasted about 100 years when it formed a union with Lithuania, waged a victorious was against the Teutonic Order, and began a time of expansion. However, in the middle of the 1600s nobility continued to block centralization which allowed Poland to fall behind it's enemies and made partitions possible. Then they later became a Soviet satellite which apparently marks the East-West divide to begin with.

This is all that is represented in Africa. Nobody cares.

You think that African nations were as important as European? Do you want discuss about it?

The golden age of Poland only lasted about 100 years when it formed a union with Lithuania, waged a victorious was against the Teutonic Order, and began a time of expansion. However, in the middle of the 1600s nobility continued to block centralization which allowed Poland to fall behind it's enemies and made partitions possible. Then they later became a Soviet satellite which apparently marks the East-West divide to begin with.

You have forgotten about such unimportant things like Battle of Vienna or Battle of Warsaw.

You think that African nations were as important as European? Do you want discuss about it?

How very eurocentric of you. Not until 1500 did Europe (i.e. Western Europe + Russia) begin to dominate the rest of the world. So I suppose I can ask... Do you think Eastern European nations are as important as Western European ones?



You have forgotten about such unimportant things like Battle of Vienna or Battle of Warsaw.

Reinforcing Vienna doesn't absolve the country of the rest of Poland's hardships.

How very eurocentric of you. Not until 1500 did Europe (i.e. Western Europe + Russia) begin to dominate the rest of the world. So I suppose I can ask... Do you think Eastern European nations are as important as Western European ones?





Reinforcing Vienna doesn't absolve the country of the rest of Poland's hardships.

Rome and Greece/Macedonia were both European empires and yeah, I'm pretty sure they were "dominating the rest of the world" before 1500.

as for Eurocentrism, the game really has to be Eurocentric anyhow, but maybe not as much as it already is. more Eastern European representation would be good, but so would it be for other parts of the world. really, Eastern AFRICA gets only one country (Ethiopia), and no one complains. and there is a small but good number of decent contenders - some of the civilizations/political entities there did have an impact on the world (before the coming of the European world domination power, of course)

Rome and Greece/Macedonia were both European empires and yeah, I'm pretty sure they were "dominating the rest of the world" before 1500.

well, Rome didn't go to India and China and the Mayans and conquer them...

This is all that is represented in Africa. Nobody cares.

Speak for yourself

Rome and Greece/Macedonia were both European empires and yeah, I'm pretty sure they were "dominating the rest of the world" before 1500.

The world was a far cry from globalized.

Speak for yourself

I do care. That's the point. I'm criticizing the emphasis placed solely Eastern Europe. Recall the arguments from the other thread (the one about preferring Poland to the HRE), recall all the arguments about how East Europe is supposedly the only unrepresented region of the world left and how the Poles are one of the only unrepresented ethnic groups.

Rome and Greece/Macedonia were both European empires and yeah, I'm pretty sure they were "dominating the rest of the world" before 1500.

China is amused.

How very eurocentric of you. Not until 1500 did Europe (i.e. Western Europe + Russia) begin to dominate the rest of the world. So I suppose I can ask... Do you think Eastern European nations are as important as Western European ones?

I'm VERY eurocentric. And I don't consider Easter Europe as equally strong as Western one (I think that Rome was far more important than all other nations in all World totality).

Japan is amused.

China and Vietnam are amused. :)

well, Rome didn't go to India and China and the Mayans and conquer them...

It was a different time period. It was pretty much impossible to hold an overseas empire, especially when their knowledge of the world didn't include those areas. The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen, and Alexander captured it (thus the Macedonian Empire became the second largest ever and conqueror of the largest). That is good enough for me.

As for Rome, you can't really argue there as well. They controled practically all of Europe and large, important territories in Africa and Asia. Again, that's good enough for me.

China and Vietnam are amused. :)

China was always doing its own thing. China never had to worry about European expansion because it was so far away. At that time period it really wasn't feasible for an empire to extend from Europe to China. We're not even sure the Greeks and Romans had a good concept of where China was exactly.

The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen, and Alexander captured it (thus the Macedonian Empire became the second largest ever and conqueror of the largest).

British Empire was bigger. Mongol one was bigger too.

China is amused.

Don't compare mighty Rome to other (phhh...) civs.

If China one of the greatest Civilizations (phhh...) what hope is there for Poland?

Romania/Bulgarian area would have represented what in my mind is eastern europe. But I would have had Romania with some kind of Translyvanian gothic look, Vlad the leader and a Maceman replacement UU
Maybe a big sword or Spear/axe looking weapon. HRE is close enough tho.

If China one of the greatest Civilizations

China compared to Rome is nothing.

what hope is there for Poland?

Even all Jagiellon countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagiellon_Dynasty Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Bohemia) compared to power of Rome are just funny.

I tried to merge the other thread's poll into this thread, and failed. So in any case, please keep the "Eastern Europe/Poland" discussion in a single thread.

China was always doing its own thing.

Uh wut? Euro-centrism strikes again! Obviously you don't know the xiongnu, donghu, nanman, bai yue as well as its relationships with yuezhi (Kushan Empire), transoxianic city-states and of course Parthia.

Don't compare mighty Rome to other (phhh...) civs.

Height of Han China >>> Rome. Unlike Rome, Han beat the pre-eminent military power in the world :-).

I tried to merge the other thread's poll into this thread, and failed. So in any case, please keep the "Eastern Europe/Poland" discussion in a single thread.

Sorry I created confusion :hammer2:

I've lost my poll :undecide:

British Empire was bigger. Mongol one was bigger too.

You sure know your history, but you could use some more arithmetic and reading comprehension.

There where the hole is, there was one of the major powers of Europe, a huge electoral monarchy, where over 10% of the people were the nobility that elected the King, and voted on issues most important to that Kingdom. That was one of the earliest "democracies" in Europe, and all of that at the same time when western kingdoms were turning into absolute monarchies with almost unlimited power of the kings.

That country beat the Ottoman Empire at Vienna, preventing it from turning Austria into a muslim territory.

That country managed to capture Moscow, it also installed its own tsar in Russia.

That country was the first one in Europe to have a Constitution

It was the first country in the world to establish a Ministry of Education.

It was one of the wealthiest states of Europe and it filled most if that huge white Terra Incognita on the map.

Check the bold ones and think again.
Poland was not the first democracy in Europe. It was Iceland, which was actually the first one in the world. The year 930 Althing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing) was founded. There was one "goði" (leader) from each "goðorð" (leader region) and they came to the government place (don't know the English name) and there were trials, new laws to be made and others to be obsolete every year.
About the constitution, I'd like to point you at the Icelandic constitution from around 1100, called the Gray Goose laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Goose_Laws)

;)

edit: Oh sorry! I didn't see the warning. I'll post this on the Polish/EE thread or something..didn't know! sorry!

