I decided that their needs to be at least one civ to occupy South Eastern Europe, above Greece and below Poland. I can't decide which one, though. Here are some choices:

Austrian - Their claim to fame is that Vienna is in Austria, an important city. The problem is that present day Austria is poorly representative of historical Austria, since it is mainly just German, and people think of Austria as primarily German.

Hapsburg - Encompasses the region nicely, but I dislike using any name of a particular dynasty of a region to represent it, like using the Ottomans for Turkey.

Hungarian - The region would include Vienna, which I just can't see as a Hungarian city. But Hungary has had a substantial empire and could fit in.

Yugoslavian - Not a civilization, it would be there just to put someone there. I don't really like this choice.

Austro-Hungarian - All encompassing as far as territory goes, but didn't last very long in reality. Plus, it sounds like two combined civs.

Romanian - Sounds too much like the Romans, and hasn't really been a player in history.

Currently, I'm leaning towards Austrian. I think I'll only do one civ in the area, so it's a tough pick. I'd be interested in how anyone else handled the situation.

The Austrians could be a civ, as well as the Hungarians.

What do you have against the Ottomans? ;)

Nothing, I just think "Turks" is a better name. The Ottoman Empire was by far the greatest of Turkish empires, but not the only great empire they had.

What about a Bulgarian?

Bulgaria is a remote possibility, but quite a bit behind Hungary and Austria on the historical significance scale.

I would go with Austria. It's only after the end of WW1 that Austria is small, geopolitically and militarily insignificant country (sorry guys). But before that the Austro-Hungarian empire was one of the major European powers, and Austria was dominant in this dual Monarchy, and Vienna was the capital. So I suppose you could include Hungary into the Austrian civ. No disrespect for Budapest, which is very nice city, but Vienna's cultural significance is much more widely recognised. And anyway, Budapest was originally two cities, Buda and Pest, so which one are going to have as a capital?

Also, if you think of Austria as 18th-19th century Austria, then you can include Czechs and Slovaks into Austria as well. So overall it would be a good, solid, central european civ.

So I think overall, Austria is better choice for a central european civ.

I was thinking along those lines. I'll go with Austria.

Hungary would do very well. In the middle ages they were Europe’s bulwark against the Ottomans and fought them in the 150 year long “Turkish” War (Note: The victory at Nándorfehérvár (Belgrade) in 1456). I think Hungary is an important, yet ignored and sadly neglected, European nation.

-
Cimbri

I'd like to put them in, but if I halved Austria's territory and added Hungary, neither civ would do well. Especially considering they would be neighboring Turkey, Russia, and Germany. Also, 31 civs get used up fast.

Someday, I want to make a distorted world map. The main distortion would be a bigger Europe. Right now, I'm offsetting the extreme disadvantage European civs have in territory by giving them much better units, and giving them better civ traits. Which is more realistic anyway, I think.

Here is my probable, but tentative, civ list:

European

English
Germans
French
Spanish
Romans
Greeks
Polish
Scandinavians
Austrians
Russians
Hungarians (Oh well...worth a try!)

Middle Eastern
Arabs
Turks
Egyptians
Carthaginians
Persians
Babylonians
Israelis

Asian
Indians
Mongols
Chinese
Japanese
Koreans
Khmers

African
Abyssinians
Zulus

North American
Iroquois
Sioux
Aztecs

South American
Incas

Other considerations are Indonesians (I know, a completely Western name, but what can you do?) and the Tibetans.

Oh well. Maybe you could create a civ called "Balkan Nations" or something like that. By the way: "Norwegians?" Don´t get me wrong, I like Norwegians, but did you mean "Scandinavians"?
Perhaps you should include Swedes, Danes and Norse into one single nation (even if we are different, we're used to being generalized)

Cheerio
-
Cimbri

Sorry I had missed the fact that you have added Sweden as a seperate nation. If you're not going to make Denmark a seperate nation too, then please have the good heart to add Denmark to the Norse or Swedes and not the Germans ;)

-
Cimbri

Cimbri - Actually, I was going to ask you which you might prefer. At first, I had Scandinavians, but after I did a bit of research, I decided to have the Norwegians and Swedish. The Swedes were quite powerful during the Middle Ages, and I wanted to seperate them from the Norwegians, who would essentially be the Vikings that we all know and love. Sadly, there didn't seem to be enough room for Denmark to be a contender. If I made them a seperate civ, I'd have to knock another one out, and I figured the Germans would take them over before too long anyway. So I was going to make Jutland part of Sweden, and split Finland up between the Russians and Swedes. As a whole region, I was afraid the Scandinavians might become too powerful. I could solve that by extending the tundra a little, though.

But, now that I have the input of a genuine Denmarker, I think I'll change things back. That way, if the Germans roll into Jutland, they'll have a little more to contend with.

I really would like to add Portugal and the aforementioned Hungary too. Europe is just too damn small. How do all you guys fit over there?? :)

Thanks for mentioning Hungarians as an important factor.

I would prefer Austro-Hungarians, because both nation had imortant role in the history of that region. Yes, i know, they are not the same people, but putting them both would be a wrong decision.

The Habsburg Empire (in my language they are written as Habsburgs. the english version is Hapsburg, or is it only a misprint?) is good name for the civ, but there is no "habsburg" people, so it would be ridiculous.

Cimbri: You know in our history it is not remembered as 150 year war, but 150 year annexion by the Turks (Ottomans).

