How does this idea sound?

would probably sound a bit better if you elaborated it a bit more. An example never hurts, to begin with.

What I mean is having civs that are only in RFC, and some might not be playable. Here's what I was thinking:

Israel/David Ben-Gurion
Austria/Franz Josef
Italy/Giuseppe Garibaldi
Poland/Jan III Sobieski
Macedon/Alexander III
Scotland/Mary Stuart
Ireland/Brian Boru
Pictland/Calgacus
Anglo-Saxon England/Alfred
Dorian Greece/Algimios
Troy/Priam
Assyria/Ashurbanipal
Hittites/Suppiluliuma
Mexico/Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
Canada/William Lyon Mackenzie
Polynesia/Salamasina
Australia/Robert Menzies
Masai/Kidonga Kalima
Manchuria/?
Majapahit/Gajah Mada
Brazil/Getulio Vargas
Argentina/Eva Peron
Gran Colombia/Simon Bolivar

The list is endless, really.

Oh, and its odd that there are no Sumerians, Koreans, or Zulu in RFC.

That's what I find odd. I mean, the Sumerians practically invented civilization. Surely they should be included very early, even if they just have room for one city? It certainly didn't stop the Netherlands.

One more civs = the computer has to calculate everything in relation of that civ to all the others. If you draw the curve, you see it's exponentially. (Of course, not exactly, as some calculations are just cumulative). Nevertheless, the CPU usage soars up, the game gets slow. It is already for me in the late game, do you want more?

m

What I mean is having civs that are only in RFC, and some might not be playable. Here's what I was thinking:

Austria/Franz Josef
Italy/Giuseppe Garibaldi
Poland/Jan III Sobieski
Macedon/Alexander III
Scotland/Mary Stuart
Ireland/Brian Boru
Pictland/Calgacus
Anglo-Saxon England/Alfred
Dorian Greece/Algimios
Troy/Priam
Assyria/Ashurbanipal
Hittites/Suppiluliuma
Mexico/Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
Canada/William Lyon Mackenzie
Polynesia/Salamasina
Australia/Robert Menzies
Masai/Kidonga Kalima
Manchuria/?
Majapahit/Gajah Mada
Brazil/Getulio Vargas
Argentina/Eva Peron

The list is endless, really.

Oh, and its odd that there are no Sumerians, Koreans, or Zulu in RFC.

Honestly, most of that list isn't important enough to warrant inclusion. Some of them would also have such limited time horizons as to be unplayable. (Sticking someone's capitol in someone else's spawn area is a bad idea).

Specifically:

Italy: A unified Italy is a 19th(?)/20th century event, and wasn't all that exciting. Nor has Italy done anything as a country worth noting. (With apologies to Italians). Now, there were a number of important city-states which are now Italian, but they were Genoese and Venetian, not Italian, when they were important. I could see having the Venetians as a civ, but not Italy. (And they were merely important merchants and traders... not especially civ worthy).

Poland: Why god why does everyone want a Poland civ? (Ok, by "everyone" i mean a vocal minority on the forums). Seriously, what did Poland ever do except get invaded. Repeatedly. The most significant thing i can think Poland can claim is the birthplace of Pope John Paul II, which is hardly a *civilizations* claim to fame.

Macedon: ... Its Greece. Deal with it.

Scotland: Mary Stuart? Huh? Why not Robert de Bruce? Regardless, scotland's significance as an independent country is rather small, and primarily limited to its impact on England. While its regrettable that the civ is England and not Britain, they are certainly included there.

Ireland: first of all, Brian who? Second, whatever did the Irish do that was at all important, other than have a potato famine? Jonathon Swift is insufficient reason to make them a civ. Don't get me wrong, I love Irish mythology, and they make the best beer anywhere, but an important civilization on the world stage... *snicker* One might argue that a Celtic civ would cover them, and they're already included as a non-playable.

Pictland: I'm sensing a British Isles fetish. Its annoying. Not only are the British Isles not large enough to accomodate more than one civ, but none of them had any impact beyond the isles (often not beyond their own island) except for Norman England -> Great Britain. I'm surprised you didn't argue for the Welsh, who were certainly more important than the Picts, and still don't belong in the game.

Anglo-Saxon England:... um, there *is* an england. Furthermore, see previous objection to two identical capitol locations. Bad idea. Finally, historically unimportant except for philology. They only warrant mention in a world history text because the Normans trashed them.

Dorian Greece: What about "Greece represents every incarnation of Greece" don't you understand? The map can't get any bigger...

Troy: Priam is a virtually mythological character. I see no historical basis for inclusion of Troy. Regardless, they were essentially a hellenic city-state, and thus "greek" by the game's standards.

Mexico: I'd make fun of even suggesting this one, but i can't stop laughing long enough to think of anything clever. Also see capitol conflict (Aztecs...).

Canada: Canada's claim to fame: they're really big. :rolleyes: Impact of Canada on the world stage: virtually 0. Everything important that's happened in Canada happened while GB controlled them. What would their UHVs be? (1) be really big in 1950. (2) Don't let Quebec secede. (3) Get the UN to pass the universal civic "environmentalism".

Polynesia: While important from a social sciences perspective in terms of human dispersal patterns, as a "civilization" they have *nothing* to recommend them. Seriously, they were still in the stone age when europe was in the industrial age. Furthermore, calling them a "civilization" stretches language beyond the breaking point. They were a particular racial group, just like "caucasian" is. Should we have a caucasian civ? no.

Australia: :rolleyes: Only slightly less ridiculous than Canada. At least they have a noteworthy architectural feature (Sydney Opera House).

Masai: Nomadic peoples hardly qualify as a great civilization. The mongols are important only because they conquered and settled down. You'll note we don't have the Huns as a playable civ, and shouldnt. This is a racial/tribal group, not a civilization. Further, the Masai have done what, exactly?

Manchuria: Chinese?

Majapahit: As I recall, this is an Indian kingdom... See India...

Brazil: Its big, i get it. World-history affecting accomplishments/actions: zero.

Argentina: I know that musical must have you pretty hyped up about how important Argentina briefly was in the past, but its contributions to world history peak with the failed Falkland Islands war. Eva Peron was important in Argentina, but hardly noteworthy outside of it (musicals aside), and Argentina hasn't really accomplished anything of note other than run its economy into the toilet. (Only of note as its a great subject for economics term papers).

Assyria: If it wasn't for sharing the starting location with the Turks, this would be ok. Though they are represented by a particular independent city at the moment.

Hittites: Eh... their biggest claim to fame is taking over the Babylonians, as i recall. So really they're part of Babylon in the grand scheme of things. And there's hardly room for them in the ME at present.

Finally, Austria is actually an important player in europe during the medieval and renaissance era. Unfortunately, its only because it was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire for much of that time (which i suppose could be included..., though its a title that wasn't necessarily associated with real estate), and the austrians are fundamentally a german state, making them part of the German civ in civ terms. Just because they aren't currently part of Germany doesn't change that - the German civ represents more than just modern Germany.

Now, Austrio-hungary might be worth including, but again doubtful. In fact, most if not all noteworthy civs have been included already. There's little reason to include civilizations just to include civilizations. It certainly doesn't help that I didn't even know whom a lot of your chosen leaders were for modern countries - a guaranteed sign that said country doesn't even rate mention in a world history class (except possibly to say when the British/Spanish/Portugese/Whatever empire turned them loose).