Romania/Bulgarian area would have represented what in my mind is eastern europe. But I would have had Romania with some kind of Translyvanian gothic look, Vlad the leader and a Maceman replacement UU
Maybe a big sword or Spear/axe looking weapon. HRE is close enough tho.

If you ever have Romania in game, and not talking about the epic, regular game, I really don't want to spark such discussions, but even in mods, I'd recommend one of the following leaders:

- Mircea the Elder (reigned 40 years, A LOT of victories against the Turks)
- Mihai Viteazu (unified all 3 Romanian countries)
- Carol I (king of united Romania, much later though, in the XIXth century)

It was a different time period. It was pretty much impossible to hold an overseas empire, especially when their knowledge of the world didn't include those areas. The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen, and Alexander captured it (thus the Macedonian Empire became the second largest ever and conqueror of the largest). That is good enough for me.

As for Rome, you can't really argue there as well. They controled practically all of Europe and large, important territories in Africa and Asia. Again, that's good enough for me.

i know, i was half joking.

Don't compare mighty Rome to other (phhh...) civs.

China in my opinion was better than Rome, but thats just opinion. if i were unbiased, i would say that perhaps China was a little better than Rome, but if one were to say they were even, i think that would be okay. they were really the powers of their worlds.

China...nothing compared to Rome? Puh-leeze. They were at least equal, and the Chinese were far more interested in the Romans than the Romans were in them. The Chinese had a variety of powerful enemies, and what is called "China" today was built out of bloody wars of conquest followed by cultural assimilation and suppression of the conquered peoples. China typically exerted great influence throughout Asia and even into the middle east at times. Also unlike Rome(and every other ancient civilization) it still possesses its ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identity. The Chinese invented gunpowder, crossbows, paper, and the mechanisms that power clocks, among many other things, and they also figured out an effective system for determining where an earthquake occurred at the moment it happened. This system was so accurate and precise, the Chinese immediately sent aid in the direction indicated, without waiting for confirmation.

China's history is rife with internecine conflict and bloody fighting with the locals(whose conquest was decidedly difficult and not terribly tempting because China was already huge.) Yet they were very often the most advanced civilization on the planet, and wealthy too, considering they cowed their neighbors into paying regular tribute. China until about the middle of the Ming dynasty was a very active power, setting up colonies in places like Taiwan and southeast Asia, mounting expeditions as far as Africa(and generously recognizing the local rulers as "governors" in the Chinese emperor's stead. This attitude is why we should be happy the Chinese and the Romans never actually met, for likely egos on both sides would be sorely bruised and Parthia could've been a bloody battleground) and intervening regularly in the affairs of surrounding states(Korea was and, apparently, still is, their favorite.) China ruled as much of Asia as Rome ruled Europe. It seems Rome gets a pass for being western and ancient, but China is judged solely on its attitudes under the rule of the isolationist Ming and Qing/Manchu dynasties.

As for Eastern Europe, it most certainly is underrepresented. Oh, and Prussia and Austria, for all intents and purposes, are German, in the same way the HRE is German. There would be no Austria today if Austria had united the German peoples under her rule, only Germany and Prussia:king:

^:clap: proof that not only Chinese and their little clones/siblings in the East think China is great. :)

You sure know your history, but you could use some more arithmetic and reading comprehension.

I don't know Polish history. I use Wikipedia :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires

Wikipedia is more reliable for bigger things... but the smaller and more insignificant things get, the less reliable Wikipedia gets... so the question is, judging from the reliability and accuracy of the Poland Wikipedia article, how small and insignificant or big and important is it?

I don't know Polish history. I use Wikipedia :P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires

I'm talking about the fact you listed the British and Monguls after I said the Greeks were the second biggest empire the world had ever seen after the Persians (whom they defeated). Because you know, the Greeks were about 1500 years before the Monguls. Math: you can read about it on Wikipedia too.

^you are so freaking wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the biggest empire before the Mongols/Brits were the Atlanteans!!!!!!! :P

Alright, here's what I've got to say:
Eastern Europe could use another civ to represent it, but I wouldn't call it "severely under-represented". If you use this statement, I could say (assuming I was opposed to having an eastern european civ, which I'm not) "Well, so is Antarctica and Australia!", thats BS but someone could say that...so that's sort of a tip I guess...

Wikipedia is more reliable for bigger things... but the smaller and more insignificant things get, the less reliable Wikipedia gets... so the question is, judging from the reliability and accuracy of the Poland Wikipedia article, how small and insignificant or big and important is it?

It is insignificant compared to other civilizations. The Polish have their triumphs, but they were completely wiped out several times only to be recreated by other countries. Aside from when they were a kingdom with Lithuania, their biggest triumph was pushing back the Soviets and declaring their independence after World War I (although this was only possible because of the Allies defeat of Germany). That independence was short lived though because they were invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union a decade later in WWII.

Basically what they're saying is Poland deserves to be in due to the alliance with Lithuania in the 1500s, which would make it Poland-Lithuania. That would give Civ some much needed Eastern European flavor, HOWEVER I'm not entirely sure Poland is deserving of this based on their accomplishments as a civ. It would be more of a balance issue, and frankly I'm in favor of reducing the number of European civs in the game. I'd like to see a Polynesian civ in place of the HRE.

^heh. lets see the Poles backlash. :)

compared to China, Rome, Egypt, Greece, India, etc. etc. etc., Poland is nothing. compared to other lesser conteners, like Vietnam, Khmer, Polynesia, etc... maybe Poland has a chance, but... oh well.

and Atlantis is the only superpower civ Firaxis never bothered to put in. ;) maybe at least they should make a scenario. (hmm... hint hint hint for next civ installment)

and Atlantis is the only superpower civ Firaxis never bothered to put in. ;) maybe at least they should make a scenario. (hmm... hint hint hint for next civ installment)

That would be a good scenario, "Civs! Gone Under!"
:lol:
China in my opinion was better than Rome, but thats just opinion. if i were unbiased, i would say that perhaps China was a little better than Rome, but if one were to say they were even, i think that would be okay. they were really the powers of their worlds.
RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANIA RULE THE WORLD!
...as part British I'd have to say Britain wins over both China and Rome! ;) Second only to the Netherlands of course...:lol:

ah... how about the next expansion:

Civilization: Before the Wheel... or Civilization: Beyond our Comprehension...

ah... how about the next expansion:

Civilization: Before the Wheel... or Civilization: Beyond our Comprehension...

Hehe, or how about:
Civilization IV: If you're a %&#$head about history (or animated psychos/"stuff") this is the game for you!
My uncle thought of this for the next "Bourne" movie.
Bourne Again
Hehe...:goodjob:

compared to China, Rome, Egypt, Greece, India, etc. etc. etc., Poland is nothing. compared to other lesser conteners, like Vietnam, Khmer, Polynesia, etc... maybe Poland has a chance, but... oh well.

Why India is better than Poland?

