Has it ever appeared to anyone, that Charlemagne was not the leader of HRE? [Archive]

Crezth

Aug 27, 2007, 02:26 PM

Devil Inside

Aug 27, 2007, 02:40 PM

cao cao would be a bad-ass leader, though i'm more of a wu man myself

Zhang He would make a much more comical leader, though.

PotatoOverdose

Aug 27, 2007, 03:31 PM

Potato, you are simply begging for trouble.

But Poland should be in the game, definitely moreso than the HRE (which for all intensive purposes is the Carolingian Empire). How do I figure?

Poland has a very long and rich cultural history, being for a long period of time the largest European nation. Poland was also a great scientific power: their achievements in the field were magnanimous.

I suppose, however, we first should ask what in god's name constitutes a bona-fide Civ. In all honesty, I could argue: what did England do? Besides the imperialism schtick, which ultimately failed, they're just a people on a dirty-little island fighting a bunch of other people in a dirty-little world.

I could even argue with much more resolve: what did America or Germany do? Germany is obviously included on account of WWI and WWII - it didn't even exist as a nation until the 19th century. And the American Empire is a joke, clearly, because our impact on history is hugely negligible in the grand scheme of things.

If we were to include Germany or England for things they did besides their failed pursuits, then we would have just as much ground to include Poland. It is because of this, that we arrive upon the conclusion that the argument is hopeless until a clear definition of what a "Civilization" is found.

If we use the dictionary - "1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place" (Merriam-Webster) - then Poland certainly fits the criteria, and on the world stage, has just as much prestige as Khmer or Ethiopia or Korea for their respective continents.

Oh, and Portugal. What in god's name did they do? Colonization? Failed. Spain, too, failed to colonize the Americas. We're including civs for things they couldn't even do (HRE couldn't even exist), and Poland, which actually did do things, is still left out.

Firaxis at times I think is honestly apathetic, because they really can't have held a deaf ear to this issue for so long.

EDIT: When I say colonization failed, I meant in the long run of all history.

First off, one could argue that just about any group or society has a "rich cultural history". Heck, certain individuals claim that Rap is one of the cornerstones of african american culture. I do not support this view, but it demonstrates a very real point. Every Group of people in existence have had some form of culture. This is the norm and does not make a group of people outstanding.

When you say "poland was a great scientific power", I have to ask: when and how? you give a very vague statement to support your argument. They might have been on par witht heir contemporaries but certainly not supperior. Certainly not in the rennaisance, that was domenated by eastern europe. In the medieval ages poland had no major accomplishments to speak of as compared to its contemperaries.

Not to mention that your argument against the colonial and imperial ventures of many nations is simply uninformed at best. Everything and everyone fails eventually, for we are only mortal as are the things we construct. What matters isnt our mortality, it's what an individual or group accomplishes and how it affects the world. True, england failed to maintain millitary control over its colonies... eventualy. But during its centuries of colonial power (poland never came close to anything of what england possesed at that time in any field at any time in its history). At the height of its power the sun never set on the english empire. A cliche to be sure, but consider this: what language are we typing in now? Polish? No! English is, at this time in history, the most widespread language in the world. International Diplomacy happens predominantly through english, as does int'l business as well as science. I mean honestly, the fact that you would compare the accomplishments of england to those of poland is hystarical. The english were the first to industrialize, their colonies were the seeds of some of the most influential nations and individuals the world had ever seen. In the long run, former english colonies, as a whole, have a much higher rate of success at establishing a relatively stable democracy. Honestly I could continue to list one civillizations truly great accompliushments for a long time, but the fact that the english went out and colonized the world had more of an impact on the entire world in a few centuries than poland had accomplished in the whole of its existance.

The American empire has nowhere near as much history as some of the older nations of the world. I will agree, but it's overall impact on the world was and is huge. America was the single most powerful influence on the world economy in the 20th century. I dont mean this in the very basic sense that America had a very strong economy. No, America had a much larger impact on the world. For starters, through it's leadership in recontruction, Japan became the second strongest economic power in the world in the 20th century, and that is but a sample of what it accomplished. Not to mention America's impact on the economic and technological frontiers of the human race.

You would honestly say the portugal and spain contributed less to history than poland? :lol: :crazyeye: :lol: Take a look at south america. To say nothing of those nation's impact on the world and it's economy, particularly during the times of early colonialism.

Did poland ever have any accomplishments so influential or monumental as any of the ones I listed? No! Did poland have any cultural influence comparitive to that of england, spain, or portugal? No! Did poland ever become as powerful technologically or economically in comparison to its peers in any time of history as America, Spain, England, or any other societies? No! Did poland create any wonders of the revelry of the world? No! Did poland as a nation or people have technological accomplishments that rivaled any of their neighbors (to say nothing of the global stage)? No!

I may agree that Poland his comparable to Ethiopia, but when you refference the Khmer, I have to disagree. the Khmer came around long before the Polish people came together in any sence of a society. The Khmer built wonders long before the people of poland had any sense of unifying cultural identity.

While I admit poland may be called a "civillization" it is certainly among the least influential. Whats more, Firaxis cannot possibly include every society that could be named a "civillization" in one game. Thus they choose the most renowned, historically important nations.

Honestly, I am amazed at how anyone could claim polands supperiority over nations such as England, AMerica, Spain, or Portugal.

Evil Twin

Aug 27, 2007, 08:54 PM

Zhang He would make a much more comical leader, though.

The most badass of them all would be Sun Ce, China's answer to Alexander the Great.
Put them next to each other and watch the fireworks!

Spearthrower

Aug 28, 2007, 03:39 AM

Honestly, I am amazed at how anyone could claim polands supperiority over nations such as England, AMerica, Spain, or Portugal.