How can you put Garibaldi as an Italian leader ? He was a "General", and he even worked for south american countries....


@Squirrelloid: Poland definitely gave more to human history than the Aztecs, Americans, etc... you may have chosen lots of good reasons why Poland can't be in RFC, but definitely NOT the one that its history is not worth it.

^ IMO Victor Emmanuel II would be a much more suitable representative of the Risorgimento.

Not that I think this is a particularly implementable or even desirable idea :P

Macedon - It makes me sick to the punch that the Greeks don't have the objective to relive Alexander's Conquests, simply because Alexander was Macedonian but not Greek.

Israel - I just added this one back to that post; can't even believe I forgot it.:crazyeye:

Majapahit - This kingdom was in INDONESIA, not India.

Canada - Is home to the world's best lumberers.

Masai - They managed to get in Empire Earth II, so why not in Civilization IV?

Gran Colombia - Will add it now to my 2nd post in this thread.

Umm, israel is tiny. No pint mmaking a one city civ. At least the other 1 cities colonise. Maybe Austria- Hungery. But no other you mentioned is note worthy. And by the way, America has done more in 300 years as a nation as Poland has done in it's entire existence.

How can you put Garibaldi as an Italian leader ? He was a "General", and he even worked for south american countries....

@Squirrelloid: Poland definitely gave more to human history than the Aztecs, Americans, etc... you may have chosen lots of good reasons why Poland can't be in RFC, but definitely NOT the one that its history is not worth it.

I really don't care to argue the point on the Aztecs. Though they stand out much better because there isn't much else going on around them - it makes them comparatively much more important. Whereas Poland is between Germany and Russia and in Europe, which has so much awesome going on historically that its really hard to see what they did.

Seriously, the first mention Poland gets in most world history classes (outside of Poland, obviously) is when it gets invaded in WW2. I mean, I don't really think the *Dutch* belong in Civ, and they at least have some claims to fame internationally. Poland, not so much. (Unless still fielding cavalry in 1939, against tanks no less, is a claim to fame).

So as far as i can tell, your post is just you feeling superior because you clearly know something about Polish history that I don't. However, I can probably make equally good arguments for Georgia (former russian republic), Armenia, and Switzerland to be included in the game.

And as far as giving more to human history than "America". I assume you mean the US. I find this claim rather questionable. The US would be worth including solely because it was the first large republican democracy (as opposed to Athens, which was a city-state), but its list of important contributions is longer than most countries 9x its age. Its also the only current world superpower - not including the US would be like not including Great Britain (even if they can't name it right), who was the world superpower during the 18-19th century. I guarantee the US comes up in world history classes all across europe for the invention of the automobile, electricity, the telephone, television, etc..., and its roles in WW1 and 2 as liberator.

I'm sure Poland has an interesting history. I know of lots of countries who have had interesting histories. But like a lot of them, Poland's is a local history that rarely impacted world events. If you aren't or weren't a major player on the world stage, you don't belong in Civ. Its really that simple.

Macedon - It makes me sick to the punch that the Greeks don't have the objective to relive Alexander's Conquests, simply because Alexander was Macedonian but not Greek.

Or perhaps because there are plenty of other conquest nations, and Rhye thought the Greeks had far more important things they accomplished?


Israel - I just added this one back to that post; can't even believe I forgot it.:crazyeye:

Israel's existence as an independent country is a blip, and it wasn't even an especially important one in the ancient world. (We have virtually no historical sources on Solomon or David, only the Bible which has a clear agenda in making the Jewish kingdom seem important. Its not a historical document.)


Majapahit - This kingdom was in INDONESIA, not India.

Eh. I actually don't know anything about this one - though it would conflict badly with the Khmer.

Canada - Is home to the world's best lumberers.

.... :rolleyes: ...

And despite this (assuming its true), the world's most famous lumberjack story is from the United States...

Masai - They managed to get in Empire Earth II, so why not in Civilization IV?

"But everyone else is doing it!" The Masai are not a civilization, they are a cultural group. They never even founded a city, they're nomadic, nor did they ever conquer one. What would you write in their civilopaedia file? "They drink cow's blood. That's hardcore." They never even won a major military engagement against western forces. (Something both the Zulu and the Native Americans, for all the latter doesn't deserve to be a civ, did).


Gran Colombia - Will add it now to my 2nd post in this thread.

...sigh...

That's what I find odd. I mean, the Sumerians practically invented civilization. Surely they should be included very early, even if they just have room for one city? It certainly didn't stop the Netherlands.

The Netherlands coloonised the world, the SUmerians didn't.

Squirrelloid, in the Hittites you forgot one most important thing.......
They discovered IRON.

Squirrelloid, in the Hittites you forgot one most important thing.......
They discovered IRON.

Discovered is a strong word. They had iron tools and weapons. Whether they discovered it, or acquired it from some "less civilized" tribe that we have no record of, or something else entirely, isn't proveable. Most treatments i've seen think iron working came down from the north, and whomever did it first is unknown, but i'll admit i'm no expert in the field.

I'm sure Poland has an interesting history. I know of lots of countries who have had interesting histories. But like a lot of them, Poland's is a local history that rarely impacted world events. If you aren't or weren't a major player on the world stage, you don't belong in Civ. I'd talk not about Poland as is, but about Rech Pospolita, that is, unified Polish/Lithuanian kingdom which was major player in Central and Eastern Europe in XIII-XVIII centuries. It colonized Western Russia (Ucraina and Belarus) and culturally affected them very much. It nearly conquered all Russia at the beginning of XVII century. It was one of the main rivals of Turkey. I think it deserves to be included.

I bet no new civ will get included as the game is already too slow in its later stages. What we might get, though, is new names for existing civs when dynamic names is developed.

I'd talk not about Poland as is, but about Rech Pospolita, that is, unified Polish/Lithuanian kingdom which was major player in Central and Eastern Europe in XIII-XVIII centuries. It colonized Western Russia (Ucraina and Belarus) and culturally affected them very much. It nearly conquered all Russia at the beginning of XVII century. It was one of the main rivals of Turkey. I think it deserves to be included.

You're Polish nationalist (especially if you aren't Polish). Poland is a small unimportant country that appeared after the fall of USSR! You;re not listening my arguments! You;re stupid! Mali is better because they had a nice University of Sankore! [/irony mode off]

I would see Poland as the Best possible civ to add, but I think there are enough as is.

Can I just remind everybody there are about 100 threads about Poland on civfan. Let's not start another one, it won't take us anywhere.

You're Polish nationalist (especially if you aren't Polish).
I am Russian, and underestimating our principal enemy means underestimating us, so insulting us, doesn't it? [irony mode off]
Can I just remind everybody there are about 100 threads about Poland on civfan.Give me a link, I'll move there willingly.

The vast majority of the civs mentioned so far are not noteworthy enough to be included in the scenario, with the possible exceptions of Sumeria and Austria, and they also have no chance of getting in. Even if Rhye wanted to add 20 extra civs (he won't; he's already said the current civs are final), and even if our computers wouldn't explode trying to handle all that data, he wouldn't have the time to put them in with all the projects he's working on.

I am Russian, and underestimating our principal enemy means underestimating us, so insulting us, doesn't it? [irony mode off]
Give me a link, I'll move there willingly.

Here's for your long winter nights:

51 pages thread that got closed, good luck:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228061&page=77

One of the few that haven't been closed yet:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=240939

poland rules!

poland rules!

LOL- no. Poland ruled, but no anymore.