I'm talking about the fact you listed the British and Monguls after I said the Greeks were the second biggest empire the world had ever seen after the Persians (whom they defeated). Because you know, the Greeks were about 1500 years before the Monguls. Math: you can read about it on Wikipedia too.

You wrote "The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen" not "The Persian Empire was the largest the world had seen ever before".

Why India is better than Poland?


Why is Poland in anyway comparable to India?
Why is Poland better than India?
Why do Polish people care about Poland so much?
Why do Indian people work at 7-11?
It's all nonsense...just get over it that Poland isn't or ever will be in the game before any of the current civs! :rolleyes: I'm sympathetic towards you guys but it is a tiring arguement...

You wrote "The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen" not "The Persian Empire was the largest the world had seen ever before".

"The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen" is the correct way to say it. Apparently you need to brush up on grammar as well.

Why India is better than Poland?




You just lost all credibility you ever had with that post :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I hope you arnt serious..

Why India is better than Poland?

Lets skim the surface
First im half Indian, so thats lots of points for India!
Modern India
India Has nuclear weapons since 1974
India has the 2nd biggest population in the world 1.1 billion+, in 2050 it will be biggest then China..
India is the biggest Democracy in the world..
India is an emerging superpower along with China
Consider Poland isnt even a great power, but a Middle power.
Its economic progress is one of the highest in the world!
GDP growth rate 9.4% huge :eek:
Third largest military force in the world
Blue water navy a status only about 6 countries hold.
Fourth in the world in terms of purchasing power#
Bollywood makes most films in the world :eek: .. should be one of the wonders of the world actually :(..
The Indian Navy is the world's fourth largest navy It is advanced in terms of technology and is in control of one of two Asian aircraft carriers. Two more aircraft carriers are on order and will be joining the Indian Navy.
How many does poland have :crazyeye:
The Indian Air Force is the fourth largest air force in the world
Poland's airforce stats pwease :mischief:

Several reports have mentioned that the Indian military will be an even greater force to reckon with in the future given the twin advantage of economic growth and an increasing population. Analyses of the Central Intelligence Agency indicates that India is projected to possess the fourth most capable concentration of power by 2015.

This is after two minutes of skimming wikipedia..

Please stop this stupidity of comparing Poland with other Civilizations, but list the Achievements of Poland as stated in the main Poland thread

Why India is better than Poland?

India is not "better" than Poland, thats an opinoin. but is it more influential? i think so. India gave birth to two of the worlds largest religions, Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism is the third largest religion of the world, with followers in the Indian subcontinent, as well as SE Asia. Buddhism, the fourth largest religion of the world, has followers in practically every East Asian and Southeast Asian civilization, and it used to be a good number of followers in Central Asia before the coming of the Muslims. parts of Hinduim and Buddhism is now even integrated into American pop culture.

stradling between China, the Middle East, and Eastern Africa, India was part of maritime trading route that dominated sea trade.

India was decently advanced (though not as much as the Chinese) before the Europeans became REALLY powerful. they discovered zero, were excellent philsophers, and even made good use of canons, using them as seige weapons, even putting them atop elephants. and the elephants, don't forget them :)

the Indians also had a number of powerful kingdoms and empires throughout the ages. these included the Mauryan Empire, which dominated most of the subcontinent in the era during and following Alexander's empire. another one were the Mughals, who controlled modern day Pakistan, India, Nepal, and parts of Afghanistan. there were also various empires, like the Cholas, Delhi Sultanate, Guptas, etc. etc. etc. these empires controlled many more people, resources, etc. than the Poles.

India's influence can be seen especially in SE Asia, where places like Indonesia, Khmer, Burma, etc. became "Indian-iphied" more or less.

now, i am not saying that Poland is useless, but i am saying that India has to be in before Poland (no insult to any Poles)

^Thank you Cybrxkhan :goodjob: BtW, nice civ of the week civ.
LuKo, you need the following things:
A reality check.
A grammar class.
A nose job. (just a guess...)
Maybe a new occupation too because the one you may currently have doesn't seem to preoccupy yourself enough...

Furthermore, the four main ethnic groups of Europe (Celts, Slavs, Germans and Romans) and descend from India.

Furthermore, the four main ethnic groups of Europe (Celts, Slavs, Germans and Romans) and descend from India.

according to a theory of the Indo-Europeans. other theories place their origins in Asia Minor, near the Black Sea, or somewhere in the steppes of Russia.

Actually, China was far more powerful than Rome. During the height of the Roman Empire, it had somewhere around 150,000 soldiers in its legions. During the Three Kingdoms period in China, less than two centuries later, one battle involved 200,000 troops on one side. And this was a disunited China. With these figures as reference, can you see it better now?

However, I would say that the socio-political achievements of the Rome were more impressive, more lasting and more influential in history.

Furthermore, the four main ethnic groups of Europe (Celts, Slavs, Germans and Romans) and descend from India.

That's a bit of a stretch though. It's the same as saying we all descended from Africa. We're comparing civilizations, whereas that is bringing up an ancestry that pre-dates civilization in many respects.

Well, I suppose you can argue that there is only one slavic civ in the game, while there are 6 mainly Germanic and 4 manly Romanic civs

I do however agree with the OP that the Byzantines can be considered an Eastern European civ, since the Orthodox church is nowadays mainly an E. European phenomenon (except for Ethiopia, Syria and Greece).

Actually, China was far more powerful than Rome. During the height of the Roman Empire, it had somewhere around 150,000 soldiers in its legions. During the Three Kingdoms period in China, less than two centuries later, one battle involved 200,000 troops on one side. And this was a disunited China. With these figures as reference, can you see it better now?

However, I would say that the socio-political achievements of the Rome were more impressive, more lasting and more influential in history.

Yeah but in its moment of full glory I think Rome was indeed the more powerful of the two. However I'm not denying in any way the achievements of China. Rome and China are the perfect examples of civs that should never be out of any version of civ. :)

That's a bit of a stretch though. It's the same as saying we all descended from Africa. We're comparing civilizations, whereas that is bringing up an ancestry that pre-dates civilization in many respects.

While I do agree with your last statement, I don't think bringing up the Indo-European connection is the same as bringing up our common African ancestry. Since language is one of the building blocks of civilization, that kind of relation is more relevant in this context than the fact that we all belong to the same species (as of yet there are no alien or other non-human civs in the game).

Yeah but in its moment of full glory I think Rome was indeed the more powerful of the two. However I'm not denying in any way the achievements of China. Rome and China are the perfect examples of civs that should never be out of any version of civ.

But that was what I was talking about. Think: Rome had 150,000 soldiers spread out over its empire to maintain it and keep order. Han China could probably field 200,000 soldiers or more in a single battle in the same period. Do you think Rome could muster all of its 150,000 soldiers for one battle to even hope to match up to the Chinese?