After you have read this site for a while, you will no longer be surprised at what great heights Poland's history can be ascribed with.... soon you'll be reading about how actually ONLY Poland has a right to be in the game... :lol:

Best thing is to take this nationalistic drivel with a pinch of salt, if there's one thing to be sure of, all it implies is a poor and very introverted education system.... some of the statements I've heard regarding other nations from Poles here could go into a book of quality quotes!! :D Bless 'em! ;)

The simple answer which defies so many people about why Firaxis choose X,Y or Z civ... is simply because they wanted to. It's only loosely based on history, their criteria were never solidified, they simply chose piecemeal.

Sometimes they chose because the nation was world reknowned for certain exploits.... i.e. British/Roman Imperialism..... other times to fill continental gaps i.e. Zulu / Khmer. Sometimes they chose based on marketing and selling their product i.e. America. Mostly they just chose whatever the hell they pleased and were interested in i.e. HRE.

Trying to find rhyme and reason is pointless, but still we will get another 900 threads a month decrying the HRE or demanding Poland.... more than anything else, it tells us a lot about the modern world and a lot about each others' societies, when we read the comments of some nationals here.

lutzj

Aug 28, 2007, 05:52 AM

Charlgemagnoglanee or whatever his name was was a great leader. He was about the Frankish equivalent of Genghis, Qin Shi Huang or Alexander: He took a small, obscure faction and took over the known world, but his empire fell soon after his death, If you take him and his empire out, you would have no reason to leave Qin, Alexander, or the Khans in.

Potato, you are simply begging for trouble.

But Poland should be in the game, definitely moreso than the HRE (which for all intensive purposes is the Carolingian Empire). How do I figure?

It's "all intents and purposes", not "all intensive purposes"

aronnax

Aug 28, 2007, 08:07 AM

Has it appeared to anyone...

that Saladin was the King of Egypt, not caliph
that Saladin was a kurd
that Frederick the Great was never the King of Germany
that Stalin never ruled the Russian Empire
that Ragnar had horns on his helmet
that the Native Americans were never an Empire
that HRE is actually german
that every shogun from Ieayasu was called Tokugawa
that Gandhi was not a leader
that Mansa Musa spent all the gold of the Mali Empire and ruin the country
that the Celts was never united
that America is not an empire, no matter how much it behaved like one

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 08:40 AM

Gah, looks like i have to clean up some peoples post.

Expect another very long Poland related post to come up sooner. I believe this might be the "do you prefer the HRE over Poland" topic replacement.

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 08:45 AM

Honestly I dont understand why people make such a big deal over poland and canadia.

I feel offended people regard Poland us the same as canada in civ worthness...

great/historical civillization status than ethiopia.

Ethiopia was great though. read babout ethiopian history some time. The ethiopia in the game has no relation with the incredibaly poor modern country.

and Canada have had no major historical leaders or accomplishments worthy of more than a footnote in any world history textbook.

Sobieski, Casimir, Pilsudski, Nicolas Copernicus, and i can go on for ever.

historically, poland was (and to a large extent is) europes doormat.

Oh.. Now i understand. Your a knowlegdeless American. I refuse to continue this discussion with you. Come back when you have some knowledge outside of America and Iraq.

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 08:47 AM

You haven't seen my full wrath Potato, You better watch out. I don't want to get mean, but seriously, watch your back.

lord_joakim

Aug 28, 2007, 10:32 AM

First off, one could argue that just about any group or society has a "rich cultural history". Heck, certain individuals claim that Rap is one of the cornerstones of african american culture. I do not support this view, but it demonstrates a very real point. Every Group of people in existence have had some form of culture. This is the norm and does not make a group of people outstanding.

When you say "poland was a great scientific power", I have to ask: when and how? you give a very vague statement to support your argument. They might have been on par witht heir contemporaries but certainly not supperior. Certainly not in the rennaisance, that was domenated by eastern europe. In the medieval ages poland had no major accomplishments to speak of as compared to its contemperaries.

Not to mention that your argument against the colonial and imperial ventures of many nations is simply uninformed at best. Everything and everyone fails eventually, for we are only mortal as are the things we construct. What matters isnt our mortality, it's what an individual or group accomplishes and how it affects the world. True, england failed to maintain millitary control over its colonies... eventualy. But during its centuries of colonial power (poland never came close to anything of what england possesed at that time in any field at any time in its history). At the height of its power the sun never set on the english empire. A cliche to be sure, but consider this: what language are we typing in now? Polish? No! English is, at this time in history, the most widespread language in the world. International Diplomacy happens predominantly through english, as does int'l business as well as science. I mean honestly, the fact that you would compare the accomplishments of england to those of poland is hystarical. The english were the first to industrialize, their colonies were the seeds of some of the most influential nations and individuals the world had ever seen. In the long run, former english colonies, as a whole, have a much higher rate of success at establishing a relatively stable democracy. Honestly I could continue to list one civillizations truly great accompliushments for a long time, but the fact that the english went out and colonized the world had more of an impact on the entire world in a few centuries than poland had accomplished in the whole of its existance.

The American empire has nowhere near as much history as some of the older nations of the world. I will agree, but it's overall impact on the world was and is huge. America was the single most powerful influence on the world economy in the 20th century. I dont mean this in the very basic sense that America had a very strong economy. No, America had a much larger impact on the world. For starters, through it's leadership in recontruction, Japan became the second strongest economic power in the world in the 20th century, and that is but a sample of what it accomplished. Not to mention America's impact on the economic and technological frontiers of the human race.

You would honestly say the portugal and spain contributed less to history than poland? :lol: :crazyeye: :lol: Take a look at south america. To say nothing of those nation's impact on the world and it's economy, particularly during the times of early colonialism.