Seriously, the first mention Poland gets in most world history classes (outside of Poland, obviously) is when it gets invaded in WW2. I mean, I don't really think the *Dutch* belong in Civ, and they at least have some claims to fame internationally. Poland, not so much. (Unless still fielding cavalry in 1939, against tanks no less, is a claim to fame).

So as far as i can tell, your post is just you feeling superior because you clearly know something about Polish history that I don't. However, I can probably make equally good arguments for Georgia (former russian republic), Armenia, and Switzerland to be included in the game.


You make the error that (IMO) many civfanatics make when looking at human history and the contribution various civs gave to it. Most think it's a matter of how much powerful was their army and how much did they conquer. Or if they helped or not stopping Germany in WW2...
Once someone wrote that Italy could never be included as a civ in Civ because it lost against Ethiopia in WW2. Heh. (I suppose you can count as helping the war vs Germany :D )
Have you stopped a moment to consider the cultural value the italian people added to history of mankind ? To the same extent Poland can list a series of cultural achievement that your example nations can't even dream of, and that the USA can maybe now start to compare to (considering the written history of mankind they aren't really a big part of it, YET) so I can't really understand your comparisons and doubts.

PS: the only serious objection one can make about Poland in RFC, is how you said and how I would expected anyone to guess, that there is no room for it in the current map. A random map would be another thing though...

Once someone wrote that Italy could never be included as a civ in Civ because it lost against Ethiopia in WW2

They eventually won! After 2 years of war. They had lost in WWI...

You make the error that (IMO) many civfanatics make when looking at human history and the contribution various civs gave to it. Most think it's a matter of how much powerful was their army and how much did they conquer. Or if they helped or not stopping Germany in WW2...
Once someone wrote that Italy could never be included as a civ in Civ because it lost against Ethiopia in WW2. Heh. (I suppose you can count as helping the war vs Germany :D )
Have you stopped a moment to consider the cultural value the italian people added to history of mankind ? To the same extent Poland can list a series of cultural achievement that your example nations can't even dream of, and that the USA can maybe now start to compare to (considering the written history of mankind they aren't really a big part of it, YET) so I can't really understand your comparisons and doubts.

PS: the only serious objection one can make about Poland in RFC, is how you said and how I would expected anyone to guess, that there is no room for it in the current map. A random map would be another thing though...

I agree, its not just about power of the army or territory covered, though this often goes hand in hand with other criteria. I consider the following, requiring some period of international dominance in at least one and preferably two or more (in no particular order):

(1) Political Influence
(2) Military Might (conquest, etc....)
(3) Culture
(4) Technology (Discoveries, education, etc..., mostly research)
(5) Economy

The USA is currently dominant in *all* of them. (Ok, possibly not political influence right now, but certainly has been in the past). For instance:

Military: goes without saying. No conventional force could defeat the US military in combat.

Culture: The US has a number of distinctive buildings which attract more tourists than Poland has population each year. It also has the largest music industry in the world, the only commercially relevant movie industry, and the second best theatre district in the world (after London). It also has the largest (collectively) professional sports industry, some of the best museums in the world (the Smithsonian is comparable to any european counterpart), the most successful television/broadcasting companies, etc... American brands are recognized the world over in everything from clothing to automobiles. English is spoken by virtually every well-educated person under the age of 40 in the world, primarily because of US influence. (Britain might have made it possible in some places - eg India - but the current impetus to learn English has everything to do with the US). Claiming the US is not the dominant cultural entity in the world today is like claiming the sun isn't hot.

Technology: Not only does the US spend more on research, it also produces far more new patents and new discoveries each year, especially in fields considered "cutting edge". It can also claim more important discoveries in the last 200 years than most countries can claim in their entire history (with the possible exception of China, and many of those can't be conclusively proven). A quick list would have to include electricity, the telegram, the telephone, the television, the electric computer, the personal computer, the transistor, the microchip, the internet, nuclear fission, and i could go on for pages.

Economy: Even when the US economy is doing badly its better than most of the rest of the world combined.

So what does Poland have to offer?
Political Influence: Virtually nil. Historically virtually nil. (Never a factor outside its region)
Military Might: Insignificant. Historically a regional power, never a "world" power. (Being able to beat up on Russia before Russia was anything to talk about isn't all that impressive).
Culture: I'm sure there are lots of historical buildings and monuments. I can't actually name any. Virtually every country in europe has some of these. The difference between Poland and say, France, is that the french ones are internationally known, whereas the polish ones aren't. Ie, the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Versailles, etc... I could make a long list of French, English, and "Italian" historically (and culturally) important buildings. Poland? I can't name a thing. At best this means its culture is locally or regionally impressive, but certainly not internationally.
Technology: I can name no discoveries that were originally polish. (Though I imagine my mathematician friends can probably point to some math that was done there). Regardless, they were never dominant here.
Economy: Never a dominant economy.

Finally, I use "Italian" because i don't recognize Renaissance era buildings that happen to be in Italy as Italian. They're Venetian, Firenzian, and so forth. Italy isn't a nation until quite recently, and hasn't been significant since they became a nation. It wouldn't offend me to make a Venetian or Genoese civilization, as they were cultural and economic powers. But claiming them as Italian is like claiming the Colosseum in Rome as "Italian". Its Roman. It just happens to be in Italy today.

Now, I said i could make an equally good argument for Switzerland as Poland.

(1) Political influence: not much as a nation. The value of their mercenaries (see below) was quite influential indirectly.
(2) They *were* a military power in the late medieval period and early Renaissance. The swiss Reislaufer were never defeated until musket power became the dominant force on the battlefield, and were the premier military force of their time. They expanded into northern Italy, and as mercenaries fought in virtually every major engagement - their services being highly sought after. Its a different approach to military power than being the conqueror yourself, but they were the supreme military force of their age. (The german Landsknecht is an imitator, nothing more).
(3) Among other notable achievements in culture, Switzerland is the birthplace of the Red Cross, which is more than I could name for Poland. The swiss are also known for their chocolate and watches. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is swiss, as is Carl Jung and Hermann Rorschach.
(4) I suppose cuckoo clocks dont count as a remarkable technological achievement, but you can't have them all.
(5) Switzerland has one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, and their banking system is justly (in)famous.

Switzerland outweighs Poland by a substantial margin.

^I think I agree with everything. Good Job. On American Musuens, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is the most incredible place ever, even more then the Vatican Museum.

^I think I agree with everything. Good Job. On American Musuens, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is the most incredible place ever, even more then the Vatican Museum.

I was specifically thinking of the British Royal Museum in London and the NMNH (National Museum of Natural History) in Paris as the premiere examples of european museums.

:hammer2: :hammer2: :hammer2: :hammer2: :hammer2: :hammer2:

Technology: I can name no discoveries that were originally polish. (Though I imagine my mathematician friends can probably point to some math that was done there).

I was going to mention the pioneering of radioactivity by Marie Curie, a Polish woman, but then I remembered she did all her notable work in France as a French citizen. :lol:

Political Influence: Virtually nil. Historically virtually nil. (Never a factor outside its region)

Western Europe could even more easily grow and colonise without Polish wheat.['irony mode off]

Military Might: Insignificant. Historically a regional power, never a "world" power. (Being able to beat up on Russia before Russia was anything to talk about isn't all that impressive).