It began in 1541, when the Tuks occupied Buda, and Hungary was split into 3 parts. The Turks had the largest part, the second largest was under the rule of Habsburgs, and the smallest part (it contained mainly Transylvania) was a semi-independent principality under Turkish influence with hungarian rulers. This state remained until 1686 when the Habsburgs recaptured Buda, and unified the country under their rule. It was nearly 150 years.

About wars against the Ottoman. (prepare, it'll be long)
The first hungarian king, who fought against the Turks was Louis the Great (ruled 1342-1382 i think), when he "roamed" across the Balcan peninsula.
The first important battle was fought in 1396, under the rule of his successor Sigismund (1387-1437) at Nicopolis, where the Ottoman army defeated Sigismund and the allied crusaders from western kingdoms. When Sigismund died at 1437 nearly the whole Balcan peninsula was occupied by the Turks. The Eastern Roman Empire still existed, but it contained only Constaninople (earlyer Byzantium, later Istanbul).
The years between 1437 and 1458 was very confused in Hungarian history. Varios kings ruled for short periods (Albrecht V of Austria 1437-39, Wladyslav III of Poland 1439-1444) and there was an interregnum between 1444-1458 because the king, Laszlo (Leslie) V was only a child. At that time the Janos (John) Hunyadi, the most famous general in hungarian history fought against the Turks with great success as the regent of Hungary. He defeted them many times in the 1440s, his greatest victory at Nandorfehervar (Belgrad) in 1456, when the Ottomans sieged the city. Unfortunately after the pattle plague rised there, and Hunyadi died. Turks captured Constantinople at 1453.
In 1458 Janos Hunyadi's second son Matthias became king. He ruled between 1458-1490, and made Hungary a strong and independent country again (and last time, in my oppinion). He protected Hungary from the Ottoman Empire, but haven't fought against them as enthusiastic as his father did. Instead of that he led his armies to the west, to Bohemia (nowadays Czech Republic) and Austria. He captured Vienna, and ruled parts of Austria and Bohemia. Unfortunately after he died, Hungary fallen back.
The kings after Matthias, Ulaslo II (1490-1516) and Louis II (1516 -1526) couldn't do anything against Turkish expansion, Nandorfehervar was captured at 1521, and nearly all of the hungarian army was slaughtered in the battle at Mohacs in 1526, where Louis II died too. After that the real anarchy came, and in 1541 the country was totally defeated, and spitted into 3 parts as I mentioned before.

So the hungarians fought against the ottoman turks between 1396 and 1686 many times. It means nearly 300 years of war with short peaceful periods.

Many thanks for everyone who was patient enough to read this all. I hope some of you enjoyed it also. :)

Thanks Hagen. I'll reconsider yet again! I just hope that no one from Romania shows up!

I pasted a map of Europe into paint and was partitioning it up, giving it the territories that I would like each civ to have. I think I could split up Austria and Hungary, and each would have at least five or six cities. But, now that I think some more about it, it does seem that the two countries almost have more history together than apart, so maybe they shouldn't even be seperated.

Of course, no game would ever go exactly the way I'd want it, which probably wouldn't be all that fun anyway.

At any rate, thanks for the good info. It will be a while before I finish anything, and I still have to get PTW up and running.

"How do all you guys fit over there??" *lol* Well we don’t. That's why we have had so many wars ;) Scandinavia would be sweet. And yes Portugal would also be great, and I’m a big fan of Hungary, yet as you say “Europe is just too damn small”;)


I’m outta’ here
-
Cimbri

I'd go with the Goths. They maintained a few confederacies in precisely the same area for about 400 years. The arrival of the Huns on their north-eatern border created anarchy in these kingdoms and directly brought about the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Here is a map:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/Rome378.gif



I wouldn't go with Austria because they are ethnically identical with the Germans and are a part and extention of Germany. Ethnicity is more important than anything else for determining civilizations; the vikings and Greeks for instance have only ethnicity to give them unity. Besides, the Magyars and Avars had large empires in the region as well.

You are correct, modern day Austria is German, and has been since the end of WW1. But Historical Austria covers a much larger region of people.

Goths would be ok, but they never had a nation, and were barbarians for the most part.

I don't think it will really work at all. Even on a huge map, Civ Europe simply can't support a realistic population. You can't be a world power with only 5 or 6 cities. I hope the next Civ game will have a much more accurate scaling system.

BTW, nice map. Is that from an on-line source?

I would be careful about using the term barbarian, the Goths were an advanced society who had a sophisticated system of tribal loyalties. They were more advanced militarily than the Romans and the fact that they ruled such as large area speaks for itself. They also established kingdoms in Italy, Gaul, Illyria Spain, and the Crimea, and, in the case of the last two, these lasted for many centuries.

I am aware of the terriorial differences between the modern Austrian republic and the earlier Hapsburg empire. The point I should have stressed is that the "Austrian" Empire before 1866 and to a lesser extent between 1866 and 1918 is that it was an empire based on the authority of the German Royal House of Hapsburg and their German elite who ruled the empire for them. They ruled their Slav and (until 1866) Magyar lands by the agency of this German elite, and thus the Empire was as German as the ancient Hellenistic kingdoms were Graeco-Macedonian. I think the other peoples that inhabited eastern europe deserve to be represented by more than another German state!

Oh ye, the map was obtained online, but so long ago that I can't remember the source. :eek:

BTW, here's another map of europe, showing this time the ethnic spread of peoples in the late 16th century:


http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads2/rmap22.jpg