Did poland ever have any accomplishments so influential or monumental as any of the ones I listed? No! Did poland have any cultural influence comparitive to that of england, spain, or portugal? No! Did poland ever become as powerful technologically or economically in comparison to its peers in any time of history as America, Spain, England, or any other societies? No! Did poland create any wonders of the revelry of the world? No! Did poland as a nation or people have technological accomplishments that rivaled any of their neighbors (to say nothing of the global stage)? No!

I may agree that Poland his comparable to Ethiopia, but when you refference the Khmer, I have to disagree. the Khmer came around long before the Polish people came together in any sence of a society. The Khmer built wonders long before the people of poland had any sense of unifying cultural identity.

While I admit poland may be called a "civillization" it is certainly among the least influential. Whats more, Firaxis cannot possibly include every society that could be named a "civillization" in one game. Thus they choose the most renowned, historically important nations.

Honestly, I am amazed at how anyone could claim polands supperiority over nations such as England, AMerica, Spain, or Portugal.

Noone should at all compare Poland to the English Commonwealth, not the Poles, not the supporters and not the opposition to the inclusion. Poland was not at all as powerful as England at her peak, but Poland was still incredibly influential. Not culturally, no, colonially, no, but militarily, yes.

Poland was a incredibly powerful nation in Medieval Europe. The powerhouse was actually much alike the one of the HRE. HRE did not expand, but was hindered because of too much power of the not-innovative nobles. The Holy Roman Emperor was simply not able to control his provinces. In Poland, the government was more centralised, and the nation was more stable BUT Poland was still just so unable to control her provinces that she was unable to expand with actual waged wars.

Still, as I said, Poland was a military powerhouse. Poland was able with good tactics and well-disciplined and advanced armies to defeat the Mongols and Ottomans. Many other wars was waged with good outputs from Poland. The nobles DID own good armies in Poland, but they just didn't want to use it for their king.

EDIT: Oh, and don't take examples from modern Poland (20th century) I didn't read it completely, so if you didn't sorry. Just spotted the year.

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 12:46 PM

Now that i see i have some support behind me i'l unleash my full wrath! :evil:

last post:

I feel offended people regard Poland us the same as canada in civ worthness...

Ethiopia was great though. read babout ethiopian history some time. The ethiopia in the game has no relation with the incredibaly poor modern country.

Sobieski, Casimir, Pilsudski, Nicolas Copernicus, and i can go on for ever.

Oh.. Now i understand. Your a knowlegdeless American. I refuse to continue this discussion with you. Come back when you have some knowledge outside of America and Iraq.

Now for the new post.

veryone wiped their feet on it whenever they had the oportunity and chose to do so.

And we saved Austria from Certein doom, Fought of the Swedes, Stopped a Cossack uprising, Gained Territory from Russia, Beat the Teutons, Fought in WW2 just as hard as france, Captured Moscow, fought many battles with the Ottomans and won, and basically held of the Mongol invasion of europe. (even though other things impacted that aswell)

Poland never offered any significant resistance too anyone

Oh oh Yes we have.

only 1 of many examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Bar

In fact, there are entire blocks of history where poland simply didnt exist

1. Poland has always existed in one way or another.
2. only 1 block i could recal on. The Partisans.

Besides nobody could take us on 1 on 1, The partisans had Austria, Russia and Prussia against Germany, and WW2 had the Soviets and Germans against us.

When you say "poland was a great scientific power", I have to ask: when and how?

For gods sake! One of our people discovered the Earth was ROUND!!!!

you give a very vague statement to support your argument.

WTF Arguement is that!!! Everyone knows who Nicolas Copernicus is.

In the medieval ages poland had no major accomplishments to speak of as compared to its contemperaries.

Where's your proof to that? My proof is wikipedia. They wouldn't put something in that's wrong, or else it would get deleted.

Not to mention that your argument against the colonial and imperial ventures of many nations is simply uninformed at best.

1. Poland did colonize. It's called Courland. :rotfl:
2. his arguement is that the colonioes eventually got independance.

Everything and everyone fails eventually

that makes no sense.

for we are only mortal as are the things we construct.

ehh?

(poland never came close to anything of what england possesed at that time in any field at any time in its history)

One could say the same thing for EVERY SINGAL CIV IN THE GOD DAMNED GAME!!!!!!!!!!

A cliche to be sure, but consider this: what language are we typing in now? Polish? No! English is

This is an English Forum. Duh. If it was a Polish forum we'd be speaking in Polish.

at this time in history, the most widespread language in the world.

Ehh? Spanish is the most widespread language in the world. French is probably more widespread then english.

I mean honestly, the fact that you would compare the accomplishments of england to those of poland is hystarical.

No one ever compared England to Poland in the first place.

Honestly I could continue to list one civillizations truly great accompliushments for a long time, but the fact that the english went out and colonized the world had more of an impact on the entire world in a few centuries than poland had accomplished in the whole of its existance.

no one compared Poland to England.

You would honestly say the portugal and spain contributed less to history than poland? Take a look at south america. To say nothing of those nation's impact on the world and it's economy, particularly during the times of early colonialism.

Your missing a few points.

1. Poland did colonize the world.
2. He never compared Spain and Portugal to Poland
3. He said nothing about Spain in the first place.

AND

4. Your offended me with those smileys you stuck in there.

Did poland ever have any accomplishments so influential or monumental as any of the ones I listed? No!

YES

Nicolas Copernicus is one scientist that changed the world. Without him, there might have not even been any colonization for another century or so.

Did poland have any cultural influence comparitive to that of england, spain, or portugal? [p/quote]

NO ONE FRIGGEN ARGUED AGAINST THAT.

[quote] Did poland ever become as powerful technologically or economically in comparison to its peers in any time of history as America, Spain, England, or any other societies?

Oh and that fact that Poland was the strongets, Wealthiest, Biggest, and most advanced state in europe in the dark ages mean nothign to you?

Did poland create any wonders of the revelry of the world? No!
Don't even get me started with the Spodek.