I'm not denying the achievements of Rome either. In fact, I think they are more respectable in some areas than China's, despite a much shorter lifespan. However, there's no denying who was the greater power at the time. Perhaps Rome had better power projection and could succeed in a modest campaign against China that was conducted, say, in Parthia. But if they were closer to each other, China would simply have overrun Rome.

"The Persian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen" is the correct way to say it. Apparently you need to brush up on grammar as well.

OK. My fault.

India is not "better" than Poland, thats an opinoin. but is it more influential? i think so. India gave birth to two of the worlds largest religions, Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism is the third largest religion of the world, with followers in the Indian subcontinent, as well as SE Asia. Buddhism, the fourth largest religion of the world, has followers in practically every East Asian and Southeast Asian civilization, and it used to be a good number of followers in Central Asia before the coming of the Muslims. parts of Hinduim and Buddhism is now even integrated into American pop culture.

stradling between China, the Middle East, and Eastern Africa, India was part of maritime trading route that dominated sea trade.

India was decently advanced (though not as much as the Chinese) before the Europeans became REALLY powerful. they discovered zero, were excellent philsophers, and even made good use of canons, using them as seige weapons, even putting them atop elephants. and the elephants, don't forget them

the Indians also had a number of powerful kingdoms and empires throughout the ages. these included the Mauryan Empire, which dominated most of the subcontinent in the era during and following Alexander's empire. another one were the Mughals, who controlled modern day Pakistan, India, Nepal, and parts of Afghanistan. there were also various empires, like the Cholas, Delhi Sultanate, Guptas, etc. etc. etc. these empires controlled many more people, resources, etc. than the Poles.

India's influence can be seen especially in SE Asia, where places like Indonesia, Khmer, Burma, etc. became "Indian-iphied" more or less.

now, i am not saying that Poland is useless, but i am saying that India has to be in before Poland (no insult to any Poles)

Just creating religion isn't very important. In other case Arabia thanks to it's religion conquered many lands.
Zero isn't greatest thing in the World. Cannons were used best by Europeans. Elephants were there so having them don't impress me.
India maybe was strong compared to neighbours but not to Europeans.

Furthermore, the four main ethnic groups of Europe (Celts, Slavs, Germans and Romans) and descend from India.

And we all are from Africa. So what?

Also unlike Rome(and every other ancient civilization) it still possesses its ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identity.

Nations in cIV that claimed that they're Romans- Romans, Germany (HRE), Greece (Byzantium), Turks, Russia and France :)

Nations in cIV that claimed that they're Romans- Romans, Germany (HRE), Greece (Byzantium), Turks, Russia and France
You either misunderstand or don't what you're talking about. The Chinese go back 4,000 years, and were in existence as a distinct civilization at the same time as ancient Egypt and Babylon. The Greeks didn't start showing up until about a 1,000 years after the Chinese. The Chinese have always been and still are identifiably Chinese. There isn't anybody who still considers themself Babylonian or Egyptian or Roman in the sense the citizens of those empires considered themselves those.

Those people, though none of them Roman, could claim they were Rome because Rome was dead and buried, and only the considerable glory of its memory remained. If Korea took it upon itself to call itself "China", China would quickly beat it for its insolence. No one dares steal the name of a living empire.

But that was what I was talking about. Think: Rome had 150,000 soldiers spread out over its empire to maintain it and keep order. Han China could probably field 200,000 soldiers or more in a single battle in the same period. Do you think Rome could muster all of its 150,000 soldiers for one battle to even hope to match up to the Chinese?

Can you back that up with some source? :) And anyway, Rome was using mercenaries too.

Why India is better than Poland?

Please tell me you're joking!!!

There isn't anybody who still considers themself Babylonian or Egyptian or Roman in the sense the citizens of those empires considered themselves those.

Not trying to argue with you at all, of course not in that sense, but here's an interesting fact: In Romanian, we still call ourselves Romans.

Zero isn't greatest thing in the World. Cannons were used best by Europeans. Elephants were there so having them don't impress me.
India maybe was strong compared to neighbours but not to Europeans.

Uh ok. No zero = basis of algebra, calculus and everything else.

And for most of its history the Indian subcontinent was a place of riches and prosperity. For most of history, it was Europe that was the backwater that no one really cared about. What could even the great Roman Empire provide mighty India and China? They had very few goods inhabitants of the two regions would want (....olives? cheese?).

Nations in cIV that claimed that they're Romans- Romans, Germany (HRE), Greece (Byzantium), Turks, Russia and France

Uh, why are you conflating ethnicity with political legitimacy? Roman isn't a race, it's a political structure. Of course they would want to look at their region's greatest empire in order to provide legitimacy for their own.

Man you are hilarious. I guess Americans aren't the only ones ignorant about history :-).

Can you back that up with some source? And anyway, Rome was using mercenaries too.

Research "Han Xiong-Nu wars." (Roman legionnaires really didn't accomplish anything comparable to what Huo Qubing accomplished). And if you want to see what happens how Warring States Chinese fought, look up "battle of changping."

India maybe was strong compared to neighbours but not to Europeans.

I will quote myself :mischief:
India would nearly beat every single power in Europe, only Russia would be able to stand up in front of India.. India is in top ten for GDP spent on Military.. and they dont have to spend such a large part of their military spending on wages unlike Great Britain and such.. I love England as i was born here and still live here in the capital London, Yet i can still admitt India would beat Great Britain in a 1v1 fight :crazyeye:





Lets skim the surface
Modern India
India Has nuclear weapons since 1974
India has the 2nd biggest population in the world 1.1 billion+, in 2050 it will be biggest then China..
India is the biggest Democracy in the world..
India is an emerging superpower along with China
Consider Poland isnt even a great power, but a Middle power.
Its economic progress is one of the highest in the world!
GDP growth rate 9.4% huge :eek:
Third largest military force in the world
Blue water navy a status only about 6 countries hold.
Fourth in the world in terms of purchasing power#
Bollywood makes most films in the world :eek: .. should be one of the wonders of the world actually :(..
The Indian Navy is the world's fourth largest navy It is advanced in terms of technology and is in control of one of two Asian aircraft carriers. Two more aircraft carriers are on order and will be joining the Indian Navy.
How many does poland have :crazyeye:
The Indian Air Force is the fourth largest air force in the world
Poland's airforce stats pwease :mischief:

Several reports have mentioned that the Indian military will be an even greater force to reckon with in the future given the twin advantage of economic growth and an increasing population. Analyses of the Central Intelligence Agency indicates that India is projected to possess the fourth most capable concentration of power by 2015.

This is after two minutes of skimming wikipedia..

Please stop this stupidity of comparing Poland with other Civilizations, but list the Achievements of Poland as stated in the main Poland thread

Can you back that up with some source?

My bad. I remember 150,000 from reading Gibbon a long time ago, but I just looked it up on the net and he apparently said 375,000. Well, not so hopeless. But, still, I don't think they could even field half that number for a single battle.