Being able to beat up Ottoman Empire when it was a World superpower isn't all that impressive. Beating up Sweden, which had the best army of their times isn't impressive too. Beating up HRE in XI century is nothing. Winning the biggest battle of Medieval Age could be done by everyone. What;s impressive in mercenaries contracts that forbade using soldiers in open field against Polish Winged Hussars?

Culture: I'm sure there are lots of historical buildings and monuments. I can't actually name any. Virtually every country in europe has some of these. The difference between Poland and say, France, is that the french ones are internationally known, whereas the polish ones aren't. Ie, the Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Versailles, etc... I could make a long list of French, English, and "Italian" historically (and culturally) important buildings. Poland? I can't name a thing. At best this means its culture is locally or regionally impressive, but certainly not internationally.

So you're very well educated. Can you name any Austrian, Swedish, Carthaginian, Abyssinian, etc?

Technology: I can name no discoveries that were originally polish. (Though I imagine my mathematician friends can probably point to some math that was done there). Regardless, they were never dominant here.

You still think that Americans broke Enigma's code? You haven;t heard about oil lamp? Photographic paper? Holography? No comments.

Economy: Never a dominant economy.

Poland during XVI century had very strong economy- because of colonisation and exploring food was very expensive. Western Europe wasn't producing it so Polish nobles became richer and richer. It was so lucrative that no other economy branch was developed. That's why Poland was an economical ruin in XVII century when Russia started export of their wheat.

Now, I said i could make an equally good argument for Switzerland as Poland.

Do I have to comment that?

So totally agree.

(1) Political Influence
(2) Military Might (conquest, etc....)
(3) Culture
(4) Technology (Discoveries, education, etc..., mostly research)
(5) Economy


This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you have a wrong vision of what is a civ. It's so blatantly obvious to me that the first and foremost point should be culture, the main element that distinguishes a civ from another one, and in fact one where the USA are sorely lacking (dominant ? :lol: ). I will not reply to your comments on Poland and Italians, you obviously are not informed enough to have a decent discussion and we're way off topic. Fact remains that Poland would be a perfect candidate for a random map civ. Switzerland maybe, what language would you propose would the units speak ? Heh...

What language do the Indian units speak? (India has way more official languages than Switzerland).

I agree with you regarding everything but your definition of culture per language. In most cases, this is the truth but there are some really big exceptions to that rule, Switzerland being one of them. CH is a "nation of willingness", not of cultural heritage. This way, we created our own political, ideological culture and still have the linguistic diversity I so appreciate.

But you are right for the rest, culture really defines a civ and I think that the Americans do have enough own culture, just not the classical one. But it still unifies the "American People"... ;-)

m

What language do the Indian units speak? (India has way more official languages than Switzerland).

I agree with you regarding everything but your definition of culture per language. In most cases, this is the truth but there are some really big exceptions to that rule, Switzerland being one of them. CH is a "nation of willingness", not of cultural heritage. This way, we created our own political, ideological culture and still have the linguistic diversity I so appreciate.

But you are right for the rest, culture really defines a civ and I think that the Americans do have enough own culture, just not the classical one. But it still unifies the "American People"... ;-)

m


Indian units in Civ4 speak Hindi.

I know that was a rethorical question ... ;-)

Its really annoying debating anyone with a nationalist agenda. Lets just put it this way - if only Polish nationalists think Poland should be a playable civ, that's a good argument for why it *shouldn't*.

Western Europe could even more easily grow and colonise without Polish wheat.['irony mode off]

I suppose we'll have to make Argentina a civ because it produces a lot of beef? :rolleyes:


Being able to beat up Ottoman Empire when it was a World superpower isn't all that impressive. Beating up Sweden, which had the best army of their times isn't impressive too. Beating up HRE in XI century is nothing. Winning the biggest battle of Medieval Age could be done by everyone. What;s impressive in mercenaries contracts that forbade using soldiers in open field against Polish Winged Hussars?

"Beat up" is a strong word here. A similar argument could be made for the inclusion of the Parthians, who *massacred* the Romans while taking almost no casualties. Vienna also held off the Ottomans (Austria is not a playable civ, and has far more going for it otherwise) and it was Austria who decisively checked the Turkish advance and drove them back to the Balkans.

And requiring that their employer field them in an intelligent fashion is not unreasonable. Part of military effectiveness is being employed in a manner suitable to a unit's strengths. And since medieval lords were as often terrible strategists/tacticians as mediocre ones, and far less often good ones (read a good history of the crusades, for example), stipulating things that are just too stupid to allow is not just a good idea, its a great idea. Not that I can confirm your claim - I've seen no evidence to assert that the Reislaufer specifically requested not to fight Polish mounted units on open plains - I'd love to see documentation of that.

Finally, I'll note that the only medieval battle mentioned during the medieval period on Wikipaedia is the Battle of Grunwald. It featured Poland + Lithuania vs. the Teutonic Knights. None of whom are represented in civ, nor would anyone sane seriously consider including Lithuania or the Teutonic Knights (who were an independent state at that point). So while it might have been the biggest battle of the medieval period (not supported by Wikipaedia), it was by no means the most important. That honor probably goes to the Battle of Hastings, though there are certainly others i'd consider pretty close to there.

As far as i can determine from Wikipaedia, the Polish clashes with the Ottomans involve mostly proxy wars in Moldavia and one battle in 1633. And it was always the forces of local khans, never the might of the Ottoman empire. (For example, few Jannisaries saw action in Moldavia). This makes your claim far less impressive.


So you're very well educated. Can you name any Austrian, Swedish, Carthaginian, Abyssinian, etc?

Sweden is both (1) not a playable civ, and (2) the vikings aren't included for cultural reasons. That said, there is Norse culture well worth mentioning - such as their mythological cycle. Notably the Eddas (from Iceland), and related material from the continent. The "vikings" also had a unique form of localized government, which reached its pinnacle in iceland, and was basically a form of representative democracy. And of course, we have found some longships, and i think even one or two sea-burial locations. That's a decent cultural heritage for the era in which they are represented in game.

Carthage: Well, they're primarily included for military and economic reasons. I honestly don't know why its Carthagian instead of Phoenician - probably more people have heard of Carthage. But Carthage is really just a Phoenician colony that rose to prominence. There are basically no Carthagian buildings left standing, but i've visited the site of the Palace and the Temple in Tunis (re: Carthage), and seen the murals left behind. The site is world-famous.

Austrian: Also not a playable civ. Vienna is a major city, famous as a crossroads of trade. Austria was a major military power on numerous occasions, and it was they who stopped the Turkish advance into Europe and drove them back past Hungary. (See: Siege of Vienna 1529, Battle of Vienna 1683, Leopold I, Treaty of Carlowitz). And Austria emerged from the Napoleonic wars as one of the three dominant powers in europe. Culturally, Austria was the center of the Counter-Reformation by the Catholic Church. Austria was also the birthplace of important musicians, including Mozart, Haydn, Johann Strauss (both), Schubert, and Mahler, and Beethoven lived in Vienna for the better part of his life. Austria has also been an important center of economic theory, including the "austrian school" of thought. Austria was home to Wolfgang Pauli and Lise Meitner (famous physicists), Wittgenstein and Karl Popper (famous philosophers), Mendel and Lorenz (biologists), Sigmund Freud (psychologist), and Godel (engineer). For literature, anyone should recognize Karl Kraus. Austria also hosted the Congress of Vienna (in 1815), which in addition to its political importance was also immortalized with a waltz of the same name. That's quite an international reputation right there in terms of culture. Now, did i have to look up some dates and confirm some of those people, sure.