Did poland as a nation or people have technological accomplishments that rivaled any of their neighbors (to say nothing of the global stage)? No!

most of europe was leveled in technology in the Reniessance era. Including Poland.

I have to disagree. the Khmer came around long before the Polish people came together in any sence of a society.

the Khmer empire peaked around 1200 bc. The First Khmer state was around 803 ad.

Poland became a singal state long before 933 AD, when the first recorded Polish king was born. BEFORE that there was more polish kings. and before Poland became a unified state, there's evidence that there were Polish City states much like the Greek City States. So Polands history can be said to have began around 600-700 AD.

much longer then the Khmer.

The Khmer built wonders long before the people of poland had any sense of unifying cultural identity.

Read Above.

Honestly, I am amazed at how anyone could claim polands supperiority over nations such as England, AMerica, Spain, or Portugal.

No one stated that.

Phew i'm finnaly done.

lord_joakim

Aug 28, 2007, 01:03 PM

Finally we saw TheLastOne36's wrath. Nice to have your real self back ;)
:thumbsup:

Swein Forkbeard

Aug 28, 2007, 01:04 PM

Why doesn't England have The Duke of Wellington or Richard II?

Why doesn't China have T'ai Tsung or Wu Chao?

I like Charlemagne being added as a leader, but I hate the Holy Roman Empire added as a civilization. But Charlemagne brought Europe into the Middle Ages with the introduction of Feudalism, and THAT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST EVENTS IN HISTORY, ESPECIALLY THAT OF WESTERN COUNTRIES. And with the Civilization series western-oriented, he had to be in.:D :) :D

Arlborn

Aug 28, 2007, 01:05 PM

TheLastOne36: Do you play Tibia? :lol:

OK, that was an inside joke! :D

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 01:09 PM

Finally we saw TheLastOne36's wrath. Nice to have your real self back ;)
:thumbsup:

haven't really posted a big post like that. And that huge topic got closed. so i'm pretty sad. :sad:

TheLastOne36: Do you play Tibia?

OK, that was an inside joke!

Isn't the Tibia a bone near the knee or something like that?

Swein Forkbeard

Aug 28, 2007, 01:10 PM

The new leader I wanted most was... I'll give you three clues.

1. He would be a German leader.

2. His last name begins with the letter "H".

3. He repaired the German economy during the Great Depression, but did not rule during WWII.

This leader would be perfect for an expansion pack called "Beyond the Sword".

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 01:12 PM

Swein Forkbeard

Aug 28, 2007, 01:26 PM

hitler = bad

why?

hitler = civ 4 ban in germany = sales go down.

I SAID DID NOT RULE GERMANY DURING WWII!. I DEFINETELY DON'T WANT ADOLF HITLER IN THE GAME!

svkenney

Aug 28, 2007, 01:30 PM

Hindenberg?

Arlborn

Aug 28, 2007, 01:32 PM

Isn't the Tibia a bone near the knee or something like that?

Yes, but it is also an online RPG with around 300 hundred thousand people playing.
The thing is, there was a 'Polish invasion' in the game last years, and most people hate them.
Why? Because the game is in English, but half of them can't talk English at all, and 80% of them actually don't care. And they are the biggest cheaters(OK, Brazilians too, which have the same problem of not care, but are a smaller group) and they do stupidities like ask 'pl?' and if you say no, they kill you.

AH, but that is off-topic :P

Swein Forkbeard

Aug 28, 2007, 01:35 PM

Hindenberg?

YES! BUT WE JUST HAD TO HAVE BOUDICA INSTEAD!

svkenney

Aug 28, 2007, 01:51 PM

Personally, I would have rather seen someone like Adenauer or Kohl... Iron Maggie for Britain too (though the Liz and Winston are good too).

I do highly object to Stalin being included... there were plenty of other Soviet leaders that could have been included that were not responsible for the deaths of 50+ million of his own people........

PotatoOverdose

Aug 28, 2007, 02:14 PM

Now that i see i have some support behind me i'l unleash my full wrath! :evil:

last post:

Now for the new post.

And we saved Austria from Certein doom, Fought of the Swedes, Stopped a Cossack uprising, Gained Territory from Russia, Beat the Teutons, Fought in WW2 just as hard as france, Captured Moscow, fought many battles with the Ottomans and won, and basically held of the Mongol invasion of europe. (even though other things impacted that aswell)

Oh oh Yes we have.

only 1 of many examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Bar

1. Poland has always existed in one way or another.
2. only 1 block i could recal on. The Partisans.

Besides nobody could take us on 1 on 1, The partisans had Austria, Russia and Prussia against Germany, and WW2 had the Soviets and Germans against us.

For gods sake! One of our people discovered the Earth was ROUND!!!!

WTF Arguement is that!!! Everyone knows who Nicolas Copernicus is.

Where's your proof to that? My proof is wikipedia. They wouldn't put something in that's wrong, or else it would get deleted.

1. Poland did colonize. It's called Courland. :rotfl:
2. his arguement is that the colonioes eventually got independance.

that makes no sense.

ehh?

One could say the same thing for EVERY SINGAL CIV IN THE GOD DAMNED GAME!!!!!!!!!!

This is an English Forum. Duh. If it was a Polish forum we'd be speaking in Polish.

Ehh? Spanish is the most widespread language in the world. French is probably more widespread then english.

No one ever compared England to Poland in the first place.

no one compared Poland to England.

Your missing a few points.

1. Poland did colonize the world.
2. He never compared Spain and Portugal to Poland
3. He said nothing about Spain in the first place.

AND

4. Your offended me with those smileys you stuck in there.

YES

Nicolas Copernicus is one scientist that changed the world. Without him, there might have not even been any colonization for another century or so.