For the Chinese figure, look up the Battle of the Red Cliffs during the Three Kingdoms period. Cao Cao fielded 200,000 men and lost most of that but was still able to recover somewhat after escaping doom.

And anyway, Rome was using mercenaries too.

So was China.

My bad. I remember 150,000 from reading Gibbon a long time ago, but I just looked it up on the net and he apparently said 375,000. Well, not so hopeless. But, still, I don't think they could even field half that number for a single battle.

For the Chinese figure, look up the Battle of the Red Cliffs during the Three Kingdoms period. Cao Cao fielded 200,000 men and lost most of that but was still able to recover somewhat after escaping doom.



So was China.
Ok then I think we can agree they were "both very strong" at the time. :D
(you realize if the hypothetical scenario that they would need to be allied happened, nobody could stand a chance for sure :))

Folks, I remember a couple years ago a similar debate, "which was greater, Rome or England?", between me and an Englishman. IN the end we agreed that they weren't comparable, really (who was greater, McEnroe or Tilden? Too different the times to compare).

Same here: Rome and China may have had fleeting contacts, but to all effects they were "playing on different maps".

Same here: Rome and China may have had fleeting contacts, but to all effects they were "playing on different maps".

At least they were contemporaries and had some contact with each other (including the possibility of a small number of lost Roman troops having engaged in combat with the Chinese).

And I might be wrong on the Chinese power projection speculation. Han China sent 70,000 troops to chase the Xiongnu all the way to the Caspian. Interestingly, this army was supposed to send an ambassador to Rome (which the Chinese appreciated as an economic power and called 'Great China' - possibly because the Romans are a taller people, since the Chinese seemed to have underestimated the size of the Roman Empire) if not for the greedy Parthians telling them that the journey would take years and that they should just continue trading with Parthia.

For the Chinese , China is better. For the Europeans , Rome is better.

I appreciate both China and Rome-- they are in my top five civs to play (and I enjoy playing historically-grand civs). Anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of global history should realize that to compare the two is like comparing apples to oranges: different cultures, different political systems, different ethos, etc. There is enough historical evidence available to indicate that both civs did have some fleeting contact, and from what we know they respected the other with mutual awe, curiousity, and admiration as a fellow major civ (and potential trading partner). Now if you were to compare Caesar's Rome to Wang Kon's Pyongyang for a moment... :P

As someone has already said, Europe (post-Rome) was pretty much the poor backwater region of the world. At least until around 1500 when colonization really started to kick off in Europe.

In fact, the whole reason that Europe was the one to come to colonize most of the globe, opposed to a country like China (who was far wealthier than any European state when colonization began) is most likely because they were falling behind the rest of the world and being choked off. In comparison, China was the regional power of East Asia and all of it's neighbors were pretty much made into tributary states, so what incentive was for them to spend the money to go exploring? Remember that Christopher Columbus was looking for an alternate trade route to the Eastern nations. The Ottoman Empire and other muslim empires prospered because they dominated the trade routes between Europe and Asia, likewise, kingdoms like Mali and it's successor states dominated trade routes between sub-saharan Africa and the middle-east.

Europe was trying to look for away around these barriers, while I really don't think China cared all that much. The muslim kingdoms at the time probably had more to offer China than Europe anyway. Eventually, Europeans found the Americas as well as the Eastern nations like China and India and rose to prominence in various regions by allying with local factions.

Europe (again, post-Rome) really didn't start getting ahead of the rest of the world until the 1500s-1600s and then enjoyed such dominance until World War II after which time the US and the USSR became the superpowers. Poland on the other hand only experienced it's golden age for about the first 100 years from the mid 1500s-1600s before they were left in the dust of Russia and Western European nations. And before that, they would have been just another petty kingdom compared to the wealthy nations of the middle-east and East Asia.

As someone has already said, Europe (post-Rome) was pretty much the poor backwater region of the world. At least until around 1500 when colonization really started to kick off in Europe.

The beginning of European dominance after Rome began with Italian renaissance, which had its roots in the Italian Trecento, meaning the XIVth century. :) The Quattrocento (XVth century) was when Europe became more advanced than other places, and when Reconquista completed. The XVIth century (the 1500s) was just the time when this power started to show. :)

Before 1300, except for Byzantium, Europe was pretty backwards.

China and India for Asia, Greece and Rome for Europe. simple as that.

So I suppose I can ask... Do you think Eastern European nations are as important as Western European ones?

OMG i can't even imagine you said that. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Bohemia and Ukraine are all just as important as the rest of europe. The remaining land have all been part of these States, Or extremely influenced by them, or russia/ottomans.

I do care. That's the point. I'm criticizing the emphasis placed solely Eastern Europe. Recall the arguments from the other thread (the one about preferring Poland to the HRE), recall all the arguments about how East Europe is supposedly the only unrepresented region of the world left and how the Poles are one of the only unrepresented ethnic groups.

POLAND IS ONE OF THE WORLD"S MAIN ETHNIC GROUPS UNREPRESENTED. Have a brain next time you post something as ignorant as that. The only other ethnic group i can see even close are some African ones. And there is no way FireAxis is going to add them. Congo may be the only one (togather with Swahili).

And noone said that East Europe is the only unrepresented area in the world. Oceania and south America are pretty big problems as well when it comes to representation.

As for Rome, you can't really argue there as well. They controled practically all of Europe and large, important territories in Africa and Asia. Again, that's good enough for me.

Really? Try Scandinavia and Eastern europe next time.

their biggest triumph was pushing back the Soviets and declaring their independence after World War I (although this was only possible because of the Allies defeat of Germany). That independence was short lived though because they were invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union a decade later in WWII.

Wasn't that one of Wilsons 13 points or something?


Basically what they're saying is Poland deserves to be in due to the alliance with Lithuania in the 1500s, which would make it Poland-Lithuania. That would give Civ some much needed Eastern European flavor, HOWEVER I'm not entirely sure Poland is deserving of this based on their accomplishments as a civ.

No. The alliance is the golden age of Poland. Poland has a history going over 2000 years, starting from the Slavic Polish tribes along the vistula river, till now. And there is a direct connection as well. That is a huge time.

OMG i can't even imagine you said that. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Bohemia and Ukraine are all just as important as the rest of europe. The remaining land have all been part of these States, Or extremely influenced by them, or russia/ottomans.

...Did you read the post I was responding to when I said that?

POLAND IS ONE OF THE WORLD"S MAIN ETHNIC GROUPS UNREPRESENTED. Have a brain next time you post something as ignorant as that.

What are you talking about? How does the act of me observing your argument make me ignorant?

And noone said that East Europe is the only unrepresented area in the world. Oceania and south America are pretty big problems as well when it comes to representation.

You said that they were the only "major" ethnicity still unrepresented. From the Do you prefer the Holy Roman Empire to Poland thread:

Well i think the Poles are pretty much the only major ethnic group un-represented in the game.

So I suppose, to quote you:

Have a brain next time you post something as ignorant as that.