Abyssinian: Eh, I can't know everything. I do know they were the earliest Christian nation, that's good enough for me.


You still think that Americans broke Enigma's code? You haven;t heard about oil lamp? Photographic paper? Holography? No comments.

While deciphering the enigma code was important politically, its not exactly a huge technological or scientific breakthrough. Now, the theory of cryptography and things like public-key cryptography are important discoveries. As some of that is math, it wouldn't surprise me if Poland was involved. (Public-Key Cryptography was definitely not Polish however). Most of the important work in Cryptography and Cryptanalysis during WW2 was conducted by scientists in the US and GB. (For example, Claude Shannon at Bell Labs).

The oil lamp is older than Poland. Far older. We have oil lamps from 2000BC. The typical representation of the genie's lamp in Aladdin is an oil lamp - it would contain oil and a wick would protrude out the spout. As oil burned off the wick, oil would be drawn up the wick from inside the lamp.

Photographic paper was invented by frenchman Nicephore Niepce (Heliography) and/or GBritain resident William Fox Talbot (Calotype).

Holography was invented by Hungarian Dennis Gabor while working in England. As such, I'd call this an English discovery (Funding/Supporting of research is the civilization's contribution to discovery). He received the Nobel Prize for this work.

Please check your facts before making claims.


Poland during XVI century had very strong economy- because of colonisation and exploring food was very expensive. Western Europe wasn't producing it so Polish nobles became richer and richer. It was so lucrative that no other economy branch was developed. That's why Poland was an economical ruin in XVII century when Russia started export of their wheat.

So, for one century it made some money... I wouldn't call a cash-crop economy "very strong", its a disaster waiting to happen. (see: Irish Potato Famine). And given that's the century when Spain brought back so much gold from the new world that they depressed its value, I wouldn't even call Poland's performance noteworthy for its time. I'll also note that this contributed to Poland's lack of industrialization, because it was focusing on agriculture while western Europe was building factories.

Do I have to comment that?

Not if you wish to conceed that Switzerland is a better candidate than Poland.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you have a wrong vision of what is a civ. It's so blatantly obvious to me that the first and foremost point should be culture, the main element that distinguishes a civ from another one, and in fact one where the USA are sorely lacking (dominant ? :lol: ). I will not reply to your comments on Poland and Italians, you obviously are not informed enough to have a decent discussion and we're way off topic. Fact remains that Poland would be a perfect candidate for a random map civ. Switzerland maybe, what language would you propose would the units speak ? Heh...

What about "no particular order" do you not understand? Culture is equal to all the others. And distinguishing civs is a different task than measuring a civ's accomplishments. The second is far more important for determining inclusion. The first is easy to do post facto.

If you'd like to contest my argument that the US is the dominant cultural entity in the world today, please refute my points or you're conceeding them. "lol" does not constitute an argument. And length of history does not equate to culture. Culture is social influence.

How am I uninformed about Italians? Are you going to say they weren't city-states during the Renaissance? And if I'm "not informed" enough about Poland, inform me. That also suggests that Poland isn't sufficiently important, otherwise i'd presumably know more.

I'd probably have the Swiss alternate between french and german (in swiss dialects, of course), although Romansh would be unique, even if it is only spoken by 2% of the population.

And yet another poland thread. Unsubscribing.

Lets just put it this way - if only Polish nationalists think Poland should be a playable civ, that's a good argument for why it *shouldn't*.

You're Polish nationalist (especially if you aren't Polish).
I am Russian, and underestimating our principal enemy means underestimating us, so insulting us, doesn't it? [irony mode off]

How should I talk to a man who thinks that Russians can be a Polish nationalist, Argentina could feed Europe in XVI century, in 1920 Russia (USSR) wasn't strong, thinks that Austrians had stopped Turks in Battle of Vienna (so why emperor made an obeisance to Polish king, who even not dismounted)?

BTW: Austria is playable civ- HRE is represented by Germany and Austria was an emperor.
About oil lamp: my bad, I mean kerosene lamp.

I'd probably have the Swiss alternate between french and german (in swiss dialects, of course), although Romansh would be unique, even if it is only spoken by 2% of the population.

What about Italian? ( ~7 % - French ~20 &, German 67%). Rumantsch is actually spoken only by 0.5 % and can be easily neglected. Larger than Italian are btw the languages spoken by the immigrants, Italian (outside the Ticino) Serbocroatian and Turkish for example... So shouldn't we alternate also between them? (;) :crazyeye: )

Maybe.:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

so the polish "patriots" have finally reached this subforum?
uargh...

so the polish "patriots" have finally reached this subforum?
uargh...

I was "fighting" here for Poland long time ago!

Soooooo true.

The most important thing here that adding one civ would make the game very-very-very slow.
And I dont think poland should be added because it would be a two city civ, it should be represented as an independent city.

Don't look on today Poland! It's a piece of . .. .. .. .! Look at this:

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6290/polskasn6.jpg

(white- cities Krakow- capital)

So it would be a three city civ...

What about "no particular order" do you not understand? Culture is equal to all the others. And distinguishing civs is a different task than measuring a civ's accomplishments. The second is far more important for determining inclusion. The first is easy to do post facto.

This is simply laughable... what achievements can the Native Americans or Zulu list that Poland can't ? It is not the achievement the most important thing to look at, but culture. A unique culture is a much greater achievement than invading oil filled helpless countries, believe me.

If you'd like to contest my argument that the US is the dominant cultural entity in the world today, please refute my points or you're conceeding them. "lol" does not constitute an argument. And length of history does not equate to culture. Culture is social influence.

USA are only now developing their own culture. They still speak a foreign language and have foreign traditions, feasts and foods. Saying THEIR culture is dominant can only be commented with :lol: , but they are "working" on all of this, as we both know all these traits are slowly changing as it's natural and as it happens ciclically in history, but it takes time: unlike what you say time is very important to develop a culture.

How am I uninformed about Italians? Are you going to say they weren't city-states during the Renaissance?

The political state of a civ does not "politically" influence a Civ. With this I mean that if the Greeks are not a unified political entity they are still a unified culture, and so were the italians for the duration of the MA and beyond. Read books of Dante Alighieri and Machiavelli etc and you will read they were talking of italians, of an italian language, and dreaming about a unified Italy already back then. In the past many mods have had city states as a government, I think even the Civ3 mod from Rhye; when you adopted this gov. your civ didn't split into many other civs like the Florentian, Venetian, Spartan and Athenina civs, though.

Why are you soooooooooo interested on poland?

USA are only now developing their own culture. They still speak a foreign language and have foreign traditions, feasts and foods. Saying THEIR culture is dominant can only be commented with , but they are "working" on all of this, as we both know all these traits are slowly changing as it's natural and as it happens ciclically in history, but it takes time: unlike what you say time is very important to develop a culture.

you're using their language, you're watching they're movies, you're watching their tv programms, you're reading their books, you listen to their music, you eat their fast food chain's food, you're using their inventions all the time....
do i really have to go on?

and yes, they are using english, thats why we speak of anglo-american culture...

This is simply laughable... what achievements can the Native Americans or Zulu list that Poland can't ? It is not the achievement the most important thing to look at, but culture. A unique culture is a much greater achievement than invading oil filled helpless countries, believe me.

Have you seen me argue that either one of those should be civs? I've even said i don't think the Native Americans deserve to be a civ. Don't put words in my mouth.