[quote] Did poland have any cultural influence comparitive to that of england, spain, or portugal? [p/quote]

NO ONE FRIGGEN ARGUED AGAINST THAT.

Oh and that fact that Poland was the strongets, Wealthiest, Biggest, and most advanced state in europe in the dark ages mean nothign to you?

Don't even get me started with the Spodek.

most of europe was leveled in technology in the Reniessance era. Including Poland.

the Khmer empire peaked around 1200 bc. The First Khmer state was around 803 ad.

Poland became a singal state long before 933 AD, when the first recorded Polish king was born. BEFORE that there was more polish kings. and before Poland became a unified state, there's evidence that there were Polish City states much like the Greek City States. So Polands history can be said to have began around 600-700 AD.

much longer then the Khmer.

Read Above.

No one stated that.

Phew i'm finnaly done.

"Captured Moscow": erm...when was this exactly? The only time Moscow was held by a foreign power in all of it's history was when it was surrendered to Napoleon in a tactical maneuver by General Kutusov that ultimately cost Napoleon the war. I would really like to know where you got your history from.

"Gained Territory from Russia": Throughout most of history it was definitely the other way around.

"For gods sake! One of our people discovered the Earth was ROUND!!!!" And the Greeks, Arabs, etc. did this how many hundreds of years before?

"Ehh? Spanish is the most widespread language in the world. French is probably more widespread then English." You sir, have your facts completely wrong. Just Google the phrase "english is the most widespread language in the world.

And yes someone did compare poland to England...see Crezth

"fought many battles with the Ottomans and won, and basically held of the Mongol invasion of europe."

I mean wow.... just wow

You mean Russia did all of those things? I mean I could believe that the poles had some skirmishes with the Ottomans but Russia took over 90% of the wrath of the Mongols and it was a Russian leader Knyaz Alexande Nyevski that actually managed to push the Mongols back to the far east...

I'm sorry sir, but you loose credibility with every counterpoint you made...

As to your reference to the Bar Confederation...I suppose resisting subjugation for roughly 2 years can be considered a military victory...when you consider the number of days poland lasted against Germany in ww2.

"Poland did colonize. It's called Courland." That you would even compare this to the colonization efforts of any of the colonial powers I mentioned is an insult to your credibility and to the intelligence of those that post on these forums.

Don't even get me started with the Spodek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodek
That is what you call a wonder?

...

...

...

....

.....

I don't know what to say... I mean its obviously comparable to the Kremlin, the Pyramids. I mean especially when you consider that Rome built a number of coliseums without anything near the technology possessed in the 1970's.

I mean thats just......... ........ I can find no words to compare the actual wonders of the world referenced in civ 4 to spodek..... I concede that you prove a point very well indeed sir.

After you have read this site for a while, you will no longer be surprised at what great heights Poland's history can be ascribed with.... soon you'll be reading about how actually ONLY Poland has a right to be in the game... :lol:

Best thing is to take this nationalistic drivel with a pinch of salt, if there's one thing to be sure of, all it implies is a poor and very introverted education system.... some of the statements I've heard regarding other nations from Poles here could go into a book of quality quotes!! :D Bless 'em! ;)

The simple answer which defies so many people about why Firaxis choose X,Y or Z civ... is simply because they wanted to. It's only loosely based on history, their criteria were never solidified, they simply chose piecemeal.

Sometimes they chose because the nation was world reknowned for certain exploits.... i.e. British/Roman Imperialism..... other times to fill continental gaps i.e. Zulu / Khmer. Sometimes they chose based on marketing and selling their product i.e. America. Mostly they just chose whatever the hell they pleased and were interested in i.e. HRE.

Trying to find rhyme and reason is pointless, but still we will get another 900 threads a month decrying the HRE or demanding Poland.... more than anything else, it tells us a lot about the modern world and a lot about each others' societies, when we read the comments of some nationals here.

I have to agree with this completely.

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 02:33 PM

"Captured Moscow": erm...when was this exactly? The only time Moscow was held by a foreign power in all of it's history was when it was surrendered to Napoleon in a tactical maneuver by General Kutusov that ultimately cost Napoleon the war. I would really like to know where you got your history from.

between the great wars, Polish-Soviet war. sometimes known as the Bolshevik war.

Seriously it's probably Russia's most important war, it decided the fate europe. (not the Polish part, but the Russian part)

"Gained Territory from Russia": Throughout most of history it was definitely the other way around.

Are you american?

"For gods sake! One of our people discovered the Earth was ROUND!!!!" And the Greeks, Arabs, etc. did this how many hundreds of years before?

ehh?

You sir, have your facts completely wrong. Just Google the phrase "english is the most widespread language in the world.

Really? just the 30 m canadians, 300 m americans and 50 m english = a total of 370 m, compared the Latin America, which i think may have more. You might be right on this however.

You mean Russia did all of those things?

Your a moron. Russia didn't became powerful in medieval europe BECAUSE of them!!!!

Russia took over 90% of the wrath of the Mongols

AND Russia failed.

and it was a Russian leader Knyaz Alexande Nyevski that actually managed to push the Mongols back to the far east...

Those were Tatars not Mongols. Your confusing yourself.

As to your reference to the Bar Confederation...I suppose resisting subjugation for roughly 2 years can be considered a military victory...when you consider the number of days poland lasted against Germany in ww2.

We lasted longer then the French. Your point?

That you would even compare this to the colonization efforts of any of the colonial powers I mentioned is an insult to your credibility and to the intelligence of those that post on these forums.

1. I said this almost half-jokingly.
2. Courland was no more a failure then the Swedish colonization lol.
3. you said poland did not colonize, i corrected you. I did not say courland was great.

Don't even get me started with the Spodek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodek
That is what you call a wonder?

It's in my home town, so yes i do consider it a wonder! :D

I have to agree with this completely.

if you do then your contradicting yourself. You say the exact opposite.