In comparison, China was the regional power of East Asia and all of it's neighbors were pretty much made into tributary states, so what incentive was for them to spend the money to go exploring?Chinese people have actually explored ! And they've started before Vasco de Gama. Zheng He (1371-1433) is known to have explored the whole Indian Ocean, from Indonesia to probably Madagascar. The difference is that they haven't settled in the discovered lands. They didn't find any need to.

The reason for this is rather simple, China was big enough and its power was unrivaled. At the opposite, Europe was divided in small kingdoms competing between each others to reach domination. Hence settling in new territories was considered as a way to devellop power of a kingdom over its rivals.

name one ethnic group unrepresented in the game. (other then a few African ones which do have a bigger pop.)

But Firaxis isn't putting out much more african civ now.

Chinese people have actually explored ! And they've started before Vasco de Gama. Zheng He (1371-1433) is known to have explored the whole Indian Ocean, from Indonesia to probably Madagascar. The difference is that they haven't settled in the discovered lands. They didn't find any need to.

The reason for this is rather simple, China was big enough and its power was unrivaled. At the opposite, Europe was divided in small kingdoms competing between each others to reach domination, hence settling in new territories was considered as a way to devellop power of a country over its rivals.

I don't know... I know Zheng He visited those areas, but wasn't China already aware that those areas existed? I thought, but could be mistaken, that he was establishing trade contacts in those areas, and I believe he was bringing gifts back to the Chinese court to increase prestige. But, I mean the ship that Zheng He used in his travels, which were over shorter distances than the Europeans' was a great deal larger than the ships of European colonialists. But yes, I agree that China saw no need to colonize, tribute was enough and the resources of the East were what the Westerners wanted anyway. They probably felt like they were Emperors of the world.

i heard somewhere that that guy also visited Australia. I don't know where that source comes from but it'd be pretty interesting if it was true.

Interesting enough the polynesians crossed the pacific ocean from Fiji to North America in canoes. That's more impressive then what the europeans did.

name one ethnic group unrepresented in the game. (other then a few African ones which do have a bigger pop.)

But Firaxis isn't putting out much more african civ now.

If you're looking for other ethnic groups, I named several in the other thread.

If you're looking for other ethnic groups larger than the Polish population, you are probably right in that there are few ethnic groups unrepresented with a larger population. But the population argument is about as silly as the size argument. Poles outnumber Dutch, and Poland is larger than the Netherlands, same with the Portuguese and Portugal. but by no means should Poland have taken precedence over the Netherlands nor Portugal. A large population and size do not make an interesting civilization.

So are you saying Poland is not an interesting civilization?

and the huge ethnic group is good for market btw. As 7 % of the American Population have direct links to Poland, a bigger percantige have claims to being polish and an even bigger percantige have polish blood in them. So out of the 300 M in America 7 % is huge. it's like 15 M. (i'm geussing)

Yes and how many Latino-Americans are there?
By your logic we should put Brazil, Mexico ect in for their fanbase

Going for an extremely biased point of view: Most latino-Americans can't afford Civ 4!

That is obviously not true. just wanted to say that for some fun :D I would never say that in real life.

And they are somewhat represented by Spain and Portugal.

So are you saying Poland is not an interesting civilization?

and the huge ethnic group is good for market btw. As 7 % of the American Population have direct links to Poland, a bigger percantige have claims to being polish and an even bigger percantige have polish blood in them. So out of the 300 M in America 7 % is huge. it's like 15 M. (i'm geussing)

I am of Portuguese descent, but I still purchased Civilization IV and Warlords. I don't think the inclusion of Poland is going to make or break a whole lot of peoples' decisions to buy the game. Nor did the absence of America in the initial release of Rise of Nations put me off of buying that game.

By no means should Poland have taken precedence over the Netherlands nor Portugal. A large population and size do not make an interesting civilization.

I don't think anyobody argued that Poland should have taken precedence over the Netherlands. A lot of people believe that Poland should enter the game together with the Netherlands and Portugal, though - instead of the HRE or the Native American Civilization with their Mighty Totems.

Mighty Totems

how do they have anything to do with archers anyway?

If Brazil is represented by *EDIT*PORTUGAL NOT SPAIN :)*EDIT* because it was a colony, then get rid of America, damn colonies!
The they are represented by another Country as it is a colony logic does not work if the logic is defied.
is the largest and most populous country in Latin America, and the fifth largest in the world in both area and population. Brazil is a political and economical leader in Latin America.
So it beats Poland in population and land area.
Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP)
Russia is 10th.. Poland is 24th..
Military-wise it has its own aircraft carrier.. i dont know about Poland's navy though so i cant comment :P

List of countries and federations by military expenditures
17 Brazil $9,940,000,000 2005
21 Poland $7,262,500,000 2007

Close :P

I never argued that poland should be in over Brazil. I to believe that Venezuela should be in aswell. Simon Bolivar is to big to pass of.

If Brazil is represented by Spain because it was a colony, then get rid of America, damn colonies!
The they are represented by another Country as it is a colony logic does not work if the logic is defied.
is the largest and most populous country in Latin America, and the fifth largest in the world in both area and population. Brazil is a political and economical leader in Latin America.
So it beats Poland in population and land area.
Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP)
Russia is 10th.. Poland is 24th..
Military-wise it has its own aircraft carrier.. i dont know about Poland's navy though so i cant comment :P

List of countries and federations by military expenditures
17 Brazil $9,940,000,000 2005
21 Poland $7,262,500,000 2007

Close :P

Brazil is also a former Portuguese colony, to note.

i heard somewhere that that guy also visited Australia. I don't know where that source comes from but it'd be pretty interesting if it was true.

Interesting enough the polynesians crossed the pacific ocean from Fiji to North America in canoes. That's more impressive then what the europeans did.

There is actually a book by Gavin Menzies called "1421 The Year China Discovered the World" Which maked a compelling case for China discovering much more then Australia. Of course since there were people living there perhaps visited is a better word hehe. The author does provide some proof that Chinese maps were used by Colombus, and that the Chinese did establish some colonies in North America even. Alot of it is circumstantial but its still an interesting read.

sheesh your suspose to point out the mass class difference in Brazil, and that it was under Portugal untill like the 1800s, then i would point out India was under British rule till late 1940s, and Ghandi is a leader!
Then i would talk about Brazils growth GDP rate and how in 2050 it will be an emerging superpower or some crap! Way to ruin my plan..


Brazil is also a former Portuguese colony, to note.
sorry, sometimes im thinking about Argentina, and im sleepy its nearly 2am been awake for 20 hours im grouchy
ill fix it on the other post incase i mislead people :P

Grimz i didn't argue because i know this stuff. I do believe as well that a latin american civ should be added (not mexico, screws up the Aztec/maya thing in world map even more). I'd prefer Venezuela before Brazil though.