Culture is one type of achievement. Its not the only one, nor does it necessarily trump any or all others. And you have yet to make an argument that Poland has *anything* going for it culturally. Even the native americans have world-famous burial mounds. (The problem being - they aren't unified. I mean, I can talk about Hopi culture, or Cheyenne culture, or Apache culture. Those are all relevant entities. I don't think they have particularly strong culture in terms of influence, but that's due to military reasons - the US did a pretty good job of wiping out native americans - both their people and their way of life.)

And holding up the invasion of Iraq as the pinnacle of US achievement is (1) ridiculous and (2) ignorant. It would be like saying Poland's greatest achievement was getting invaded by Germany and the USSR in 1939.


USA are only now developing their own culture. They still speak a foreign language and have foreign traditions, feasts and foods. Saying THEIR culture is dominant can only be commented with :lol: , but they are "working" on all of this, as we both know all these traits are slowly changing as it's natural and as it happens ciclically in history, but it takes time: unlike what you say time is very important to develop a culture.

Culture is always developing....

Foreign language - culture is not language. And there's no reason two countries speaking the same language can't have distinct culture. Further, the US will never speak a language other than English, barring some weird armageddon-esque catastrophe. English may change, but it'll still be english. The world is too well connected now. Most languages are dying, new ones are not being born.

Foreign traditions - Let me introduce you to part of American culture - the Melting Pot and the American Dream. A haven for immigrants is part of America's cultural identity. Mixing all those traditions into a new whole is part of America's cultural identity. I mean, you celebrate Christmas, don't you? That's "foreign" tradition right there. That doesn't detract from Poland (or wherever you are) having an independent cultural identity.

Culture == Social Influence. This can take a lot of time or a little. The US both has an american mythology, complete with heroes who have been elevated above their mortal stature (many of the founding fathers, Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, Davy Crockett, Johnny Appleseed, etc...). American music has dominated the world for a century. (From big band through modern rock/pop). American brands are sold as far away as Russia and India. In the early-mid 90s, you could sell Levi's jeans in russia for substantial prices. US movies dominate theatres around the globe - the next "best" movie industry is Bollywood in India, and its so distant a 2nd that its not even worth talking about. The US has a unique religious atmosphere, as much as many of us might detest aspects of it. How does all of that not translate into a powerful and dominant culture? US culture is so pervasive, perhaps you're not seeing the vast forest for the trees.


The political state of a civ does not "politically" influence a Civ. With this I mean that if the Greeks are not a unified political entity they are still a unified culture, and so were the italians for the duration of the MA and beyond. Read books of Dante Alighieri and Machiavelli etc and you will read they were talking of italians, of an italian language, and dreaming about a unified Italy already back then. In the past many mods have had city states as a government, I think even the Civ3 mod from Rhye; when you adopted this gov. your civ didn't split into many other civs like the Florentian, Venetian, Spartan and Athenina civs, though.

So the Italians are Romans. They're already included. If we're extrapolating that much, lets do so.

The renaissance italians might have dreamed of a unified Italy - they were rediscovering the glory days of Rome after all. Well, some of them might have. But the Venetians and Genoans were happy being independent. They basically created unique independent states of their own, with foreign territories et al. Similarly, Naples and Sicily didn't consider themselves Italian - in fact, Naples was "English" for a good portion of history, and Islamic for a portion before that. To claim Italy had a unified culture from the "fall of Rome" to their incorporation as a state is ridiculous. Not that modern france was what france always was, but at least there is political continuity. Italy has no such thing.

And unlike the Greeks, for whom you could point to something and say "that's greek culture", i'd love to have an unambiguous definition of Italian culture, as anything produced during the city-state period is ambiguous and only definitively part of the cultural heritage of its home city. The greeks get to point to a mythological tradition which unified greece, and a shared heroic epic (the iliad-odyssey story). For the Italians... oh yeah, that would be Roman culture. See Italy = Romans in civ claim above.

I've read The Prince, btw, and don't recall anything resembling Italian nationalism. (I've only read part of the Inferno, but I highly doubt Dante was expressing nationalist sentiment there).

What a load of nationalistic nonsense

So it would be a three city civ...

I see there 7 cities. One of us is wrong. Just as about other arguments?

double post

luko, the thing with historic maps...
i cant see no poland on these:

http://www.deutsch.or.kr/info/text_img/map.jpg
http://www.bcc.cuny.edu/History/His10/Course/1942map.jpe
http://home.uchicago.edu/~vfalbrit/1800big.jpg
http://www.euratlas.net/PHA/history_europe/europe_map_1200.jpg

of course this is selective, but just showing poland during its territorial height is too, you get the idea?

why no hungary,
http://www.lemontree.hu/egyebkep/linkkep/history/map/europa/1400big.jpg

why no grand duchy of lithuania,
http://global.cscc.edu/hum/111pross/Renaiss.jpg

why no scotland?
(just as big as poland here):
http://www.euratlas.net/PHA/history_europe/europe_map_1200.jpg

why no austria?
http://home.uchicago.edu/~vfalbrit/1800big.jpg

I see there 7 cities. One of us is wrong. Just as about other arguments?

You can have Kiev, Warsaw, Riga and maybe Vilnius not more than that.

i cant see no poland on these:

I can't see Inca on this map too. And they're in.

why no hungary

Jagiellons ruled over Hungary. Poland was stronger than Hungary. Hungary was destroyed by Turks who were stopped by Poland :P

why no grand duchy of lithuania

Lithuania was big but weak. Poland represents also Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

why no scotland?

Scotland is represented by Britain (OK, there is England. But English spawn area covers Scotland). It's a bit represented by Celts too. Scotland never was a World power (they had heroic fights against England but I don't remember anything more). Scotland never had ~1000000 km2.

why no austria?

Historically Habsburgs were much more important than Poland. However they are represented! How? In game there's Germany. In history there were HRE. So HRE is represented by Germany. And what was most important state of HRE and who was an emperor?

You can have Kiev, Warsaw, Riga and maybe Vilnius not more than that.

Krakow would be a capital, not Wars(z)aw(a). To allow cities grow more you simply don't settle Wilno (Vilnius) and there still will be 6 cities.

Jagiellons ruled over Hungary. Poland was stronger than Hungary. Hungary was destroyed by Turks who were stopped by Poland :P

Saying this doesn't make it true. It was the Austrians who stopped the Turks' advance at Vienna. Twice. It was the Austrians who pushed them back out of Hungary. To the best of my knowledge, Poland had *nothing* to do with that. So they fought some border skirmishes with the local Turkish magistrate, the full force of the Turk armies never came down on Poland as best I can determine.

I agree with you in many points of this dicussion Squirrelloid, but here you are not right.
Taken from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna
The large-scale battle was won by Polish-Austrian-German forces led by King of Poland John III Sobieski against the Ottoman Empire army commanded by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha.

The siege itself began on 14 July 1683, by the Ottoman Empire army of approximately 138,000 men (although a large number of these played no part in the battle, as only 50,000 were experienced soldiers (Turks), and the rest less-motivated supporting troops.[1]). The decisive battle took place on 12 September, after the united relief army of 70,000 men had arrived, pitted against the Ottoman army.

King John III Sobieski of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had been made Commander in Chief of

* his own 30,000-man Polish forces (Lithuanians did not take part in the battle),
* 18,500 Austrian troops led by Charles V, Duke of Lorraine,
* 19,000 Franconian, Swabian and Bavarian troops led by Prince Georg Friedrich of Waldeck,
* 9,000 Saxon troops led by John George III, Elector of Saxony.