Leave CFC intill you have a brain about Polish History.

You must be American right? No one else would talk about Poland like that.

Severus

Aug 28, 2007, 02:39 PM

[QUOTE]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodek
That is what you call a wonder?

:lol: That is too funny. It holds 11,500 people :lol:

Can we have a Scottish civilization in the game too along with Poland please? Ok so we don't have nearly as many famous people as Poland does with Copernicus, Chopin, Marie-Curie and Joseph Conrad ;) (cough.. Bell, Fleming, Marconi, Burns, Scott, Adam Smith..)
But damn, we've got at least 15 world wonders with 4 of them in Edinburgh alone!

I mean please. Everyone pushing for countries like Scotland, Poland and Canada to be in the game needs to be a little bit less parochial for a minute and actually think about it. Sure each country had a handful of individuals who made a contribution to world development but that doesnt entitle them to a place in the game alongside proper civs like Egypt, China etc.

...

Well ok, it entitles Scotland. They did after all invent the modern world. Poland and Canada? Don't make me laugh.

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 02:48 PM

I mean please. Everyone pushing for countries like Scotland, Poland and Canada to be in the game needs to be a little bit less parochial for a minute and actually think about it. Sure each country had a handful of individuals who made a contribution to world development but that doesnt entitle them to a place in the game alongside proper civs like Egypt, China etc.

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/europe_map_1550.gif

HUH!!!What's that Big Red Country there!

Severus

Aug 28, 2007, 02:51 PM

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/europe_map_1550.gif

HUH!!!What's that Big Red Country there!

Oooooooo! Your country's big and red!
Let's petition firaxis now to put it in alongside Australia and the Antarctic, those places are pretty big too.;)
And let's put Libya in too. Their country is double the size of Poland.

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 02:53 PM

Oooooooo! Your country's big and red!
Let's petition firaxis now to put it in alongside Australia and the Antarctic, those places are pretty big too.;)

HUH!!!!! That's Impossible! How can a small little F***ing country like Poland beat ottomans and save Austria's ass?

Maybe someone was making a joke on Wikipedia.

----
I think that's the typical american view of Poland....

Arlborn

Aug 28, 2007, 03:02 PM

Really? just the 30 m canadians, 300 m americans and 50 m english = a total of 370 m, compared the Latin America, which i think may have more. You might be right on this however.

South America

370,225,923

...
But...Are we forgetting Brazil has 190,000,000 of people? :p
And we(Brazilians) do NOT talk Spanish..

Severus

Aug 28, 2007, 03:03 PM

HUH!!!!! That's Impossible! How can a small little F***ing country like Poland beat ottomans and save Austria's ass?

Maybe someone was making a joke on Wikipedia.

----
I think that's the typical american view of Poland....

Who said anything about Poland being little?
The point i was making (maybe a little too sacrastically for you, for that i apologise) is that just because the country covers quite a large area (in the second smallest continent on earth) has no bearing on whether it should be included in the game - hence the references to Australia, Libya and Antarctica.
And what's all this rubbish about a typical american view of poland? I've never been to America and have no American ancestry. Is this another symptom of your parochialism coming out that you feel the need to brand anyone disagreeing with your views as being part of the evil empire of America?

Arlborn

Aug 28, 2007, 04:04 PM

Poland lovers, enjoy:

"Poland's Ignacy Łukasiewicz discovered a means of refining kerosene from the more readily available "rock oil" ("petr-oleum") in 1852 and the first rock oil mine was built in Bóbrka, near Krosno in southern Poland in the following year. These discoveries rapidly spread around the world, and Meerzoeff built the first Russian refinery in the mature oil fields at Baku in 1861. At that time Baku produced about 90% of the world's oil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Now, that is more modern an? xD
OK, completely off-topic, sorry! Couldn't resist using this random fact found in a random place in a random search by a bored guy(no, I was not searching anything about Poland)! :crazyeye:

Crezth

Aug 28, 2007, 04:21 PM

I would call "uninformed", PotatoOverdose, your view of Poland.

But time and time again these arguments prove fruitless in all their endeavors. Poland's not in Civ because of elitists like yourself.

But I'm pulling out, and I'd advise you to read what you deface better: I never once compared Poland to any of England, Portugal, Spain, or America.

And America in Civ is a joke. Our influence is minimal: Oh, yes, world bloc, military bases everywhere: tell you what, American hegemony is going to collapse in twenty years. Then we, the Americans, will become "footnotes to history."

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 04:44 PM

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 04:53 PM

And what's all this rubbish about a typical american view of poland? I've never been to America and have no American ancestry. Is this another symptom of your parochialism coming out that you feel the need to brand anyone disagreeing with your views as being part of the evil empire of America?

The american thing wasn't directed to you.

And read our history at some time. you'll find it interesting.

Spearthrower

Aug 28, 2007, 06:22 PM

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 06:25 PM

I told you PotatoOverdose - there's no arguing with ignorance.

Ultimately, the argument always comes back to "Poland's BIG though... it should be in" which you have to understand is actually a victory on your part, because it is about the only actual fact you will get here rather than highly polished and reinterpreted accounts of history that no non-Polish historian would ever accept.

I have nothing whatsoever against Polish people or Poland, and I have read about their history in depth... but the Poles on this site are rabid nationalists who demand that others recognise their "superiority" in all things.

Just ignore them because the rest of the world knows the truth.

hmm you seem pretty anti-polish to me!

You have the "argueing ignorance" look, and the Rabid Nationalist talk... Yap. Anti-Polish. Yet another one. :lol:

TheLastOne36

Aug 28, 2007, 06:26 PM

Severus

Aug 28, 2007, 06:29 PM

And read our history at some time. you'll find it interesting.