Fine lets just find another Civilization for Africia, East Asia/Oceanic!
I just cant wait to see if anyone tries to put all 35 civilizations on the world map.. Europe will be screwed haha, only England will have a chance :).
Reminds me lets put Scotland in :crazyeye:

Rome has a chance as well. The situation over at Greeks-Ottomans-Byzantines is screwed with the occasional invading Arabs, Egyptians and romans.

Swahili and Congo are good choices. Congo is good for world map filling in the empty space in Africa's center.

Polynesia is good for Australia and Oceania.

Where is HRE's capital on the world map? if it stole Rome's iron that would be funny :lol:

Shouldn't the Holy roman empire and the roman empire have a capital next to each other?

Since the roman empire is roman so there capital is rome. But the Holy romans are holier then the romans. So obviously there capital is the Vatican.

hmmm.. now all i can think about is sweden :(

I to believe that Venezuela should be in aswell. Simon Bolivar is to big to pass of.
Wouldn't it be better to have Gran Colombia (which also includes Colombia and Ecuador)? Among other things, that would better represent Bolivars pan-American ideal.

Yes but i personally like to see venezuela alone.

Really? Any particular reason?

Other then the fact that i'm part venezuelan,

I think that Simon Bolivar suits Venezuela the best over all the other gran Colombian nations.

Venezuela was also the strongest country out of the Gran Colombian Nations.
(at the time) And with the situation with chavez, it'd be funny to see what the americans think of Venezuela's inclusion :D

POLAND IS ONE OF THE WORLD"S MAIN ETHNIC GROUPS UNREPRESENTED.

All of the different Chinese ethnicities are covered by the blanket civ "China" as well as places like Vietnam.

All of the different Indian ethnicities are covered by the blanket civ "India" which, when you consider the population of South Asia, includes a very large portion of the world.

In fact, let's get one thing straight here. India + China + Indonesia + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Philippines + Vietnam + Thailand + Myanmar + Malaysia + Taiwan = 3.34 billion people. All of those different ethnicities (and there are more than just 11, China has dozens alone) are represented by three civs, China, India and most recently, Khmer. Over half the world is packed into those 3 civs and you think that Poland is an unrepresented ethnic group? Considering the way FireAxis has treated non-Western countires I think Poland is adequately represented by Germany and Russia.

I think Poland is adequately represented by Germany and Russia.


I don't get why so many people, including Poles, say that Poland is represented by Russia in Civ. I'll tell you a little secret...Russia is represented by Russia and maybe some parts of Belorussia and Ukraine where there is a significant Russian population.
Now, there is no significant Russian population in Poland neither is there a significant Polish population in Russia, as far as I am aware. So can we just get it straight that Poland is not represented by Russia in Civ.
As for all of your examples of the Chinese and Indians: all of those ethnicities actually live in a country named China and India respectively, which makes your comparison inappropriate.

I agree that Eastern Europe is not represented... But what about South America have only one team representing it?!?!? This is completely wrong for me, this is not a question of world influence and Blah Blah Blah... In a expansion that treats about modern age, modern countries like the formers spanish/portuguese colonies in South America should be in the game! This also applies to leaders! I don't want to see a leader from ancient times in a Modern Day expansion! That is why I liked the addition of De Gaulle in the game and complained the lack of Meiji as a japanese modern leader.

Brazil, La Plata, Gran Colombia, New Spain, I support all these as Latin candidates to be in Civ.

I don't get why so many people, including Poles, say that Poland is represented by Russia in Civ. I'll tell you a little secret...Russia is represented by Russia and maybe some parts of Belorussia and Ukraine where there is a significant Russian population.
Now, there is no significant Russian population in Poland neither is there a significant Polish population in Russia, as far as I am aware. So can we just get it straight that Poland is not represented by Russia in Civ.
As for all of your examples of the Chinese and Indians: all of those ethnicities actually live in a country named China and India respectively, which makes your comparison inappropriate.

And the Polish lived in countries named Germany and Russia. We're talking about these countries at the height of their power; they easily extended into present day Poland and included all people of Polish descent in Europe. I think it's a terrific example, especially considering the fact that Polish people represent a tiny tiny fraction of the percentage of the population of unrepresentated or misrepresented ethnicities in Civ. Besides, the last thing Civ needs is ANOTHER European country. Why not just split China into different dynasties since they did that with Europe-Asia Minor. Turkey and Egypt are parts of the Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires. Germany is part of the Holy Roman Empire. Europe is already WAY overrepresented with various parts of the map (especially in Asia-Minor and Mediterranean Europe-North Africa) being parts of at least half a dozen civs. Why on Earth should anyone feel the need to fill in the VERY LAST TINY BUBBLE in Europe that is the western Slavic states?

There really is no reason. Poland doesn't deserve to be in the game.

I would like to point out that I am of purely European descent. I am Scottish, Irish, English, Italian, Swedish, and Austrian. I just try to keep a more worldly view of things. All history belongs to everyone.

In any case, it would be cool to get some reps for South America as it was. Bolivar has always intrigued me, so I'll probably mod 'em in!:)

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe) is what Wikipedia says about eastern europe

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/1899/eejp1.png

So it's under-represented Eastern Europe (pink).

Brazil is also a former Portuguese colony, to note.

Brazil has also almost no history in comparison to Poland, to note. Brazil is nothing but a former European colony. But at least those guys are referred to as Brazilians, in contrast to the Germans in the HRE.

So I would say even that would be a better choice than the HRE. Well, almost everything would.

Brazil has also almost no history in comparison to Poland, to note. Brazil is nothing but a former European colony. But at least those guys are referred to as Brazilians, in contrast to the Germans in the HRE.

So I would say even that would be a better choice than the HRE. Well, almost everything would.

Like 'Merica, Seems if your in the top 10 in todays world you should be on the list, since thats the only real reason why America is here :crazyeye:

I think Poland is adequately represented by Germany and Russia.

You've obviously made your most ignorant post in this forums history.

Poland is Slavic. GERMANY CAN'T REPRESENT US IN ANY WAY! Mainly because they are germanic. We have a completely ddifferent Culture, And the only thing similar between us is, We're Human, We're White and we live on the same planet.

Russia can't ever represent any slavic country other then itself, Ukraine and Belurose and the last to are a stretch to say to. Russia has been Poland's greatest enemy for such a long period of time it's almost impossible to think someone has such an ignorant view of poland.

You my friend are one of the Ignorant people who only learn the american president's in history class as Ishon says.

Why on Earth should anyone feel the need to fill in the VERY LAST TINY BUBBLE in Europe that is the western Slavic states?

Your being ignorant again. West and South Slavs repectivly.

What's more, that "bubble" is not tiny, that space was filled by a major European power which is not represented in Civ. Germany is double-represented.

Holy Roman Empire was in Eastern Europe and Charlemagne was it's leader. Are you from America?