So the polish army actually contributed the biggest part of the defending forces and the polish king was in command. But its also important to see the longterm effects:
The period of Polish-Austrian friendship did not last long, as Charles V of Lorraine began downplaying the role of John III Sobieski and his troops in the battle. Neither Sobieski nor the Commonwealth profited significantly from saving Austria; on the contrary, the battle of Vienna cleared the path towards the forming of the future Austrian Empire (1804 to 1867) and the destruction of the Commonwealth. In 1772 and 1795 the Habsburg Monarchy took part in the first and third partitions of Poland, which wiped the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth off the maps of Europe.
Anyway, what would a polish UHV look like? Stop the turks at vienna isn't much of a victory condition. Any suggestions? Otherwise you should not even discuss if poland is/was sicnificant enough in world history to be included.

I agree with you in many points of this dicussion Squirrelloid, but here you are not right.
Taken from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

So the polish army actually contributed the biggest part of the defending forces and the polish king was in command. But its also important to see the longterm effects:

Anyway, what would a polish UHV look like? Stop the turks at vienna isn't much of a victory condition. Any suggestions? Otherwise you should not even discuss if poland is/was sicnificant enough in world history to be included.

Huh, I wonder why that wasn't in the Poland history sub-pages. I scanned many of those. In fact, you'd think being at the Battle of Vienna would rate a note on the main Poland page under the history section. Ok, I'll admit I was wrong. Oh, there's a very brief mention of it under a sub-history page in the short paragraph on Sobieski... I'm not surprised I missed that.

The Battle of Vienna was definately the greatest Polish feat on the wider European stage. Though the Polish-Lithouanian Commonwealth was a dominant power in Eastern Europe for many years (second largest empire in Europe), they didn't have much of a direct impact on the West.

Holy King, Luko wasn't saying that size was why it should be included, he was demonstrating how the civ could be viable within its historic area.

If another (relatively modern, there are some ancient civs I might consider first) civ was added, Poland would be my choice. The biggest question is how would it mess with the German and Russian games.
The problem being I don't see the need for another civ, and I wouldn't replace any of the current civs in order to add Poland.

Anyway, what would a polish UHV look like? Stop the turks at vienna isn't much of a victory condition. Any suggestions? Otherwise you should not even discuss if poland is/was sicnificant enough in world history to be included.

1. Control Russia in XXXX (Poland is the only nation that conquered Moscow)
2. Build Sejmiks (Sejmik is UB [courthouse]) in every city by XXXX (Noble Republic destroyed Poland)
3. Never lose city to Germans until 1950 (wars, partitions, etc.)

Polish Empire mod is made for BTS (http://forums.civ.org.pl/viewtopic.php?TopicID=6170 - just check the models. Everything is well animated!) and RFC can use it.

there will be no more civs in rfc because every new one increases loading times exponentially and they already very long...

there will be no more civs in rfc because every new one increases loading times exponentially and they already very long...

We have heard that about RFCW. And it's true! There aren't any new civ with BTS!

What is RFCW anyway?

RFC Warlords

1. Control Russia in XXXX (Poland is the only nation that conquered Moscow)
How about proving your statements with a link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow#History
Moscow was taken 2 times by the mongols before poland invaded it. One time in 1237 and then later in 1571 by the Crimean Tartars (which you could also interpret as turks in rfc terms).
In 1610 a swedish finish army helped the tsar and entered moscow, leaving it only one year later so the polish could take it. It was freed again only one year later in 1612.
When Napoleon invaded russia in 1812 he didn't take moscow because it was burnt down by the moscovites before, so there was nothing to take.

When Mongols conquered Moscow it wasn't very important. However, I forgot about 1571. My bad. No one is perfect. Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812 :P

Wow! Polish nationals.............. Intriuging.

you're using their language, you're watching they're movies, you're watching their tv programms, you're reading their books, you listen to their music, you eat their fast food chain's food, you're using their inventions all the time....
do i really have to go on?

and yes, they are using english, thats why we speak of anglo-american culture...

- I'm using english language right now...
- Yeah.. uhm.. so what are those movies ? Mass disinformation for the most part, other than that, they are certainly a symbol of the growing culture in the USA, a culture that teaches its population through commonplaces, first of which that the USA are the most culturally influential country in the world ;) So I recognize it's pretty much silly for me to try to convince you of the contrary since it's part of your cultural heritage to believe that the USA are a dominating power in everything.
- I wonder how do you know I read american books, in fact I don't remember doing it.
- I certainly do not eat their fast food chain's food, at least not since the year 2000, when I tried McDonalds and had some digestion problems for a week, when I never had any before. But I must say I tend to avoid fast food in general, and I believe it hasn't been invented in the USA.

Aside from all this senseless discussing, as I said the american culture is taking life and growing, it is doing so from about a century, if you want to believe that it's already stronger than other cultures that are hundreds or thousands years old, go on. What I saw is that most of the american culture and tradition is still not yet its own, and this is only natural.

you have yet to make an argument that Poland has *anything* going for it culturally. Even the native americans have world-famous burial mounds. (The problem being - they aren't unified. I mean, I can talk about Hopi culture, or Cheyenne culture, or Apache culture. Those are all relevant entities. I don't think they have particularly strong culture in terms of influence, but that's due to military reasons - the US did a pretty good job of wiping out native americans - both their people and their way of life.)


I can't talk with you about european cultures for the same reason we can't talk about Cheyenne culture. We are evidently lacking knowledge in the respective fields, already told you. Just a question, what European and Oriental countries have you visited ?

The only good thing about USA is Galactica, almost. And Civ, maybe. The technology we use is yours? yeah... I don't watch your movies. American movies nearly always suck. And when a good asian film is around, they rip it off in a horrible remake.

- I'm using english language right now...
- Yeah.. uhm.. so what are those movies ? Mass disinformation for the most part, other than that, they are certainly a symbol of the growing culture in the USA, a culture that teaches its population through commonplaces, first of which that the USA are the most culturally influential country in the world ;) So I recognize it's pretty much silly for me to try to convince you of the contrary since it's part of your cultural heritage to believe that the USA are a dominating power in everything.
- I wonder how do you know I read american books, in fact I don't remember doing it.
- I certainly do not eat their fast food chain's food, at least not since the year 2000, when I tried McDonalds and had some digestion problems for a week, when I never had any before. But I must say I tend to avoid fast food in general, and I believe it hasn't been invented in the USA.

Fast food was invented in the US. McDonald's was the first fast food chain. There was local fast food in the US before that, however. (The diner is a US "invention", as is the drive-up rollerskate waiter thing (i forget the name), which are the predecessors to fast food).


Aside from all this senseless discussing, as I said the american culture is taking life and growing, it is doing so from about a century, if you want to believe that it's already stronger than other cultures that are hundreds or thousands years old, go on. What I saw is that most of the american culture and tradition is still not yet its own, and this is only natural.

When I visited France, I couldn't find *any* french music in stores - it was all american. (And I was actively trying to find some french rock music). That's cultural domination right there. I'd really like to hear a good argument how rock 'n roll, jazz, blues, and swing aren't pure american culture.

You keep talking about culture in the abstract without providing any concrete examples. I have no idea what you think culture is (other than something weird tied up with language, which has *nothing* to do with culture in my mind). So tell you what, you list every Polish cultural accomplishment you can think of, and then I'll list twice as many American ones. I'll be as specific or general as you are.