I don't doubt for a minute it's interesting. I know quite a bit of it from going out with a Polish girl for six months last year. I just don't think Poland has had a big enough inluence on the world at any point in time to warrant inclusion in the game, the same with us Scots who, it could be argued, had a far more important impact on the world through our ideas and technological and scientific breakthroughs than Poland ever did.
As someone mentioned earlier, it comes down to how you define a civilization. As much as i'd love Scotland to be included for the reasons mentioned above i feel it would detract from the game being what it is intended to be, namely a game about civilizations, and would turn it into a country building game rather than an empire building game.
Scotland isn't a distinct civilization from England, Ireland and Wales even though we have different educational and legal and political systems and have been home to two distinct languages: Old Scots and Scots Gaelic.
By the same token Poland hasn't been distinctive enough to be thought of as a civilization. For the thousand years since it's first inception as a unified entity three hundred and fifty of those years have been spent under various systems of partitioning or as a series of fragmented states. At no time has Poland dominated the affairs of Europe and beyond or influenced social, philosophical or religious thought to such a degree that it can be said to worthy of inclusion in a game about civilizations.

Thorbal

Aug 28, 2007, 06:34 PM

And now for something completely different: "Do you prefer...." - Reloaded :run: !

Spearthrower

Aug 28, 2007, 06:40 PM

hmm you seem pretty anti-polish to me!

You have the "argueing ignorance" look, and the Rabid Nationalist talk... Yap. Anti-Polish. Yet another one. :lol:

:lol: :lol:

No, I am just anti-ignorance. I'm not against any nation whatsoever, lines drawn on a map hold very little interest to me other than historically.

Polish people are fine, it's just a couple of idiots here who seem to be paid to spread propaganda and misinformation in the guise of history.

The truth is, i could give better arguements, but i'm bored to death with repeating them. if you really want to fight this, go and look at my posts from a month or to ago.

Number 1) I don't want to fight, but you cant expect people to swallow your nationalist interpretation of facts and accept them as truth when they are lies. 2) Repeating your lies does not make them right, it just means that you have no more proof than you did before.... pure fantasy.

I know your return though - post a load of rubbish with some poorly hidden insults, use *** to cover vulgarities thereby evading the auto-censor and quantity is most definitely focused on over quality. At least you make sense, rather than LuKo who seems to be telling children a fairy story half the time.

PotatoOverdose

Aug 28, 2007, 07:03 PM

Your a moron. Russia didn't became powerful in medieval europe BECAUSE of them!!!! Wrong. See wikipedia links bellow for testimony to the contrary.

AND Russia failed.
wrong again. see Muscovy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) under the history section of the wikipedia article on Russia.

Those were Tatars not Mongols. Your confusing yourself.
see Khanate of The Golden Horde
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horde) They where in fact of Mongolian and Turkish origins. Learn your facts before you criticize others.
We lasted longer then the French. Your point?
Wrong yet again. Poland lasted 27 days. See wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland#World_War_II).

France lasted 45 days. See wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France) again.
(I'm counting from date of hostile force trespassing borders to date of capitulation by government)

1. I said this almost half-jokingly.
2. Courland was no more a failure then the Swedish colonization lol.
3. you said poland did not colonize, i corrected you. I did not say courland was great.
If thats what polish people call colonization....well you have your answer right there...thats why Poland isnt featured in Civ 4 and never will be.

It's in my home town, so yes i do consider it a wonder! :D
The United states has an average of 2-3 such wonders per state. Many other modernized nations can boast the same per city/province

Leave CFC intill you have a brain about Polish History.
If I leave CFC, who will correct all of your historical fallacies?
You must be American right? No one else would talk about Poland like that.

And wrong yet again.....I've even lost count of the number of times you were wrong...

So in short your replies consist of more fallacies then truth.... Mind you wikipedia is not the best source on the internet, but even it show that your statements are predominantly false.

I would call "uninformed", PotatoOverdose, your view of Poland.

But time and time again these arguments prove fruitless in all their endeavors. Poland's not in Civ because of elitists like yourself.

But I'm pulling out, and I'd advise you to read what you deface better: I never once compared Poland to any of England, Portugal, Spain, or America.

And America in Civ is a joke. Our influence is minimal: Oh, yes, world bloc, military bases everywhere: tell you what, American hegemony is going to collapse in twenty years. Then we, the Americans, will become "footnotes to history."
Well at least you don't post blatant fallacies like a certain other individual. As to your statement regarding the "American Hegemony"... well you might be right, only time will tell. However, one of the advantages for making the U.N. or the Apostolic Palace is that you will always be eligible for votes. And since Civ was made predominantly by Americans, and made and published in America as well...It only makes sense that America will always be eligible for a position as a Civilization:goodjob: .

Scaramanga

Aug 28, 2007, 07:26 PM

I have a question:

Did they call it the Carolingian Empire when Charlemagne was ruler?

If not why do some people gladly say that Charlemagne ruled the Carolingian Empire but are abhorred by the thought of him ruling the Holy Roman Empire?

If the Carolingian Empire is itself a term invented by historians why does it have more weight with some people when talking about Charlemagne's dominion than the Holy Roman Empire?

flamingzaroc121

Aug 28, 2007, 07:57 PM

no i think gilgamesh is real. they have a list of kings that has gilgamesh's name on it. the list dates from sumerian times while the accepted version of the epic of gilgamesh comes from babylonian times, although i believe some tablets that are similar to the epic date from sumerian times. but there was a king in uruk who went by the name of gilgamesh, he must've been something else to have such a tale told about him.

You are correct, Gilgamech is real, but the great things we know him for arent

seasnake

Aug 28, 2007, 09:26 PM

Just read all the posts.

I'm still waiting for TheLastOne to apologize for "Spanish is spoken more than English than the world," then counting Brazil as a "spanish" nation and not counting Australia or Ireland as "English" speaking nations.
And I speak both, so I don't prefer one to the other. I like logical arguments. But everytime he is confronted with one he retreats to what they taught him in primary school or ignores them.