Well, that's it, folks. I've been here at these forums for quite some time (lurking...only recently made an account here) and there is one thing that I've noticed more than anything: Most of the people outside of America are nothing but cantankerous, vindictive, blathering, soapbox standing, jerks.


I can't take this site anymore with people like this CONSTANTLY using a . .. .. .. .ing CIV4 forum for their anti-American . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

I'm out.

Well, that's it, folks. I've been here at these forums for quite some time (lurking...only recently made an account here) and there is one thing that I've noticed more than anything: Most of the people outside of America are nothing but cantankerous, vindictive, blathering, soapbox standing, jerks.

Very few people here are anti-American, take a look in the OT. :)

I'm not anti-American at all, and I'm not from America. :cheers: And I like to believe that I'm not a jerk either. :p

Well maybe because your fellow americans don't know a thing about history outside america and western europe. Heck they actually think charlemagne ruled the HRE.

This is why I said "some". Please read my post a little closer next time.

Well maybe because your fellow americans don't know a thing about history outside america and western europe. Heck they actually think charlemagne ruled the HRE.


Thank you for proving my point. Thank you SO much.

You've obviously made your most ignorant post in this forums history.

Poland is Slavic. GERMANY CAN'T REPRESENT US IN ANY WAY! Mainly because they are germanic. We have a completely ddifferent Culture, And the only thing similar between us is, We're Human, We're White and we live on the same planet.

He already explained his logic. While I don't agree with it, it hardly warrants such insults. If someone made an off hand comment about England or France representing Canada because at the height of their colonial expansion they controlled that territory, I think that at best there would be civil disagreement (if disagreement at all). Likewise Poland was split between two Germanic states and a Russia at the height of their respective powers. Russia arguably represents the tatar and mongol populations that fall within it's borders even if they have no Russian identity and don't consider themselves apart of the Russian nation.


You my friend are one of the Ignorant people who only learn the american president's in history class as Ishon says.

Your repeated animosity towards Americans is disturbing.

Well, that's it, folks. I've been here at these forums for quite some time (lurking...only recently made an account here) and there is one thing that I've noticed more than anything: Most of the people outside of America are nothing but cantankerous, vindictive, blathering, soapbox standing, jerks.


I can't take this site anymore with people like this CONSTANTLY using a . .. .. .. .ing CIV4 forum for their anti-American . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

I'm out.

Well, if you are to comment in that way, you might consider why some of us find Americans ignorant in some perspectives. You can look at your own post, declaring the Non-Americans stupid. It is just as unintelligent as the people calling all of the Americans historically incapable.

However, my own opinion says that many Americans are somehow ignorant to the fact that some modern nations have previously been superpowers, and they attemp to take the modern view, as America is a very modern nation. That action is understandable anyways, as the American 'real' history begun in about 1700, and at that time some countries, as Poland, was suffering a major decline. So some Americans considers Poland to be not-so-powerful.

This is why I said "some". Please read my post a little closer next time.

You said most not some. :)

Well maybe because your fellow americans don't know a thing about history outside america and western europe. Heck they actually think charlemagne ruled the HRE.

By the way...Charlemagne's crowning by Pope Leo III KICKSTARTED the HRE. So, in short: You're the ignorant one.

Note how I didn't lump you and your 'people' all into one big pot and offended them. Maybe it's because I have a modicum of class.

You said most not some. :)

Irony, huh? My point remains the same. Nothing has changed.

Note how I didn't lump you and your 'people' all into one big pot and offended them. Maybe it's because I have class.

You might of not. But many Americans in particular did. (see topic history)

I don't think it's animosity against the US, this low opinion of the American education system as far as History and Geography are concerned is prevalent in Europe.

Opinions such as "the HRE controlled much of Eastern Europe" sound extremely primitive. Some American guy here confirmed that the historical knowledge among Americans is very poor.

Please distinguish between anti-Americanism (willingness to do harm Americans just because they're American, a strongly negative attitude towards Americans) and low opinion of some aspects of the American education system.

This opinion is really well grounded, I know a lot of people who studies in US high schools and colleges and I've heard amazing stories.

But I also have a lot of American friends and politically I'm pro-American, too (just like most of Poland is).

Please accept this criticism, because it's coming from your friends, not enemies.

I think we could compare the popularity of the idea of adding Charlemagne as a leader of the HRE (= a second Germany in Civ 4) among American and European players, the Americans would generally accept this more often than the Europeans would.

Injekt, Charlemagne did not rule the HRE. He was crowned as the "Holy Roman Emperor", but he did not lead that project that is in your head when you think "HRE". The HRE that we have in Civ is in fact the First Reich = Germany, and it was formed when Charlemagne was long in a tomb.

Charlemagne was in fact a Frankish king.

You can read a topic on something completely random and it never fails that at least 1-3 people from some other country will pop in and spout some anti-American rhetoric full of the same cliched buzzwords that we have to deal with daily. For the most part we just laugh it off as listening to some Frenchie or Englander go off on how 'bad' America is has lots of comedic value. They never see the irony. They go off on how American's supposedly know nothing of history outside of their own country but know not that they are showing the same generalizing like that.

I can't believe how xenophobic Europe is on the whole.

Injekt, Charlemagne did not rule the HRE. He was crowned as the "Holy Roman Emperor", but he did not lead that project that is in your head when you think "HRE". The HRE that we have in Civ is in fact the First Reich = Germany, and it was formed when Charlemagne was long in a tomb.

Charlemagne was in fact a Frankish king.


WOW! What part of "Charlemagne's crowning KICKSTARTED the HRE" are you having issues understanding?

You can read a topic on something completely random and it never fails that at least 1-3 people from some other country will pop in and spout some anti-American rhetoric full of the same cliched buzzwords that we have to deal with daily. For the most part we just laugh it off as listening to some Frenchie or Englander go off on how 'bad' America is has lots of comedic value. They never see the irony. They go off on how American's supposedly know nothing of history outside of their own country but know not that they are showing the same generalizing like that.

I can't believe how xenophobic Europe is on the whole.

injeKT, you are generalizing yourself.

He was NOT a leader of the HRE and he had no idea such a thing as the HRE we have in the game would ever exist.

What is referred to "the Holy Roman Emperor" in English is mostly referred to as "the German Emperor" in Polish. What is "the HRE" in English is often referred to as "the First Reich" in German. Why? Because in fact it was Germany.

The fact that Charlemagne coined the HRE term (what you call "kickstarting") does not mean that he led the HRE. He was a Frankish king.

Charlemagne's death "kickstarted" France and Germany, what about this?

Ugh. You're dense.

I have some Pole jokes. Wanna hear some?

injeKT, you are generalizing yourself.

No, I was talking about a specific kind of poster on the forums. Not lumping entire nations of people into a pot and offending them.

It seems you are not even able to respond to what I told you.

Charlemagne was never a leader of the HRE we have in Civ 4. If the HRE made any sense in this game (which I believe it does not, because we already have Germany), it should be led e.g. by Otto I.