(It should be noted that America is definitely culturally dominant in civ terms in the modern era - look at the industrial and modern wonders in Civ IV: Statue of Liberty, Broadway, Rock 'n Roll, Hollywood, UN, Manhattan Project, Internet, Pentagon, Mt. Rushmore (national wonder), Apollo Program (national); all of these are located in or accomplished by the US, and that's most of the recent wonders. And I wouldn't be surprised if I've forgotten one or two.)


I can't talk with you about european cultures for the same reason we can't talk about Cheyenne culture. We are evidently lacking knowledge in the respective fields, already told you. Just a question, what European and Oriental countries have you visited ?

I've been to France (Paris, Loire valley, Normandy), Belgium (Mostly Antwerpen but a day in Brugges), Italy (Rome, Sicily, Firenze), Spain (Barcelona, Majorica), and Monaco. I've also been to Tunis in Tunisia, which is at least classically part of the European world. I have sadly not been to any Asian countries as of yet, but for example: i've read Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Tale of Genji (And am about to start the Baghavad Gita, which i probably just horribly misspelled). I wouldn't consider myself without knowledge of Asian countries/culture.

You keep talking about culture in the abstract without providing any concrete examples. I have no idea what you think culture is (other than something weird tied up with language, which has *nothing* to do with culture in my mind). So tell you what, you list every Polish cultural accomplishment you can think of, and then I'll list twice as many American ones. I'll be as specific or general as you are.

Not to get too caught up in this, but this is slightly unfair. If you're able to name twice as many American cultural accomplishments from between 1000-1600 as Polish, go ahead. It's like asking for all the Babylonian cultural accomplishments after 500 B.C. I'm certain you can still name more than twice the amount of American cultural influences today as the Babylonians or even the Khmer. Name a Japanese cultural influence outside of Japan now, or when they went imperial, besides the Samurai. Electronics and cars wouldn't count, according to you, since they were originally researched by other countries (America and France).

Copernicus was Polish. When the Moscow and Tver Russians were under Mongol influence, the Ukraine was under Polish influence for 300 years, which is why Ukrainians do not associate themselves with Russia anymore (the Kievan Rus were arguably the most important early people of Russia). You could say the Ukrainians are the original Russians.

Name a Japanese cultural influence outside of Japan now, or when they went imperial, besides the Samurai.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki :P

Not to get too caught up in this, but this is slightly unfair. If you're able to name twice as many American cultural accomplishments from between 1000-1600 as Polish, go ahead. It's like asking for all the Babylonian cultural accomplishments after 500 B.C. I'm certain you can still name more than twice the amount of American cultural influences today as the Babylonians or even the Khmer. Name a Japanese cultural influence outside of Japan now, or when they went imperial, besides the Samurai. Electronics and cars wouldn't count, according to you, since they were originally researched by other countries (America and France).

My point is that *when* doesn't matter in terms of cultural accomplishments. How long ago something was doesn't effect its existence as a cultural achievement. I'm not even asking you to rank them relative to each other (certainly some are more important than others, but reaching consensus on which ones are more important - even within one country - is problematic).

Now, I consider corporate brands an aspect of culture, so while electronics and cars are not japanese achievements (and not even cultural achievements - they're technological), brands like Sony and Toyota are Japanese cultural elements. The Tale of Genji is a world literature classic. Japan has a number of reknowned shrines for Buddhism. Further, Zen Buddhism is primarily a Japanese development iirc. Not all cultural achievements have to be international in scope - but if we want to talk about a country with the dominant world culture, internationally recognized cultural achievements are far more important.


Copernicus was Polish. When the Moscow and Tver Russians were under Mongol influence, the Ukraine was under Polish influence for 300 years, which is why Ukrainians do not associate themselves with Russia anymore (the Kievan Rus were arguably the most important early people of Russia). You could say the Ukrainians are the original Russians.

And Copernicus was a scientist and responsible for a technological achievement. I suppose you can count that as culture, but then i can count Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and a slew of others for the US. All moving of technological or scientific advances we can name the person responsible for to cultural does is make the US that much more dominant. (Note: rate of technological change has an accelerating trend over time, which means any country dominant in more recent history is likely going to have contributed more than countries whose period of dominance or prominence was earlier.)

Do you really want me to start naming countries the US has had pretty direct influence over? I mean, we could start with the whole of the Americas at one point in time or another. And that's not even counting countries that the US is influencing culturally right now through more indirect means - just consider that every city in the world has someone somewhere selling american music.

Well, Squirrelloid, as much as I appreciate your reasoning, you do make one big mistake. You compare the US to Poland. But the US is way larger than Poland. More people generate more culture (even if it is the "same" culture, meaning from the same civilization), so it is not astonishing at all that you can ennumerate more American achievements than Polish ones.

I rest my case,

m

If we're going to play that way, how about comparing the cultural impact of Poland (38M) to that of the state of California alone (33M)? I'm European, but I can recognise that America's contribution to world culture, etc. has been enormous since around 1900 or so.

But that argument misses the point. Some entities are simply not destined to be featured in Civ, no matter how much we ourselves may like them, due to their relatively minor role in world history. My own country is a case in point, but there are many others.

Well, Squirrelloid, as much as I appreciate your reasoning, you do make one big mistake. You compare the US to Poland. But the US is way larger than Poland. More people generate more culture (even if it is the "same" culture, meaning from the same civilization), so it is not astonishing at all that you can ennumerate more American achievements than Polish ones.

I rest my case,

m

Who said it had to be fair? Size is an unfair advantage? True. So is location. Not all countries/peoples got treated "fairly" in history. That's sort of the point.

So should it be by current population? The intregal of population of all people over time? I mean, the US has 234 years of history, Poland has close to 1100. What's the fair comparison?

But i'll do Panopticon one better, I'll restrict myself to New York City. That's 234 years of one city (ignoring pre-US events) to 1100ish years of one nation.

Touché. (That's French. I don't know any Polish sayings. Point proven, perhaps?)

I really do not want to get involved in this but,

You also have to consider that Culture is a lot easier to spread with our modern-day communication devices. America's can influence the world culturally a lot more now than Poland could then.

I really do not want to get involved in this but,

You also have to consider that Culture is a lot easier to spread with our modern-day communication devices. America's can influence the world culturally a lot more now than Poland could then.

Well, really what technology has done is reduced the size of the world. I mean, in 1200 europe barely knew china existed, much less could culturally influence it. So, appropriately, "world cultural influence" for Poland in like 1200 should be Europe, not the whole world. Because from a Polish perspective, Europe was the world. (Ok, Europe + delta, where delta is things like Anatolia that aren't part of Europe geographically but were part of the European world).

Similarly, the Roman world is basically the Mediterranean. And so forth.

Sea Peoples and Hittites anyone? I did not intend this to turn into a Poland thread!:cry:

Please stop this. American culture doesn't rule the world. Period. I'd like to flame eveyone at random, now

So now this IS becoming a poland thread. What a sight for sore eyes.

Great. If in thread Poland is discussed it becomes a "Poland thread". We're discussing America too? Whatever. It's Poland thread because I can see few times word "Poland" there!

YOU always see Poland in every thread in the first place. You post a reply and viola! Poland in your info below the Join date and the number of times you posted.

Of course. However, my last post was a bit ironical.

Good that you admitted it.