And the Spodek thing was hilarious. C'mon, surely you've got some kind of palace or justice hall or cathedral or something. I gotta believe Poland did more than build one stadium. Give yourself more credit.

Finally, yes, Poland had some glory days. But they did not single handedly beat off the Mongol invasion. They won some battles, but mostly the Horde had leadership problems and lacking supply lines and went home.

Oh and Copernicus was not the first to think the world is round. The Arabs and Mayans knew it, and other European scholars were talking about it with him. It became known as the Copernican model because he wrote the most common studied paper. Just like Galileo did not "invent" the telescope, it was around. He just refined the technique and got the local nobs to name him inventor so it was official.

Poland is a great place, and I would enjoy charging some Hussars at my foes. But they won't get into the game because of the Spodek (that just makes me laugh) or Copernicus (He's in the game already) or a few key battles (they didn't beat the Mongols, they won a battle, maybe "saving Europe from Islam" prolonged the Dark Ages) or for representation (we've talked about this) or for the number of pointless posts in CFC. IT WILL BE IN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I CAN'T FAULT FIRAXIS FOR PICKING THE CIVS THEY HAVE AND NOT POLAND, I THINK THEY HAVE EQUAL OR BETTER CLAIMS. Note I am not insulting your claim here, I just think theirs are also valid.

And stop bashing America. What did America do to you? I live here now, and I like it very much. I don't think its perfect, but I'm still happy to be here and would say it is no more or less "great" than other countries in the world. I'm not bashing Poland or anti-polish, I just don't agree with some of your arguments.

flamingzaroc121

Aug 28, 2007, 09:38 PM

finally, someone has a voice of reason around here^^ :clap:

seasnake

Aug 28, 2007, 09:44 PM

And America in Civ is a joke. Our influence is minimal: Oh, yes, world bloc, military bases everywhere: tell you what, American hegemony is going to collapse in twenty years. Then we, the Americans, will become "footnotes to history."

you don't get it, do you? In most parts of the world it is equally or more likely for a military coup to control the state than an elected government of the people. In South America we know all too well that one charismatic general can spill the whole thing.
America has never had a military coup in their history. They've had a working democracy for longer than any other existing. American culture has been exported all over the world. They pay the majority of the dues for the United Nations (and built it) and more foreign aid for third world countries comes from America than any two nations combined. No country can compete with them militarily, that's why terrorism is the only option (no responsibility).
Now, they have their fare share of snobs, pigs, liars and con artists. And a lot of them are smug. But I don't think it is more or less than any other civilization. Meanwhile, you have freedom of speech, press, you can call Bush a fat liar to his face here without getting shot for it.
I just think if you've lived in a struggling country, and come to America, you don't think America is perfect but you really see why they became a superpower. There are opportunities and freedoms here that other places crave.
Note, I love Argentina, and Brazil, and even have had the opportunity to visit Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile. I would have much postive to say on all of those. But I live in America, and there's a lot of good things going for it. Be fair.

meatwad4289

Aug 29, 2007, 12:33 AM

Actually it's more unfair that the country of cheese eating surrender monkeys gets three leaders.
agressive but come on, France had a major impact on history. I prefer Nappy and Louis, i Dont understand the other guy but who cares.

Also, Stalin and Mao are worthless anti-civilisation scum and shouldn't be in the game. wow. I disagree with being anti-Civilization and not being allowed in the game. They had tremendous impact on the world. by only including the "good guys" theres n ofun, we need people we can say hey hes suppose to be bad Im taking him down, or hey he suppose to be bad, I WANNA BE HIM MUAHAHAHAHA.

And Ethiopia is a joke, especially led by a weak fool like Zara Yaqob. I'll agree.

And I get Roosevelt and Lincoln for America, but Washington? Come on, he may be the first President but he's primarily a general. Politically, he's blander than a beige Volkswagon van. Clearly it should've been Thomas Jefferson. I get Roosevelt and Washington, both were great leaders. Washington was probably put in primarily because of the Revolution, and that he was the first. However Washington was a great President. He came to power because America was crumbling without leadership. If it weren't for George Washington, I very much doubt that America would of become a country, until much later. I watched History Channel Specials on Washington and the Revolution, there were key moments that If there was no Washington, then all would of been lost, and other moments when there was almost no Washington. Now I don't really understand Lincoln. The only reason people even remember him is because of the American Civil War, and when people say "He was a great leader" all they say is "He kept the union together", or "destroyed the rebellion" All he did was force part of the country into rejoining the other, when his election was one(of MANY REASONS, and it was more or less the last draw) that they left. Now I understand FDR, he had 4 terms, had I believe 14 Years in office? lead America through the Great Depression(it's debated on whether or not it was him or other factors that did it, but I'm certain his work programs had to at least help) Lead us through a World War, and if I'm not mistaken he authorized the creation of the Atomic Bomb. He had a huge impact on US history, and A huge impact on world history. I do believe however, Teddy Roosevelt should of been put in before any other American Leader, T.R. Was one of the greatest(I say he is) Presidents of all time. This is a man, who helped the Panamanians gain independence from Columbia(yeah I know we got the Panama Canal out of it lol ) The Great White Fleet showed that America talk softly but carried a big stick. An Avid Hunter that created several wildlife reserves, establishing National Parks. First President to Win a Nobel Prize, for signing a treaty between Russia and Japan. Youngest American President. Was beofre a speech, put his finger in the wound, and Did the speech anyway.

AND WHERE'S CANADA? Although I believe Canada does deserve to be in the game, more so than some other countries that are in the game, They haven't had a HUGE effect on the world history. Trust me I'd love to have Canada on there, More or less so I can have my Vassal attack with it's mountees lol.